kortopates

Great post Aaronk25. Even with 100ll we see a number of vapor lock issues. Just as Aaronk25 described, takeoff with a heat soaked engine is a common way to experience it. Another is in climb in the upper teens and above. Some airframes are just more susceptible than others. The most harrowing I case I've seen was a takeoff from a very short field. The pilot barely cleared the trees by his own account. It was awhile before the the pilot engaged the electric boost, his first reaction was to change tanks without effect. But by the time the boost came on the engine was surging pretty wildly and it actually went into an overly rich condition nearly killing the engine. The only thing that saved him was pulling the power back which immediately reduced his fuel requirements and everything stabilized. Given the risk of vapor lock even with the proper fuel, I just don't get why someone would want to give up the added protection of the required 100ll fuel to just save a few bucks. We always say aviation is so unforgiving but in this case even if the pilot has an off field landing for unrelated reasons you can bet the FAA's proctoscopic exam will find the unapproved fuel and yank all pilot certificates. And as aaronk25 said I can't imagine plaintiff attorney's not having a field day. Even a minor incident could end up having astronomical exposure. What I find most interesting from these threads is the wide ranging risk tolerance and perceptions of what apparently constitutes risk in the pilot community. Luckily 2 sigma deviation from the norm like this are pretty rare!. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Instead of painting the aluminum when cleaned up, why not put the in some 1/8" vibration absorbing sound proofing insulator material. Skandia makes some good materials for aviation use that meet burn cert requirements and similar to what the factory used on my K model. Its foil covered on the top with adhesive on the bottom. I used Skandia p/n SK-8240FPSA but they have lots of choices - too many really! See http://www.skandiaupholsterysupplies.com/products/AeroDamp.html

Another reason I know of too pull the prop through by hand is to get the excess fuel out of flooded engine. However, one of the things they teach you in A&P school is always pull the prop through backwards as a safety precaution. Such as to re-position the prop to attach the tow bar. Plus that old wives tale about breaking the vacuum pump turning the prop backwards is a myth.

Be careful, our Mooney tanks should never be filled entirely because the regulations governing the fuel design in part required Mooney to allow for expansion space: 14 CFR Part 23.969 Fuel Tank Expansion: "Each fuel tank must have expansion space of not less than two percent of the tank capacity, unless the tank vent discharges clear of the airplane (in which case no expansion space is required). It must be impossible to fill the expansion space inadvertently with the airplane in normal ground attitude"

LOL's Dave, At least you are one of the few that has measured your tank capacity. Most have not. I wonder if somebody like Paul B that seals the tanks can vouch for a freshly sealed tank actually holding the TCDS specified capacity. The only thing I can imagine is lots of patches, or even worse perhaps, lots of sloshing sealant added to tanks over the years to fix leaks robbing from the capacity. I know my prior 231 had a gallon of sloshing sealant added to fix a leak once. But some of the reports just seem to far off.

Nope, talk to Stacey again if you like (I have directly). For the entire fleet its the bottom of the filler neck. If it was to the top as you suggest, then we have a major contradiction shown in the mod you referenced for the ventilation hole near the top of the filler neck to increase capacity in the longbody's - how could you increase beyond the top of the tank?. Better yet look at the diagram in the Mooney POH supplement for this modification that shows original capacity (89 gal) being full at the bottom of the filler neck and the new whole adding another 11 gals to capacity (100). That's the best illustration you'll find of where Full is. To make it easy, I'll just attach the one for the R and TN (there is another one for the Bravo that gave 51 gals a side)). 50gal_useable_fuel-rtn.pdf

Now that you clarified it doesn't sound like a tech had a plan or purpose except to maybe verify the overboost valve popping off. I am sure from your engine analyzer data you could look at the data from both run-ups and see the MAP become erratic (along with fuel) when peak MAP was achieved showing the overboost valve was opening. Personally, I don't see the value in testing the overboost valve on the engine like that but that is the only think I can imagine was his intention - unless he really didn't know what equipment he was working on as Clarence suggest. I'll add the turbo overhaulers do not call for that nor does the TCM manual. Nor does Merlyn since it too does not limit maximum boost. The turbo overhaulers do suggest you make a test flight to verify the plane's critical altitude. Anyway, TCM says you are allowed 2" overboost for a full 2 minutes. 3.8" overboost would irritate me as well but personally I would not be worried about 3.8" for a couple seconds (I am assuming that, but your engine analyzer can confirm how long it was.)

Full tanks are actually to the anti-siphon flap, nor above it. It requires a lot of patience to overfill the tanks above that because the tanks were not designed to be filled above that anti-siphon flap and now you are trying to force the trapped air out. That's not to say you can't add more fuel above the certified full level, but I think the only reliable way to know how your are doing is watch the number of gallons dispensed above the anti-siphon flap precisely. As Anthony said, some of the newer longbody's allowed for modifying the filler neck to increase capacity by Mooney drawing, but there is no such approved modification for K's (it didn't even apply to all the longbody's) except for the Monroy extended tanks which of course is entirely different. Anyway, you are to be commended for making the effort to go through and actually measure your tank capacity. And unfortunately you are not the first to report you couldn't get near certified capacity. Its not such an easy task without actually emptying the tank till totally dry by removing the sump drain and then making sure its really dry inside (its suppose to the lowest point on the wing, but even that depends on other factors) and then verify its dry before adding measured fuel. To adjust your K factor, it really takes a lot more than just a partial tank. I suggest running more like a 100 gallons through it, without re-zeroing the used amount (or carefully tracking it elsewhere) then run the numbers and adjust the K factor and run another 100 gallons. One is too likely to jump around from error of not refilling to the exact same point every time based on just running a much more modest amount of fuel through. But multiple refills will help to minimize out that error. Remember, when you start out, the only real trustworthy data you have to start with is how much fuel you have added. Everything else is an unknown or estimate that you are trying to validate. It gets awfully hard to try to solve all of them at the same time.

What this??? Its there - see pages 2-21 for Vspeeds and page 8-20 for IFR PACs. Is that official enough?

Looks like most of the Mooney bike enthusiasts are road bikers. My wife and I have used our Mooney on mountain biking trips and even carried a car rack with 2 29er MTB's. A couple not so good images follow, the first shows the bikes packed without the wheel bags In yet. The bikes are packed in light bags with seats and wheels removed - keeps everything clean. second picture shows everything on the ramp while packing for the return trip. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I've also never had a broken P-Lead but I have had an internally corroded Bendix switch that wasn't grounding the p-lead (and like Byron, a corroded field terminal that broke and even the big alternator output corroded and broke under the nut and broke during a 4.5 flight in Alaska that was mostly IMC - thank goodness for dual alternators!). The Bendix rebuild kit would have been perfect to fix it too, but at the time it was a 3-week wait to get one (I tried many sources) so I ended up buying the $500+ new Bendix switch. AD or not, all switches are subject to the same issue over time.

There is no controller on the 231's, just the fan, a bolt in the exhaust acting as a fixed wastegate and the overboost valve that pop's when ~3-5" (from memory) above redline. Very minimal without any added mods. I don't know why he would go over redline, but what does "pushed the MP over the 40" redline" mean? 40.5"? 41? You asked if it was a common value without giving one. But if it was hot out, just maybe he really wanted to test it at 100% power and was adjusting with another 1" MAP for each 10C above ISO. I know your POH only talks about this for setting cruise power. But the more advanced controllers that measure density of the air (such as the one used in the Bravo) actually do this and therefore have a redline range rather than a fixed number since it varies by temperature (which makes them very hard for the tech to setup). I think the caveat you mention from the TCM maintenance manual (and/or O/H manual too) is very true but stems more from those engines with hydraulic controllers (like the 252) that will naturally overboost when the oil is isn't fully warmed up (below 180F). So some overboost on the first flight of the day is common and normal in such aircraft and doesn't hurt when its not excessive.

FlightAware's weather should not be a mystery. For completed flights, the weather picture is from the approx middle time period of flight and the data stamp in the bottom right hand corner tells you precisely. So historically, only the middle of the flight will reflect the weather you experienced. For a flight in progress, not yet completed, its the current weather with the usual delays. See the weather stamp in the example below:

Thanks for clarifying. I understand your hesitancy now. But of course we don't actually kill the engine, just listen for the stumble and always be very quick to turn back to both while listening. i.e. you don't really wait for the stumble as much as you listen to it as you manipulate the key to avoid taking too long. Granted backfire/afterfire is a small risk from being too slow about it, and although a hot prop should be an even smaller risk, its one risk I am more motivated to avoid by checking this. Not sure when I started doing this. Long after my PPL training but before A&P school where we were all admonished about not doing this every time to be safe.

There are no seems just tubing. But why would you think that? It never dies, and never backfires or afterfires. Just a quick stumble. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Before killing the engine with the Mixture, while idling at 1000rpm. we always flip the switch to Off just long enough to verify the engine will quit and then put it back to Both before it dies. Then kill it with mixture. It's part of our checklist and a best practice before I go out and risk pushing it back into the hangar or wherever parking may be not realizing I may have a hot prop without doing so. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IMO, Lockeed Martin's Flightservice website https://www.1800wxbrief.com/Website/#!/ has vastly improved their services over DUAT. I am not sure its rumor or truth. But I've heard the FAA won't be renewing DUAT services and they will be replaced by Lockheed Martin's website services - which I think there NextGen briefing services are vastly superior to DUATs for about a year now. Many folks use an iPad or such to interface with Duats, so it will take some time for them to catch up (and they will have too if the rumors are correct.) But Hilton's Wing X just released an update to interface with 1800wxbrief.com as a logged official briefing - so I am sure others will follow suite soon. You do have to register and set up a profile for use. But once you do, I am sure you'll be pleased to see the many improvements. available to you. One I like is filing a flight plan the night before and getting an email update in my inbox at the designated time I specified in advance, plus the ability to ask for notice of hazards like AIRMETs or SIGMETs that become active after your briefing. (I believe they'll even send them while you are enroute if you are low enough to receive them). Plus I think they have put quite a bit of effort in trying to better organize the wx briefing material and make it more user friendly. I suggest you check it out and get some briefing emails sent to you to see for yourselves. Way to many features to list and everyone has their favorites. One of mine is for international flights coming back into the US VFR. Lockheed not only makes it easy to file international ICAO flight plans over the web, but they will also send me email as part of my wx-brief & flight plan that will include a squawk code to get back over the border. Which is really nice since its takes the pressure off to get Flight service on the radio to get an assigned code before crossing. (However, I am still doing that just to update my ETA 30 minutes out from landing anyway.) Personally I used to use FlightWatch all the time when that was all we had before the days of satellite weather. Controller got request all the time to go off line to talk to FlightWatch or FlightService and you still hear it occasionally. But indeed, you could find yourself 3rd or even 5th in line for a request when there was weather to be concerned with. But typically when that happened someone ahead of you was requesting the same info - but not always. So sometimes you had to be content to hear how the ride was ahead of you. But when WSI first came on the scene I was an early adopter and have had satellite wx onboard ever since - now I would not want to fly xctry without it unless its severe clear. And like most, I rarely if ever used FlightWatch since having satellite weather. So now with almost everyone having ADS-B wx in the cockpit it only makes sense to consolidate.

Best sources IMO are to find a repair shop that specializes in exhaust. Cutting out the damaged area and re-welding a piece of exhaust ubing is a very common repair and far cheaper than buying a new one plus your repaired exhaust will be just as good as new. However, I don't know whom to recommend in your area but you might begin by calling around to some local larger shops you may know to ask whom they send out their exhaust repairs too.

Orientation of the check valves in listed in the TSIO-360 maintenance manual or overhaul manual or both. But the issue is exactly as N201MKTurbo says. I have never seen the leakage myself. Another pilot friend got it after maintenance from one being installed backward. However, if you have oil dripping from the exhaust the issue could be the turbine shaft is leaking and the turbo needs overhauling. Check the turbine shaft foreplay for excessive side to side movement. Oil out the exhaust or into the induction manifold are the common ways they wear out short of a broken turbine blade causing a more catastrophic failure. One very clear sign of turbine leakage from being worn out if you see much higher oil consumption above 12K and higher versus below 10K where it remains pretty normal. Oil is always pumping through the same, but the wastegate is bypassing the turbo for the most part till you get up in altitude.

I think you're going to find taking the course at a nearby AF Base for free is a thing of the past. For folks in the southwest, we had Beale AF doing them for free once a quarter, but like so many services like that, its long gone. As far as I know the FAA has been down to just one location now at CAMI located in - you guessed it - Oklahoma City. I don't know if its still free. Most likely though you can find somewhere else closer to you for a fee. For the southwest at least, ASU in Phoenix has a chamber that offers courses starting at about $200+ depending on how many people in your group (or join somebody else's group). A local flying club I am associated with booked a course there this last spring that I attended http://poly.engineering.asu.edu/aviation/hac/training/ and we just barely got enough people to bring the price down to the $200 range. (They charge another $20 optional for a DVD video of your experience.) But more than likely the real expenses will be your travelling cost including a hotel room the night before since they are full day affairs - unless you are lucky enough to find one without travel. Edit - according to CAMI's flyer these are the bases still providing chamber course. Contact CAMI for details :https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/36/467/PT_06272005_web.pdf

You can open and close a VFR flight plan by email now, so filing a PIrep by email may happen. But they could be concerned about encouraging this enroute and opt not too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I couldn't agree more. The ear lobe unit look like a great affordable solution (I couldn't follow the link till now to see it); especially in the flight levels. In fact, would be a good SOP to always use on when flying in the flight levesl all alone. I also have been concerned enough to take the Carbon Monoxide threat seriously into install a CO Guardian unit in the panel that replaced my Mooney clock: http://www.guardianavionics.com/aero553-101-001.html . Like everyone, I started with little portable solutions but it wasn't too long before I realized I was kidding myself as it wasn't operational half time for one reason or another. With my panel unit its always there and on for 5 years till it needs a new sensor and there is no way to miss the alarm.. There has been much discussion on the backups too. I wanted to share this very simple and affordable solution that fits in the seat back and will always have O2 when you need it. http://www.mhoxygen.com/index.php/portable-constant-flow/emergency-systems/165-ntg-co-pilo2t-portable-o2 only weighs ounces and you can get replacement cylinders easily enough.

In the mid to upper 90s they seem to all be on par, drop in the 80s and I've seen some of the cheapo's report significantly higher. BTW, my flightstat has had no battery problems and still going strong more than a dozen years old. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For sure, continuous oximetry will be a big improvement. But it seems the technology for a affordable solution in the cockpit is still aways off. As it is, the majority of pilots now are content with a uncalibrated oximeter. By that I simply mean a cheap Chinese one rather than one made by reputable medical company such as Nonin (e.g. Flightstat, Onyx etc) that has spent the time to calibrate their units. There are enough tests out there that show the cheapo's can read falsely high when real O2 sat drops off. Plus the cheapo's often break when dropped. Some suggest taking multiple ones, but why not a reliable and proven reasonably accurate medical quality one Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry Teejayevans, after re-reading my post I may have sounded like a jerk - but not my intention. I thought you were thinking along physiological lines. Jeff nailed it - which was what I thought would be the case. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk