kortopates

I would expect about just under 1500 on pavement, so that doesn't sound right. Suggest double checking to make sure you're not comparing runway run distance in one to clearing a 50' obstacle in the other. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd check the bulb first. Gear cycling well should eliminate the switches.

Removing gear doors will defeat the utility of jacking a single door since you'll need to do a gear retract test when done to ensure it all went back together ok. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Under 2 sided copy's their should be a setting on which way to flip - long side or short side from memory. Start there. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's normal and perhaps more an indication that your true gami spread is closer to .5 than .2 i.e. the larger the spread the more easily this happens. But as long as your not getting premature missing its okay. Any missing at 50 LOP or less is premature which of course is an independent issue. Make sure your spreads are as accurate as possible by ensuring your monitor is sampling at its fastest rate or at 1 Hz and that you change mixture very slowly. Also do the test at a WOT Power setting, not more than 65%, so that MAP isn't changing nor being influenced by induction leaks. Doing it slowly with monotonically decreasing or increasing FF is critical to capturing good data. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly, that’s why I recommend the landing zone markers that are on any IFR runway since they are 1000’ from the threshold and easily identified abeam. Enjoy the training, the CPL is a fun one. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No not really. Recognize though that the ACS will not test you on a 360 power off but only a 180 power and a emergency power off descent to the airport. What I am referring too is the importance of putting these two skills to together to include practicing a power off descent to the airport that ends in a 180 power off landing, with any required 360's done abeam the intended point of landing to loose altitude - but not the 360 commercial power off landing approach that has you doing a pattern like approach starting over the intended point of landing which is unrealistic. So putting it together, the simulated emergency landing begins with gliding to the airport with gear up and prop back while directly aiming for the abeam downwind key position - offset directly from the intended landing position of about 1000' down from the numbers or runways IFR landing zone marks. This is the standard downwind traffic pattern recommend in the FAA handbook as 0.5 to 1 mi and I personally aim for 3/4 nm offset from the runway. A half mile makes for steeper 180, a full mile is getting too far way to make it 800' agl abeam. Once here, gear goes down and prop forward, just like you would practice doing doing 180 power off landings so we don't create a real emergency. Doing the 180 power off portion is real easy, too easy perhaps from 1000'. I suggest learn to do it from at least no more than 800' so you learn to make a constant 180 turn. Then do as many 360's to loose required altitude judging altitude loss per 360 which will be about 1K per 360. Although best glide was used to get to the airport now we can transition to closer to Min sink airspeed to reduce sink rate. Don't need to go all the way to min sink though, as it is very close to stall, but adding 5 kts to normal Vref landing will allow for a nice in control landing and in control. But stall will not be an issue either unless one pulls back on the yoke, since we're not loading the wings but descending at less than 1g. Flaps aren't used till the runway is assured. So in IMO the only reason to keep the gear up and prop back below 1000' agl is if you got the airport in a real emergency without any surplus altitude and thus need to keep the gear up to help you make it to the threshold. But I would never practice this, its leads to many gear up landings with your CFI sitting right next too you So instead I suggest practicing it the safe way and in the dire emergency you'll be prepared.

All true, but also consider that since a repair doesn't reset TSMOH, it does nothing to increase resale value. Only a major overhaul does. Therefore putting significant repair $ into a high time engine makes little sense unless you plan to keep it forever and don't care about it's resale value. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The gear is down before the maneuver begins. No need to risk a gear up practicing these. Even in an emergency engine out situation you'll glide to the airport gear up at best glide. At the airport, gear comes down while doing as many 360's above your high point as required. This point is abeam the intended landing point (e.g. instrument landing zone). Then you'll make the final 180 to a landing - all with the gear down. But holding off flaps till the runway is assured. The only time the gear isn't down in the power off landing is the true emergency where you're not yet if you'll make it too the runway and only then it could be last second or never. Anyway, worth practicing for much more than the CPL. Could save your life and pax some day. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

24 hrs in 9 months should inspire some confidence if all those hours weren't from 9 months ago. You can negotiate some decrease in engine value off the only 631 TSMOH if the calendar time since last overhaul is more closer to twice Continentals recommended 12 years. Just make sure before the Ferry flight that the fuel system is set up properly providing the required FF at redline MAP & RPM so that it doesn't have excessive TIT's at takeoff and in climb. That's the biggest issue we see with first time new owners of these. All it takes is a trip in pattern to assess. Continentals spec on this engine is 23.0-24.7 GPH and really you want it 0.5-1.0 above the high number or 25.2-25.7 at redline MAP which is 40" without an intercooler or about 2.5-3" less with one.

The biggest concern about using Bendix King for such repairs is that they'll require any item brought up to the current mod level in addition to any repairs. But some mod updates can be very expensive. Some years ago I sent them a pitch-trim servo that was behind 3 or 4 mods since it was from an '86 and they wanted in $4-5K to repair it largely due one of the mods being several thousand. I eventually went with another salvage unit I found and got satisfactorily bench tested.

This Paul @gxrpilot has it exactly right. [emoji3] Sorry guys it has nothing to do with plugs but entirely due to minimizing exposure to red box when at power levels at 65% or higher. The big pull simply avoids going though peak for all the cylinders. This way all but one remain on the be LOP side while only the richest peaks.Hope that clarifies it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you have a EDM monitor Chris [mention=9886]Marauder[/mention] and [mention=15119]Skates97[/mention] are spot on. EI is different. But I can’t see your video either and suggest always including in your description what kind of analyzer and if this is a new install with issues or just started having issue. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Couple additional points, you can set the ESI-500 course independently from what your primary Nav might be set too. I.e. set G500 on Crs 180 and set ESI to something different. This includes Vor and GPS. But for GPS you of course have to be in OBS mode before your can change GPS crs. Also the ESI in Vor mode defaults to the direct course so that you don’t have to find it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your lock is worn out and needs replacing. It’s only going to get worse with time. The worn mechanism is rotating in flight from vibration. You can replace with same cheap Chicago cabinet locks or go with better Medco locks - discussed here in other threads. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe the vacuum based AI is far less reliable than the engine. Plus we've seen all kinds of pilots demonstrate how lethal loosing their AI, either because of a AI failure or a vacuum failure. Its doesn't take low IMC conditions either. It'll be just two years in May since a Bonanza pilot over stressed his airframe leading to an aluminium shower and 3 fatals over NY. The aircraft had descended barely the first thousand or so feet from ~7K before it broke up. Even with the less likely engine out scenario, gliding down to VMC conditions could lead to a decent chance of surviving off field landing. We saw one here successfully on Mooneyspace not long ago - not from IMC but from a pretty low VFR altitude descending for landing at night time no less. Regardless, although our engines are pretty reliable overall, we can't do much about engine redundancy flying singles. But these days the backup options for AI and vacuum failures are plentiful and affordable that it makes very little sense not to have one; especially given the fatal loss of control accident record from their loss.

You're doing much better than many with your FF The carb temp suggestion is meant in cruise to help if you were trying to run near peak or even LOP. It works for some folks, but the I think cracking the throttle works more commonly.

With regard to temps, I'll offer a little of what our Savvy data has shown me since I see quite a bit Mooney data. Their are lots of exceptions for what I'll offer but generally speaking the carbureted Mooney's tend to run with higher CHTs on the left side; especially in climb. This is not due entirely to airflow but a combination of airflow and mixture distribution. Mixture distribution is pretty abysmal in these engines at full power in that the rear cylinders are not getting their fair share of fuel compared to the front. if you're also unfortunate enough to have a lower than average max FF (~16.5 GPH) then you'll likely have some hot CHTs in climb at no fault of your own. Those with higher FF have it much easier in climb. But I have yet to see one where mixture distribution doesn't evens out very nicely once power is reduced to cruise power levels and then temps run very nicely as long as baffling seals are in good shape. Some of you will discover some of tricks to improving mixture with ever so slightly a change in throttle to alter the turbulence but without significantly reducing MAP (unless you are intending to reduce power). This technique helps in cruise as well to improve mixture distribution, as does partial carb heat, but the latter is best done with a carb temp probe so that you can target a specific temperature. Those of you that are Savvy clients can also run our Report card on your plane and see how many of your performance parameters compare to the rest of your Mooney cohort. This includes parameters like highest inflight and cruise CHT, max FF, percent cruise power and many more. Its doesn't give actual cruise FF that stated this thread, but it does give cruise % power as well as other related parameters. The only drawback to these reports is that we didn't have enough A/B/C/D/E/G's to separate the carbureted O-360's from your E's IO-360's and they are all in the same cohort (F's are grouped with the J's). But as more of you folks add engine analyzers and upload data this will improve over time. Here is a link to more info on Savvy report cards if interested: https://www.savvyaviation.com/ufaqs/report-card-and-trend-analysis/

I hope it happens soon too, especially since Ni is only available with overhauled cylinders for the TSIO-360's; which are at least rebuilt to new tolerances. But J&J in Texas is the only source I know of for Ni TSIO-360 cylinders since nether ECI or Continental make them new yet. They do a huge business but often you have to wait for these cylinders since they're not as common as many others like the IO-550's.

I don't have any data to offer, but I've always thought it was more likely the other way around. Reason being is two fold IMO. In the pattern, distractions are common place from other landing traffic just as Tom explained above in this incident and secondly the pilot that manages their power/energy efficiently is never going to get all that fast in the pattern since they'll pull power back before they accelerate once at TPA and therefore all the above talk about needing the gear to slow down doesn't even apply. Do this over and over again with some added stress and the chances of error seem to increase. On the straight in, its generally your first landing in some time, the checks are going through your mind for probably the last 5 miles in and you really are slowing down while descending and have significantly more time to notice something isn't right - if you aren't distracted by something else, At least those are my observations from spending too much time in the pattern with students.

The GAD43e includes alt pre-select with VNAV with those AP’s that will support it like the KFC150. No extra enablement. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CMI recommends checking it at annual and it’s in the Mooney annual checklist but no adjustment needed as long as it stays in spec. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Annunciations and inputs are two different things. Annunciations just allow it show what you have it connected too. Using a separate switch you’ll use the unnumbered annunciations just as I do. If you hardwired it to the #1, you’d use 1. That’s all it is - and same as my ESI-500. It isn’t until you get into real glass PFD’s that you get multiple Nav sources e.g. G500 & Aspen. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I really doubt it. But check the install or pilots guide to find out. Regardless though that’s isn’t a real problem since a separate switch can be added to toggle between the two Nav sources. This is how I have my backup LSI-500 installed with both a GTN 750 and 650 since it only takes one Nav source by itself. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All true, but they do fail and I see that’s what@jackn and I tried to suggest back in post 5& 8. Symptoms really point to it and it’s easy enough to test. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk