kortopates

Jim, Congrats on upgrading to a K. Would love to see it sometime. I think your wise to follow your POH recommendations for cool down. However you most likely do have the instrumentation to be able to judge when you can shutdown earlier and I do believe Scott and Byron's quoting of APS and George Braly is mostly right - but its not the whole story in my opinion. First off, the issue we're trying to avoid is as you listed above, to 'reduce oil coking in bearings'. Its a bit of a stretch to call them bearings but we'll leave that for another time. The point is oil is pumped through until shutdown, where upon after shutdown a hot turbo can result in coking, which in turn will lead to less than optimal lubrication and cooling and lead to faster wear. If it was totally an OWT, then don't you think the folks that rebuild our turbos would never see coking? But I digress. I believe TIT is a quite adequate indicator for determining when the turbo has sufficiently cooled. Although I don't have much confidence in my factory TIT gauge I do have full confidence in my JPI TIT readings. My factory TIT probe is almost right at the exhuast inlet of the turbo but always reads over a hundred degrees cooler than than JPI probe which is an inch away from the factory probe. The big disconnect I believe is the non-turbo pilots who assume the big power reduction for landing, such as reducing power and lowering gear for landing, is when the 5 minute cool down period commences. It could be, but it all depends on how you operate your mixture. If you enrichened the mixture at this point, then yes, I do agree you'd be able to count this time as part of your cool down. But I never do this. Every power reduction is accompanied by leaning the mixture to mainain a TIT of 1400+F till landing is assured on short final. Otherwise I risk not being able to develop full power from an overly cool engine and even shock cooling cylinders if I went full rich (NA pilots will say that just another OWT, but its very possible with a turbo). Given my TIT is at about 1400 till short final, and thus glowing a cherry red, my coolest TIT is not right after landing but takes a few minutes after mixture enrichment to cool down. I've found it will cool to just under 900F (at idle) and its always cool enough by the time I taxi to my hangar. But if I have a very short taxi then I'll wait for a couple of minutes till TIT cools to the 900F range. I do believe that's adequate, since TIT is the entire source of heat to cause an coking. I'd suggets you collect your own TIT data on cool down, using a good 5 minutes of cool down as a control, and then form your own personal target TIT shutdown temp based accordingly on your own operating style and instrumentation; as it will cause variances. That should enable you to develop your own shutdown timing procedure with confidence in adequate cooling.

Yes, that was the basis of the groups founding, but I assure you, the main page better reflects the groups makeup and the members section tells the reality of it. But its up to you. There's virtual socializing such as on this web site then there's live socializing over your favorite $500 hamburger. There is also the Mooney Ambassadors with Jolie and Mitch but with a more specific mission to promote GA and primarily at Airport days; as opposed to a luncheon fly-in. But at any of these, you'll always be most welcome! Welcome to the Vintage Mooney Group It's the Pilots who are Vintage! The Vintage Mooney Group was established in August 2003 to promote the fellowship, camaraderie, and a venue for spectacular fly-ins in the Western USA, now including chapters in the Northeast, Southeast, and South Central USA as well. We enjoy the opportunity to share our Mooney specific knowledge, our experiences, our safety tips, and our pride of Mooney ownership with each other. As an added bonus, we appreciate the prospect to develop new friendships. To become a member simply show up at one of our fly-ins. Note - Some of the above menioned chapters appear to be loosing participation.

The thought that VMG is only for Vintage mooneys is an unfortuante misconception. The group even considered changing the name but most of us non-vintage pilots figured its obvious enough by browsing the website. You'll even see Wayne Fisher's Acclaim in the members section. The group represents a cross section of Mooneys equally proportional to the fleets numbers by model. That aside though, i will say the main thing Vintage about the group are the pilots which is why we so much need some younger pilots to join in

I assume you're referring to the fuel cap o-rings. Large one on the outside and small one inside. Both are available from Spruce Aircraft or your local MSC. 85 M20 what? Check your IPC, but for either J or K, you should find: MS 29513-338 large fuel cap o-rings MS 29513-010 small fuel cap o-rings

You both should have joined our VMG flyin to HII just a couple of weeks ago. About 16 Mooneys flew in from CA, NV and AZ and we all enjoyed lunch at Waldo's BBQ. Would have been good to meet you both.

The best/most useful site I am aware of and easy to interpret cloud height forecast is a NCAR site at http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/model/ You'll see cloud heights forcasted at 6K increments - not the desired resolution we'd like, but it gives me a quick idea of ability to top the clouds. It'll tell you if cloud tops go above 6K, 12K and 18K and will also tell you if they go below 6K and they also give you information about being above or below freezing. From that web page you can also click on the "upper air" tab and quickly access the skew-T for all the main sites here in North America. NCAR is a very good site.

I personally went the part 147 Aviation Maintenance school - its offered at my local community college. I assume the weekend class is a joke, because this involved 5 semesters of full time class work after my day job - basically 4:30 to 11pm 4 out of 5 nights to do the full A&P. That's a semester for the General, then 2 semesters (or year) for the airframe and 2 for the powerplant. Of course this is full training program for the person without any prior experience. I think the situtation that Lionudakis describes above is for pretty rare situations involving people that genuinely have gained years of experience. Typically having volunteered with organizations like the CAF or their local Aerospace museum that restores A/C. Much less likely I believe for a Mooney owner that hopes to build the required experience and knowledge working on their own a/c. I've met a few people that have gotten the letter of experience signed off. Fewer that have gotten FSDO sign off to take the exam and I have yet to know anyone that actually completed the writtens and practical. Alhtough I know they exist. The reason being I believe is the signoff is no substitute for the required knowledge. Both the written and practical will cover many topics that Mooney pilot would be unlikely to be exposed too working on his/her Mooney; such as wood and frabric, turbine engines and even helicopters. Thus one will still have to put much effort into studying for those areas tested on both the written and practicals. So my advice for anyone that that's seriously interested and understands the power and value of knowledge is to find a local community college aviation program and utilize it. Its time consuming but very affordable and extremely valuable.

Going south across the us border you can enter any Airport of Entry (i.e. has customs) that is most convienent for you. I suggest pick where about you'd like and then research the specific airport options on BajaBush Pilots website. The immigration fees (~$20/person) and entry/declaration fees are same everywhere and pretty much the same for fuel. Fuel has always been much cheaper in Mexico than in the US. However, airport fees vary a bit from airport to airport. Although you can ask for a multi-entry permit so that you can re-use for the remainder of the calendar year, you will have to purchase a new entry permit (and immigration visa's) entering from the southern border. New Visa's are required for each entry. The Entry permit is northern or southern border specific, thus why you'll end up getting two and are approx $60. Going North you can only enter at one of the two entry points already mentioned, unlike going south.

Review your POH as it has the details. But yes, when pushing the Push to Test buttom all lights except the Starter light will come on. The Starter light only comes on when the starter circuit is energized. If none come on with the Push to Test, then perhaps the button switch is no longer making a sound connection. It always helps if you include your Model and year. What I said above may not apply to a vintage model.

Quote: tomcullen ..... As an interesting experiement, you can fly a Cherokee with a maximum aft CG and get more speed from the plane. The reason is that you require less trim in that condition, so the plane has less drag. ..... Dan, good explanation overall. But one correction or clarification because not everyone may understand your reference to less trim is meant as less lift. All airplanes will improve their performance at maximum aft CG due to less drag but not really less trim. The further the CG moves back the less downward lift the tail has to produce to main level or desired attitude. The less lift results in proportionately less induced drag as a byproduct of lift.

Quote: SkyPilot ... Sounds like my life will be easier with an IFR. I've passed the written so I may as well carry on. 28 years of flying VFR and Bush IFR is enough. ...

Quote: triple8s Only things I find tight about a Mooney is getting in, and sometimes loading things in the luggage/cargo area. Other than that I havent had a problem, I am 6'1 and have always had plenty of room. I have given rides to people that are not dimensionally challenged and have always managed fine. I did give a ride to a female recently and we had a space issue, she was afraid of airplanes but had always asked for a ride hoping she had the nerve to actually go through with it. Well after we got in and buckled up I taxied over to the fuel farm to get fuel. When I shut the engine down I gave her the look like, "ok get out", she said I'm not getting out if I do I'll never get back in. I said "Well we arent going anywhere till I put in some fuel" she said "then that means you are going to climb over!" Now I am a married guy and this lady is not, and this lady also has on a shirt that is kind of low, and full, and WHAT DO I DO! Well I climbed over and thank goodness no one was around to witness it! The egress wasnt nearly as bad as the entry; I guess my point is, after that awkward situtation I have no doubts that there is enough room to put almost anyone in a Mooney and do almost anything. :-/

I've flown all over Mexico and some Cenam. I could not imagine planning a trip down that required a non-stop overflight of Mexico; especially in a VFR bird. if you have concerns about landing in Mexico or just the fees for Mexico you should reconsider the trip. Belize has very high fees compared to most countries. If fees are your concern, simply do your homework before venturing down so that you don't need the services of a handler as that is the source of most high fees that folks complain about. But if for no other reason, I suggest giving up the notion of flying non-stop for weather reasons, especially in a VFR only bird, and plan to give yourself landing options all along the way down should you need one. If this isn't making any sense, consider for a moment, where do you think you'll get a weather briefing for Mexico? But your very first step should be to check if your insurance policy covers you into Belize. Unless you were specifically asking for coverage that include CenAM, most/many policies will only cover as far south as Mexico. However, getting a mexican liability policy its just an added expense and easy to get but south of Mexico could be an issue depending on your underwriter. If you want to research the facts about flying in Mexico and CenAM I'd suggest joining the Baha Bush Pilots https://www.bushpilotsinternational.com . Flying south of the border can be a great adventure unlike anywhere in the US. Take your time, do lots and lots of planning so you know your options all along your route and you are sure to have a most memorable trip using your Mooney for what it does best - flying x-country.

Parker, I don't have the drawing in front of me, but from memory the middle main doors have to have a larger bulge to fit around the double puck brakes replacing your current single puck brakes. Looking at the IPC, drawing 32-11-00 page 2 you'll note that item 19, Middle gear door, is a different part numbers for encore vice the 252. Maybe Don knows something about modifying your existing doors but I think the difference in the size of the bulge is substantial. In fact I've always wondered if the added drag from the doors was the cause of the speed loss from the conversion - hard to believe it could be all from just weight.

+1 for Bruce's covers and cowl plugs

Parker, I will be most interested to hear how the conversion unfolds and I am getting ready to started on mine. I had induction leaks when I first got mine but I learned things just loosen up normally and I am constantly tightening induction hose clamps every time the cowl is off. I am not sure climbing LOP is worth it given its only about 20 minutes or less of the flight doing nearly 1K/min at full power, but if I can ever get good results in cruise – sure I can see trying; could even save you about 3-4 gal for the climb if you could keep that up to 18K . But I would sure like to get there for the cruise portion of my flight! Keep us posted on your Encore conversion. Is Don finding all the parts so far? Like the Encore gear doors?

Cris, I flew a 231 with an intercooler for few hundred hours before I got my 252. It climbed at full power well within temperature limits. I can't remember exactly what MP I used as Max, as I no longer have the turbo plus matrix table you refer too, but I recall I used between 36-37" as a max setting. I certainly understand operating conservatively, but if you’re seeing high temperatures climbing above 34” and fear a melt down at full power your fuel pump could be out of adjustment. It's quite common to have the fuel pressure setting on the pump too low but if its properly set to Continentals SID-97-E, you should be seeing 24+ GPH at full power climbing with low TIT and CHTS. Per the SID, your LB is actually set a bit higher than my MB. I can’t recall exactly what my 231 climb temps where, but my 252 climb CHTs are <= 330 and TIT ~1400 in climb – full power and full rich. Good suggestion on varying the RPM to see an effect on TIT. I’ll have to try that and see what kind of effect I get.

Cris, believe you made a typo on the multiplier. In case others, newer to LOP read this, the correct multiplier is 13.7HP/Gal for our 7.5:1 cylinders to compute LOP fuel flow. Your 11.5 -12 gal/hr is right in the 75% to 78.6% with 78.6% also being the recommended max cruise pwr setting in the 252 POH - which makes it my goal as well because I don't want to give up on speed. Of course is based on the full turbo installation, which is approaching a 231 with the intercooler and wasetgate added. The 252 78.6% ROP fuel flow is 12.7-12.9 gal/hr at 2400/29" or a 53 power number with however you want to trade off MP for RPM. I generally prefer 2400/29" for the quieter ride and have done 2500/28" with no difference but in noise. But anywhere from 2400-2700RPM is recommended in the POH from cruising from SL to 28K at their recommended max cruise power. In fact, I’ll use 2400/29” for cruise and not worry about adjusting for altitude since from 10K to 28K the MP setting only varies within ½”. But below from SL to 10K it varies 1.5” but I never cruise that low unless its a real short or training flight. (Also with 2400 cruise RPM, I never have to touch the prop again till I go back to max RPM crossing the FAF intercepting GS with gear down and "gurgle" power to ride the GS down at 100-105kts.) Like jlunseth, I climb at full power/full rich from take off to the flight levels. I learned long ago that is the coolest and most efficient way to operate the engine (from a temp/rate of climb perspective). The fuel pump is designed and set up to increase the mixture at full power and should be putting out 24-25 gal/hr there if set up properly. If you pull it back to 32-24” for a cruise climb, you’ll lose the benefit of that circuit and see the fuel flow drop way back and temperatures go up accordingly – in addition to slowing your climb. The engine just wasn’t set up to climb like that. I do use a cruise climb power setting when SOCAL gives us a limited climb of just a couple thousand feet to a level off. I would love to operate LOP at 78.6% power or even higher, but in past I could only smoothly – and barely – operate at about 60% power and I didn’t buy a turbo to fly slow or low. I really need to be able to run smoothly at 50+LOP at desired higher power setting and just won’t operate with TIT in excess of 1550’. I prefer closer to 1500F, and will always keep it leaned to at least 1500 regardless of the power setting to keep it warm, till enrichening for landing. Its already glowing red at 1550 as it is. I am ready to collect some fresh data and see how LOP I can get smoothly at high power settings. I’ve overhauled/replaced my entire ignition system and hoping I’ll see some dramatic improvement next time I run the gami test – but we’ll see. One of the big pluses of the 252 is that its easy to manage tempertures ROP, but I'd like to improve fuel economy as much as I can without sacrificing speed. Judt flying high enough often enables 16mpg and sometime as much as 20mpg with a favorable winds. Our Mooneys are very efficient!

The older upgraded 430W had its hardware upgraded with the same boards in your newer unit. The newer hardware is what provides your increased 5hz GPS update rate from the former 1hz. You didn't express what made you think their might be a difference, but check your software versions. I am sure you'd like both of them to be up to date. They should be at v3.30 (maybe higher ?)- I don't recall if there is a newer version after 3.30 but 3.30 was a major mandatory update fixing some issues and providing support for LP approaches and other improvements. It was also free back around 2009 when Garmin released it - but maybe not now.

Quote: jetdriven No its about the same for a J but dont give up. Use an elbow fitting to make the tight bends. Thats what we are going to do. I have two hard 90's to make, with elbows.

I too was surprised by the large size after ordering one and just recently gave up mounting it in the back of my 252. The problem I have is that its especially tight in a 252 dual alternator installation. My vacuum manifold where one end of the hose connects to is right in the middle of the firewall with the pump not far away on the co-pilot side, (I think the Bravo's manifold connection may be closer to the pilot side but not sure). Anyway, I even tried mounting it on the firewall with a clamp but the bends in the pneumatic 5/8th hose were excessive and I could not increase the hose bend radius sufficiently to acceptable without the hose getting in the way of hitting the second alternor pulley or belt - so I simply gave up and pulled it till I could discuss it with my IA at CrownAir. My IA showed me its possible if I really want too, but it would involve an excessive amount of looping to prevent kinking and touching - essentailly what amounted to a full loop and half. I decided I would pass on it. So I have a new CV1J4 I no longer have a need for if someone wants it. It must be easier to do in a J though.

Hi Kelly, it was great to meet you too. I can't say why such dilution levels of IPA degrades fuel system rubber components except relay what Dan, a K owner, came to that conclusion after talking to Ed Kollin of Camguard while at OSH. Apparently till then, no one gave him an explanation as to how his fuel pump, fuel divider and mixture control got trashed internally. It was sometime after he had repaired his fuel system during Ed's talk at OSH that the connection was made after the discussion went from oil additives to fuel additives such as etoh and then the light went on... Dan reportedly was using IPA concentrations of 0.4 to 0.8%(10oz per 10 to 20 Gal) over 4 years before his engine began idling very rough and then began the process of changing out o-rings till eventually he had everything rebuilt and finally a smooth idling engine again. I may be being overly cautious out of concern for protecting my fuel system, but given how little water is absorbed by 100LL I do expect I'll get ample warning to correct well before my engine goes quiet at altitude -knock on wood! So far, there are many K owners flying without adding IPA reporting never a miss as my own experience. However, I too can really appreciate those living in much colder climes just wanting the added insurance in avoiding a fuel icing encounter. Obviously, everyone has to access their own situation, as in YMMV.

Quote: jlunseth

Thought I add my two cents to this discussion and reading. Although I live in the Banana Belt of Southern California, we fly all winter over and into the Sierra's Mammoth airport to ski. I have never yet drained a drop of water from my tanks nor after nearly 10 years operational experience flying high in the winter did I yet have a miss from a passing ice crystal. However every year, I am tempted to add a little IPA prophylactically - but I never do. I guess I am waiting for a first sign of need. Ben is right in that different airframes have different susceptibility and the K’s have not had issue. Yet there were a couple of fuel icing events reported in early model TLS, both crossing the Sierra’s. Definitely, IPA or Isopropyl Alcohol is the only approved additive for our Mooney per both your POH and Mooney SI M20-64, which limits it to quantities not to exceed 3% for the Continental’s and 1% by volume for Lycoming powered models*. It must of course be anhydrous IPA, not your drug store variety blended with water. Avoid other additives like Priest (EGME). (*BTW, for sake of completeness SI M20-64 actually states 3% for 231’s and 1% for all other models. But it was written in ’83 when the only Continental powered model was the 231, and thus before 252’s, Ovations etc) The primary reason keeping me from adding IPA is that it will trash the rubber o-ring in your fuel system components. I know of one K owner that added it regularly every winter and then found it trashed all soft rubber parts in his fuel system after 4 years. I won’t hesitate to use it if I see any evidence of water in my fuel system, either from sumping or signs of missing at altitude. But I plan to remain extremely sensitive of its use because of its damaging long term effects on o-rings; just using it conservatively when warranted. Frankly, I probably would have been using it by now if I was a Bravo operator just because of past reported incidents. BTW, its Bruce Jaeger, not Yaeger and he’s certainly seen a lot of this in MN and an excellent person to discuss directly with. I’d bet he would recommend adding a conservative amount each winter to be safer than sorry as jlunseth advises; rather than worry about babying those expensive fuel system o-rings as I do. Probably best to be safer than sorry. You can contact him directly through his website at http://www.jaegeraviation.com/ - he’s a very helpful guy. Kudos though, for raising questions about this as a new turbo owner. Still, I think you’d benefit from hearing from someone with many years of Rocket experience. But so far you’ve heard from one Rocket owner is reporting no issues in very cold conditions. BTW, +1 about the utility of engine heaters, even I use mine away from home whenever starting up below 32F.