kortopates

For frequency mode, it took JPI a few iterations to get the firmware to work properly. The last fix I am aware of that is working for me wasn't till this spring. I think that's why many went with the resistive mode installs because of the issues JPI was having with the frequency mode. Oddly JPI had it working on the 930 much sooner than the 900 and I have no idea why the 900 gave them so many problems with the freq interface but it did. But to me, the big benefits of this technology was greater accuracy in fuel level based on the frequency mode use; so I don't understand the comment there is not much difference other than that all the dissatisfied 900 users having problems as JPI worked to provide updates. But I haven't worked with both kinds of installations either to really quantify the difference between resistance and frequency modes. The screws for the senders, being smaller than the holes in the senders, require plastic tubular inserts to make up the size and seal. I'd recommend you build a test harness to ensure all works fine and you get stable outputs at the JPI - that could save a lot of trouble shooting time avoiding wiring issues after everything is installed. We had enough problems that in the end, my installer pulled the ground all way back to the cockpit as well as ground locally as shown in Scott's diagram; probably because Scott always would say make sure its adequately grounded when there was an issue. You'll notice the Mooney outboard sensors have a big bend in them so as to not hit the front of the tank. The CIES outboard senders did not clear the front of the tank. To make sure exactly why we opened the tank from above (right above the sender) and bent the arm to clear the tank with about an inch of clearance. You can probably do that in the blind just repeatedly bending a little at a time - but we wanted to be sure. But also note our senders were installed upside down relative the CIES labeling. Maybe some of these things are no longer relevant if Scott has made changes to make the install more straightforward. Mine were installed in what Scott's instructions referred to as a master-slave wiring. I recommend using smaller gauge Deutch 20G connectors, here is 4 pin example off amazon https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01CUCA9GA/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Calibrating just takes a little time and JPI limit of 5 readings pretty much narrows down what you need to do. We started with the plane leveled and added the same amount of fuel to each side to keep it level. What I didn't quite expect is that it tool 2-3 minutes for the frequency output to stop changing - not in truly fluctuating way, but it would change by a number or 2 even after the first minute or so; so suggest giving it a couple minutes to stabilize before you record the value.

How much it saves you will depend on how well you learn how to use it. But it could easily save your life if not at least save you from a risky off airport landing. With the monitor there is rarely an excuse to continue flying an engine till it seizes. Almost always there are plenty of signs to warn you that failure may be eminent if you don't take immediate action. And with knowledge of how to use it, you have a very good chance of saving your engine before it gets to that point. For example, I was flying across the country about mid-way at 10:30pm over the middle of Texas while we watched a slowly declining oil pressure; still in the green. Oil temperature was still normal, but as we were debating what to do about it and when, as it got closer to the top of the yellow arc we began to see fluctuations in the oil pressure. I recognized this as the oil pump cavitating from too little oil in the sump. That was it, the reality of the situation was setting in (remember the CARE checklist?). Cruising at 17K, I had already surveyed towered airports with approaches and services within glide range of about 30nm and told ATC we were diverting to San Angelo because of a oil pressure issue. My wife was the pilot flying on this leg and she was the first to notice the issue. As the pilot not flying, I was working the radios and was talking to ATC. We had already pulled the power to near idle and gliding to the FAF for the approach I loaded and was asking ATC to clear us for our selected approach. With 2 pilots, and the marvels of modern GPS technology we were gliding into San Angelo on idle power and landing without incident. The following morning we diagnosed issue. Our turbo had been pumping oil over board and we were down to just a bit more than 2 quarts of oil; plenty sufficient that we have evaded any engine damage. If we had ignored all the signs with still 1.5 hrs to go to our planed destination we likely would have at least lost the engine and who know what our options would have been if we had not been monitoring our engine analyzer. As a CFI, I work with Mooney owners and with rental pilots at a flying club. Its interesting to me at least that most of the rental aircraft these days have a JPI engine analyzer so their owners can monitor their investments and virtually all have either a new GTN GPS or GNS W GPS. Because of the engine monitor, more and more new pilots are learning the importance using an engine analyzer to do a more thorough mag test before taking off. Of course it takes a CFI that understands this technology to teach to his/her students and what percentage do this I don't know. But just yesterday, we taxied back from the run-up area because the engine monitor showed the left mags #1 plug was cold, or not firing and we were unable to clear it after multiple attempts. For an owner, that save a lot of time which saves money knowing exactly which plug to go clean and test. And the light bulb goes on for the pilot in training on the usefulness of the monitor. Consequently, as analyzers become more universal in training aircraft I doubt many future pilots coming out of ab initio training will even have a question on the value or need for the analyzer; given a choice they won't want to go without it.

Indeed, and I've heard it cost $3700 for the tool. Which should keep most all but the engine shops from performing these inspections which isn't such a bad thing when connecting rods need to be replaced given the specialized nature of torquing the rod bolts to a precise measurable stretch. Its way too soon to tell, but surely some percentage of the rods replaced under this AD will eventually suffer failure from the fix due to improperly torqued rod bolts; likely performed by tech's that lack experience with the procedure.

Lycoming's FAQs on the the AD and 632A explain what cost they are covering for Lycoming connecting rods installed in field overhauls - see FAQ item 12. They aren't quite so forthcoming about when its just their bushings that were installed but say they are working with with engine rebuilders - see FAQ item 13.

Although it's not the only starter adapter friendly option, it has been TCM's preferred starter for awhile now: http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SIL16-1.pdf Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This thread has much more written about the topic including a letter from Mike B But keep in mind the vast majority of engines affected by this AD are not going to referenced by engine serial #. Lycoming rebuilt and overhauled engines are a small fraction of the engines field overhauled and then it will depend if they used Lycoming versus Superior PMA's parts.

Interesting product, but I notice it runs a volt low for an aviation 28V buss. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll have to read the report. But IMO, rather than focus on what we/they as pilots could do to make their improper decisions making more survivable is kinda missing the point. My thoughts are on how to break the accident chain and here it seems a lack of pre-flight planning for a very low altitude flight with all of the added intrinsic hazard to low flight. Lack of planning was apparently due to complacency from having flown in the area very frequently. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed they should not be charging extra labor, just their retail price for their fair profit for new mounts. The old mounts came off with the engine and thus no extra labor to use new mounts when reinstalling. I would also ask them to install with new hardware as well. But before they do that, if it was me, I would get the engine mount removed from the firewall (it's only 4 more bolts), carefully inspected for corrosion damage, chaffing etc and have it repaired (if need be) and refinished (either painted or powder coated). Now is the time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True there are no FAA regulations on the tanks, just when 02 is required and how it needs to be dispensed in the cockpit. But this is simply because pressurized gas cylinders are already regulated by DOT. DOT does not allow filling the tank after the hydro has expired and they require removing the tank after its life time has expired. So nobody is going to fill it without being in violation. The 115cf Kevlar tank is huge - no way could this one be considered portable, much less carried on board through the front door and secured in the cockpit when full. All that said, portable O2 is a great supplement to any Mooney and I am sure you can find some used portable systems out there. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very nice!!! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for relaying the FSDO involvement. Just curious. Very seldom is a pilot investigated for declaring an emergency; even when the pilot uses his emergency authority under 91.3 to deviate from the FARs. And this sounds like you were contacted by an airworthiness inspector to investigate maintenance as it relates to the mechanical problem you had as opposed to your pilot actions. Please correct me if they weren't focused on the maintenance/mechanical side of it. My experience is that if there was no mechanical issue involved that they rarely contact you at all.

Those that work on their engines might consider cutting the bases of the old scrap cylinder off. Then for doing future cylinder work, you can bolt the base down while the cylinder(s) are off to keep the through bolts under tension and crank bearings in place if the prop gets disturbed. Especially important when removing more than cyl or topping an engine. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1

I got mine too! Except for the conventional neckline, mine looks the identical.

All true and good input. But ground time is also very important if you are taking off under a class C veil. Most flunks are actually because they detected Ads-b out air mode data rather than ground mode data while on the ground. It's caused a lot of grief for a lot of owners. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mike B has written an update on the SB 632A which he is fighting from becoming an emergency AD to be complied with within 10 hrs. In this write up, he discusses a number of things including how Lycoming is stonewalling us by not releasing any information on number of failures. Also is a good discussion on why Lycoming's recommended fix to the problem may be well worse than the disease as he puts it. See: Lycoming owners to be hit with a very nasty AD This paragraph pretty well sums up how the fight has been going so far to have a sensible discussion with Lyc and the FAA about the issue: Lycoming would not tell us how many displaced bushings have been found, how many connecting rod failures had occurred due to bushing displacement, what the distribution of engine times was when bushing displacement was detected or connecting rod failure occurred. They would not tell us how many engines they expected to be affected (although the number is clearly in the thousands). They would not even tell us how much the special ST-531 press-out tool would cost, or how soon they could get enough of these tools out in the field to perform the required test. The FAA would not tell us, either, saying that they were not permitted to release any of this information without Lycoming’s permission (which clearly was not forthcoming). We spent the better part of an hour asking questions but got no answers. It was absolutely exasperating. We spent the rest of the time on the call trying to convince Lycoming and the FAA that there was a far less invasive and risky and costly way to deal with the displaced bushing problem, and we described it to them in detail. But my impression was that we achieved no traction, and that Lycoming and the FAA had already decided that SB 632A was necessary, despite the maintenance-induced failure risk. This follow up letter to the FAA after their teleconference Mike organized with AOPA's David Oord and some user groups provides more of in depth details including a far less invasive and less expensive alternative method of compliance of not removing cylinders until warranted by any of 3 other recurring inspections revealing evidence of bearing material. See https://download.aopa.org/advocacy/0803_MSB_letter.pdf

Slant range versus GPS distance is never an issue with our approach certified GPS. We virtually never need to cross reference a distance field anymore. Which is another reason why you don't need DME. Almost always there is a GPS waypoint for what we would otherwise be using DME to identify. And even on older ILS/LOC approaches that occasionally don't have a corresponding GPS waypoint, Jeppsen still codes a DME fix into the approach DB using their notation and thus when you load the approach on your GPS you'll see lettered DME fixes in the approach that correspond to the charted DME distances. So you really aren't ever navigating or identifying fixes by distance but virtually always by GPS waypoint. That even includes doing DME arcs into ILS/LOC approaches. I don't have a link to Jepp's method for coding DME fixes without real GPS waypoint names but it should be easily findable and it's very straightforward using letter position to indicate miles. I would dump the DME too. But if serious about getting Flight Stream, with the GTN series you really want the 510. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

500 hrs / 28 yrs = 17.8 hrs / yr. that would explain why. I assume it sat for a number of years too - perhaps right before you bought it too? Hopefully you bought discounted as a run out engine. Still very unfortunate but hopefully you are prepared to major it. Bummer! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You could be describing at the crankcase or at the cylinder. Especially at the crankcase they need to be coated with DC-4 to prevent leakage - if only oil was used they tend to leak. If at the cylinder make sure the leaky seal is making a good fit. Sometimes the hole is a bit oversize and needs a Al washer to seal it better.

Continental announces new Tempest oil filter part no's with a new gasket that they say is easier to remove in SIL 17-03. See attached SIL. SIL17-03.pdf

Not sure, that may be all you need (30 minutes in rule airspace) but be sure to follow the link in item 2 for "program rules" as they say before you fly it in case that points to the circular or similar. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is a link to a document on the Ads-b website. See the step for post installation and you should see a link to a circular or other document that details the test flight requirements. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've crossed the border numerous times and don't believe their is such a requirement unless they are picking on Canadians and other foreigners. Cars yes, but not airplanes. Unfortunately, our CBP folks are not easy to deal with. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then it should be in the POH, but looking at a later '75 M20F POH I can't find any mention it. All it says at 2-8 and 7-8 is that the horn sounds with a MAP of 15" or less if the gear is still up. Nor does it show button for it on the panel page that list everything installed by Mooney. Perhaps a Mooney approved kit modification?