Z W

It's been a rough couple of years to be a piston aircraft owner. Parts and labor are both hard to come by when your plane needs something. Put the plane in for annual in 2022 and didn't get it back in the air for 6 months. Just got it out of annual for 2023. Took 8 weeks. Not the shop's fault. They fixed a lot of things, and there was quite a bit of waiting on parts. Had to go straight from there to the avionics shop for an autopilot servo. Got one of the bad early GFC500 ones, apparently. I've been reminding myself lately this is not the norm. Been flying for over 10 years and the last two have been the worst in the maintenance and parts department by far. It will get better. Sorry to hear you've had a bad introduction to airplane ownership. Hope it gets better for you too.

I have never flown a Rocket or a big engine long tail, so I have no idea. Just sharing my experience in a M20K 231 with a TSIO-360-MB installed via STC. I would probably experiment with different power settings and use the ones that result in lowest temperatures using modern engine instrumentation. As far as I know, most now agree that high heat is bad for engines, and the cooler you can keep things, the better. I believe some of the early recommendations from the 80's to decrease power for the climb were based on the idea of "reducing engine wear," "taking it easy on the engine," and "fuel efficiency", and that many of those ideas have been disproven. Remember these machines left the factory in the 80's with an analog single probe CHT gauge and no fuel flow meter. They were also designed to just replace a cylinder after it gets fried. But it's also airframe dependent. New or worn out baffling could change how your engine responds. I don't know what cowl flaps your Rocket has. My 262 has the infinitely adjustable ones controlled by an electric motor that were installed as part of the STC. 231's with different cowl flaps might do better at different power settings. Some do believe that RPM = wear, and that lowering RPM increases engine life. The idea is that the fewer revolutions the crankshaft makes, the less all the parts inside rub on each other. That makes sense to me. But in my plane, reducing RPM to 2500 for the climb results in significantly higher internal temperatures, so I usually do not do it.

I flew for long time with an old JPI 930. It developed some issues, so we swapped it for a G500Txi. All the readings changed significantly. Kept the stock RPM and MP gauges and it disagrees a lot more with them than the old JPI did. Still don't know which unit was more accurate, but on average, my true airspeed is lower if I trust the settings on the G500Txi and keep it within the limits we've been talking about than it used to be on the same settings with the JPI. All within a few inches or degrees, but enough to make me wonder how much good we all do trying to fine tune these engines.

I just meant maximum manifold pressure according to your POH. I believe with your setup, that requires you to set power at takeoff, and then slowly advance the throttle as you climb to maintain your maximum rated manifold pressure, as it will naturally decrease with altitude. Later models with the TSIO-360-MB and TSIO-360-SB got a fully automatic wastegate, which is what I fly, and we do in fact go throttle full forward to the firewall, and the wastegate holds it at 36" of MP all the way up. Maybe some modified TSIO-360-LB and TSIO-360-GB's are the same, I'm not sure. But the idea is to maintain maximum manifold pressure for best takeoff and climb performance. Never overboost your engine if it's one that's capable of doing that. Some pilots used to (and some still do) advocate a "cruise climb" power setting where they reduce power to something like 32" and 2500 RPM, and then pitch for 500 FPM in the climb. In my plane, that results in 1) higher CHTs due to increased angle of attack, decreased fuel flow, and decreased air flow, 2) longer climbs to altitude, 3) increased total fuel burn for the trip due to lost efficiency, and 4) higher overall trip times due to it taking forever to get to altitude. So while I started out flying that way, I no longer do. Full power and full rich mixture to top of climb, then reduce power and lean for cruise. If I'm at cruise altitude and have to go up say 2-3 thousand feet for some reason, I might use that cruise climb setting just to avoid drastic changes. It will quickly spike your CHT's if you watch it. If a larger altitude change than that is required I will go back to full power, full rich mixture, and cowl flaps open to help keep the engine cool and minimize the time in the climb. You can regain all that stored energy in the descent. Never lean in the climb, and never lean for takeoff. That's a naturally aspirated thing. Your turbo is always pushing full air, and so you always need full mixture. If you lean in those conditions, you will spike your temperatures, at best, and not be making full power, or even cause your engine to shutoff, at worst.

CHTs below 380. Easy to maintain even in climb if you climb full power and about 120 KIAS. Plenty of air and fuel to cool the cylinders. If one creeps up, I have an alert set in the panel at 380, and just level off for a moment. Climbs in the teens on warm days do sometimes result in temperatures creeping up towards 400. Open and close the cowl flaps as required to maintain CHTs under 380 in cruise. My plane's TIT runs hotter than most seem to post here, and it does not run smooth LOP. I keep it under 1625 TIT, as close to 1600 as I can get, which varies with ambient temperatures. Usually flying 27-28 MP, 2500 RPM, 12-13 GPH. Gives me 135-140 KIAS, which is 150-185 KTAS, depending on altitude. Somehow that's always 5-10 knots slower and 2 GPH higher than all the other posters with the same engines and airframes but I think the internet adds 10 knots and subtracts 2 GPH. Your experience may vary. Keep in mind also some are using the old factory TIT and CHT gauges, some are using modern glass panels and sensors of different varieties, and some are more sensitive to feeling or noticing LOP "roughness" than others. I think we each pick our own comfort zone and hope for the best.

Not that exact problem, but I would suspect the fuel pump settings. The TSIO-360 has a complicated engine set up procedure that must be performed after engine install and after fuel pump replacement that many shops are not familiar with. It requires some gauges and instrumentation and is very easy to get wrong. It also requires cowling and de-cowling the engine multiple times and is very tedious. It used to be called SID97-3G which is attached. That has now been replaced and superseded as a part of Continental's M0 maintenance manual, but as far as I can tell, it reads the same. Step #1 for me would be to have someone verify all the proper fuel pressures and flows are set per M0. I would also verify the air intake is unobstructed and properly connected. The engine sucks a lot of air with the turbo, through a very small intake plenum, and any restriction can cause odd behavior like this. Sounds like you have a fuel/air mixture ratio problem. SID97-3G - Continuous Flow Fuel Injection Systems Adjustment Specs and Instructions.pdf

Been replacing all the zip ties I can find on the plane with rubber-lined GripLock Ties designed for aviation: https://griplockties.com/ They're really nice and well worth the money. I use them in my cars, boats, heavy equipment, etc. now also. No real reason to use a regular zip tie when they exist.

Hah, I posted this exact same question back in May. It's something called a "Wraplock". Mine got replaced with some Grip-lock rubber-coated zip ties. Full discussion here:

I once had a flat nose tire after landing. Luckily went flat after I taxied off the runway, but was stuck on the ramp. A&P came out with a dolly and a couple of jacks. We jacked the wings up. I then pushed down on the tail to lift the nose wheel while he slid the dolly under it. Not ideal, but it wasn't exactly an ideal situation at the time. Tube had a hole in it and the tire wasn't holding pressure to move anywhere. It took most of my body weight (220 lbs or so) to lift the nose long enough to slide the dolly in. I wasn't hanging on the tail, but it also wasn't all that easy to just push it down like a 172 is. No damage to anything, it was fine, not that I'd want to do that on a regular basis. When we later built a tail stand, we used a large plastic tub and about 350lbs of concrete sitting on a furniture dolly. Wouldn't want any less weight back there while climbing around on the wings and raising and lowering the gear. I'll try to remember to snap some photos next time I'm at the hangar. It turned out very well. It's rock solid and seems to be about the right amount of weight.

Don't think I've ever seen a radar in a Mooney. Cool. Sounds like a plane with an interesting history. Glad you got it back up in the air. Good luck with the sale.

A tire potentially going flat on or before landing would be a serious safety concern to me. Could easily lead to a loss of control, a disabled plane on a runway, bent metal, or worse. I think for what a tube costs, any tube with any suspect issues would get swapped before my next flight.

Have had your same experience, many times. Also now doing as much as possible myself. It sounds good in theory to inspect the shop's work before takeoff. The reality is different. Removing and re-installing the lower cowl of a K-model is a 2-person job that takes some time. Asking them to leave it un-cowled and sitting in the shop until you can inspect it, then waiting while it's re-cowled, is inconvenient and requires you to be able to run down there on short notice and for them to stop working on another plane and go back to yours. And it's sitting in their shop taking up space after they're done working on it. With shops as busy as they can be, how long would they even put up with that? In short, you have to trust them. Many shops are short on help and have untrained people doing work "under supervision." It's a recipe for disaster that's going to kill some people. I don't have a short term answer, other than today I'm flying the plane 2 hours to a big name MSC for annual and taking that business away from a smaller local shop. Hoping for a better result. Long term, I would pay higher shop rates for good reliable work. I would do more work myself if it were legal, using proper maintenance manuals and techniques and parts. I would worry a lot about buying a certified plane another owner had been maintaining himself or herself. Not sure at all it's a good universal solution.

I've been in and out a few times over the last 3 years or so. Very cool airport. Like any mountain airport, best done with low winds, check winds aloft, over 15 knots or so at 12,000 feet may be a no-go. Flying early in the morning or near sunset helps. Be aware of the one-way-in and out nature of the place and the restricted area to the south. If you've never landed with a small (5 knots or less) tailwind component, you may want to go practice that at a flatland airport first on a nice day. It can be required here and I'm surprised how many pilots have never done it. I found the field to be unattended most of the time. Had to leave payment for tie-downs in an envelope drop box outside the FBO, on the honor system. Nice self-serve fuel at the upper end of the runway, except watch out, the ramp is very sloped there at the filling area, be careful how you park or you may need a friend to help you push the plane. Easy access to the FBO and ramp through a gate code. I had a friend who was also picking me up and dropping me off, so no idea how easy it is to get a car or ground transportation. It's a beautiful place to fly in and out of with the proper planning, knowledge, and precautions. Santa Fe does make a good alternative.

Had a '68 M20C with a three-blade Hartzell for several years. It took off very short, and more importantly, it slowed down really well at idle. Never flew it with a 2-blade to compare directly on the C, but compared to a M20K with a 2-blade, the 3-blade was a great short-field performer. Still cruised 140-ish.

Your engine has a complicated fuel pump that must be set up properly, as others have referenced, using specific steps and special gauges and lines. This is, as far as I know, unique to the TSIO-360's in the Mooney lineup. We recently replaced ours and the local A&P could not get it set up right, even after supposedly buying the gauges required. It did what you describe at first (die on roll-out). After another round of adjustments, it no longer does that, but is not idling properly until fully warmed up, it stalls if you lean at all on the ground, and the fuel pressure is over spec at full power and higher altitudes. Waiting to get it re-calibrated at annual in a couple weeks at a Mooney shop. Continental publishes the proper fuel set up. It's attached here as SID97-3G, which has technically been superseded by M0 (but seems to read the same), along with the parts of the Mooney service manual referencing how to do it. You need a good A&P to work through all this in order step-by-step and set it up properly. Note that when properly set up, the engine will "burble" and sound like it's going to die after landing when your roll-out speed drops enough for the engine to reach idle speed of 750 RPM, although it will not die. To keep from scaring passengers, I leave the mixture out slightly which is proper for taxi and makes it idle better anyways. Requires training on a go-around to always push mixture, prop, then throttle. SID97-3G - Continuous Flow Fuel Injection Systems Adjustment Specs and Instructions.pdf Mooney Service Manual - Fuel System Sections - 10.18.22.pdf

I also use only half flaps for approaches. Much easier on the go-around. If you have full flaps out, trimmed for 80-90 KIAS or so, and firewall the throttle, the plane will very strongly pitch up, requiring a lot of force to keep the proper climb attitude. It's distracting to the pilot and concerning to passengers. If I break out in time, I'll add full flaps before landing, but landing with only the half flaps is a non-event on any runway I'm shooting an approach to. I also find the plane feels much more stable on the approach at 80-90KIAS with half flaps than full.

An A&P tipped me off to Davies Klear to Land. Works really well, takes off grease / soot / other residues also, and is designed to be used on windshields and leave a film. I start at one wingtip and walk around the plane, spraying it on all the leading edges and windshield. By the time I'm back where I started, the bugs are softened up enough to come off with a quick wipe of a clean rag. Maybe a little pricy but the big 19oz can seems to last a long time. https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/cspages/dwdavies08-12390.php?clickkey=3172559

Been there, done that, just finished changing a tire (although I think it was someone else this time). Very easy to scrape all that rubber off trying to brake while the plane is still almost flying. I'm going to work on using forward slips when high or fast on final. A recommendation from my CFI at the MAPA clinic this April. Always avoided those due to the POH warning about doing them with full flaps. Apparently with half flaps they're just fine, and maybe with full flaps too. We did some and nothing bad happened. Speed brakes are not very effective at all below 100 KIAS, they get blanked out at high angles of attack. Not a good landing tool, although supposedly they start working when the nose wheel touches down and the angle of attack lowers again. I'm also getting more comfortable flying final at 70-75 KIAS, especially when solo and light weight with light winds. There's a lot of float left in my plane at those speeds. And it really solves the runway length problem. Thanks for sharing.

This has not been my experience.

How fast is it "cycling"? On a long cross-country, that amount of variation is very normal over time as you pass through changing atmospheric conditions, especially up over 12,000 feet. You might even notice it corresponds with altimeter changes given to you by ATC. You have to move the throttle in and out to keep your settings the same. Something I think happens on all aircraft, really, but you notice it a lot more on a turbo which is already finicky to manage, traveling at 170+ knots over the ground for hours with not much to do but stare at the gauges and out the window. If it's sitting there oscillating constantly, that would be another issue.

Just got a set made from https://aircrafthosestore.com/ after reading a recommendation here. Emailed them, got a quick response, shipped them the old ones, they made new custom hoses and sent them back within a week. They sent the old ones back with them and they were identical in length and make. Cost right at $200.00 for the set with shipping. Very happy with the experience.

I'd never heard of applying it to the exhaust slip joints. Will start doing that as well. Thanks Clarence.

I guess it is Wraplock. Shown in the IPC, sort of. Thanks, that wasn't too obvious.

Replacing old, stiff, worn-out brake hoses on our M20K. Each one was strapped to the landing gear structure with two of these thin metal straps, wound several times around the tube and hose, with anti-chafe tape underneath. They are held in place with just a belt-buckle type mechanism. What are these called? Internet search did not identify them. They seem like a poor choice with sharp metal edges, and these are clearly worn out. Each one got replaced with a pair of padded Grip-Lock zip ties. But I'm curious what they're called and whether that's appropriate.

I like to think of it as a "zone of confusion" like flying over a VOR. With the Monroy tanks, your gauges are accurate at full, then they get confused for a while and stop moving, then they come back to their senses and start working again after the Monroy tanks are empty, which is when your main tank is down to about 20 gallons. It works fine, but makes it very difficult to know to the gallon how much fuel is on board at any given time unless you topped up to 105 gallons. It's rare I have the useful load available to do that, so more often, I top the mains which is 75 gallons (although I feel like a gallon or two probably flows up into the aux tanks while fueling) and use the fuel totalizer from there. Topping the mains, which is perfect for 1-3 people and most missions (maybe different for a Rocket), puts you right into the zone of confusion. You could use a dip stick on all four tanks and a spreadsheet and get pretty accurate numbers if it really mattered. Requires draining to empty, filling a few gallons at a time, and noting your data.