jetdriven

that motor should engage or disengage from the cable with a capstan I believe. If it is not releasing that may be part of the problem. Mine qiut working the other day. There are two diodes in the circuit under the panel that broke, solid copper wire. Fixed it for 4$

Thats an old wives tale, don't believe it. At 4-5 GPH more ROP thats 20-25$ an hour more just in fuel, and so that's 40,000$ - $50,000 EXTRA in fuel in a 2,000 hour TBO cycle. so, "free engine and prop" when operated LOP. Quote: orangemtl I've been stepping up a little at time with my Acclaim, in terms of distance, and altitude (based upon MY capacity, not the aircraft). Upon reaching cruise, I've run it at 25-26", and 2500 RPM. While the engine is fine to run LOP as we know, I've reasoned that fuel is cheaper than an engine, and I've run a bit rich of peak with more attention to cylinder temps: call me ignorant, but cool seems better than hot. Any mortal errors in my logic?

Running the engine on the ground doesnt extend its life any at all either. You are spreading oil around inside the engine but are also adding water vapor (condenses into water and sludge) inside it as well, which increases corrosion. Fly the aircraft every 14 days or less and use camguard. Low engine use in Arizona isnt the same as low use in Florida. Quote: Gunderbear just bought a plane with 2 bad cylinders and one at low 70's. the fourth was high for one reason, the cam lob was wore down so much it couldn't open the valves. high compressions do not mean all is well under the hood. Oil test showed no metals from the cam either! My sweet buy turned bitter quick. The engine is now at Mena Aircraft. The reason for the bad condidtion??? only 100 hours in 10 years. don't let your planes sit! at least start them every week.

A yoke mounted 396 or any other hand held GPS is not going to provide nearly enough information to keep wings level. I believe the C-IIB gets is attitude reference from the AI and not the Aspen, and if the AI dies, the autopilot will do a barrel roll unless it gets a 30 degree bank signal from the AI. Systems knowledge is gold here, and I am glad you are good in that area.

its a well-known fact that synthetic oil cannot dissolve or carry lead. Other thah that, I would use it. Aeroshell 15W50 is semi-synthetic, I think 50%. We switched to W100 with Camguard.

I thknk it could be the probe. Check the wiring connections for resistance first (often bolts and nuts). 3 of our EGT are within 20 degrees of each other and one is 80 degrees off, for eample. The probe generates a small electrical currnet the more it is heated. EGT probes are resistance wiring so a bad connection will cause it to read low. So a bad connection = low volts = low EGT reading. The RPM restriction is for continuous ops. I believe it is due to an engine/prop resonance or harmonic vibration that can detune the crankshaft counterweights. They dont define continuous but our plane is in that band sometimes during the landing descent and I dont worry. Don't have it there from 10,000' the whole time. MP is useless after the gear is down and descending in the pattern, try using the prop as it is on the fixed pitch stop at that point. You could try flying a closer, steeper patern near idle power, or a slightly wider shallower pattern at 1900-2000 RPM. Or ignore it.

The Avidyne IFD-540 looks realy exciting but is still 9 monhts from production. The KSN-770 IMO was clunky and a real POS. You had separate screens for traffic, weather, and navaids, but couldnt overlay them for example. I think for now, Garmin is it.

That is funny. I won't throw out old charts, you never know when you might need them.

Oh yeah, Fisher is a good mechanic, so is Kolesar they did my annual and worked on it later as well.

We do "throttle at 1000 RPM", pump on, mixture rich 3-5 seconds, then idle cutoff, then pump off. Its primed and with fuel pressure. Crank and mixture when it fires. This is a cold start. Hot start is "throttle at 1000 RPM, touch nothing, pump on, crank, mixture when it fires". takes 10-20 blades. Thats right from David McGee who has time is 1800 different Mooney tail numbers. Our starter is the original Kelly style and it is slow. I try not to flood it as the fuel washes oil out of the rings and off the cylinders which may affect their life, running without lubrication for a second or two.

The labor to R&R 4 cylinders is twice what it costs to replace 2 of them. Plus the other two are fine so why be so invasive, and spend money. Further, if you turn the crank with all 4 cylinders off the through-studs that hold the main bearings together are not torqued so you run the risk of ruining the crank when the bearings spin. watch this webinar, we saw Mike at OSH in person he is the real deal. http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=991490765001 Now ask yourself this, do you R&R 2 cylinders and go on flying? All 4? Or major the engine? And based on what? Facts or old wives tales and "my mechanic said so". Quote: N601RX There is very little labor difference in removing and replacing 2 cylinders or 4. I would go ahead and remove all 4 and get a good look at the camshaft and lifters. This will also let you get a good look at the 2 cylinders that are still belived to be good. If the cam and lifters looks okay there is no reason to replace the engine. Get some quotes for overhauling your cylinders and decide if you want to replace the 2 bad ones or go ahead and replace all 4 of them.

TCM and Lycoming both advise every 12 years or 2,000 hours. Some TCM engines are lower, like 1,800 or 1,600 hours. This is a recommmendation only and is their best guess. My McCauley prop says every 1,500 hours or 6 years, guess what, both have 11 years on them. Im not overhauling either until they show signs of needing it. Mike Busch says why waste its useful life? A cylinder is a bolt on item, treat it like an accessory such as a magneto or alternator. Cylinder goes bad, replace that cylinder, not all of them. Busch has several Savvy Aviator colums that are good reading and has webinars at www.savvymx.com as well. I do not work for him, although I do agree in his philosophy. If the engine is not making metal and is good otherwise, put two rebuilt or overhauled cylinders on there. Those are around 500$ each. If you can get a shop to overhaul yours and send them back, all the better. You will be into the job for 2K and if the engine lasts 200 hours longer, which it should, the cylinders (and the engine time) are free.

the SMM for the 201 says they are fiber washers on the spinner.

prime it and make sure there is green band fuel presssure before starting.

I agree with John. Ours is a C&J overhaul and it was about 900$. 6 month warranty, maybe 1 year. If I had to do it over again, I would do a new Weldon for less and no plastic impeller. Peter Lyons had his Dukes pump IRAN repaired for less, search for that.

Thanks for the headsup, Mike, but it is just one aileron. We need two. Quote: N601RX None of those guys can get us a replacement elevator or aileron for our hail damaged ones, not at any price. They don't exist in salvage because they are so easily damaged and there aren't any new ones. Just my two cents.

Didnt those guys go bankrupt as well? Quote: Parker_Woodruff If they can keep Commander 112 and 114 airframes flying, we should have no trouble with Mooneys.

Apples to apples comaprison re: autopilot. Your 231 came with it and you got a discount on it because it was already installed. But saying the 231 is cheaper because it didnt cost 20K install it is like saying a 201 is cheaper because you didnt have to convert it into a Rocket. You would have just bought a Rocket instead. Later 201's were offered with KAP 150's and even the early ones had KFC-200s as well. I wil agree than 231's are generally better equipped than the same year 201 but on engine overhaul reserve alone coupled with the tendency of the TSIO-360 to require a few cylinders sometimes to make TBO increases costs significantly. I would agree the 231 is overall more performance especially climb where a 201 cannot compare. I know your 201 wouldnt run LOP but most will if given some attention to fuel injectors, ignition and the like and the average is 9-10 GPH. I haven't flown a 231 but from most reports here its a ~12 GPH plane down low and maybe less up high. Above 10K hands down, the 231 is it. My original statement was a 231 is more airplane for more money and I think that bears out.Just make sure you will use it. Do you agree? Quote: 201-FLYER Having owned both a 201 and now a 231 I would argue this point on several fronts. Here is one example….I could not operate my 4 cylinder lean of peak in the 201 and in my 231 I can operate the six cylinder engine with stock injectors lean of peak which to me means 9 gph at pretty much any altitude I want. I was burning on average 2 gph MORE in the 201 and going a bit slower below 10K at comparable power settings. Also with regards to performance my 231 could out climb the 201 hands down even below 10K. The higher you go the bigger the difference of course. My K has been MUCH cheaper to own in my opinion and here is one example of why….I wanted a good autopilot and if I kept my J I would have to install a 20K STEC 55X to do the job I wanted. I pretty much got that capability for FREE with the KING a/p already installed in my and most other 231’s. You really can’t find a stock a/p in the older 201’s with that kind of capability.

I think a Rocket is a lot more expensive, and significantrly faster as well. Your garden veriety 201 such as ours is a 24$ an hour reserve for engine, prop, gyros, vacuum pump, tires, plugs, etc. all in. Fuel burn for us is averaging 9 GPH over 100 hours but lets call it 10. Ours goes 145-150 knots on 9 GPH but it will do 10 GPH and 155. An F is really about the same just subtract 5-10 knots. Lets just call the insurance the same as well though our hull value is quite a bit less than a Rocket. Low time partners bring it back up So average early J= 155 KTAS 10 GPH 24$/hr + 10 GPH (x 5.25/gal) = Direct operating cost is $ 76.50 per hour or 49c per nautical mile. Rocket = 190 KTAS 17 GPH 42$/hr + 17.2 GPH (x 5.25/gal) = Direct operating cost of $132.30 / hr or 69c per nautical mile. That is right at 40% higher direcrt operarting costs per mile. I dont have useful load figures but ours with bladders is still 974 LB. 600 NM of fuel and 640 LB in the cabin. I dont think anyone can argue with those numbers. Of course you have an airplane that can fly damn near 200 knots and go to 20K feet, even have TKS as an option, and I respect that. Just remember it costs significantly more to have that capability. Yes I agree a 231 is less expensive than a Rocket and slower as well, but when the clock stops on the engine its 40K instead of 20-25K for a J, so that is something that is significant as well. We just went through the whole cost analysis and figured it up at 30% more per mile. I'd love one, it just wasnt justufiable. Quote: Mazerbase My variable costs for my Rocket are about $45/hr (reserve for OH, reserve for prop, oil, etc) + fuel. Fuel is running $5.00/gal and my typical cruise is 17.2 gph. That comes to $131/hr. Adding a bit for fudge, say $140/hr total variable expense. Now the tricky part, ground speed, or TAS and assuming zero wind, at what altitude? I usually cruise at 185 - 190 kts below 10,000 and about 200 - 205 in the mid-teens. On the conservative side that would be 140/187.5 = $0.75/nm or $0.65/sm. A 231 will be less for each variable (reserve, fuel, and speed) but I don't know the proportionality. Fixed cost is difficult to add to the equation as the number of hours/year so affects the cost per hour or mile that I just don't include it in the calculation and I just know it is a lot. Quote: Mazerbase Jetdriven, don't know if you are correct about the comparison between the Rocket and a J but, I have included a reserve and the difference is only a few pennies per mile between the Rocket and the F now that gas prices have risen so much. A couple years ago the comparison was a wash.

I saw that artic air at OSH and it was pretty impressive. It uses recirculated water through a heater-core like heat exchanger to really blow cold air, and NO humidity from evaporating ice. Its a nice system. My neighbor uses one and he freezes ice into blocks in pie pans, then loads up stackas of them in the ice chest. According to him it lasts twice as long. He fires it up, and when the preflight is done, its nice and cool in his Bonanza.

Given th cost of the 252 vs the 231 its more plane for more money. I dont know much about Rockets but the fuel burn and the overhaul costs there is no way it can beat a J or F on a cost per mile basis unless you ignore overhaul costs on the engine and prop. However, it is super fast. You get what you pay for.

Below 10,000 feet the 231 performance is the same but it costs 30% more to fly a mile. Or around the same as a Bonanza.

I cant believe someone would change all 4 cylinders because one went bad. He should have subscribed to Mike Bush's columns or webinars and saved himself a few grand. Our agreement is much the same as the AOPA or APA version on the web. When one wants out, the other has first right to buy it out for some agreed market value. If a value cannot be determined or one partner cannot buy the other out, the plane is to be sold and proceeds split. So, yes, you effectively lose control of your plane, but not as bad as when you are a 1/3rd owner, you might then find yourself without a plane altogether. Having someone to split the enormous fixed costs is nice. PM me with your email address and I can send you a copy of our agreement if you want ot read it.

I just wired up the collector, emitter, and base to the wires that came from the old transistor. I was unter the idea a 2SC5200 was a MOSFET but im glad it isnt.

I havent! But I would try spruce or chief. Maybe google it for an AN bartb fitting.