kortopates

My vote for the best camping at Oceano is the condos next door to the airport. It's been awhile, but they used to give good pilot discounts - but that might of been because of events organized by Jolie and Mitch. Don't worry about the marine layer. If you get there too early you can wait it out at near by SMX with 2 restaurants to pick from. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Peter ( @PTK ) Indeed your gami sweeps are doing great, we're seeing pretty consistent 0.2 with your #1 & #4 pretty closely tied to richest and your 2 & 3 pretty closely tied to your leanest as well - you'll see the last spread, which is the same one you illustrated above, shows 3 the leanest and 4 richest, but on average that distinction is not clear. But it really doesn't get much better than that! Good job on the LOP Mag test - your right on target at ~50-60 LOP too. But it is showing some missing in your #3 on the first mag you isolated. Normally I can tell exactly if that is bottom on top, but your timing also appears slightly split causing the first mag to have higher rises across all cyls (i.e. first mag is retarded a bit in relation to the second mag) hiding which is bottom and tops. But I would guess its your top #3, but I could be wrong, plus you are getting a little missing on the other #3 so I would check them both out. Also we're getting a minor amount of early signs of missing in the first mag on #2 & #4 which I would guess to be bottoms - but follow from the first mag you isolated - if you choose to check those 2 plugs too. If you have the Dual Mag, I'd probably opt to live with it till the next time you have a chance to inspect the mag at annual. The 3 spreads follow: Time: 00:34:00-00:36:18 EGT2 peaked at 9.1 <-- 2 & 3 leanest EGT3 peaked at 9.1 EGT1 peaked at 8.9 <-- 1 & 4 richest EGT4 peaked at 8.9 GAMI spread is 0.2 Time: 00:37:00-00:39:16 EGT2 peaked at 9.4 EGT3 peaked at 9.4 EGT4 peaked at 9.4 EGT1 peaked at 9.2 GAMI spread is 0.2 Time: 00:39:52-00:42:24 EGT3 peaked at 8.8 EGT1 peaked at 8.7 EGT2 peaked at 8.7 EGT4 peaked at 8.6 GAMI spread is 0.2

Hard to say yet, but just from the wreckage its doesn't look likely the everglades had anything to do with the fatal outcome. But what terrible bad luck for the deceased after the accident and added horror for the family. Quite the mystery apparently when they mention the details of the student's unauthorized flight are unknown and the plane was missing for several days??

Just as@Hank described, with AP flying or another pilot flying, grab the lever an inch or two above the quadrant and move it as slowly as possible with gentle pressure. Hah for getting 1F accuracy! What we're trying to do is get resolution of 0.1 GPH changes but sometimes that's just impossible as it jumps by 0.2 GPH. One of the reasons it's definitely easier from the rich to lean is that when you jump too lean you'll trigger misfire in a plug, now you have erratic EGT and won't clear it up till you enriched again significantly- so once you know where that is try to avoid getting that lean and hopefully you won't have misfire right by peak. If you do, you'll have to note the mag and cyl and fix the plug to get pass that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looked into it but it's appearance is very lacking. I was going to try salvage but found mine to be repairable. I recommend the salvage route if you can find one. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The safest way is to get that engine analyzer and learn how to use it and learn about the "red box" as an area to avoid when operating your engine. 50 ROP is right in the red box if not operating below 65% power. So read all the pelican perch articles on avweb.com or attend the Advanced Pilot Seminars on-line or in person class to learn about this. For now, till you have valid instrumentation, your best bet is operating at cruise power settings below 65% since below 65% there is no red box and you can run safely at peak. But from 65% and up you need to avoid the red box by either operating sufficiently LOP or ROP. Gami's FAA approved advice attached is very good and conservative advice on where to put the mixture both ROP and LOP and will thus keep you out of trouble: afms-gamijectors rev ir.pdf. But don't delay on the engine monitor! p.s. check density altitude on first flight

Peter, Your Top #3 plug is missing and your bottom #3 is in early stages of it. Also your bottom #4 has an excessive rise. Is this significant? I can't say without a gami spread just before the LOP Mag test to see just how LOP the test was done. Any interpretation of the LOP mag test needs to be done in the context of how LOP the test is done since your stressing the ignition system more by the more LOP you go. But whenever I see both plugs of the same cyl showing the signs of missing and very high rises as we see here, I am suspicious of the cylinder being overly lean. For example, your leanest cylinder is going to be the first to start showing signs of missing by going excessively lean. But you may know how much LOP you were running when you ran the test and I'd suggest if you were well excess of 50 LOP not to be concerned but if you were 50 LOP or less then I would address and inspect & clean the plugs; especially checking internal resistance. But since FF was further pulled just before the test from 10 to >8 GPH that makes it pretty hard. So why the 50 LOP cutoff? Since 50 LOP is the maximum we ever need to be to run at higher power settings LOP, there is no point in performing maintenance that won't do you any good. But any missing upto 50 LOP is considered premature IMO since its very reasonable to need to run 50F LOP at 75% power, should you so desire. But given the very high rises, and both plus in #3 showing signs of missing, I'd guess the cyl is overly lean and would repeat the test before relying the test results. Incidentally the excessive rises in EGT is also the cause of the large CHT drop and another clue for the mixture being overly lean. Also I'd recommend performing the gami spread slower - less than 30 seconds from 11 - 7.5 GPH with your 2 sec sampling rate isn't giving you as accurate results as you can get if performed 2 to 3x slower and be sure to perform the test at WOT to avoid any significant changes in MAP which will also reduce the quality of your data. It is really hard to do this test well if you are having to manipulate the lever controls on a quadrant style, but if you have vernier controls its very easy. Of course, perform the gami multiple times to ensure you are getting repeatable consistent results. For more on interpreting ignition tests see our write up here: https://www.savvyanalysis.com/articles/in-flight-diagnostics For more understanding of the EGT rise accompanied by a CHT drop relationship from an ignition issue see ENGINE MONITOR WEBINAR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SvTESXqidM 1 hr 13 mins For our guidance on how to best run these tests see http://content.savvyanalysis.com/static/pdf/SavvyAnalysisFlightTestProfiles.pdf

Have you verified its not one of the inline fuses for it yet? Have you tried Mooney? Its repairable if you can find an instrument overhaul shop that has documentation on the instrument. If you have to replace it it would probably be more cost effective to put the cost towards a TSO'd engine monitor.

The amazon link is not based on the correct standard, (M25988), and therefore is not really a legal "standard parts" without the proper standard #. Also its just the big one. Anyway, for the Shaw 431/531 cap you'll need (I am not sure what model that is with the notches around it): M25988/1-338 – big o-ring M25988/1-010 – small o-ring MS24665-298 – cotter Cheapest I have found them is Skygeek.com - however they show the wrong color but correct standard (image mistake?) http://www.skygeek.com/military-standard-m25988-1-338-o-ring-fluorosilicone-70a.html 0-rings Inc used to have great prices on these, but no longer: https://oringsusa.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/21_90_94/products_id/94000338 All have the the small -010, which is very cheap and also available at Spruce as well as the above two places

The factory 252 belly pan is very light and I would expect it to be the same as the LASAR. After all, Paul L resurrected a 252 maybe built his first one for his 252. The Encore went to carbon fiber cowling and probably the same for the belly pan- so if you really want "light" that could be an option. But it's MUCH cheaper to follow@lancecasper lead! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What doesn't sound right is the notion that you can name one "backup" and the other "primary" to your convenience. More specifically, I understand the instrument that is considered your primary must be in located in the primary position on your panel; and the so called backup instrument must not be in the center position intended for the primary. So this begs the question on how your panel layout will meet the requirements of keeping your G5 within the location limits for being primary for Attitude and the 3 Aspens still located close enough to center so that they are still workable for you as primary.

Rumor has it, that using that technique you can turn a 60 degree bank turn into a 1 G or less maneuver ! LOL's (ok, without the sarcasm, truth be known, every private pilot learned how to do even that without an AOA, although just not to 60 deg.)

If you look hard enough you'll find them on C172's ! There everywhere an owner added them. Few manufacturers include them as standard equipment. Mooney doesn't install them on the Acclaim, but you can add them. My K has lots of time in the flight levels and was certified to 28K and Mooney did not install them. It still doesn't have them and its never been an issue or surely they would have been installed when P-Static became an issue. But it hasn't.

No problem for the F or any vintage mooney. Do them regularly with clients; especially those commercially rated. I use a VA/light (i.e. less than max gross Va) of 120 mph for all the vintage Mooney's C/E/F/G's,

I am familiar with the rational, it stems from the longer wave RF that was much more susceptible to P-Static. Its also read through the internet for years now the following points that I have seen to evidence to contradict: - At the relatively slow airspeeds of our piston GA fleet that we fly, we are pretty much immune to P-Static - Our modern avionics are much superior at filtering out noise than the old radios - Mooney doesn't install these as standard but gives an option for owners to install them. But merely bolting/screwing on static wicks on top of the painted control surface has been said to be worthless by supposed static wick experts that say the bond between the wick and the control surface needs to be made against bare metal and in addition to screws/rivets they use a very expensive bonding epoxy. This is why the a proper static wick has removable screw in wicks for replacement. Also important to their effectiveness is the need that all control surfaces are also bonded to the airframe. According to these experts most/many wicks installed on GA aircraft are improperly installed and not doing their job anyway. - Not that much of the GA fleet has static wicks installed, but when have you ever heard of a pilot flying that had P-Static interference take out their radios? I don't think Mooneyspace has a single instance of a complaint. (I've even seen a lighting strike hole in a Mooney Wing tip that didn't take out the radios - pilot didn't realize till after landing) - Personally, I think St Elmo's fire is about the only phenomenon we're still exposed too - would wicks matter there? I can't say - never experienced it. But I think the threat of P-Static to our VHF communications and VOR navigation is non-existent just by the sure number of aircraft flying in moisture with out wicks and the lack of complaints. My sense if it ever happens it has to be extremely rare. I raise the question because I wonder if anyone has experienced any p-static with today's modern avionics without them that was a problem. I think they get installed as insurance. But am no expert and therefore just asking.

Personally, I think the need for static wicks died with the ADF and Loran longer wave frequency's. I'd be curious if anyone has actually ever found they really needed them. I doubt it with higher frequency's we use today. Certainly not going to affect GPS. The government does it all on its own with its testing. On the other hand, since removing them leaves holes and if the original balancing of control weights included them (I doubt it) removing them now could put balancing at risk.

That's exactly how I avoided the sales tax on a $200K+ aircraft about 15 years ago. It required submitting documentation proving the aircraft was kept and flown out of state for required number of months. Submitting my documentation to the state franchise board got me a letter of exemption. But I understand that program for personal use has been ended and now the remaining method is limited to strictly businesses. But the specifics are on the franchise tax board's web site. Where ever you tie down or rent a hangar, they are obligated to give your N number to the county. Then it's just a matter of time till you get the bill. So in CA it's sales tax at purchase without an exemption letter, no matter what state you purchase it in, then property tax annually at about 1.5%. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like Lance says, just don't do them. Instead practice real landings of all kinds and real takeoffs of all kinds and taxi back. After initial training one generally doesn't need to do concentrated landing practice where you are not practicing good habits anyway. There has been way too many touch and go accidents. We won't do them at MAPA PPP training events nor will the Bonanza guys at their BPPs either. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you have the 115cf built in system, you won't even be able to fill it with two 125 cf tanks from near empty. 330's are two big for me to pick and move to refill so I use the 220's but 2 entirely full 125's starting from full without +P pressure will only get you to about 3/4 full. With +P pressure (~2200 psi) should get you near full. But I'd suggest getting larger tanks if able. Recognize this is not owner approved preventative maintenance and so highly suggest reviewing and following the instructions in the Maint Manual for servicing your O2. Its not hard but their are limitations to observe: the maximum fill PSI based on temperature table and also note the tank must not be down to totally empty to refill - it must still be pressurized before refilling or technically they call for removal and cleaning before re-filling if air has been able to get in. Servicing O2 is considered maintenance and as such its suppose to logged but this is rarely done except when it's serviced with other maintenance. I track my fills in a spreadsheet where I put the Boyles law formula in it which shows me exactly what PSI I will end up with starting with tank psi and the starting PSI and ending PSI's of my 2 cascading tanks. More than you need but shows my refill history.

I used the same Thermo-Tec adhesive backed material right on the cowling adjacent to my Turbo, which gets so hot it glows cherry red, and Thermo-Tec material has been working great for years.

I assume adjacent to the exhaust? You'll have to examine the cowling from the inside to assess the extent of the damage. You may find dry, soft, fiberglass material which will likely require a fiberglass repair and then to be protected with some heat shield material to prevent a re-occurrence.

You might get more helpful input if you indicate your location. There are good magneto shops all over. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To counter some oxygen myths or misconceptions. Medical oxygen contains 0 moisture in the tank - moisture is added after it comes out of the bottle as it is being dispensed. Moisture in aviation O2 would be very bad and you don't need to be at high altitude or real cold temps. The cooling issue comes from Boyles law and decompressing 2000 psi in the tank just a few psi to breathe. if he didn't cut off your supply I imagine the ice crystals could damage our expensive regulators. Buts its not even a concern these days. There is zero moisture in 02 produced today by any industrial gas shop. They use air separation technology (including fractional distillation) to produce large batches of moisture free 02 for all their 02 needs e.g., industrial welding 02, Aviators O2, medical O2. Keeping moisture out doesn't cost any more, its a natural byproduct of how they produce it. So what's different about Aviators 02? for one it has be tested and results logged to show its purity and moisture content. In the old days before my time, some sources of 02 were not moisture free - hence the concern. But more importantly to us these days, the fill is done with a more thorough cleaning (vacuuming of the receptacle) tank since we're going to breathe it unlike industrial welding O2. This is also true for medical 02. But Medical O2 requires a prescription to be filled and aviators O2 does not.

Thanks for sharing, that's perfect and shows me how it was installed using the prior push/pull cable mount on the panel. Since the 252 cowl flap indicator is directly below the trim and flaps indicator on the far right edge, it would be possible to add it to the pedestal but another cable would have to pulled through the firewall. Not sure its worth it.

The going rate, that pretty common starting rate here at $60 in Socal for independent out the truck mechanics. Suggestion of $25 hr here would get you a wack over the head with their torque wrench. We too have some military IA's that moon light after hours and weekends, but they charge more than the full time guys working out of the back of their truck - $75 hr