jetdriven

They basically "are" closed. exrtremely limited parts availability.

i took this screen shot yesterday. Yes it is expired and I haven't tried to update it. It is clearly NavCanada and upgrading to foreflight 4.1 you cannot get it free.

room

anything that shows all 6 CHT, EGT, and fuel flow will work. I think the JPI 730 and 830 are most popular.

its a 40k engine i'd get a graphic engine monitor in there ASAP.

Its pretty important on an ILS to minimums. But overall not a killer failure.

Im sure the 231 is like a 201 but more like a jet, if you are getting high and fast, shove it down first, level off then slow down. Slowing down first the plane laughs at you. I can hear mine laughing right now at me.... I have screwed it up pretty good the first few times.

His vacuum powered AI is still going in case of DC power failure as is the wet compass. The king setup is about the best available in those planes.

try aircraft quality instruments in wichita ks. www.flyaqi.com call them on the phone its much easier.

how much does a BA give you?

do your 250' per mile cacluation then add ~4 miles for getting down, slowing down, and configuring. Quote: carusoam In the past I did the calculations for 3 miles per minute and tried to maintain VV. Conservative alt adjustments for engine failure. The end result was excessive speed in the traffic pattern. Gps vertical guidance is an excellent aid to balance safety and efficiency while descending with maximum forward velocity. Best regards, -a-

Carousam: there have been something like 20 days over 100 and the entire summer has been 95+. Id rather fly through a thunderstorm than deal with the heat and turbulence below 5000'. However, 300' per mile is too steep in a J. thats like 900 FPM. Ours must have a duct leak cause the front vents blow a small amount, the rear vents are a hurricane. Quote: carusoam JetD, I see your point... A descent in the NE is planned differently than one in TX. Very interesting. In the NE, an AP has more value than AC. In TX, it is probably the other way around? How many days over 100dF have you seen this summer? My slow 400fpm descents from 11,500 down to near SL start way out and barely gets me slowed down for pattern entry. Air blowing through the cabin is still very comfortable. Temp rise after touch down is quick and GPMS automatically actuates the door. Best regards, -a-

Norman I saw benchmark and I even downloaded it. I just forgot about it after I didnt know how to load the data. Perhaps we can get this thing going.

the Mooney Service and Maintenance manual mentions anti-icing additives. They are real strict as to what and how much.

Fantastic looking J there Eldon. I'm going to steal the paint scheme for my poor old 1977 J. I second the comments, just look at how the later Acclaims do it. Use a split avionics bus, and a standby altimeter and electric attitude.

We used to rent a 1975 Arrow II for 150$ an hour, and it was a 132 knot WOTROP 11 GPH machine. Our plane may be near the cost but unbeliveably more convenient and significantly faster. It had a Garmin 430 but we have an altitude hold with autopilot and an aera and KLN89B (VFR).

I'd say that you can run 1-2 GPH less on the same cranks horsepower if running LOP. The IO-360 angle valve cylinders are slightly more efficient at 2500 RPM or above. Yes they are more expensive. If I had a C model, The simplicity of the thing and the long lived reputation of the engine would make me think twice to convert it. Quote: N601RX The IO-360 cylinders are around $1000 more each when it comes overhaul time and the servo is more expensive to overhaul than a carb. But then the IO-360 can be ran LOP and will burn less fuel per hour at the same airspeed so If you conservately say that it will use 1 gallon per hour less and the engine has a 2000hr TBO then there will be a $10,000 fuel savings over the life of the engine at todays fuel prices. If it saves 2 gallons per hour then the savings would be $20,0000. I think the entire firewall foward is different. Engine, cowling, control cables, spinner, possibly prop. It would seem to be more feasable if you could find a E or F donar aircraft that had a good engine and spar corrosion. Lasar sells the stc paperwork. I don't think it is very expensive. Is your usefull load on the C already the same as an E?

Ross: I often wonder about BSFC as a relation to degrees LOP. THe data really doesnt exist for 4 cylinder lycomings. I do have a graph supposedly from Lycoming that shows peak BSFC at 50 dF LOP. But the curve is flat from 20-50 LOP. Our plane completely falls on its face below 50 LOP. Down low below 3000' its no big deal, 100 LOP is fine qe have excess MP available. I wonder if I can even make 75% (150 HP) power LOP at altitude. It would take 9.9 GPH and for us almost always thats ROP. I havent seen it yet. I always end up 8.7-7.8 GPH depending on altiitude and 145-150 KTAS. It seems the airplane is happiest around 120 KIAS regardelss of altitude. EDIT: with the 25 degres of timing there is much morm "oomp" while LOP. We also modified our style of flying to 10-20 LOP and not 130 KIAS is the norm, and FF is ~9 GPH below 4K, 8.8-8 GPH between 4-8K. At 9500 its 7.8 GPH. The airframe equation seems that further from max L/D the more you pay in drag. But the engine's efficiency at 40% power to maintain that speed (L/D MAX) is below its max efficiency range as well. So the engine likes 55-65% power to maintain a .39 BSFC but the airframe likes the equivalent of 40% power. There is a balance somewhere. I think our typical 8.7 GPH 62% power LOP at 8500' is actualy a bit slow, we could make nearly the same trip burn flying faster. Byron 1977 201 N201EQ SN 24-0162 Quote: Shadrach Hi Norman, Being that you're doing your thesis, I would like to see more about how you're using SFC relating to mixture, rather than just taking Gami's estimate. I believe that the lowest BSFCs occur at fuel air ratios significantly lower than would be utilized at 25LOP (more in the range of ~35-65LOP, engine dependent). Moreover, Gami may or may not have been taking airframe efficiency into consideration when they came up with that number (I've personally don't recall 25LOP given as a "best SFC target, excepting for in this thread.). I don't believe that the power level that generates the lowest BSFC in a specific engine necessarily correlates to the most efficient power setting for a given airframe (discussion limited to normally aspirated engines). I think that you already understand this and it will be a significant part of your thesis. However, In addition to flat plate area, I'd like to see how you're accounting for the increase in induced drag that can result from lower IASs at the reduced power levels being used to attain the lowest SFC. It seems to me that those values would change with altitude and from airframe to airframe. Thanks! P.S. Do you still want the climb table from my M20F POH, or are you only wanting M20J info?

To me 500 FPM is too shallow. I use 750 FPM, 180 KTS G/S and 250 ft/mile. Assumes WOTLOP. Thats 4 miles per thousand feet of altitude. 500 FPM is only 166 ft/mile. Using the former, starting down from 10,500 to sea level is starting down 63 miles out. Using 700 ft/min is 42 miles. How much time do you want to spend bumping along sweating in the summer below 5000'?

Foreflight 4.0 is still on my iPhone and I can get the southern portion of canada charts as well as IFR approach charts for the southern region of Canada. The plates match the Canada Air Pilot book exactly. Specificaly CYAM and CYGK.

That would be interesting. Id love to see some of that info.

deleted. Best of luck selling her.

Roger, I replaced both my FM01 fuses in the dimmer and yes, those are what I have. You are going to freak out now, because 18$ is the EACH cost. I know, I know. 60$ delivered for two fuses.

What about the double foil mylar faced bubble wrap?

Yeah Hank I keep forgetting you are carb'd. In that case do you keep it leaned to edge of smooth on descent?