kortopates

Yes and No, my goal is always to get a pilot discretion descent so that I can descend at 200-300 FPM. Nothing to do with my engine but purely for efficiency sake. But when I have to come down expeditiously I am quite happy to make a large power reduction with zero concern for shock cooling in my turbo - but I avoid pulling back to idle see next comment. No need to pull back to idle unless your making an emergency descent, a short one is okay, but whenever you reduce the engine power so much that the engine is no longer driving the prop but instead the airflow over the prop is, your reversing the stress on the piston rings in the piston groves in opposite direction they are intended for which can lead to damaging ring flutter when done over a long descent. I suggest never reducing the power below 13" till your descending for the runway. But in an emergency you do it regardless. I know a Mooney pilot on the list that did an emergency descent from about 20K that had this happen. Of course nothing to do with shock cooling concerns though.

Actually I thought Rich already answered this above quite well, but I'll try to clarify. No, you're mixing up drag from the prop at idle and thrust from the prop under power. You have the right concept under power and in fact each 100 rpm is roughly equivalent to each 1 inch of MAP which is where the Key Number concept for power comes from. So using your J as an example we teach the key number of 50 = 75% power which means any combination of MAP in inches + Prop RPM in 100's equal to 50 gets you 75% power e,g. 25" and 2500 rpm or 26" and 2400 rpm are all the same power essentially. But when the engine power is reduced to idle or less such that the wind is now turning the prop, not the engine, the prop is now creating drag not thrust. As such, the faster, higher RPM, finer pitch, the more drag it produces, which is why power off for best glide we pull the prop back to go further with Less Drag. But under power to slow down we can reduce thrust with less RPM.

And one more point that needs to be emphasized that Rich started with, just do the best you can for your comfort level and experience level. ATC will have no problem vectoring you around if you can’t make the descent rate they were wanting because of traffic. They have more tools and options than we usually do. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't need to slip it on an IFR flight; especially IMC. But you do need to be much more aggressive about getting it slowed down to come down. Reducing MAP to at least 15" is a start, and also reducing RPM as well to get you to gear speed. Lean out the mixture to bring EGTs upto the 1400's if able to reduce the amount of cooling on your CHTs. Then gear down will enable a steeper yet stabilized descent ready for any bumps (if present). You'll want to add a "Quick Descent" configuration to your IFR PAC, the one we use for F in the PPP's is from memory 13" at 2250 rpm 120 MPH leaned with gear down - this is intended more for NPA but will get you 1000 FPM or more descent.

I hope so! Very impressive! My SO will like all the interior options and new chute but I want the electric gear option so I can avoid the Mooney dip.

I land at dirt strips every winter in Mexico. Never in soft sand, although the parking area at my favorite whale watching lagoon is quite soft. But none would we characterized as beach sand. The closest is referred to crushed shell which is very sandy but not soft sand. But its easy to get stuck in the soft sandy areas. The problem with your potential beach landing is knowing just how soft it is. A recent pirep is very helpful. But with some soft field practice and technique the landing and takeoff should not be an issue unless it beach sand soft. But taxi and turning around, such as to back taxi, are the real threats! It good to pre-walk the strip if you have to turn around so you can pick a spot without rocks and that's not so soft that you are at risk of digging in. Whatever happens though, don't power up if the nose wheel digs in - shut down immediately and dig yours self out if necessary. Burning Man airport that Paul Steen visited isn't comparable to beach sand, it a Playa and the organizers do a lot of prep work each year plus the airport sees a ton of traffic. The hazards of Burning Man aren't the runway use but the winds kicking up the very corrosive playa dust that get everywhere. Not a problem with the typical dirt runway but a dust storm isn't good for any aircraft. Anyway I've never felt the need to change my oil or air filter after any of my trips. I do wipe down the dust off the landing gear and doors. Of course, Burning man would be very different! I'll assume your familiar with a rolling or moving runup so as not to damage the prop.

Some of the folks that do this work will tell you if your doesn’t need it they won’t charge you to check yet it will take at least 1/2 hour of their time. But those really good at it can always make a significant improvement which is worthwhile to the engine and airframe. And it should be easy to improve on a prop that had only been statically balanced so far (at the prop shop like a new prop) and never dynamically balanced yet. As mentioned, even if you can’t feel it your engine sure can. But odds are you’ll be able to feel it. I installed a new MT composite prop and was delighted at how smoother and quieter it ran. Then after getting it dynamically balanced i was again pleasantly surprised that it was even smoother!

Makes me think of the Porsche M20L, a lot of similarities but Porsche engine RPM was probably half what this. At least they have much more aviation experience than what Porsche did. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe possible but certified GPS has been around for 31 years now and I’ve never seen or heard of a lock up with TSO’d avionics. So although possible it’s got to be very rare. But it’s also a reason why i don’t have a non-tso’d G3X in my panel and also why my panel is fully redundancy. If i did need to reboot something i always have another tso’d unit that i can navigate by, communicate by or use for instruments. I think a bigger concern was the first generation Aspen, who’s STC allowed you eliminate all the backup instruments if you had multiple Aspens. I though this was crazy because of the nature of the single integrated chip for the ADHRS was vulnerable to loss of any input killing it entirely. All it took was an iced pitot tube to X out the entire display and it didn’t matter how many Aspens you had! Lots of videos on that issue out there. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only real repair is a new door. The new door skins are made a bit oversized to be trimmed to fit your plane. You can look at used salvage doors but the odds of one fitting your plane well isn’t good. I trust the hold open arm had to break off to allow the crease to form. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I saw a message from GP on one of my devices yesterday that they approved 18.5 so i updated both my iPhone and iPad. Till Mikes comment above i had no idea that they approve the iPad IOS version separately from the iPhone version. So the message i saw must have been on my iphone. No problem today though flying with 18.5 on my iPad, but i would have waited if i realized it was for just the iPhone. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They’re upto 18.5 now Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I totally agree, I think where I am disagreeing (perhaps) is that even though the accident totals may not show improvement with the high tech safety tools available to us now, due to a lack of proficiency and mis use of the tools, it doesn't mean a great proportion of the pilot community can't benefit from them - those will always be the ones that seek training, work on their proficiency, and learn their proper use - anyway you want to put it. Do you really see no value in these technological advancements if the population as a whole doesn't show any improvement? My choices only come down to if I can see value to my own safety and benefit.

Just because the accident record doesn’t provide sufficient details to ask and answer such questions about avionics safety advantages doesn’t mean there aren’t real benefits. But the fact remains the overwhelming number of fatal IMC accidents are from lack of proficiency which will continue to drown out benefits of modern glass avionics. The accident record data also doesn’t bear out that having onboard traffic and weather are improving safety either. But nevertheless nobody can argue they aren’t very helpful safety enhancing tools - when not mis used. So much so the FAA wants to make AdsB-In a requirement. But i think the problem is some pilots feel emboldened by the technology to launch when they wouldn’t have otherwise and then take bigger risks either not understanding on board weather product limitations or just don’t care. Further i’ll argue a modern engine monitor is a very underrated safety tool that can not only save your butt but also your engine and airplane when you know how to use it. I rank its importance up there with traffic, GPS and weather. But like every other tool you need to know how to use it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

in addition to what others have said: - close and re-start the app - make sure no other apps are running, close any that are That has never failed to work for me and been using it a long time Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fatals accidents are far more about lack of proficiency not the equipment. Even with the first generation Aspens that were based on a single integrated chip and would red-X out everything with some ice on the pitot tubes yet the few pilots that experienced this still made it down using an ipad if needed. But vacuum failures have and continue to kill pilots, which isn’t going to happen with glass, yet the biggest contribution remains a much larger group of pilots that are not even legally IFR current, let alone proficient, that fly IFR when they have no business doing so and get in over their head during a high workload period and loose control. Their equipment typically had nothing to do with the accident. But if your looking for improved safety with modern avionics it comes from eliminating the many kinds of accidents that wouldn’t have happened if the pilot was using glass, including the non current pilot that has a vacuum failure, and even the crazy stupid pilot that relies on his VFR portable gps to fly an rnav approach to minimums, or the pilot that has missed radio calls from the wrong freq and then missed the left base vector to the ILS in IMC and just blindly continued straight ahead into a mountain because he lacked the situational awareness to know where he was. But even this comes down to proficiency too. But with glass it would have been far less likely to happen, but you have to know how to use it. So as an example of a pilot that may have the glass but doesn’t know how to use it are two CAP pilots that while flying VFR 9000’ at night in the Las Vegas area still managed to fly into a mountain with a G1000 - just unbelievable! So in sum, you are totally right to prioritize working on your proficiency since that is always the most important factor in avoiding an IMC accident. But glass and some knowledge on how to use it is going to help eliminate many of the loss of control instrument accidents. But that is going to be really hard to show statistically because they’re very small numbers compared to the non-current pilots doing stupid stuff responsible for overwhelming majority of IMC accidents. So keep prioritizing proficiency. But in the end what avionics you fly behind comes down to personal choice and one’s priorities/budget. On topic of emergency/partial panel training Vance brings up very important points in that everyone gets trained on 6-pack partial panel yet very few practice as they should after earning their IR - hence the big emergency when it happens Imc. But glass is very different and more complex because fewer pilots are likely to understand all the failure modes and be prepared for what capabilities they’ll loose- but for the most part the glass panel will have sufficient backups to fly the plane with limited capabilities. For example loose the PFD in a G1000 mooney, and the MFD will become the PFD automatically but with only the #2 COM/NAV/GPS. They get more complicated from there such as loosing Air Data… but depending on cause we still have backup pitot-static instruments. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IPad yes, but certified Garmin i don’t think so. But if happens i have two! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the wifi connection shown is to your FS510 at the plane this is not going to work till you go find a wifi connection with internet access. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think your missing the point of a glass panel, and focused too much on the glass. Its really not just the glass at all. But I get it, your not wrong at all to question putting in a glass panel in an airframe that may not be worth more than the panel to to begin worth. But its all about capability of the entire aircraft package. Although I grew up on IFR with basic 6 pack and limited AP functions these days I wouldn't want to do more than punch through a thin marine layer. Nor would i want to venture to far afield without greater redundant systems. I will accept the risk for flying single engine but virtually everything else I want reliability and redundancy to be comfortable. The modern glass panel not only eliminates the unreliable vacuum pump it provides redundancy in virtually everything including Com, Nav, ADHARS, GPS. And the aircraft will typically include dual alternators or dual batterys and/or a standby alternator and some with many more capabilities for IFR. And of course the modern digital AP's are far more capable and surprisingly cheaper than the 1980's Bendix King AP I had before, which was state of the art when I bought my Mooney. But the cost of the panel vs value in purely in the eye's of the person valuing it. Remember the cost of the airframe is a small cost of aircraft ownership. My annual flying budget is right at half the glass panel cost you use. So for me, amortized over at least a decade its not that bad and I sure enjoy it! Plus it re-assuring knowing its extremely unlikely that I'll ever have the need to use my iPad to get down in my aircraft and its also re-assuring with its avionics that if I had really screwed up and was in weather below minimums without the fuel to get to better options that I could still pull off a landing with the synthetic vision - its that good. Again its purely a personal choice yet the choices we have today are beyond amazing to what I learned on. Thank god NDB's are essentially dead!

But if you ordered it right after this was published it wasn’t very far off. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I looked it up on my copy of the AFMS and I'll just paste in the Limitations section and highlight the answer to your question in bolded text: POWER PLANT LIMITATIONS Propeller Manufacturer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hartzell Propeller Hub/Blade Model Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PHC-J3YF-1RF/F7693DF(B)-2 Number of Blades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Propeller Diameter: Hartzell Min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 in. Max . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 in. Engine Operating Limits for Takeoff and Continuous Operations: Green Arc - Normal Operating Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2200 - 2699 RPM Red Line - Maximum Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2700 RPM Maximum Continuous Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 BHP Also, in the prior Section 1 under Descriptive, it shows the following for the engine, again in bolded concerning recommended max cruise, and again this isn't a limitation but a recommendation but what "max cruise power" really means is where you can start leaning the engine to best power. But the the TCM IO-550 Maintenance and Operators manual will give much better and more detailed guidance on RPM and Leaning curves in addition to what has already be posted on the power chart. Notice in subsequent pages they say Cruise power should be 2550 rpm and 24" MAP which is actually substantially less than 262 BHP and very close to 75% power - which is a reasonable. DESCRIPTIVE DATA ENGINE Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Manufacturer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Continental Motors Incorporated Model Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO-550-G modified per STCSE02930AT Optional Engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO-550-N Number of Cylinders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550 Cu. In. (9014 cc) Maximum Continuous Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 BHP Maximum Continuous RPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2700 Maximum Recommended Cruise Power / RPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 BHP / 2550 RPM

And unless it’s listed in a FAA Approved Limitations section it’s not a limitation but a suggestion. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No these aren't just case bolts. Surely you've heard of a danger of bearing slipping when when the torque is relaxed after all or multiple cylinders are removed? This is because each cylinder is secured not only by 7 studs in the case but also by 2 thru bolts that help secure a cylinder on as well as a opposite side cylinder AND the crankcase bearing between the cylinders! When you relax the torque on end of these 2 thru bolts to removed a cylinder, as part of the re-torquing process you need to be dissemble the other side enough to get a cylinder wrench on the opposite side of these thru-bolt nuts and make sure they are torqued from both sides. Since your doing a Top, the process requires that as each cylinder is removed that they retorque in particular those 2 thru bolt 1/2" nuts (along with the 7 stud nuts just to keep the pressure even) so that the crankcase bearings can't possibly loosen up as the prop is rotated. Its necessary to rotate the prop to get each cylinder off since each piston has to be moved to top dead center in order to get the clearance to push the piston through to get the piston off. Its not a guarantee that a bearing will slip or the thru bolts will lose torque by not following this procedure but it has happened many times, including by good shops. If you look at the cylinder securing nuts around each cylinder, you'll see 7 nuts of one size (7/16") a two larger 1/2" nuts on one side, top and bottom, of the cylinder for a total of 9 nuts. These large nuts are on the thru bolts that secure the crankcase bearings in the center of the crankcase that need to remain under tension as as the prop is rotated while working on the engine.

My 252 is a converted Encore too. Conversions are very popular. i am not trying to quibble on the legal status or make a representation for sale. Just that i doubt you could even find another short body io-360 powered electric gear mooney that we know as E models as nice as Oscars. That includes paint, interior, avionics and all the many J like upgrades and many more latest tech upgrades. It’s very impressive and rivals a lot of J’s. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I beg to disagree. A go around is not an automatic reflex and the scraping noise of the prop and belly on the runway are unmistakable. Another reason i wouldn’t attempt a go around is for not having enough runway left. That has also proven to be a killer. I’d rather take my chance with a slower slide into a fence or barrier. If we’re talking about a prop strike from a bounce on the runway- many won’t realize till after they land. But not the scraping on the runway. If this discussion changes one pilots mind that wanted to save their aircraft then it was worth it. After all If they have insurance they should be able to buy another aircraft with the same hull value. If they can’t that’s a whole other issue. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk