johnggreen

Jose', With all due respect, my friend, I would encourage you and all Mooney Space members to read up on the dangers of CO poisoning. it is the #1 cause of poisoning deaths in the U.S. and chronic exposure has long term implications. The floor level for exposure is only 100ppm which is incredibly easy to reach. Heater muffs in aircraft are an extremely potent threat for CO intrusion into the cockpit and the heater does not have to be on to create the draft necessary to pull CO into the cockpit. If you have ever examined the "seal" of the heater valve in an airplane, you will see that it is not sealed at all; just a butterfly valve that closes against the metal frame and leaks like hell. The lowering of barometric pressue at altitude only exacerbates the problem as the danger is the amount in parts of CO per million parts of oxygen. There have been countless instances of persons being overcome while riding in a stationwagon with the rear window open and outside air flowing everywhere. Also, every year we have unexplained instances of pilots aimlessly flying around until the airplane runs out of fuel and crashes. There was a recent example over the Gulf of Mexico in a 421. Heart attack? CO poisoning? We will never know for sure. There was an almost unbelievable instance of a pilot being overcome in a Commanche a few years back, passing out and the airplane flying along on autopilot until it ran out of fuel. The A/P held the airplane stable all the way to an uneventful landing in a plowed field where the pilot woke up and walked away unhurt. I have, for years, carried a CO detector in the airplanes that I fly. I have a very good one and a few years ago, after purchasing a Beech Musketeer to use for instrument instruction for my boys, used the sensor to "check" the integrity of the Musketeer's heater muff. It was warm weather with all vents open and the heater closed. I was shocked at how quickly the CO was picked up and even more shocked at how little wear there was on the heater muff that was causing the problem. If you do not want to carry a detector on every flight, at least borrow one and check your airplane for CO leakage a couple of times a year. Even when it doesn't kill you, the symptoms can be most uncomfortable and probably not recognized as what they are but thought to be the result of some other unrelated malady. Many years ago, a tenant of ours in a rental unit made some minor, unauthorized adjustments to the blower unit on the gas furnace. It was TOTALLY not our fault, but unfortunately, the tenant's wife died as a result. We do a thorough inspection with a CO monitor on all gas furnaces in our rental units every year and not a year goes by that we don't find an issue that has to be corrected. You might say that I am a little sensitive to CO poisoning and you would be correct. I'm also quite careful about lightening and poisonous snakes as I have been both struck and bitten !!! Please read and rethink any casual attitude toward CO and its dangers. And forgive the lecture. Jgreen

Cruiser, Sorry, I misspoke, but your interpretation is correct. Getting the leanest cyliner to 50 LOP/EGT is tedious and the numbers are slow to stabilize. The TIT temps react faster but even those are far from "instantaneous" . My engine monitor is an EI. It is my impression, which could be erroneous, that the slowness is not a guage issue as much as turbo related , but I truly do not know. One reason for that impression is that my fuel flows are somewhat slow to stabilize as well. I think it would be substantially quicker on all accounts if the engine were NA. Byron, At this point, my Shadin is indicating a MPG improvement of maybe 5/10ths MPG, but that is with some speed loss. I think that I am going to have to give the engine a lot more MP to keep the same speeds. Now, understand, I am approaching this very carefully, because my engine runs like a sewing machine, performs great at ROP, and I don't want to do anything wrong. Yea, I know what can go wrong if you're going cooler? I don't know, I'm just not taking any chances. Also, I am starting this procedure from about 65% power to avoid any encounter with the red zone. My Bravo is fast enough that I just don't ever see the need to operate above 65% power anyway. I am starting at 2200/28". After leaning, to LOP, I am increasing MP to 32". Fuel flows at peak TIT at that power were just under 13 gph. After making the mixture and power adjustments, my fuel flow was 11.8. Those fuel flows are not exact as, like the EGT and TIT numbers, it takes time for my fuel flows to stabilize as well. Even with that increase in power, I will be truing about 5 knots slower or so it appears. CHT's dropped about 25 degrees, but they were less than 350 degrees ROP. All of this was done Friday at 7,500' and it was hot as hell, ambient I mean! This "testing" is going to have to be repeated several times and at various altitudes. The last time I tried it at 15,000, I couldn't get my MP up enough to keep anywhere near the speed I had at peak TIT; like down 15 knots. Since I fly most missions above 12,000', if that will be SOP, LOP is DOA for me. Now, understand that I am not doing this for any savings in fuel. Fuel is such a small part of my operating expense that I'm just not motivated. If I could keep the performance and lower temps with some fuel savings, then I am more prone to go to the trouble. Jgreen

Bravo Owners, I have made a few passing comments about trying LOP in my Bravo over the past few months. Back last winter, I took the Advanced Pilot Seminar on LOP operation and have made a few stabs at using it on my airplane. I keep working on it and yes, I can run LOP, but the benefits as far as incresed miles per gallon have been minimal. Reducing the fuel flow at the cost of a significant loss of airspeed seems to pretty much defeat the purpose. I thought I would post a few comments as to what I have experienced and "believe" to be accurate for your consideration. I know there are a lot of Mooney Space members who successfully use LOP on other engine models. With all due respect, I don't think their comments carry much value as to our engines and though I read, consider and respect those comments, take them with a huge dose of salt. First, my engine is equipped with GAMI's and I have a spread of about 0.6 gph from the leanest to the richest cylinder. Also, my engine is very well baffled and CHT's are simply not an issue when running ROP. Comments/findings: 1. The peak EGT's of this engine vary considerably depending on altitude and temperature. Meaning that I have not, at this point, been able to identify a "starting point" for finding peak EGT on my richest cylinder which is the critical number for finding the appropriate LOP setting. 2. The EGT's are slow to change and stabilize as you lean the engine near peak EGT. This is not true of the TIT temps. 3. Finding peak EGT of the richest cylinder, because of the comments in 1. and 2. is a slow, tedious process that distracts me from flying the airplane and watching for traffic. 4. Going from peak TIT to 50 degrees LOP with CHT's results in a substantial, unacceptable reduction in airspeed. 5. Yes, I said from peak TIT which is easy to find to 50 LOP/CHT which is difficult to find. 6. Fuel flows and airspeed reduce with similar correlation. 7. Adding back MP to gain some of the airspeed back, requires a significant increase in MP to do any good and fuel flows increase as well. I didn't think that fuel flows in this configuration would/should respond accordingly. So far, the end result is that, yes, I get lower CHT's and EGT's, but when those are already well within acceptable limits, what has been gained? The reduced fuel flow is almost entirely matched with reduced airspeed for a negligible increase in miles per gallon. I'm going to keep working on it and see if I can work some of the bugs out that would make LOP beneficial. At this point, I am skeptical. Jgreen

Ben, No rush. I was able to compile my "squawk sheet" in less than an hour. I'm not speaking of normal maintenance, what I see as beneficial is what the airplane experienced as "Mean Time Between Failure" of wear related items (turbos, mags, vacuum pumps etc.) and failures that may not be easily detected or expected (like exhaust cracks or engine mount failures/cracks). One thing that made mine easy was that my logs are "neat". I didn't have any instances where the shop made a lot of useless entries so as to justify a larger shop bill; something that I have seen many times in my flying career. Also, almost all my entries were typed from computer entries so I didn't have to try to read the hand writing of a gramatically challenged mechanic. No insult intended to mechanics by that. When you get and outline it, you may find it pretty simple. In fact, if you will give me an email address, I'll send you my list. Jgreen

Bob, I am pretty mechanically experienced, but I don't change the oil on the Bravo because of "exhaust issues". What I mean by that is that a turbo and its exhuast system create a lot of heat and there are multiple points of potential failure. When that cowling comes off for an oil change at 25 hours, I want lots of eyes inspecting the engine, turbo and exhuast system. Now, if my shop were not so near and so reasonably priced, I might do it in my hangar with another mechanically talented friend to help. Yours is a small problem to fix as long as the shop can weld stainless, but it is a serious problem that must be addressed before the airplane flies again. I probably didn't need to say that. I would think that any decent A&P can handle it for you whether he farms the welding out or is capable himself. It is, after all, not rocket science. But then a rubber O-ring brought down the space shuttle !! Jgreen

Peyton, I agree with Jose' with a slight alteration. I have owned two 8KCAB Decathlons. The wheel pants are of very light construction and will crack without fail in just a few hours of flight time. With my first Decathlon, which I bought with 800 hours total time, the wheel pants were totally covered with spider webbing. I layered the inside with cloth and resined it in. Repainted the pants and never had another crack. With my second, which was almost new, I just pulled the pants when I bought the airplane and layered it as in the first set; not one crack after 200 hours of use which is when I sold the airplane, last year. Do what Jose' says but don't use fiberglass resin, use epoxy which you can buy though West Marine products. It is the same material that is used in aircraft construction and MANY TIMES the strenght of fiberglass resin. Also, get the lightest fiberglass cloth you can which is also available through West Marine and put one layer of cloth on it. It will add mere ounces and you will not believe the strength. To get the visible cracks out will required removing paint and brushing on some pure resin with the sanding additive. Check with a IA, but I don't believe you will run into any reg issues as long as the weight is minimal, which it will be. Jgreen

There are gear ups and there are gear ups. Meaning; some cause almost no damage and others a great deal. Sound like this gear up resulted in the airplane running into something to cause all the described damage. None of that would bother me if I could indeed determine that the airplane was completely and properly repaired. That will required more than just a three hour pre-buy. It will also require an fairly extensive in-flight review of the performance and trim of the airplane. Now, that's the good news. First, with some exceptions brokers suck. They are the whores of the aviation industry. Remember, I said with some very notable exceptions. Most are some fat tart sitting at a phone who has never seen the airplane and knows squat about it. Of everything you have said about this airplane, the one thing that bother me the most is that the broker/whore said that it had been repaired "better than before"? Before what? Better than Mooney manufactured it? That would mean modifications that would require an STC or field approval. I would venture that this broker's first name starts with "--". There aren't many brokers dumb enough to say that. I think you would either expect a 40% discount over VREF for "better than before" or walk. Jgreen

Byron, Perhaps now, you can appreciate the frustration that has often caused me to "lose it" on this site. Jgreen

Andy, Astel Maszek, then that's ok and a really "cool" name ! My youngest son, now 26, often thanks me for giving him a memorable "cool" name; Grant Green. In the interest of brevity though, I'm gonna just call you Andy. Again, thanks for the posts on this thread. Jgreen

First, Astelmaszek, please get a shorter handle ! Second, I have navigated my way around (and sometimes inadvertantly through) my share of bad weather, but I'm not going to add my two cents to the debate because Jetdriven and Astel------- have published the truth. This is a big issue right now with publications and studies from all sides including the NTSB. There really is no debate among informed pilots or authorities. Trying to pretend that the 20 minute old info from XM or WSI will allow you to navigate turbulent weather when a TS can form in less than ten minutes is just insane, so go back and read JD's and A---------- post. And A--------- stay out of the red. I don't give a damn what the Stormscope says. Jgreen

Andy, Well, you are probably right, but, Believe it or not, after 32 airplanes, i really like the Bravo. I don't really know why, but I've gotten "attached" to it and that is coming from a pilot with NO brand loyalty (which I'm sure I've said several times before). That being said, I can give a very accurate, I think, evaluation of the Bravo vs. just about anything; I've owned them all ! Truth be told, my "need" for a larger airplane hasn't fully manifested itself yet. Children getting out of school and settling far away (and that is happening fast) is changing when we go, where we go, and what we need to carry along. First grandchild is now on the ground and in DC, but hopefully the others will be coming before I get too old to enjoy them or teach them how to hit a baseball/softball. As of next May, I will have no college tuitions for the first time since 1997 and needless to say, that alone will pay for a very nice airplane. I'm wandering, but the point is that the Bravo still fulfills it's mission beautifully 90% of the time. That percentage is sure to fall as the future unwinds. A couple more times of needing four or five seats and baggage room and the useful load to go with it, and I'm sure I'll get more motivated. As for Karen retiring, fat chance. She will manage every penny as long has her soft sweet hands can hold a bank statement. But thanks for the support !! I think i will go ahead and list the Bravo even though my motivation is weak for now. And yes, I have decided what I am going to buy, but I'm not telling; not here or on the Beech site. Jgreen

Astelmaszek, Well Bud, you finally told the absolute truth. I just didn't have the heart as I seem to make enemies on this site like a horny rabbit. That is exactly why I don't expect to sell my Bravo. Jgreen

If I may referee for a minute, you guys are beginning to split hairs AND YOU KNOW IT. If you want to sell, you are completely subject to the existing market. Beyond that, there is no limit to the rationalizations, "what ifs" and "but fors". Now, the one thing that has not been said and (the factor that is the most important) is: (Drum roll please) financing. We will probably all agree that 95% of the potential buyers of a J are going to finance. I'm not a banker, but I deal with them continuously. Thankfully now, mostly in the interest of 3rd parties who are trying to finance a business, or inventory, or equipment, or land that I am trying to lease or sell them. When the potential buyer goes to the bank or other financial institution, the first thing they are going to pull is VREF or Bluebook. I will treat you all with the respect you are probably due and not detail where it goes from there in pricing. Also, i don't want to in any way disparage the very fine J model in question by ripping into it's finance value as a potential lender would. I'm just saying that I'm there almost everyday and financing is a different world than it was four years ago. And ! the environment four years ago is probably exactly why we are here. So, "don't overlook the obvious" is all that I'm saying. OK, everybody into the middle of the ring for another round. Jgreen

Cruiser, Remember the political ad, "It's the economy, stupid." Not calling anyone stupid, but in this case, "It's the market stupid." and the market sucks. From everything I can read, the aircraft market is softer now than in the first quarter and 1/3 of aircraft owners plan to sell in the next 12 months. I am probably going to list my Bravo so I can move back to a twin, but, in truth, it is futile right. I probably don't have a 20% chance of selling at a price I will accept. The only real option I have is to go ahead and buy the twin because they are giving them away. You asked a question; a hard question. I will give you an opinion. You have less than a 10% chance of getting over 100m in 2012. That's my opinion. Good advice; fly and enjoy. Jgreen

I have two posts and I'll seperate them for clarity. The second may come after dinner and a couple of glasses of merlot so I may slur my words in #2 a bitl I was acqainted with a gentleman who operated FBO's over most of his life. He was never a pilot, but just loved taking care of and fueling other people's airplanes. He was in the service, Air Force, in the late 40's and early 50's and was a crew member on a C-97 Globemaster. He related that when those aircraft first entered service they had a terrible maintenance history with the engines which almost never made it to 400 hours before requiring an overhaul. Finally, they determined that the problem was lack of lubrication to various parts on start up. They began the ritual of hand turning the props (which took several men to turn) before start up. I can't remember the number of revolutions, but it was pretty impressive like 6 or 8. He said that immediately, the engine issues disappeared and the engines regularly ran 12 to 1500 hours between overhauls. I have, for year been a stickler on idle at start up and idle at shutdown. I've owned a lot of equipment and almost never have internal engine issues. Post 2 will be on cool down and I'm with Allsmiles: always! Jgreen

Byron, I find the subject of your post interesting because of my years in the construction business and EXTENSIVE experience owning equipment of all kinds. I saw both; from buying a lowboy truck out of the weeds and successfully running it for ten years, to taking a newly rebuilt Murphy diesel out of a Northwest crane (that had sat for ten years) and having it completely fail in the first four hours of running. I recently bought two military surplus 5 ton dump trucks from the marshalling yard of the Marine base for use at the ranch. They have 250 Cummins diesels, built in 1987, less than ten thousand miles on the trucks. Sat at the marshalling yard waiting for sale for four years-the military doesn't move fast. Changed the filters, put on new batteries, aired up the tires, and we run them almost everyday ! I have a friend (yes, I have friends) that a few years ago bought an old tractor. The engine was frozen up. He pulled the heads, poured Coca Cola into the frozen cylinders and the next day could turn the engine over. Replaced the heads, fired it up, and started breaking up his garden. Go figure. As for the Lyc IO-360, I would first wonder if it's rate of cam failure is any different than the 540 or 720. Same design, just more of essentially the same cylinders. Sitting here, thinking about the issue and what's different, I wonder if Aviation oil perhaps has different properties that allows the oil to drain off sooner? Fact is, I don't know but will follow your thoughts. Jgreen

Excuse me fellows, that is "fell from grace". No, it wasn't a Freudian slip and I'm not thinking about feeling Grace. And then? Jgreen

One of my sons suggested that I read "How The Mighty Fall" last year. It is a short, but fascinating, book about large companies that were very successful and "feel from grace". There are also a few examples of those that remade themselves. I have long been fascinated by how AT&T missed the cellular market, Xerox the small copier market, and IBM the PC market. I guess it's like my daddy always told me; there are no smart people and that includes you and me. Jgreen

Vref, I don't know how installers charges would change the opinions posted. I am very fortunate to live 20 miles from a family operated avionics shop whose rates are very reasonable and work, to date, completely acceptable. All of us in GA are paying for low production numbers of GA products. I'm sure in Europe, it is much worse. I can barely fathom the hassles and costs you must bear to enjoy the privilege of flying in Europe. I can remember right before the new GA aircraft market went bust, around 1980, Cessna was trying to clear out the "last years" inventory and offering new Skyhawks for something just over $19,000 with a nav/com and txp. The best way to put that in perspective is to recall that in 1981 I bought a new Corvette for $13,000 and today the Corvette would be about $55,000. Jgreen

I'm always encouraged to see new product, and more competition. After over a decade of total dominance of the GA avionics market, I wouldn't think that Garmin was surprised to see Avidyne finally make a stab at a competing product to the 430/530. I am somewhat amused that the offering of these products comes at almost no significant savings to the consumer. Amused when I think of all the posts on this an other websites that Garmin was gouging the consumer with high prices. Now, after all this time, the "competition" offers pretty much the same, at pretty much the same price, without the incredibly reliable track record of the Garmin products. We're all different in our opinions and interpretations of events. For me, were I upgrading my Bravo at this time, I would honestly not even price anything but Garmin. Still, I welcome Avidyne to the fray and truly wish them the best. The "best" being a level of success and reliability that would cause me to consider them viable competition were I upgrading this or another panel. Jgreen

Ron, Those numbers for contracted work look accuraate. Yes, you would need a very smooth finish for epoxy coating. I poured the floor for my shop at the ranch myself a couple of years ago and let it get away from me. It was 1500 square feet, six inches deep with raised side walls and 100 degrees. I had five helpers, but well, let's just say the surface won't accept epoxy. The bright side is, you have a hangar and an all weather floor. Most guys would kill for that!. Have a good day, Jgreen

Ron, I'm sorry, but I don't except: This may sound "over the top", but if the elevations would allow, you could overlay with a layer of concrete. If so, don't try to short cut it, the thickness of a 2 x 4 is the minimum and put a control joint every 10 feet each way. Control means simply a smooth break which you can do after it is poured and has taken an initial set with a soft cut concrete saw which you can easily rent. It sounds too expensive, but if you do it yourself, it will probably cost only $1.25 per foot for the concrete. For just about everything I have ever built, and that is quite a lot, I have always said that I learned what not to do the first time. Jgreen

Bill, I agree, the clear sealer is very easy and workable remedy. Any floor that will exposed to the oils, fuels etc. of motorized equipment should be sealed. Fastenal makes a very good one part sealer. It is, in fact, so effective and inexpensive that we use it, believe it or not, as a curing agent for newly poured concrete. Not nearly as messy as curing compound. Don, Glad to help. We are in the commercial rental business and over the years have had several instances of it being required by tenants. In fact, we just redid a floor in Fastenal that had been originally sealed. We had to grind the sealer off with diamond tipped blades to put on the epoxy and it was a bitch. One last caution. Do not let anyone put, lay, or drive anythiing over that floor before you install the epoxy. Keep it clean and then chemically (muriatic acid solution) etch it. I called the Sherwin Williams store while I was answering your thread and they emailed some installation info. If you will pm your email address, I will forward it to you. Jgreen

Don, A little more info and you are on your own. Armor Seal comes in two gallon kits at $100/gallon. On the first coat, you will get a minimum of 200 s.f./gallon. The second coat, you will get at least 50% more or 300 s.f./gallon. So, you are looking at about 75 cents for material for two coats, about a dollar for three. Tile Clad will cost 20% less. You have me thinking about recoating my hangar now. Since I used tile clad, I'm just going to put a couple of fresh coats of it down. Like I didn't have enough to do. Jgreen

Don, Two more cents (or scents?, just kidding). It appears that you are leaning toward the true two part "oil" based epoxy. So, here's what you do. Study every tech manual you can find. There will be a lot available on the internet if you google it. You may find some specialty suppliers that are appealing also. Check with Sherwin Williams because their guys are well schooled even if they have no experience. Also, look at Pittsburgh Paint's products. I've used both and splitting hairs, I liked the finished product of PP's a little better. PP will have tech manuals to study as well. There will also be some specialty tools you will need that either company can provide; for instance, you will need a big, wide squeegie that is made just for spreading epoxy. You will also need cleats to put on your shoes so you can walk in the wet epoxy. The quality of the finished product will be no better than the quality of the preparation; so what else is new? You will have to acid etch the concrete AT LEAST twice with muriatic acid, flush with lots of water each time and let it fully dry which may take several days. The tech manuals will tell you how to test for moisture with just a piece of plastic sheet. Don't get in a big hurry, if you put this product on top of ANY moisture, it will fail, I promise. You will be astounded as to how much material is etched out of the concrete by the muriatic acid solution. You will need at least two, maybe three coats for full coverage without any "shading" of color from the underlying concrete. As to color, I did my hangar floor in a gray as Byron suggested and I assure you it is too dark. In fact, I am probably going to put a couple of coats of new on it and I will go to a light tan. You will need to mix some sand grit in the third coat or you will bust your *** everytime the floor gets wet. Sherwin Williams makes two products, Tile Clad and Armor Shield with Armor Shield being the better, and more expensive. I'll retrieve some notes and give you an estimate of the cost of Armor Shild, perhaps later this afternoon. As for being sure the floor is dry, you may even have to run a heater some so you can work in the mornings even in the summer. Don't forget to work in a well ventilated area unless you want a leg or something to fall off. Jgreen