kortopates

We might have talked about this before. But a higher max fuel flow does not need to accompany a richer idle. Their are two separate adjustments, entirely independent of the max FF, used to set up the idle and there is nothing at all that would prevent for example an overly lean Idle mixture with an excessively high max FF. But what is critical is that once the max FF is set up (metered fuel pressure) that then the tech needs to go back and test and perhaps re-adjust the low pressure idle unmetered fuel pressure and possible the idle mixture adjustment - which is likely why yours might be overly rich. Can't just set one without re-checking the others. Many comment about setting their max FF significantly above spec. As posted before, a relatively small amount like 0.5 to 1 GPH or even 5% higher as Jack @jackn cites above is good, but recognize you're preventing your engine from making full rated power as you keep increasing the FF. Thus be very careful about going higher and do so only when EGTs/TIT's indicate the mixture is too lean.

Thanks for sharing. These advertise like they could be an improvement over the others - any comments or opinions on their performance? And still economical although sold in packs of 10.

You only have two choices that I know of, OEM Cleveland pads or PMA'd RAPCO pads. Most of us use the cheaper RAPCO pads without complaint. Same for the disks, except you can get corrosion resistant stainless that Jim talked about above. As Jim @bluehighwayflyer said above, if you can lock them up you're probably doing fine, but I would still check them over for glazing and if you're really disappointed with them (sounds like you are) just replace them when you have the opportunity and then properly condition them. You just might be pleasantly surprised.

You can't tell what might be going on with the crankshaft just doing a top unless you also start pulling connecting rods off. Then you can at least see the rod journals, but you still won't be able to see more (main journals) until the case is cracked. But I wouldn't be too concerned. Even if some finer metal particles did get into the bearings creating some minor damage there is good chance the crankshaft may still have enough meat to turn the shaft down, line bore the case and go to the next oversize bearings. Its very common to do so, and for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with metal contamination. If your worried though, you should be able to look at your engine's last overhaul records for the crankshaft dimensions (or receipts) and see if it still has enough meat for another turning or its had it last reconditioning so to speak. In which case if it needs it, you'll need a new crank. But you really won't know till the case is cracked and it all inspected.

All other things being normal, your brake pad longevity is probably proportional to the max gross weight limit of your aircraft; assuming you operate it up to its max on occasion. But all `things are never equal and sometimes we can get great pad longevity by not using the brakes and just coasting to an easy to make turn off on landing. Its interesting as the Mooney's went above 2900 lbs max gross weight Mooney found they really needed to go to double puck brakes which doubles the pads per brake to get better longevity. Many of the earlier Bravo's that initially were fitted with the same J & K brakes where retrofitted with dual puck brakes used now on the longbody's. By the time time the M20K Encore came out with its increased max gross weight it too was fitted with double puck brakes. All of the 252's are eligible for the brake retrofit, but I am not sure about anything earlier. But a couple of things to consider that could be at play preventing your bird from getting full braking action. Make sure whenever you change the pads that you measure the disk thickness to make sure its still within limits. Our aircraft disks aren't like automotive disk with lots of extra thickness since that would make them heavier than necessary. They have very little extra to stay light and need periodic replacement. Secondly, when you do replace brake pads, be sure to "condition" them before returning the plane to normal service. Or after your A&P or shop replaces them for you, be sure to follow the conditioning procedure on how to effectively brake in the brake pads to provide you with optimal braking. They could otherwise get glazed and provide somewhat diminished braking action from the very beginning if they get too heated before braking them in. The Mooney MM discusses how to condition the pads as do the manufacturer of the pads.

Always possible something got loosened or removed to give access to something else. But your describing a massive induction leak which could come from many things including a loose induction coupling hose, pop off valve etc but hopefully not the turbo going out. They usually give signs first from excessive oil loss. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry to hear that, but there is nothing to pop off from setting the screw on the metered fuel pressure adjustment, nor the idle or idle mixture. Your engine analyzer downloaded data may shed some light on the issue. I highly encourage folks getting their redline limits set properly to do a trip in the pattern before departing home. You really can’t get it perfect on the ground and it’ll change a bit in the air. Yours is simpler since it only has a fixed or at most manual waste gate, but still it often takes some tuning to get right. Also it’s usually best to set your max FF to from 0.5 to 1.0 GPH above CMIs high number (which where turbo Plus got it); while of course at your 100% MAP (~37”). You want TIT below 1400F and preferably near 1300F at full power. I often see them way to high. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually it doesn’t fall under PM, only adding fluid: 43.A (8) Replenishing hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic reservoir Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's definitely the easiest way to do it - as an exchange with a factory new, reman or overhaul. But the turbo didn't change (Hartzell has taken them over) and the increased TBO only comes with factory engines - which is nice for resale value. Most of these TSIO-360's do benefit from Gami's. Did you go from a Cardinal to your 231? That's quite an upgrade if the Cardinal didn't have the TAT Turbo too

But you're actually right to assume that WAAS support alone is not sufficient since it's not. All the manufacturers had to add a specific protocol to provide all the data required for ADS-B out. Even though the unit is end of life, since it's owned by Garmin I would expect they have and assume you looked it up. So the unit will likely require a firmware update and then be good. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pretty common actually with these older brakes. It could be moisture at the bearings but more likely the conduit cables may be in very poor shape and need replacing. They're stiffer in the cold so I'd look there first. Look up in the wheel wells for any cracking. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, it take me about 20 min with my two cascading tanks.

Before you complete your IFR training you'll be able to handle this emergency very well, you have to be to be recommended for the check ride. The problem IMO is two fold, first its not uncommon for IFR pilots to stop practicing partial panel approaches - in fact its the norm. The proficient IFR pilots, those that train for and get regular IPC's do tend to maintain their partial panel skills. But these days, as its been said many times before, adequate backups come in many affordable forms these days. if you're going to fly IMC you really need one! The second problem though IMO is complacency exhibited by many pilots that feel they don't need to train rigorously enough to survive these kind of emergencies because they'll say they'll never launch with hard IFR conditions. Well this accident is the classic example of how hard IFR conditions find you when you least expect it. This Bonanza broke up from being over stressed after descending only about a thousand feet into the layer - on his second attempt. Neither he nor the controller seemed to take the situation very seriously. The pilot could have at least done many things to reduce his workload having lost his gyro's (except for the Turn coordinator), but it doesn't appear he even slowed down.

It was more of a comment on the challenge of getting the two tanks to actually equalize. Its a very minor point I was trying to make, that because the plane's tank is warming up, (it gets noticeably warmer to touch while filling), while the source tank is cooling, after you disconnect the filling tank, the planes tank is then going to cool to ambient and stabilize at a bit lower pressure as it cools. But agreed, its not significant.

I keep a Hobbs log spreadsheet where I pretty much track everything in the plane. One page of the spreadsheet is for Transfilling where I track refills for the aircraft. technically, servicing the O2 bottle on the plane is preventative maintenance and I track it my spreadsheet. I use a cascading system of 2 bottles, each 225 cuft Since the transfilling process equalizes the pressure between the ships bottle and the filling bottle, the basic formula (from Boyles Law: P1V1=P2V2) for calculating the pressure of both afterwards is simply to add up the total O2 as P*V from both plane and bottle and then divide by total volume: ((Plane starting psi* Plane volume) + (Bottle psi*Bottle Vol)) / (Plane Volume + Bottle volume) One would have to take into account Darcy's Law for the drop in temperature in the source bottle and the increase in temperature of the plane bottle to get real accurate but I find empirical values will be within 75 psi keeping it simple. With my 115 cuft kevlar tank I have never needed to get O2 away from home either except when travelling really long distances out of the country.

Thanks, and still with the extra bay in front of the speed brakes? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Math Quiz - run the numbers in a spreadsheet Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good to hear that. For an idea in street pricing discounts check this example out: http://sarasotaavionics.com/garmin-txi-upgrade

Only the GDU display comes out for the upgrade and goes back to Garmin. The rest I understand is software. Their offering a discounted 10.6" single new screen GDU that will support PFD, MFD and EIS all on one screen at an upgrade cost of $8K. But I assume its not the dimensional equivalent to the original G500 and will need a new panel cut which could weigh heavily in the total upgrade cost. But I also wonder if the upgrade will preserve existing pre-paid enablement extra's like Syn Vision and Jepp Charts; hopefully they don't expect you to buy those again. Although interestingly they charge less for them on the Txi version than the G500.

I asked because there was another mod to modify the original filler neck to hold 100 gal by just filling the tank higher. As far as I know all of the Monroy mods wet an additional area behind the main tank area as shown in the diagram at this website: https://www.emapa.aero/Monroy-Mooney-Fuel-Increase-Upgrade-p/mooney-fuel-increase-upgrade.htm [mention=6932]Piloto[/mention] as the owner of the STC will be able to answer that best. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Extended tanks without the second filler port? What is your total fuel capacity? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting point you raise. But mechanical based accidents aren't solely mechanic error. In fact those are much rarer but I don't recall seeing stats on just what portion of mechanical failures are due to human error like not properly torquing cylinder nuts or crank rods etc. Some percentage could be in fact be attributed to us pilots from abusive ops to deferring necessary maintenance like departing with a know issue (.e.g only 1 mag). But a breakdown of mechanical based accident root causes would be most interesting since I am sure there are many valuable lessons to be learned for pilots as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed it should be no surprise that the human element is the weakest link responsible for 3/4 of all accidents (fatal and non-fatal) with the remainder 1/4 made up of both mechanical and unknown causes. its this later 1/4 that varies between mechanical and unknown portions between fatals and non-fatals for non-commercial ops. (For Commercial ops the mechanical and unknown portion make up a smaller portion.)

You're implying an indication issue on your left tank. If so, you need an independent method of measuring tank volume from both fuel caps to verify. But you haven't given an estimate on the amount of missing fuel over the course of the couple weeks you mention. For example, is it large enough to be noticeably different visually looking into both the main and extended tanks? Or are we discussing more like small number of gallons that you won't be able to tell the difference visually but still plenty to be more than a seep? First, there is no secret place fuel can drain too. Any leak is going to be very obvious, fuel is going to seep or drip directly out from a leak, or if inside the wing, such as up higher, it will run downhill towards the center of the aircraft inside the wing till it finds a place to drip out which could be anywhere downstream including inside the cabin. It will be very evident and leave a unmistakable blue stain where ever it flowed, dripped or seeped from. Its certainly not always obvious exactly where a leak originates from since it can flow down the side of a tank and in the wing for quite a ways before it comes out but it will become visible externally on the aircraft or in the cabin soaking the carpet if its a significant leak i.e. more than a seep. With no evidence of a leakage, it suggest an issue with one of your senders - there are two in each tank wired in series. The wing gauge is not an independent gauge but magnetically senses the arm of the fuel sender below it - so it would make sense for them both to be off. Which brings us back to the point of an alternative method of measuring fuel volume in your left tank. I suggest you stick your Left main and extended tanks. Recording height of fuel level is adequate since you just need to know if the volume is really changing while the aircraft is sitting in the hangar. If there is no leak, its got to be an indication issue if someone isn't borrowing fuel from your tank. But so far, this doesn't sound related to having extended tanks since you are familiar with the how the tank gauges indicate differently as the fuel added to the main tank settles out into the extended tanks (since the extended tanks are a mere extension of the main tanks uphill and outboard of the main tanks in front of your speed brakes).

Interesting as its unusual, most Continentals have the transducer on the other end of the hose tee'd off the oil galley, which would be the same oil galley supply oil to the turbo. Most lycoming's have it right after the oil pump and regulator where it reads the highest oil pressure and they do run with higher oil pressure accordingly compared to Continentals.