kortopates

You need to provide more details to get helpful advice. So far all we've heard is the TIT got over redline and above 1800F, and that Cyl 5 went cold after the event when you did a mag check. But as far as the event you've only shared the high TIT and "slight revving" (don't know what that means). Besides the TIT being high, was the only high EGT issue with the Cyl 5? Do you know if the event was limited to just the one cyl, #5? This is what I assumed since you borescope check focused on #5. Do you know what your EGTs and CHTs where during the event? Do you have an engine monitor you can download data from? What have they checked besides borescope the #5? I assume this is a very new to you aircraft and perhaps your first experience with a fuel injected engine. Such a broad statement is not answerable.

That’s correct, it was approved for a small number of J’s and then Mooney went back to not providing a higher v-speed for partial flaps in the latest J models. But it’s a great example that if there was an approved higher v-speed for partial flaps then it would be listed in the TCDS and POH as it is for those J models. The argument that the POH specifies a Vfr for “full flaps” must imply a faster speed for partial flaps is a hollow one. This has come up 3 or 4 times probably in the last 5 years often with hundreds of posts which merely proves pilots will continue to interpret their POH however they want. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An injector blockage would be a partial blockage to that one cylinder. It only takes a small fraction of the total fuel to that cylinder to make it very lean and push up the temps. A blockage large enough to stop combustion is unheard of but kill the one cylinder with its EGT going cold and TIT dropping from the other cylinders having a richer than normal mixture. With any injector blockage, the fuel pump and servo are still delivering the full amount of fuel but to the other cylinder. Fuel contamination in the form of water would cause a drop in EGT and TIT, not an increase. As well as a rough engine. If there was a large amount of water in the fuel it would kill the engine before you got off the runway. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

27.5 is actually a bit low, 29-30 is much better. We have the same issue with Continentals where the manufacturer has the max fuel spec on fuel low side. Regardless though this wouldn’t be your issue nor would MAP gauge; especially when it affected a single cylinder. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely, see @EricJ post #2 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you have an engine monitor? The only thing that can cause such a high TIT is lean mixture assuming it’s corroborated by high EGTs. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

correct, not the best choice or words, to clarify should have said connected simultaneously.

That’s also the Ferry route to Hawaii and Australia and if i recall correctly Merced is where they install ferry tanks. Some years ago we had a ferry pilot experience a fatal takeoff there when the ferry tank wasn’t properly secured and moved during takeoff resulting in a crash. it was actually a flight of two with the other pilot being a veteran at it leading and the Mooney following with a newer pilot headed to Australia if i recall correctly. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Connecting to a GTX-345R on the G1000 is a bit different from the GTN’s because their is no Connexc menu like on the GTN’s and no FS capability, it’s just blue tooth pairing with the iPad directly. (Nxi changes this for the Ultra’s) Mooney didn’t certify the latest G1000 s/w at the time, so it’s a bit limited in its feature set. The biggest problem i see is that you can only pair 2 devices, but that may be unique to instructing. But other than that it works all the time but i have seen drop outs from poor signal in one installation. Both Deb & David and Lance have this set up so they should be good resources.

it isn’t rpm that causes ring flutter damage so much as very low MAP; especially such as a closed throttle idle power descent. The issue comes from allowing the prop to turn the engine rather than engine to turn the prop. In so doing it reverses the normal stress on rings and there isn’t sufficient combustion to seal the rings. A long closed throttle descent can and has damaged engines in the past. But any MAP below 15” will put you into the territory of the prop driving the engine. This is why both engine manufacturers say not to reduce MAP below 15”. To further clarify the misconception that RPM is damaging to the rings, the reason why we pull back RPM in order to make a faster/steeper than normal descent is to slow down or come down faster without having to pull the MAP to lower than 15” where we have the prop driving the engine - which is the damaging cause. First symptom is usually very high oil consumption. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only solution is a drop in fuel replacement. There is no ignition timing issue in the eyes of the engine manufacturers nor most owners for that matter. Nobody wants to decrease their engine horsepower even if it was available. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On the topic of steep idle descents, shock cooling is a myth but ring flutter is not! This is why both engine manufacturers talk about never doing a closed throttle descents but maintain a minimum amount of power of at least 15” to prevent the air from turning the prop rather than the engine turning the prop. Having the prop turn the engine reverses the stress on the rings and can damage them on a prolonged descent. The immediate symptom right after such damage will be much elevated oil consumption. Recall one pilot that did an emergency descent from flight levels to an airport below him with closed throttle and opted to overhaul soon thereafter. Of course depending on the nature of the emergency, the engine may be the least of your concerns. Above though @Will.iam talks about the proper safe way to do an emergency descent without risking damage to the engine above. But the other concern for engine management is don’t go to full power immediately if you go around, just use enough power to maintain level flight as oil temp and CHT comes back as you fly over the runway and by the departure end temps will be good off to go to high power. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

there is no need to change timing for G100UL nor would it be legal to change timing. The STC doesn't allow for any timing change and nor would there be any reason to want to do so. And the G100UL can be mixed with 100LL - there is no need to commit to one fuel. Unless you were referring to running Swift 94UL on your E model which isn't approved. In the video, Braley was just demonstrating that detonation on that engine went away with the timing retarded approx 5 degrees (simulated with only 1 mag firing) - which was really to show that 94 should never have been approved for that engine by Lycoming. Besides there is more to it that just backing off the mag timing due to the starting circuit; and with the Surefly its a dip switch setting.

Only the first stage is rebuild able, the 2nd stage, which is the altitude compensating stage, is limited to a passing a functional test. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As he said, Just “believe the data!” WRT to UND issue with Swift, Mike B predicted exactly what George’s data showed right after we heard about the issue based on the engines CR and timing. It really isn’t all that surprising. What is surprising is that the oil analysis data is showing very significant reduction in wear metals. I am really looking forward to its availability with STC in hand ready to fill up with it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Call https://www.c-l-aero.com/ they specialize in this stuff. But i doubt you can get one sourced for under $2K Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 406 isn't just for remote traveling over the US. My Mooney likes to travel and if you want to leave either of our borders you have to have one for Canada, Bahamas and Mexico for over a decade now. But since they're not 100% reliable I also fly with a Garmin InReach. Before that I had a ACR 406 PELB that I still carry as well. But I don't intend to camp out long if we go down in the middle of no where plus first responders will know what we need medical wise thanks to the InReach. As an early adopter I got the ACK-04, with never any problems with it. ACR is great company for this technology and if I was doing it over again I would likely go with their unit.

Carl, if you fly an M20E you don’t have a carb but have an IO-36O. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The pilot and owner is one of my clients in Germany. To my knowledge he isn't on Mooneyspace so I don't think we'll see him respond here .

Personally I think its much worse that that. The pilot displays at least 3 of the 5 hazardous attitudes (Anti-authority, Invulnerability and Macho) and demonstrated he also lacks the skill and knowledge to properly fly an instrument approach with his avionics even into his home airport! How could the FAA not find him a danger to people on the ground and in the airspace and respond accordingly?

indeed and i haven’t forgotten that and sure the FAA hasn’t either as it’s part of the reason i expect the FAA to take action. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would be great to know what actions the FAA took with the the pilot as well. Probably remedial training at the minimum and perhaps a checkride before further instrument privileges? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I came across a video that provided some closure on this incident, although it didn't clarify the owner or pilot flying at the time. But the video blogger said he followed up with the controller, and learned that the tower and approach controller treated it as an emergency without declaring it so, and that the FAA did get involved and required the pilot to get remedial training before flying the plane again.

Be sure to tell your smart wife that you could never sleep in the Ovation so she doesn’t have to worry Enjoy traveling with your wife in it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am instructing in a Toga twice a week and don’t think there is another 300HP bird that goes as slow as the Toga It’s not the most stable IFR platform either. For anyone that really needs a HP 6 six seater, IMO you can’t beet the Bonanza A36; especially with the cargo doors and the IO-550 300HP engine that loves LOP. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk