201er

I did an in flight mag check. At about 2500ft, 2700RPM, WOT, 11GPH, I ran it on the right mag, then the left mag. Ran a bit bumpier than both but nothing drastic. What was drastic however were the EGTs! Running on the right mag EGTs went from around 1450 to 1550 EGTs. Then running on the left mag they rose considerably higher. 1600-1650 on the hottest EGTs. That #4 cylinder was always running the hottest EGT in all cases. Interestingly CHTs dropped off during single mag operation. Is that bad/strange for the EGTs to be substantially higher across the board on one mag than the other? What does that mean? Also I have noticed that my #4 has been last to peak in all tests today. Is that the most logical reason for why it is running hottest CHT LOP? Should I try having the #4 injector swapped with one of my cooler cylinders?

Going slower AND lop saves the most fuel. Lose 15 minutes on a 4 hour trip and you save $80. In other words it costs about $20/hour more to fly ROP for the last 5-15knots of speed.

I guess they wanna put the other FBOs out of business and come back with a monopoly at the end of the month.

The reason the short bodies climb better is cause there's no room to load them up like a mid to long body!

Have you considered a more gradual descent and leaving RPM like 2200-2400? Then you don't go too fast and less of a big deal reducing MP until you're over 27"

BTW ground mag checks have been good. Normalize shows rise in all EGTs and RPM difference between both mags is negligible.

So firewall the throttle and prop and go 70LOP on 11GPH (about 85% power) and then do a mag check with JPI in normalize to check EGT rise across all cylinders?

It has been progressively creeping forward and was checked at 23 last oil change. I let it stay there to take advantage of cooling for the summer. By now it must have been 23 or less so I had them bring it back to 25. I think some power has been restored and running well LOP except for this hotter cylinder issue. For an in flight mag check... is it same as on the ground just at cruise power?

I just remembered, and this could be important, that this started since the last oil change. So it could be a baffling issue from a misplaced cowling or it could have something to do with the mag timing being reset to 25BTDC. Plugs weren't removed this time around. Does the timing or oil change say anything?

Look, the point I'm making is that the EGTs used to be more even and more recently I noticed #4 EGT to be 50 higher and CHT on #4 is higher. From my observation when leaning it seemed that #4 is running 20-40 degrees hotter/richer when LOP. For example cylinders 1-3 may be about 30LOP while #4 is 5-10LOP. I'm more familiar with things being the other way around. A clogged injector will run leaner than the others. What could cause it to run richer? Shadrach, if you have the JPI software, I can just send you the files rather than occasional snapshots. They may not be an ideal comparison but they illustrate the trend that I noticed and am trying to convey.

There's no surer way to kill GA than to prohibit VFR.

Here are two similar LOP leans to compare to from some months ago. I doubt it's a baffling issue as none of that has changed and it's been pretty tight. What is immediately noticeable is that recently 1,2,3 EGT are about even but the #4 is 30-50 degrees hotter. On the older analysis, the EGTs were more evenly spread with #4 not being hottest and #4 CHT not being hotter than #3. I'm not comparing absolute numbers but relative to each other.

Last few flights #4 EGT has been running hotter/richer than the rest when cruising LOP which has been driving the CHTs undesirably high on that cylinder. It's tough to lean further because it causes power to drop off and roughness on the other cylinders. Astonishingly, the GAMI spread is still being reported as anywhere between 0.0 and 0.3gph. I'm attaching a snapshot data point from my JPI830 that may illustrate the situation. Any ideas of what's going on and how to improve it? I can share the JPI log file with anyone experienced in analyzing these.

Why do we worry? Not because of specific one time rumors... but because of the long term trend. If you look in retrospect, some things were not implemented while others were. But the simple fact is that there is a trend of flying liberty eroding with time. It definitely isn't becoming freer. That's why you should be worried about what the future holds.

Let's put it this way, it's possible to have some backup instruments, handheld radio, gps, etc. Heck, it may be VMC outside the storm. Yet you don't get a spare set of wings/structures...

Congrats. Wait till you're talking about a 700 mile flight like its in your back yard. Be sure to get an instrument rating cause you can go so far and fast that you can get yourself in trouble in a hurry.

Cant say it makes much difference either way but it saves me the panel space. Perhaps when I upgrade to a mfd someday it will pay off.

All of my deviations were based on a VOR fix that I found to most conveniently represent the course change I had in mind. This is also a good idea in case of IFR coomunications failure. I think the "deviations off course approved" are more for short term going around a specific cloud, not for dipping 100 miles south like I did.

Hey folks, I had some interesting flights in my Mooney to and from Springfield Illinois that I wanted to share with you. The trip down to Springfield was pretty uneventful. Just an IFR departure off 9 at Linden (across EWR departures). Ceilings were about 800 overcast, tops 5,000ft. Once on top, stayed on top the whole way there and got vectored down for a visual into Springfield. We saw a B-17 flying around the field and inquired about it to find out that EAA was doing rides in it. We signed up for a flight on Saturday right before our departure since we'd be at the airport anyway. Springfield is a nice city with more to see than you might expect. A lot of Abraham Lincoln history obviously. The B-17 rides were running a bit behind schedule and thunderstorms were already developing on the route with convective watches across the entire northeast! I went ahead and taxieed my Mooney from the distant FBO where I parked to Landmark which was hosting the B17 so we could depart immediately after the ride. The B-17 flight was unbelievable and everything you'd expect from a Flying Fortress! I'll let the video do the talking because I can't even begin to convey how awesome it was. Now onto the topic of the day, thunderstorms. This was a particularly interesting flight because there were a lot of thunderstorms, they were detectable and visible, and with a few deviations, we were able to make it through just fine. Originally I filed direct but I figured deviations would be necessary in the span of the 5 hour non-stop flight. Luckily I've had my ipad and ads-b weather a few months now and would be able to track the progress of thunderstorms as we moved on. Shortly after takeoff from Springfield, departure advised me of a convective sigmet south of Fort Wayne and basically on my direct route. I waited a minute to get picture on the ipad do download from ads-b and determined that a deviation via Cincinnati would keep me clear of that storm and put me back on route to Linden. For a while it seemed like I planned a deviation too far south of the storm and could cut back in. But along with the massive tailwind that was driving me south, the thunderstorms were moving that direction as well. It turned out prudent that I continued the deviation because it had me pass at a modest but visible distance from the thunderstorm. At the same time as passing the massive thunderstorm to the north, I was also passing a thunderstorm further south that I was less concerned with as it wasn't on the way. However, looking both left and right I could see thunderstorms on either side as I passed through the comfortably wide 70+ mile gap. A few hours later I noted the weather radar and saw that the gap had closed and was unpassable so we made it through in time. Left thunderstorm to the north, middle adsb ipad view, right thunderstorm to the south We continued on to Pittsburgh without any run ins with major weather but then passed a trio of thunderstorms about 50 miles away. These did not play a role in my flight but it was a very clear illustration of what a thunderstorm looks like on radar, stormscope, and out the window! Check out this photo of the three distinct thunderstorms, adsb radar, and wx500 stormscope view of the convection activity. Finally the last thunderstorm of the day required yet another deviation as it was right on course. I was monitoring it on radar for a while but not changing course. While we were hours out, there was no point in changing course as the storm could move or dissipate by then. But it only grew stronger while remaining mostly stagnant. So one more time I amended my IFR and added SEG as a waypoint to take me around the storm. This one was pretty small but very distinct. The adsb weather radar picture and visual concurred on location, shape, and strength. Interestingly, the stormscope did not distinguish this thunderstorm. This is probably because it was already in the mature stage with severe precipitation but not convection. The stormscope as littered with loads of other activity far away that I was already familiar with. Flight ended with a GPS approach and visual landing into Linden. Because of good tailwinds, even with deviations I ended up arriving ahead of time. A nice conclusion to a very nice trip. I am definitely liking this combination of adsb radar + stormscope. But nothing beats having a visual on the storms and using the technology only for awareness and planning. Still not comfortable flying in IMC with embedded thunderstorms but this was a great comparison and educational experience. And that's why I want to share it with you and open this for further discussion of thunderstorm avoidance.

I agree. Though expensive, I'm curious what airbag seat belts would have done to help with injuries.

These friends don't happen to fly 777s do they?

^ I'm curious what major issues you find most common? I feel I may well have forgotten some book stuff that was required for the test, but on the other hand have become much more adept at real world IFR flying that they don't teach you for the test.

I know, I know. Limitations of polling. I put ATP as higher cause you can get instructor with a few hundred hours but not ATP. Is it even possible to test for ATP in a Mooney?

I remember a topic a long while back about instructors in Mooneys. I wonder what our demographic in general is though. How many ATPs, Commercial, etc pilots our community holds? Did you prepare for or test for any of your ratings in a Mooney?

So the older Mooneys need it cause they have a shorter rudder but since they made the rudder higher on newer ones they don't?