kortopates

Mike, My recollection is that you're at Montgomery? I used to be, and moved to Gillespie for a larger hangar. I am about to start my annual next week with a retired IA at Gillespie at my hangar complex, that used to be a Mooney mechanic and was even factory trained. He's truly an independent IA working out of his hangar but I only know about him in the context of owner assisted annuals at my hangar complex. If this interest you send me a PM and I'll get you contact info.

I think its awesome a turbo owner has managed to get 1800 hrs without topping; especially on a GB! That proves good sound operation and is very commendable. As for Diesel options there isn't even anything in the foreseable future that even a potential contender for us. Look at Lycoming's offereing that coming out on C182. It can't even maintain 70% power above 17K - that's a major step down from stock 231 with a critical altitude slightly above 17K. Continental is in theory developing higher HP diesels that are more likely a contender for our birds - but who knows when and if.

Its really a very tough call in my opinion, without the Merylyn you still have a critical altitude of around 17.5K, not terrible, but climb rate will really suffer climbing above the wx to clear air in the flight levels. But a Merlyn without the intercooler will get you up higher faster yet you'll have even bigger temperature issues (CDT) to manage without the intercooler. All trade offs of course. Jimmy Garrison's latest pricing from the MAPA Log is showing 252's starting at $139K now,

I can only tell you I started with a stock 231 and was dissatisfied with its high altitude performance. Rather than spend $ on engine upgrades to improve, I had an opportunity to upgrade to a 252 a year later and took it. 10+ years in a 252 and I am very glad I did. Besides a very improved MB engine with full turbo configuration with infinitely adjustable electric cowl flaps, I picked up 10 kts over the 231, got 4x times the electrical system capacity (12v 1 alternator to 24v dual alternaors), speed brakes included as standard, and enjoy the flexibility of rear bucket seats that fold down entirely (or easily removable). Plus the 252 is eligible for the Encore gross weight increase conversion to SB configuration and adding FIKI - unlike a 231.

I've had very good success using epoxy to repair the plastic cooling shroud on the alternators. I think I used JBWeld for plastic. My recollection is a replacement part was approximately $200 while repair cost was less than $5 plus my time. The hose leading to the cooling shroud is just SCAT - easily replaceable. I have dual alternators. Converting an engine without them to the dual configuration requires a replacing the entire TCM starter adapter since a different starter adaptor configuration is required, plus then you'll need what I understand is a mooney speciifc vacuum pad extension (its not a TCM part) to move the vacuum pump out a few inches and a new vacuum pump (different rotation). Most of the cost is in the starter adapter. Usng your existing one for exchange you'd have to call around to see what the dual alternator configuration would cost you - if you can find one.. I am pretty sure Don quoted Parker the $13K based on a new TCM starter adapter.

+1 !

Andy is right on, skip the different connectors and go with the A5 flowmeter from Precise with the kit he recommended - its a great choice. PreciuseFlight makes the very best flow meter available on the market. Its worth every penny for the amount of oxygen it will save over just using the appropriate restricted connector. (Honestly, i didn't think anyone used those anymore given how much more effective a good flow meter is. The mask that comes in the kit is pretty worthless, except for a back seat passenger. Eventually you'll need to get a real mask with built in microphone which are quite expensive. You've gotten good advice about getting a pulse oximeter. We've been using one since Nonin introduced their first affordable yet reliable finger pulse oximeter for the aviation market about a decade ago. These days there are all kinds available for cheap. But before you buy a cheap one, suggest you review Nonin's little marketting video providing a side by side comparison of its competition - it can be an eye opener. http://www.onyxvantage.com/why-onyx.htm?cont=NA&lang=1 I have no relationship with them, just a very satisfied customer that's got about 10 years on the original Flightstat unit and it's still going strong. Aeromedix is one discounted source for them as well as some other brands.http://www.aeromedix.com/Nonin-9590-Onyx-Vantage-Fingertip-Pulse-Oximeter.html Most of the literature suggest you'll want to adjust your O2 flow meter rate to keep a SP02 of 92% minimum. If your unable to keep at 92% with a cannula at some threshold altitude (even with the flow meter cranked up), then you'll just need to use a good aviation mask for that altitude and above; even though the regs allow use of the cannula to 18K. Or you could find as my wife did that she has no problem maintaining 92% upto 21K with a cannula (although she is well adapted with a long history of high altitude climbing). Regardless though, if you are going to venture into the flight levels, I suggest you procure a small handheld emergency backup device in case you have an unexpected failure - you never know. Since you've never used your builtin 02 system, perhaps the first thing you want to check is to see if your tank is still airworthy for filling i.e., its not due for hydrostatic testing or the cylinder isn't beyond its age life and the tank still has at least 50psi. These limits vary by cylinder type, for example light weight cylinders (DOT 3HT) require hydrostatic testing every 3 years as long as the pressure of cylinder has not dropped below 50 psi; otherwise it needs to be inspected. ( A heavier DOT 3AA cylinder goes 5 yrs between hydrostatic tests.) As Ben pointed out though, you're loosing a lot of performance flying a turbocharged Mooney down low. So get yourself set up and take advantage of the less crowded and smoother air above and really see some impressive groundspeeds!

Ray, if you're running at 9.9 GPH leaned to 50 LOP, you're no longer running at 75%. MP & RPM are not a valid indication of power when LOP. Power when LOP is calculated using a multiplier of 13.7 based on our 7.5:1 compression ratio for our TSIO-360. Thus at 10 GPH * 13.7 = 137 HP which is 65% power - as Nick reported.. But at 65% power, or any fuel below 10 GPH, you should be at a low enough power setting to be safe enough no matter how LOP you are. The challenge for us Turbo flyers is running at 78% (max cruise per POH is 165 HP in the 252) LOP which equates to 12 GPH. That is if you want to get back to Mooney turbo speeds of the ROP power settting. At high turbo power settings they recommend we run at 80-100 LOP and preferably well below TIT limits. I prefer a max of 1550 TIT and running LOP enough with TIT's low enough can be a challenge. Unfortunately, I haven't yet been able to run smooth and cool enough to pull that off yet. But I've been meaning to collect some new data since making some improvements. My JPI reads almost a full 100F hotter than my factory TIT, and thus far I've been putting more faith in it than my factory TIT.

LASAR also sells an aftermarket lens tip. Their version was about half the price (as best as I recall) but is made of a thinner plastic. Regardless though, you'll have to trim to fit and very carefully drill holes with a bit safe for plexiglass.

I noticed Bennett was using 6.02 and Byrons POH is showing 6.0 lb/gal for fuel - yet neither is correct and I was puzzled till I saw the date of Byrons POH. The POH is generally always the official source, but in this case Byrons '77 POH's, is quoting the weight of 100 octane (from 100/130 - dyed green) that we no longer use, the correct weight for 100LL (blue) is 5.82 lb/gal. Which is what Bennett should find in his POH. Those of you using 6.0 lbs/gal are robbing yourself of some useful load. For example in my 252 with 75.6 usable, the difference is 13.6 lbs. Also, the newer POH weighing instructions have you do as Bennett suggest to weight the plane with full fuel and full oil and then subtract the usable fuel weight at 5.82 lb/gal. An optional method they provide for my K model is to drain the tanks entirely as described in Byrons older POH using the electric boost pump and add back on the unusable fuel (1.5 gal) and fill oil to capacity (8 qts). (BTW, I know of two people that have burned out their boost pump running it continuously to pump a tank empty, so be careful if you use that method.) Personally, I think I prefer the using the original method of weighing with the tanks empty as described in Byrons POH. Primarily because it takes all the guess work of finding exactly full - which the factory defines as at the base of the filler neck - not the top. Except for the newer R and TN models that have the modified 102 gal filler necks that are really are measured to the top.

Well if I make it to SAV I might go down to ORL on Friday if the weather is good enough.

deleted - wasn't my post

Take your pick, both are good shops: http://www.mainturbo.com/Home/tabid/116/Default.aspx http://www.approvedturbo.com/ The importance of getting your fuel system set up per SID 97-3E can't be over emphasized and for this you'll need an A&P or shop that has invested in the equipment and past experience to do it right. This is likely why your cylinders deteriorated so quickly since the last test. And as Byron pointed out, you can't even begin to get it set up properly with a max rpm of only 2500, but that could be your tach rather than governor. Both of these need to be addressed before breaking in those new cylinders. Hope you're not down long!

Quote: allsmiles I'm curious as to what xwind component does rudder fun out? Anyone know?

The referenced material is good for all Continental fuel injected engines, turbo or not, since the use of boost pump is based on the fuel system. (althoug turbo engines do use different pressurized injectors, this is about flow between the ump and the fuel divider). However, some of the details quoted are incorrect for the Mooney K models that have separate Low, High boost and Prime circuits. I can't speak for the modified Missile/Rocket installations, but in the K model TSIO-360 LB/GB/MB/SB engines you must use the high boost pump (not low). This is the pump that will circulate cool fuel through the fuel divider and back to the tank providing the mixture is at Idle cutoff. Run without being fully at idle cut off and you'll be pumping fuel directly into the cylinders and then out the thistle valve out exposing yourself to fire danger as I believe Bryon gave example of us above. Secondly, if you review the approved data, specifically the Continental Engine Operations manual for your specific engine (like any good scientist reviews the available literature ) you'll note for the TSIO-360's they recommend 15 seconds usage of the high boost pump - not the 60 seconds the Deakin article says. Maybe they recommend longer times for different engines - but I can't say. But I've personally found 15 seconds quite sufficient for the K's TSIO-360's. Also Note the Lycoming fuel injections systems don't share this Continental design feature that allows circulating the fuel at ICO. Lastly, if you should catch on fire from over priming/flooding, the proper procedure is to continue cranking the engine to put it out. If that fails, use the fire extinguisher you carry in the plane.

Introducing 90 bends will malke your pump work much harder. That said, that's pretty much what the factory did to make the CV1J4 fit. So examine your Mooney IPC, section 37, for the Mooney specific parts they used to get a clean installation. Can't say for the J model, but the K model used several variations in the installation with different bent tubes, so for example the K model list quite a number of options. Don't know about current availability but doubt you'll find anything of the right size at Spruce.

I am a CFI in San Diego and know of a M20J you could get some dual time in at MYF. If interested, PM me.

Thanks for an awesome event Jolie and Mitch, and all the volunteers that made it possible. The San Luis Jazz band was fantastic Friday evening, as always. it was fun to catch up with so many great folks and meet new ones on Saturday. Of course it would have been even better without the marine layer, buts that the way it goes sometimes.

I don't have much first hand experience with engine corrosion, but A&P school went into this in some detail. The main points were that the lycoming cam shaft and lifters, being at the top are the most vulnerable and that it typically takes 2 to 3 years before the cam and lifters will deteriorate from an extended period of lack of use and lubrication. This thread piqued my own curiosity about how long my current engine has gone between flights cycles. Since I have all my data in Excel it was easy to take a quick look at the real data. Although most of my flights are weekly with the occasional weekend or two off, I was surprised to see an outlier of 42 days as the biggest break (while vacationing in Europe) and 3 other month long periods – all over a 8 year period. But as the plot shows below, my engine gets regular use with the majority within a week.

Lamont's above reply would be my first thought as well if the noise could be from one of upto three sonalerts you have above your head for gear, stall and probably AP. This possibility would also require a fault in the wiring or a bad or out of adjustment mico switch as lamont described in order to continuously power one of the sonalerts though. Only the gear uses a beeping/pulsing sonalert, so from what you describe as a continuous "whistle" it would have to be the stall or AP sonalert. Actually, if you have a King AP, not having the electric trim switch on will cause that, so check that first.

I'd prefer an engine that was being flown a 100 or more hours per year before prorating it to its full value based on hours alone. If it had a history of being flown 50 or less per year for multiple years I would insist on pulling a cyl or would pass. The greater the desparancey between engine age and hours the more uncomfortable I would be valuing the engine based on remaining hours without pulling a Cyl. That said, its not always necessary to pull the cyl though, I’ve pulled the lifters out of straight valve engines to measure lobe height with a dial indicator and would consider that adequate if the lobes didn’t show much wear.

With a private party seller, I used an escrow service and would again. Buying from a very reputable broker you may not feel the the need to use an escrow service. I didn't and just transfered the funds when I was happy with the airplane and ready to take possession.

+1 for upgrading the GNS-430 to the WAAS version. It'll include terrain, if your non-waas box did not (terrain was available as an extra add on prior to the waas verison when it became standard) plus it will provide all the approaches with vertical guidance. These days with so many VNAV approach options all over the US including LPV that go down to 200', why limit yourself to only LNAV (and ILS)? You'll be buying a Jepp subscription to keep your box IFR legal - might as well swallow the extra $3k to get the full capabilities of waas now. As for the Apollo MX20, just get yourself a one time update or new card for $100-$150 - I only update my GMX200 every few years and mostly just to pick up IFR airways changes. Personally, I'd pull the GNC-250XL out and sell it on ebay to get whatever you could to put towards your waas upgrade. The user interface is very difficult for most to master and offers zero capability over the 430. At least till your 430 screen dies or similar malfunction; in which case you can use an ipad or portable gps for backup.

I went with the Tempest pump some years ago because of what I felt were superior features. They introduced a wear indication port on the rear of the port that you can monitor, as Byron suggested above on the new Rapco. But with the tempest you don't need to open a port to measure with a pin/gauge - just look at the port windows (perhaps with a mirror). They have some other nice features including the LRT gasket you can read about in their owners/install manual http://www.aeroaccessories.com/manualsandserviceletters/NewDAPUserManual011508.pdf That said, it appears that Rapco pumps are catching up with Tempest. Also highly recommend installing an air cooling shroud on your vacuum pump to improve pump longevity, regardless of which manufacturer you choose. Their inexpensive, but both makes have their own STC's which require some paperwork.

Quote: sreid ... But asking me what I would do if I was "completely" lost implies that I am so incompetent as to not even know from where I departed, how long I have been flying, and the general direction that I've been flying since takeoff. If you think I am that incompetent, why would you even consider attempting to give me a flight review!