kortopates

The EDS system by Mountain High was designed for portable systems where they provide the most advantage with small portable tanks.. With a 115 cu-ft tank you can carry plenty of 02 making them unnecessary complication to your O2 system. Instead, if you'd like to save $ on O2 and plan to fly high regularly, I suggest spending a few hundred dollars on a transfilling system. With that and a couple 02 tanks to keep in your hangar you can fill your tank yourself for a fraction of the cost an FBO charges. You can buy or lease a 02 cylinders from your local gas supplier. The last time I ever had to fill my tank away from home was from flying from CA to Central America rt and that's was with 2 people/pilots on board. I just don't see any value in an EDS system with a 115 O2 tank onboard - but that's just my opinion.

Although which type and band of cannula and mask you get is somewhat a personal choice, I'd suggest Precise Flights A5 flow meter as the best flow meter out there. http://preciseflight.com/general-aviation/shop/product/a-5-flow-meter-tubing/ You'll need a Scott oxygen connector at the input side of the flow meter and if you need them, you can get them here: http://preciseflight.com/general-aviation/shop/product/scott-style-connector/ Masks are a more personal choice, Aerox, Mountain High and Precise flight all have good ones; but I do like Mountain Highs newer design that does not need the the bag on the mask: http://www.mhoxygen.com/index.php/face-masks/face-mask As others have already said, get a pulseoximeter to monitor your 02 saturation and use it to keep your 02 level above 90%. Although there are many cheap pulseoximeter available out there, get a good one that is accurate and will last you a long time and won't break the first time you drop it is well worth the added money IMO; especially once you come to recognize they are essential equipment to flying in the 02 altitudes. Nonin is a recognized manufacturer for the medical industry that makes a good, accurate and reliable one for aviation that is reviewed here: http://www.avweb.com/news/aeromed/181936-1.html?redirected=1 I have an earlier model (Nonin Flightstat) that has been going strong for over a dozen years now.

I'll offer an explanation that may help what this s/w update really fixes: Recall with WASS GNS boxes such as the GNS430W and GNS530W, we have LNAV approaches where our Garmin boxes also added ADVISORY vertical guidance. These LNAV with advisory vertical guidance are LNAV +V and not to be confused with LNAV/VNAV or LPV. More recently, when Garmin added LP approaches, which are localizer precision approaches like LPV, but with out any real vertical guidance they decided to remove the Advisory vertical guidance for approaches that included the new LP minimums. They got a lot of hate mail from users, because the majority of LP approaches added where added as additional minimums to already existing LNAV approaches that our WASS Garmin box had been previously adding advisory vertical guidance to as LNAV+V. In order to turn off vertical advisory guidance on the LP, they also had to remove it from the original LNAV approach since your box has no way of telling which minimums you are flying to, just the approach. (Instead, the box tells you the most precise approach type it will support based on computed positional error as you approach the FAF and annunciates it in the lower left corner (e.g. (LNAV, LPV etc.) So what this fix does is bring back advisory vertical guidance to the LNAV approaches, as LNAV+V, (that lost it because they also had LP minimums) and added it to LP approaches as LP+V. This was and still is a nice feature since it provides a calculated glide slope that doesn't drop below any step down fixes but advisory only since the glide slope may interfere with obstacles below the MDA to the threshold. For example, often these approaches will have a vertical GS that is NOT coincident with the visual glide slope because of obstacles near the runway environment requiring you to transition to a PAPI GS from the MDA down. Lastly, LNAV+V advisory GS should not be confused with LNAV/VNAV approaches which do give you a true glide slope like LPV but also without the localizer type precision.

I love to listen to listen to music too while enroute. But personally, I think disabling the music muting function for when ATC may be calling you is a real safety of flight issue. That said, I do have a switch on my panel that allows the muting or not muting of the music for the intercom only - i.e. when anyone speaks on the intercom without transmitting. Perhaps such an arrangement would be worthwhile compromise for you without sacrificing flight safety. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The reality is, no one in North America or Central America will care if you have the FCC licenses. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Is there really any requirement in Europe for the FCC licenses and are you really certain anyone will even care enough to ask you for them? I have yet to hear of a country on our side of the Atlantic that cares so curious if your just being cautious or have a real need. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The factory Hobbs or hour meter, gets its input from your factory Tach/RPM meter which gets its input from a Hall effect sensor screwed into your left mag - although you didn't say what model you have. Usually the hour meter will work as long as the tach is working. When my tach went out I replaced it with a Digital E.I. R1 meter that fits in the same hole as my factory tach. Its TSO'd and STC'd to replace your primary factory tach and connects to your ignition switch making for an inexpensive install. see http://buy-ei.com/portfolio/r-1/ Under $450 from Spruce and EI will program it with your existing tach time. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Our MAPA Safety Foundation president, Ralph Semb, confirmed the Denver PPP will continue to offer both tracks this years as I described above. He suggested those registering for Denver that want to participate in the Mountain Flying Track let them know when they register or soonest to help them schedule instructors accordingly. Also look for a write-up in the MAPA Log shortly before each event, including the Denver event, that will provide all the details including hotel for the event etc.

Since "past performance is not necessarily a guarantee of future performance" I sent an email off to Ralph to confirm. But generally the details of each of these events are published in the Log by Ted a bit before they're held - which is quite aways off from now. I should hear back very soon and will share it asap.

Cost is $845, Value is Priceless! You can register and see more details here: http://www.mapasafety.com/registrations Correct, your get a signed off Sticker for your logbook for a BFR as well as Wings credit for both the ground and flight activities. Those that can satisfactorily complete the IPC requirements also get an IPC. But that's not everyones goal, as previously mentioned above, you'll have the choice of working on whatever you want too beyond the standard VFR curriculum, which could be IFR procedures, Night time flight or more VFR maneuvers such as emergency power off landings etc - just talk to your assigned instructor about your personal goals and needs. Everybody is unique. The only things we don't do are touch & goes and the actual emergency manual gear extension for those with electric gears which is discussed instead. (Some years ago we had more than one plane attend where manual extension cable was no longer airworthy and broke - much better to practice this on jacks during your annual when its a required check anyway.) There is also a reasonable fee for the optional banquet dinner that enables all of us enjoy dinner together and listen to a typically interesting guest speaker. One year our guest speaker couldn't make it last minute and we were treated to what I thought was the very best such presentation we ever had. One our students, a 231 pilot I had the pleasure of working with, was also the #2 guy at Ft Huachuca and gave us a very interesting talk on their work with UAV's and how congress had mandated the FAA to integrate UAV's into the NAS. It also turned out one of our Directors who worked for the FAA was involved in that project. It all made for a very memorable evening. So don't miss it!

I hope to participate at the Tucson PPP as an instructor providing we get ample signups. Last year we had a great turnout in Santa Maria, so I hope that continues again this year at Tucson. Regarding Denver and Mountain Flying, traditionally there have been two distinct tracks or courses available to Denver participants: - The traditional Mooney specific PPP curriculum of ground school and flight training that may lead to both a Flight Review (via Wings credit) and a IPC for those qualified. Two separate flights, VFR and IFR portions are done or you may elect to do one of your flights as a night flight segment. - or - - A Mountain flying specific ground school (all day Friday) and one longer flight session (Saturday or Sunday) that visits several of the mountain airports that may include for example Kremmling, Glennwood Springs (if your real proficient!), Aspen, and Leadville (America's highest airport). You'll not only talk about high density ops in the ground portion you'll get real world experience with a proven mountain CFI in your Mooney. The Mountain flying class is really an entirely different curriculum taught by local mountain flying CFI's and ideally suited for the pilot already very proficient in their Mooney wanting to get Mountain flying training in their birds and whom do not need the IPC. The Mountain flying course leads to a Flight Review only - it does not include IFR training.Those that have not attended a Mooney PPP or received Mooney specific instruction in their Mooney yet may be better served to attend a Mooney PPP first before the Mooney Mountain flying class but I don't recall any requirement to do so and think the choice is left to your better judgement. After all, the 3 day weekend is 100% geared to fulfilling your needs for training. But if you want to attend both curriculum, you'll need to attend two separate weekends.

The plane was a 64 E model flown by Andy Thulin. He was accompanied by his girl friend and finance whose name I forget. They probably also had a small dog on board, Matisse. But last night when they found the wreckage at 12:45am they were unable to enter the cockpit due to the planes precarious position. I have a pilot friend who is a volunteer on the Sheriff Search and Rescue team that called me last night wondering if I knew Andy. Since I did, I was able to give them his cell phone number but could not remember his girlfriends name who I thought would be likely with him. He used to be my next door hangar neighbor when we were both at Montgomery, since then I moved to Gillespie and he too followed me over to the same hangars. ATC had notified SAR that they lost radar contact with him at 6:15pm and shortly thereafter they also picked up his ELT signal. So they launched a search for him immediately. They found him though by his cell phone and pretty much where his radar track ended. Andy was a instrument rated pilot, yet he never flew on an instrument flight plan but would often ask for a pop up IFR to land at Montgomery coming back over the mtns. The ironic thing about this tragedy is that all of us in the local area know all too well just how dangerous it is fly over the julian VOR on Volcan mountain when the winds are blowing strongly. Over the years downdrafts have brought down many aircraft. I had heard Volcan mountain saws winds as high at 75 mph yesterday although some of the accident news reports said 65 mph. (FWIW, Just a few miles south, V66 offers much less hazardous terrain to cross.) From my friend on the SAR team, they understand from the what they got from ATC that he was scud running under to get over the mountains into San Diego. RIP Andy.

David, I wish we weren't on opposite coasts as I would be happy to help you remove and re-install your cowling to show you the procedure. It takes two people, one on each side to do it properly, such that the front of the cowl doesn't scratch your spinner and the bottom center aluminum bar is oriented to sneak into the very narrow gap between the top of the nose wheel doors and directly below bottom of the airframe - a tight fit. One quickly realizes that they can’t leave the loose cowl flap control rod ends hanging down, as they hang low enough to directly block the lower cowl aluminum bar from passing behind them to narrow slot between the top of the nose wheel door and bottom of the firewall as I was attempting to describe. Its not a problem removing the cowling but the cowing alum bar will jam against them if they remain hanging when you attempt to re-install the lower cowling. This must be what you are describing through your IA. Someone would really have to man-handle the lower cowl trying to force it in before they realizes the hanging control rod ends where blocking it. Honestly there is really no excuse for this. The cowling is not going to go into position until the installer gets under the engine and simply rotates the hanging control rod ends up and out of the way so that they are pointing up and leaning on the firewall and thus totally out of the way. The cowl flap has to fully open to reach in through the opening to disconnect control ends at time of removal as well as to reach back in to re-attach the control rod ends at time of re-installation. But they don’t have to left hanging after they are disconnected. After you’ve gone through this once, you’ll rotate them up out of the way when disconnecting them from the cowling where they will remain till re-installation. It’s that simple and I wish I could show you first hand as I am sure you would conclude it would take some real forcing of the cowling alum bar against the hanging control rod ends to do the damage you’ve gotten. I would encourage you to solicit some help from someone on your field to go through it for yourself. After you see what’s going on, I am certain you’ll feel your IA at least should share in the cost for a new motor if not replace it for you. Like you say though, its impossible to say failure wasn’t imminent from previous abuse, but removal and re-installation of the cowling shouldn’t have put *any* load on the gearing or motor when done right suggesting any failure should have been while in flight from air loads on it – not re-installation of the cowl. The other point of this is that once you are able to get it properly fixed with a new motor, you should be able to get many years of trouble free service knowing that proper re-installation is not going to damage it. It’s great to know the motor is available; although quite expensive. Perhaps another local Mooney owner can help you find another Mooney experienced IA in your area. Good luck!

David I have been trying to understand what improper cowling installation issue led to your cowl flap motor issue. I understood from before your oil draining on the motor during an oil change being an issue but this must be an issue peculiar only to the Rocket conversion since the 252 engine oil filter is located right on center-line and away from the cowl flap motor. With regard to installing the lower cowl, I frequently R&R my lower cowl to work on my 252 and can't imagine what might be happening to brake the cowl flap motor. It seems very basic to disconnect both cowl flap control rod ends at their quick disconnect fittings located on the cowl flap brackets at the same the two lower camlocs are also unlatched. After all the Mooney Maintenance Manual provides detailed instructions with a drawing. Hopefully, your service tech is reviewing the manual if they’re unfamiliar - as they were taught and are required to do so. So I wonder if I am missing something peculiar to the rocket installation yet I’ve understood that the Rocket uses the original 252 cowling. Is it possible to elaborate on what might be going wrong to cause the damage? Otherwise, so sorry to read your continuing to have so much grief on this issue - it has to be very frustrating. I do believe my cowl flap motor is still original from ’86.

Tom, are you trying to fill to the very rim, or the base of the anti-siphon flap? it sounds from your description that you are trying to fill to the very rim. You do realize that our Mooney tank capacity is based on full being at the anti-siphon valve - not above to the rim. The only exception being the newer models that have cut-outs in the filler neck to make it easier to fill the tank to the top. That's not to say you can't put in more fuel above the anti-siphon plate, but you'll experience the difficulty you're describing and should have more fuel and weight than your placarded/POH capacity. +1 for what Byron says about how easy it is to burn our your electric pump. A Mooney pilot on my field told me his unfortunate story on how he did this twice trying to use his elec fuel pump to empty his tanks for maintenance. When the pump failed after a couple minutes, he first thought it was due to being a very old pump, but after an expensive rebuild it happened again pretty quickly. Never again!

Although the intercooler does affect air density, our TCM turbo controllers are extremely simple and can only sense manifold pressure - so it can only regulate fuel flow by MP. In contrast the Bendix RSA systems senses mass air flow and therefore is effected by temperature. Due to the limitations of our controllers is why I felt it should make no difference. I would have expected that you would need the same richer LB FF GPH but at the lower MP that Airflow Systems power chart says will be 100% power. But out of curiosity, what guidance did they provide? The MB engine has a very different tuned induction system which warrants a slightly better bsfc, the SB, with the same parts, different setup, needs a bit more fuel for the added 10HP from increased boost. But still, I think your best gauge of having an adequate FF in full power climb is seeing a sufficiently low TIT, well below cruise TIT.

Very strange, and I 'd have to agree with Jack, the only real possibility is the starter adapter, not the actual starter. The starter adapter has some gearing and springs designed to grab and turn over the crankshaft but its suppose to ordinarily slip and when they wear out, it won't engage at all, so I have never seen or heard of this. The starter is directly geared to the starter adapter - it has no bendix like a lycoming. In fact the starter adapter serves the role of the bendix used in lycomings. The fact that your starter light goes out as expected is meaningless, that just means it no longer is getting electricity. Let us know what they find out.

The official number or setting for this and all fuel injection settings come from TCM SID97-3E. In it on page 13 you will see: TSIO-360-GB and LB (2700rpm/40"): 23.0 - 24.7 TSIO-360-MB (2700rpm/36"): 21.3 - 23 TSIO-360-SB (2600rpm/39"): 22.3-25.7 So your 22.6gph is actually below spec. Personally I would suggest to keep it at the upper value of 24.7 and even a bit higher if necessary to keep TITs cool. For example, my MB engine it set for 24.5 (actually fluctuates bewteen 24 and 25) and it keeps my TITs below 1450 while at full max power all the way to the upper teens and beyond. I learned from a longtime Mooney MSC that the TSIO-360's like to run a little richer than what SID97-3E calls for to keep things cool. But since I don't have data handy on your engine, I suggest seeking another data point from jluneth whom also runs a LB with similar if not identical config to compare TIT at full power. I'd also check STC and/or AFMS documentation, but I'd be surprised if the added intercooler and wategate change the target max fuel flow, but the intercooler may very well reduce the corresponding resultant TIT. see www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SID97-3E.pdf

Yes, you can still fly on the same eAPIS manifest providing, the flight is the same day and to the same airport. If not, we must re-file unless the change is due to some kind of emergency or weather diversion situation. But when returning as planned to the eAPIS filed return airport on the same day, yet with a different time: you’ll still need to give an updated ETA to Customs within 30 minutes of arrival. Phone is one option, but generally checking in with FSS on the radio before getting to the border while still at least 30 minutes out before your ETA is the easiest way. FSS will notify customs of your updated ETA for you. You have to contact FSS before the border anyway for a border crossing squawk and activate your border x-ing flight plan (assuming VFR) so might as well contact them earlier to take care of your 30 min ETA update at the same time.

I don't have a POH available at the moment, but my memory of the primary POH recommendation that will damage you engine is the statement to "Lean to Peak" while not exceeding 1650F TIT at the bottom of each page of the cruise performance charts. Not exceeding Peak TIT is good advice but leaning to Peak is really hard on your engine when operated at high power settings. Instead you want to be sure you are far enough Rich of Peak (ROP) or Lean of Peak. For more background on this, read the Pelican Perch articles on Avweb and you'll get a lot of useful information. Peak is fine though when operating at lower power settings of 60% or less; in fact there is no benefit to operating LOP or ROP at 60% power or less. BTW, there is no 100% Power cruise schedule in your POH, only a climb profile which is done at full rich (around 24GPH); which should keep temps cool. Your max recommended cruise is approx. 78% power, and again you'll want to increase the ROP fuel flow rates 1GPH to get beyond the red box you'll read about in the suggested articles. Of course, you could also operate your engine at higher power settings LOP, rather than ROP, assuming your engine passes the Gammi lean test, runs smoothly and you have the necessary engine monitor to do so safely; but just stay away from operating at peak while running in the higher power settings. Beyond that its personal preference how you want to operate your engine knowing the trade-offs. Beyond that its personal preference how you want to operate your engine knowing the trade-offs.

The final report with a determination of probable cause is not expected to be out till May, although its unlikley it will be more revealing than the current "factual" report. Personally, it leaves me with more questions than answers after reviewing the "facts" it disclosed: - the point of impact was .37 nm after the departure end of the runway. If on centerline, that would put it right where the trees began, yet the map Byron's posted above suggest the Mooney veered left of centerline and into the tree area prematurely. (see a google earth view if curious) - The bigger question though in my mind, is per the departure procedure for runway 23, they needed a climb gradient of 240'/nm or a climb rate which translates approximately to about 350fpm at Vy or initially 260 FPM at Vx. At an airport elevation under 2000' and 186 lbs under gross (max gross was 2900 lb) that should have been easily doable! Gear up or down.Yet they apparently never got more than approx 100' agl to hit the tree tops. An older J POH suggest a climb rate of 700+fpm. Why was their climb rate so anemic?? Could the nose have been held too high near stall to prevent acceleration to Vx & Vy? From the interview, with the survivor we read: (FAA phone interview the day after on 5/10) "upon lift off Mr. Kisseloff stated that the stall horn sounded. Mr. Kisseloff stated that the stall horn was sounding the entire portion of the climb, Mr. Kisseloff stated that the left wing struck a tree and the aircraft crashed immediately afterward." (from NTSB phone interview later on 5/15) "The airplane became airborne at the departure end numbers, just before crossing over the displaced threshold. Immediately (about a second) after liftoff, the stall warning activated. Mr. Sheridan was “unable to recover from the stall.” They approached the trees at the end of the runway, and the airplane began a turn to the left of runway centerline. Mr. Kisseloff could see the trees approaching, and estimated that they were about 3 feet above the trees. He stated that they were probably descending when they hit the trees. The left wing struck a tree (he saw sparks from the left wing during the tree impact) and they “went down.” " Or was the engine not putting out full rated power? They say very little about the engine, including nothing about TSMOH - only "All cylinders were examined using a lighted bore scope; no defects were observed. Nothing was observed during the course of the examination that would have precluded this engine from making rated power prior to impact." Still leaves me wondering if the cam allowed normal valve height to enable full power; but I’ll assume their inspection and conclusion was accurate. Sure there are other decisions that could have resulted in a different outcome, including taking off downhill (that was brought up in the cockpit per the survivor) and using all of the runway. But since we know they got airborne fine, the real issue seems to be their anemic climb rate. The only plausible explanation offered in the factual report is being at too slow of an airspeed or too high of a climb angle based on the stall horn being on continuously. Getting off the extended centerline did not help either. We’ll soon see what they conclude in the final report in May. So very sad!

The MAPA PPP at Santa Maria is just around the corner at end of this month. Sign up soon if you can join us. You can also sign up online at: http://www.mapasafety.com/registrations

I acquired all 4 through Lasar a few months ago. I too had to wait 2 to 3 weeks for 2 of them (inner's or outers) to be made up. My recollection is that they we're ~$190 each, so just under $800 for the full set of 4. I recall they came pre-drilled, but would have to look again to be sure.

Although what Dan's says is very accurate, it may not be answering your question. At max cruise power settings we can and usually do operate much further ROP (150F or more) than we can operate LOP simply because power drops off very rapidly lean of peak compared to ROP. But to get to the heart of your question, a lean air-fuel mixture burns slower than a richer mixture, resulting in the higher EGTs/TIT that you are observing; combustion is continuing even as the exhaust valve opens resulting in higher temps downstream. Consequently, our ability to run higher LOP power settings in our turbo's is limited foremost by TIT. Or perhaps more realistically by our tolerance to operate closer to redline TIT. You undoubtedly also noted that your factory massive TIT probe reads between 50-100F cooler than the faster responding hastaloy-X-tip JPI probe which are in theory also more accurate than the factory massive probe. So although the factory probe is still the "legal" 1650F TIT limiting probe, I personally operate by the more limiting JPI probe reading 100F hotter and I also observe a more conservative limit of 1580F as my personal max TIT. Within that limit, I find I can operate LOP only up to 71.7% power (@11 GPH) to stay within that. However, I find I am only losing a couple knots TAS (from GPS testing) so I am not dissatisfied by that. Also I have the same LOP temp range you specified (~40 to -80 LOP). I know of no real data though that would confirm lower or more conservative TIT management will actually improve turbo longevity. But if you’ve ever seen your turbo operating, you'll see it’s glowing a bright red above 1400F. I personally had not noticed or observed lower CDT's and will remember to compare in a future flight. However, assuming RPM and altitude are unchanged, we know the same mass of air per unit time at the same ambient temperature are being compressed by the compressor, so Boyles law suggest the temperature should be higher rather than lower. However, I wouldn't view a cooler CDTs as indicative of a cooler running turbo temperature. The turbo temperature that limiting to the turbo is TIT, from the hot exhaust gases going through it; which is running hotter LOP than ROP.

Let us know what your shop finds out to be the problem. I am betting its an electrical or connection issue vice a trim servo since its maintaining trim till it disconnects. But there must be lots of different failure modes.