kortopates

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.

If the electric trim is still working when you AP disconnects, it’s hard to imagine it being an electric trim rocker switch issue, but if the electric trim is intermittent, sure that could be your cause. Otherwise the first thing I would check is the buss voltage at the time of disconnect. The King AP are very sensitive to voltage and if you were idling on the ground below the alternator coming on RPM and have a weak battery, the AP would be the first electrical device to complain. Or if in cruise and you have everything turned on, including incandescent landing lights, pitot heat etc., with older high wattage devices you could be exceeding your alternators output in the 12v 60amp systems and quickly see symptoms with a weak battery resulting in the AP disconnecting. But in each case, the low battery light should be flashing. Yet since you mentioned this happens in cruise, if it was due to a low battery/buss voltage I am sure you'd notice the low battery annunciator flashing - so this probably isn't the cause. In which case you could have a loose wire between the AI or HSI and the AP or worse. But suggest verifying you have normal buss voltage at the time it disconnects to make sure its an AP problem versus an electrical issue. If not another thing to look at is your HSI when it happens, a loss of valid compass which will be accompanied by HDG flag, will cause a AP disconnect if in heading mode (but the AP will work in FD & Alt modes), and of course it could be a failure of the flight control system. .

I thought I'd leave an update to this thread, because I had a very similar issue this past weekend. My load meter went to 100% on both alternators and the third scale, total load and voltage went to 0. Yet my JPI indicated normal buss voltage of 28+. With engine off, both alts loads dropped down to zero, but volatge needle still nothing, with only the master on needles pegged again. I thought for sure I was going to need a new load meter (2 to 3 amu!) but upon further investigating, I had a couple blown fuses and that's all it was. I was lucky once again - 10 years ago I had a dead gauge that also turned out to be blown fuses. Unfortunately the fuses are hard to get at but probably worth checking early on if you have a load meter issue.

I R&R'd my actuator last fall to comply with the no clutch back spring replacement. Its very straight forward except for the usual tight clearances to work around. I recall it was about an hour to get it off, with the trickiest part just taking the gear load off the actuator and it actually went back in easier than it came out. Once out, complying with the clutch back spring SB was the bigger job - which is probably pretty similar to what he'll need to do to swap out the motor. Suggest you take advantage of the opportunity to practice the emergency gear down procedure while it's still on jacks after your mechanic gets it all back together - if time permits.

Anthony, the islands sound like a great idea. Are you sure your wife isn't interested in becoming a pilot? I got mine to do a pinch hitters class and she was instantly proclaimed she could get her license. Now its been probably a bit more than 10 years ago since she got her ppl, followed by her Instrument and then fully checked out in our 252 and I have never been back into the left seat. God forbid if I change her seat height! But I really have no problem flying left seat, even have dual brakes. I am just happy she's grown to love flying and travelling in our Mooney - I consider myself very lucky despite even if every other leg is hers! Very Interesting if you saw the solid line track on flight aware while Joe was flying in to MMSD. Flightaware only shows the actual track of the first 10 minutes now (while still tracked by ABQ) but since they are always adding new areas (such as Australia not long ago), I looked at some current flights in progress and only saw the "estimated" or extrapolated location of planes enroute for 3 or 4 I looked at hoping to see more. Mexico just seems very far behind the technology curve - don't even think they have a single GPS approach procedure.

Actually the ELP-MMSL segment only shows the filed route. You'd have to be controlled IFR and in radar contact (above 19.5 in northern mexico) for it to show - but I have yet to see flightaware show a radar tract in Mexico, so I think its more an issue of the radar not being available from an internet feed. Anthony, you ought to work harder on your wife. if she likes to travel, the "foreign country part" is part fo the adventure and you already have one fine travelling plane, your Mooney. Take advantage of while you can!

Hi Joe, Have you considered using San Jose in lieu of Cabo San Lucas? Since MMSL has gone private, they have instituted mandatory handler fees. Plus you get a discount at San Jose as a BBP member, you can avoid expensive handler fee and avoid taxi fees from MMSL to MMSJ to pick up a rental car if you are getting one anyway. Either way though, enjoy your trip!

This years South-West area MAPA Pilot Proficiency Program is being held at Santa Maria. It starts Friday morning with an all day ground school, followed on Saturday and Sunday with alternating flights and additional ground school. It ends mid day Sunday. The group is staying at the Radisson Hotel, which is located on the field. They procured a discounted room rate ($94/night) and discounted fuel with Central Coast Jet Center. This is a great 3 day program of intensive recurrent ground and flight training leading to a Wings BFR and IPC (for those that qualify). It is taught with a variety of speakers and a group of experienced Mooney specific CFI's. To register, call Lela Hughes at MAPA (210-525-8008) and book your room at the Radisson. For more information see http://www.mapasafety.com/

Stefan - see your IPC for illustrations of brake system plumbing - you'll have to put it together from a couple of drawings.

Not weird but an indication that the air in your system was in the Pilot master cylinders or the line between them and the co-pilot master cyclinders. In the dual brake system, the pilot and co-pilot master cylinders are plumbed in serial with the pilot being furthest upstream or further away from the brakes. or to put it another way, the output fluid of the pilot master cylinders in plumbed to the input of the co-pilot cylinders. Like Dan explained above, your issue could have been from the fluid reservoir getting low and allowing air into the pilot master cylinders, yet no air had yet gotten further downstream to interfere with the co-pilot cylinders which then delivers fluid to the brake calipers. (The parking brake shuttle valve is between the pilot and co-pilot master cylinders.)

If an IFR rating is in the near future, by all means, put off a decision till you have it and a little IFR experience. IFR capability can totally change your viewpoint as to what you'll want and how you'll fly it. With an IFR rating you may well grow to value and appreciate the ability to fly above weather and the turbulence or take advantage of favorable winds aloft. Or maybe not. But your views and priorites will be modified by an IFR rating.

If just the standard Chicago lock on doors that Mooney installed and bendix type ignition lock, sure you can get them duplicated anywhere. Nothing special about them. But if you have a secure lock, like the Medeco lock i use, then the registered owner of the keys will have to go back to the locksmith that made them and create you some more.

Bob, review you planes service manual for the K - see figure 8-1 on Charlie Weight installation or attached. If your CG is that far forward you're experiencing degraded cruise performance and a unusually heavy nose during the landing flare as you pull back on the yoke - even with full up trim. If so, installing the appropriate Charlie weight will rectify this for you and move the CG back to where it should be.

There is no hours requirement for the flight portion of wings credit. You pick 3 activities. A current pilot can demonstrate all of the required procedures from the 3 activities in one hours if you are both organized and current. Its an excellent way to satisfy the BFR requirements - and the only way I've been doing them for sometime. Also both cheaper (no ground instruction by instructor) and better for the candidate (more options for you).

There shouldn't be an issue installing a kevlar tank in the Mooney K model. The Mooney IPC oxygen section includes for example a 115.7 cu/ft tank option. Installing a kevlar 115.7 cu/ft tank, say from Aerox, only need a logbook entry from your A&P, eventhough the IPC doesn't spec a kevlar bottle - a minor mod. The DOT, not FAA, specifies testing requirements, services life and manufacturing protocol. So you want to make sure its DOT approved by seeing its stamp - but frankly that's not a concern buying through any aviation source. http://aerox.com is very popular, also there is mountain high http://mhoxygen.com/ . I use the kevlar tank, have too since I use the large size and our K models are so very weight limited-every pound counts! I personally wouldn't want to replace the regulator though due to its expense, just conitnue to get it serviced periodically - like evey other hyrdo.

There are many options in the Colorado front range area. In particular, the MAPA Safety Foundation provides Mooney specific training over an intensive 3 days at several places around the country; typically including the Front Range every summer. When held there, they offer both the traditional Pilot Proficiency Program class and a mountain flying course drawing on local mountain flying instructors that know Mooneys. They get some very good mountain instructors for the students that choose the mountain program. If you can travel there and the timing works for you that would be a nice option. If you haven’t yet taken the traditional PPP or gotten good Mooney specific training yet, I’d suggest to do a PPP first. However, if you go to their website http://www.mapasafety.com you'll see they don't have a PPP scheduled in the Front Range area for 2013 - at least not yet. If MAPA isn’t an option this year, I’d suggest starting with the Colorado Pilots Association http://coloradopilots.org/mtnfly_class.asp - the MAPA Mountain PPP follows their syllabus of ground school and their mountain cross-county flight which usually includes landing at Leadville. They currently show June and Aug offerings.

You piqued my curiosity enough to check. The TR-67 is the standard 90 degree valve used in our nose wheels, but the TR-87 (that I originally assumed was a typo) is a 90 degree valve with a short stem - presumably the one that LASAR was recommending for their hub caps/wheel covers to Bob above and I presume what Jim must be using with the same hub caps. You can see them here at Dresser: http://www.desser.com/store/quicksearch.php?type=tube&size=500-5&ply= As best as I can tell the A in 67A is unique to the Michelin Airstop. Looking for some detailed differenced I came across this site, with pictures showing the difference between the TR67 and TR87 (30mm) valve may help (from aircraft glider suppy site) http://www.wingsandwheels.com/page33.htm Bob, if you really did mean what you said originally, that a new TR87 was longer than your original tube - then all bets are off. But I am betting your new tube with larger stem is a TR67???

Unless you really want to change the tire to put the short valve tube in, it seems it would be much easier to drill a hole for the stem on the hub cap - which would make it like the factory wheel cover. But aren't the LASAR wheel covers plastic? a bit trickier drilling plastic - just have to be very careful. Otherwise the the Dresser butyl tubes are just as good as the Michelin Airstop butyl tubes - just make sure stay with butyl - I use the Dresser tubes in my Goodyear Custom III's.tires.

Dave, have you tried: 1) Salvage yards for serviceable replacement 2) Motor repair facility - for example http://www.bigwoodselectric.com/ these folks recently got FAA approval to repair our BendixKing AP servo motors which are similiar to the little cowl motor and their web site says they repair all kinds of servo and dc motors - I'd check with them.