Mooney Engine Problems in Flight

[Paul Smedshammer]

This is a bit long winded but I'm looking for qualified opinions as to what
might have happed to an almost total loss of power while in cruise flight in
my Mooney M20F. Here is the story of what happened:

I was flying from Turlock (south of Modesto) to Petaluma (north of San
Francisco) on a Saturday. Weather was strange with a thick mist and fog layer
from about 500 feet to 2000 feet. I was VFR on top and there were no holes
anywhere through the fog/clouds/mist.

Prior to the flight, I sumped the wings with no indication of any water. I
did a normal run up and there were no issues at all. I was running on the
left tank which is what I had run on for the last 1/2 of the flight the night
before. Left tank had about 20 gallons right tank about 30. Take off was no
issue and full power was available with a good sounding engine. I found a
hole in the clouds and climbed to 4,500 on a heading direct to Petaluma.
About eight minutes into the flight (from take off), suddenly but not sudden
like a switch or electrical problem I would guess power output dropped to
around 30% with a decent engine vibration. It felt and acted as if two
sparkplug wires were simultaneously pulled from the plugs. I noticed the EGT
that I had leaned to 1320 F was now down to below 1000 F. I checked the mags
and there was no difference in operation between both, 1 or 2. I pushed the
throttle in full with no effect. I switched tanks to the right wing with no
effect. I turned on the boost pump with no effect. I opened the power boost
which bypasses the air filter which resulted in a tiny bit of improvement
maybe getting me up to 35% power. I moved the mixture in full rich and it
smoothed out considerably and I would guess power output moved up to say 45%.
My speed leveled off at around 124 knots from the 151 it was just prior. I
was able to hold 4,500 feet. EGT rose only about to 1100 F. I contacted
NorCal and advised them of my situation. They were great and offered vectors
to Modesto that I was right on top of according to the GPS. I advised them
that it was totally socked in fog that spread about 20 miles in all
directions. After about 30 seconds later I slowly moved the mixture out and
it began running extremely rough with no increase in EGT so I pushed it back
in scared that I would make it worse and loose my 45% power output. NorCal
asked what I wanted to do and as airspeed was being held, it was producing
about 45% power and I was holding altitude I told them I would forge ahead. I
felt this was less risky than dropping through the fog layer into 3 miles of
mist visibility with engine problems trying to find a runway with towers up
around 500 feet in the area. Time is strange and I'm guessing after about 5
minutes of this, I felt the plane pull forward like there was a significant
power increase and I noticed the EGT move up to 1190 F. I leaned it a little
and EGT went up to 1200 F max and quickly began to run rough so I slid it back
in to full rich. After about 3 more minutes I would say the power seemed to
up around 60% and I tried leaning again. This time it leaned like always
rising to a maximum of about 1410 F before running rough so I backed off to
run around 1310 F - normal operation. The whole event from the start of
something being wrong to full power being restored was I would say around 10
minutes. Maybe a little less. From that point on it was like nothing was
wrong. Remaining 30 minutes of the flight went without a hitch and the engine
responded just like it should and always has. I can only think that there was
some water stuck somewhere in the wing behind one of the baffles and the
engine just had to work through it. I can't think of anything else that could
have caused this behavior.

The following day I went out and did 10 sumps of each tank and the center
sump. None showed any sign of water. If it was a bad mag I would have
expected to loose the engine completely when I went to mag 1 or mag 2 but I
didn't. Only thing I can come up with is either water in the tank or an
obstruction in the line.

The engine problem would not have been so critical if I wasn't VFR on top.
Without an engine and VFR on top you have very little options.

Thanks for your opinions and advise. Please post any responses here.

Mooney M20F

PS. Other info is that fuel consumption was normal and I'm at just now at 6
qts of oil remaining after 16.5 hours since last oil change. So that works
out to be about 11.8 hours per qt. No other indications of problems. Except
of course the oil and gas dripping out of the plenum drain after stopping the
engine. Engine has about 80 hours since LMOH and has worked perfectly.

[Morgans]

"Paul Smedshammer" > wrote

> This is a bit long winded but I'm looking for qualified opinions as to
what
> might have happed to an almost total loss of power while in cruise flight
in
> my Mooney M20F.

<Giant snip>

It sounds almost like conditions were perfect for induction ice, but is that
possible with this type of injection? Is there any provision for heat, or
just unheated alternate air?

This, from a definite unqualified person. Me. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[clyde woempner]

VFR on top, not good if you and the plane are not capable of IFR flight.
Did the forcast call for any broken or scattered conditions along your route
of flight, if so where?? Water in the fuel system can lead to freezing in
the fuel line as you gain altitude. The weather report would give you the
freezing level. This can of course block and/or restict the fuel flow.
But, second guessing the problem is not too smart, I strongly suggest you
have a shop check it out, maybe a fuel pump was sucking air from a loose
fitting, etc. Have it checked out, and watch out for Mt. Diablo. Just
remember, always have options:
Clyde

"Paul Smedshammer" > wrote in message
. com...
> This is a bit long winded but I'm looking for qualified opinions as to
what
> might have happed to an almost total loss of power while in cruise flight
in
> my Mooney M20F. Here is the story of what happened:
>
> I was flying from Turlock (south of Modesto) to Petaluma (north of San
> Francisco) on a Saturday. Weather was strange with a thick mist and fog
layer
> from about 500 feet to 2000 feet. I was VFR on top and there were no
holes
> anywhere through the fog/clouds/mist.
>
> Prior to the flight, I sumped the wings with no indication of any water.
I
> did a normal run up and there were no issues at all. I was running on the
> left tank which is what I had run on for the last 1/2 of the flight the
night
> before. Left tank had about 20 gallons right tank about 30. Take off was
no
> issue and full power was available with a good sounding engine. I found a
> hole in the clouds and climbed to 4,500 on a heading direct to Petaluma.
> About eight minutes into the flight (from take off), suddenly but not
sudden
> like a switch or electrical problem I would guess power output dropped to
> around 30% with a decent engine vibration. It felt and acted as if two
> sparkplug wires were simultaneously pulled from the plugs. I noticed the
EGT
> that I had leaned to 1320 F was now down to below 1000 F. I checked the
mags
> and there was no difference in operation between both, 1 or 2. I pushed
the
> throttle in full with no effect. I switched tanks to the right wing with
no
> effect. I turned on the boost pump with no effect. I opened the power
boost
> which bypasses the air filter which resulted in a tiny bit of improvement
> maybe getting me up to 35% power. I moved the mixture in full rich and it
> smoothed out considerably and I would guess power output moved up to say
45%.
> My speed leveled off at around 124 knots from the 151 it was just prior.
I
> was able to hold 4,500 feet. EGT rose only about to 1100 F. I contacted
> NorCal and advised them of my situation. They were great and offered
vectors
> to Modesto that I was right on top of according to the GPS. I advised
them
> that it was totally socked in fog that spread about 20 miles in all
> directions. After about 30 seconds later I slowly moved the mixture out
and
> it began running extremely rough with no increase in EGT so I pushed it
back
> in scared that I would make it worse and loose my 45% power output.
NorCal
> asked what I wanted to do and as airspeed was being held, it was producing
> about 45% power and I was holding altitude I told them I would forge
ahead. I
> felt this was less risky than dropping through the fog layer into 3 miles
of
> mist visibility with engine problems trying to find a runway with towers
up
> around 500 feet in the area. Time is strange and I'm guessing after about
5
> minutes of this, I felt the plane pull forward like there was a
significant
> power increase and I noticed the EGT move up to 1190 F. I leaned it a
little
> and EGT went up to 1200 F max and quickly began to run rough so I slid it
back
> in to full rich. After about 3 more minutes I would say the power seemed
to
> up around 60% and I tried leaning again. This time it leaned like always
> rising to a maximum of about 1410 F before running rough so I backed off
to
> run around 1310 F - normal operation. The whole event from the start of
> something being wrong to full power being restored was I would say around
10
> minutes. Maybe a little less. From that point on it was like nothing was
> wrong. Remaining 30 minutes of the flight went without a hitch and the
engine
> responded just like it should and always has. I can only think that there
was
> some water stuck somewhere in the wing behind one of the baffles and the
> engine just had to work through it. I can't think of anything else that
could
> have caused this behavior.
>
> The following day I went out and did 10 sumps of each tank and the center
> sump. None showed any sign of water. If it was a bad mag I would have
> expected to loose the engine completely when I went to mag 1 or mag 2 but
I
> didn't. Only thing I can come up with is either water in the tank or an
> obstruction in the line.
>
> The engine problem would not have been so critical if I wasn't VFR on top.
> Without an engine and VFR on top you have very little options.
>
> Thanks for your opinions and advise. Please post any responses here.
>
> Mooney M20F
>
> PS. Other info is that fuel consumption was normal and I'm at just now at
6
> qts of oil remaining after 16.5 hours since last oil change. So that
works
> out to be about 11.8 hours per qt. No other indications of problems.
Except
> of course the oil and gas dripping out of the plenum drain after stopping
the
> engine. Engine has about 80 hours since LMOH and has worked perfectly.

[Paul Smedshammer]

In article >, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>"Paul Smedshammer" > wrote
>
>> This is a bit long winded but I'm looking for qualified opinions as to
>what
>> might have happed to an almost total loss of power while in cruise flight
>in
>> my Mooney M20F.
>
><Giant snip>
>
>It sounds almost like conditions were perfect for induction ice, but is that
>possible with this type of injection? Is there any provision for heat, or
>just unheated alternate air?
>
>This, from a definite unqualified person. Me. <g>

The Mooney M20F has a fuel injection system so there is no carburetor nor
'carb heat'. I'm open to anything that could have caused this. Ice is a
definite possibility in the fuel system. It hadn't rained but the overnight
stay at the airport I left from had the most intense ground fog I have ever
experienced. I would say there was 50 foot visibility on the ground that
lasted a good 10 hours. I was thinking this could have caused some
condensation to pool water on the inside of fuel tanks. Maybe after flying
out, that condensation shook loose from the walls and pooled up and got sucked
in.

That being said, I was well above moisture and it was over 65 degrees F at the
4,500 feet I was at. The weather breifer made no mention of icing conditions
and I didn't see any on the DUATs reports. I was VFR on top for the 30 miles
that overcast was spread. This really opened my eyes as this problem happed
just about 8 minutes into the 30 miles. It couldn't have happened at a worse
time. I was very lucky I had the altitude and that it cleared up and normal
power was restored. If the problem persisted, I would have definitely bent
the plane up as a minimum and at the worst been killed and possibly cause bad
results to folks on the ground. I definitely have a greater respect for VFR
on top.

Paul

[Morgans]

"Paul Smedshammer" > wrote

> The Mooney M20F has a fuel injection system so there is no carburetor nor
> 'carb heat'.

> Paul

Right, I know it is fuel injected, but it is a "throttle body" type, rather
than individual injectors for each cylinder, isn't it?

It seems to me that if it is this type, a possibility of a temperature drop
from evaporating fuel could still open up an opportunity for water vapor in
the air to freeze, in the right conditions.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 03:48:36 GMT, (Paul
Smedshammer) wrote:

>This is a bit long winded but I'm looking for qualified opinions as to what
>might have happed to an almost total loss of power while in cruise flight in
>my Mooney M20F.

Do you have individual cylinder EGT's?

It sure sounds like a problem with fuel flow. When I had a similar problem
it was due to a partially clogged fuel injector, but there could have been
junk in the lines also, or possible on the fuel screen.

Mine did not clear spontaneously, though.

Unless something else comes to mind, I would check the fuel system
carefully, including the screen. Sometimes when the tank sealant starts to
break down, it can cause these kinds of problems.

Also, with regard to induction ice, check the alternate air valve.
Sometimes that valve can jam. I think there was an AD on it some time ago.
(I can't recall if it applied to the F's).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Dan Luke]

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote:
>
> It sure sounds like a problem with fuel flow.

Wouldn't a fuel restriction make the EGT go up?
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:42:08 -0600, "Dan Luke" > wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote:
>>
>> It sure sounds like a problem with fuel flow.
>
>Wouldn't a fuel restriction make the EGT go up?

If you lean your engine until it starts to run rough, what happens (both to
TIT as well as to the individual EGT's), is that the EGT initially rises,
then it reaches a peak and begins to fall.

So what happens to the EGT will depend on where you are on that curve, when
the engine begins to run rough.

I have had problems, over the years, with clogged injector; clogged fuel
line; and clogged fuel servo. In all of those instances, the EGT for the
affected cylinder(s) went down when engine roughness was noted. Except for
the fuel servo when the problem became evident on takeoff and I was
concentrating on landing, rather than looking at EGT's.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Paul Smedshammer]

In article >, (AJW) wrote:
>
>It sounds like something caused you to lose fuel flow -- did you notice the
>fuel pressure gauge?
>

Fuel pressure was in the green and appeared to be normal through the whole
event. I only have one EGT and CHT gauge so I only know what was going on
with the one cylinder.

I have received many opinions and the two that seem the most plausible are
induction icing and fuel contamination. Bummer is that I don't know how to
verify either. I would sure like to get my confidence level in this engine
back up to where it was before the event.

I'm going to have my mechanic check over the fuel filter screen and anything
else he might find. Problem is, that it ran perfectly for the remaining 30
minutes of the flight. And I went out the next day and did a full run up on
both tanks and everything seems totally normal. I would have felt better if I
could have at least found some water in the tanks.

Paul

[Paul Smedshammer]

In article >, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>"Paul Smedshammer" > wrote
>
>> The Mooney M20F has a fuel injection system so there is no carburetor nor
>> 'carb heat'.
>
>> Paul
>
>Right, I know it is fuel injected, but it is a "throttle body" type, rather
>than individual injectors for each cylinder, isn't it?
>
>It seems to me that if it is this type, a possibility of a temperature drop
>from evaporating fuel could still open up an opportunity for water vapor in
>the air to freeze, in the right conditions.

The IO-360A1A has individual injectors to for each cylinder. However, I'm
still learning about the potential for induction icing to occur and I think you
are right that this is a definite possibility.

But as somebody mentioned in another post, if induction icing were the cause I
should have seen a rise in the EGT as the fuel flow became restricted instead
of a sudden drop from 1310 to under 1000 F.

The most plausible cause that many have suggested so far is that there was
water mixed in with the fuel. When I enriched the mixture it let a larger
volume of the fuel/water mixture in which resulted in a slightly smoother and
more powerfully running engine. Which would also account for the lower EGT.
Then as this fuel/water mixture worked its way through, normal operation was
restored when the fuel/water mixture returned to just fuel. I really hope
this was the cause but I'm still open for it being something else that I need
to be aware of.

I still get sick thinking about this happening on climb out with a broken
cloud and fog deck at 800 feet. As it took about 8 minutes to clear at full
throttle in cruise there is no way it would have cleared during the climb out.
And what is worse, if it was water in the fuel, I could have sucked in a full
slug of water killing the engine completely. This was a serious learning
experience for me. Just glad I'm around to apply it.

Paul

[Robert M. Gary]

Paul Smedshammer wrote:
> This is a bit long winded but I'm looking for qualified opinions as
to what
> might have happed to an almost total loss of power while in cruise
flight in
> my Mooney M20F. Here is the story of what happened:

I also own an M20F. Did you have teh ram air on? There are cases of ice
build up when the ram air is on. The owner's manual cautions us to turn
it off in ice conditions.

Have you checked your fuel vents? There have been reports of Mooneys
lossing power after fuel vent blocks. However, changing tanks should
fix that.

The Mooney does have an automatic alternate air system. At annual, the
automatic switching door should be inspected and the spring pressure
should be measured.

-Robert, M20F

[Paul Smedshammer]

In article >, "clyde woempner" > wrote:
>VFR on top, not good if you and the plane are not capable of IFR flight.
>Did the forcast call for any broken or scattered conditions along your route
>of flight, if so where?? Water in the fuel system can lead to freezing in
>the fuel line as you gain altitude. The weather report would give you the
>freezing level. This can of course block and/or restict the fuel flow.
>But, second guessing the problem is not too smart, I strongly suggest you
>have a shop check it out, maybe a fuel pump was sucking air from a loose
>fitting, etc. Have it checked out, and watch out for Mt. Diablo. Just
>remember, always have options:
>Clyde

I agree that VFR on top is not the best idea if you and plane are not capable
of IFR flight. But in this case the Mooney M20F is fully capable of IFR
flight and I'm working on my IFR ticket. Not that my working on it makes any
difference in this case. However, I thought I understood the risk here and
felt that while it was risky to try and make it over this 30 mile socked in
overcast with totally clear skies above, it was worth the risk as I needed to
get home (I know - Get There Itis) and this engine was just over 50 hours SMOH
along with overhauled mags, generator, fuel servo, and prop governor at the
same time. The engine was performing perfectly. Famous last words?

I don't think an IFR ticket would have helped a whole lot in this case. It
would have provided for 1 attempt at an IFR approach with only 45% power
maximum available and 600 foot overcast with 3 miles max visibility in mist
below me.

For those interested, here is photo of what it looked like about 10 seconds
before the event.

http://www.coreutilities.com/mooney/RoughEngine.JPG

Trust me, I learned my lesson and I will not be going VFR on top like this
again without options like enough altitude to glide to a visible landing
site and the IFR ticket in hand. Even then I'm going to think twice about
attempting it. A second engine would have been great to have!
Paul

[Paul Smedshammer]

In article . com>, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>Paul Smedshammer wrote:
>> This is a bit long winded but I'm looking for qualified opinions as
>to what
>> might have happed to an almost total loss of power while in cruise
>flight in
>> my Mooney M20F. Here is the story of what happened:
>
>I also own an M20F. Did you have teh ram air on? There are cases of ice
>build up when the ram air is on. The owner's manual cautions us to turn
>it off in ice conditions.
>
>Have you checked your fuel vents? There have been reports of Mooneys
>lossing power after fuel vent blocks. However, changing tanks should
>fix that.
>
>The Mooney does have an automatic alternate air system. At annual, the
>automatic switching door should be inspected and the spring pressure
>should be measured.
>
>-Robert, M20F

When this happened I had the power boost off. As one of the trouble shooting
items I opened it and got a slight increase in power like from 30% to 35%.
Hard to judge but it was running extremely rough and opening the power boost
cleaned it up just a little bit. I left it open as it did make things just a
little better. But it was the enriching of the mixture that really made the
difference. Still less than 50% power but it at least ran smoother.

By the way, I LOVE this plane. It is old but it fly's great and I feel the
most comfortable I have ever felt in about 7 different planes types (152, 172,
172RG, 182, Debonair, Warrior, and Arrow). The Mooney just has the
performance I have always been wanting. It is a great plane... as long as the
engine keeps running!

Paul, 1967 M20F

[Trent Moorehead]

> For those interested, here is photo of what it looked like about 10
seconds
> before the event.
>
> http://www.coreutilities.com/mooney/RoughEngine.JPG
>
> Trust me, I learned my lesson and I will not be going VFR on top like this
> again without options like enough altitude to glide to a visible landing
> site and the IFR ticket in hand. Even then I'm going to think twice about
> attempting it. A second engine would have been great to have!
> Paul

Wow. That photo made my blood run cold. It's beautiful, but knowing that
there's a chance that you have to descend into it is chilling.

I am glad that things turned out OK for you. Thanks for posting.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

[Robert M. Gary]

Paul Smedshammer wrote:
> In article . com>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> When this happened I had the power boost off. As one of the trouble
shooting
> items I opened it and got a slight increase in power like from 30% to
35%.

Do you know if your shop has done the AD that requires checking the
drain holes in the ribs? Since Mooney stores it's fuel in the wing
(rather than in a real fuel tank), the fuel needs to run through the
ribs. At the bottom of the ribs there are very small holes. When the
tank gets patched its easy to put your B-2 over these holes and create
a small pocket where fuel (and water) can stay trapped for some time.
Some of these holes should be covered (since they are mating points
that can allow fuel leaks) and others are there on purpose (to allow
water and fuel to run through). I wonder if you might have disloged
some water in your flight. Turning on the pump would increase the
amount of fluid running through the system and maybe move the water out
sooner? Just a guess.
-Robert, Mooney CFI and M20F owner (and loving it!!)

[Robert M. Gary]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> I have had problems, over the years, with clogged injector; clogged
fuel
> line; and clogged fuel servo. In all of those instances, the EGT for
the
> affected cylinder(s) went down when engine roughness was noted.
Except for
> the fuel servo when the problem became evident on takeoff and I was
> concentrating on landing, rather than looking at EGT's.

I had a plug go bad and that cylinder's EGT actually went up. I never
understood that.

-Robert, M20F

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary wrote :
>I had a plug go bad and that cylinder's EGT actually went up. I never
>understood that.

If one plug in a two plugged cylinder quits working, then there is
only one flame front. Instead of the fuel/air charge burning from two
ignition sources, it burns from one. This results in the charge taking
longer to completely burn. Since the charge took longer to burn, the
gasses are still hotter when the exhaust valve opens and the gasses
pass by the EGT probe.

This will happen anytime you go from 2-plug to single plug operation.
When in cruise, switch to one mag or the other. You should see a rise
on all EGTs.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Dan Luke]

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:
> I had a plug go bad and that cylinder's EGT actually went up. I never
> understood that.

That's easy: failure of one plug prolongs the burning of the mixture, so
some is still burning as it is ejected out the exhaust past the temp.
probe.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Morgans]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote

> I had a plug go bad and that cylinder's EGT actually went up. I never
> understood that.
>
> -Robert, M20F

Incomplete/slower combustion, gases still burning in the exhaust header- on
the way past the EGT sensor.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Paul:

You didn't say what the OAT was. I'd gather that it was above 0C.

I fly a PA28-180C (PP-SEL/Instrument). This past summer in severe
clear, 2 SMOH, I had a rough running engine and made a 180 and landed
right back at the airport I departed from (from about 10 min out). We
looked at everything and the only thing we could come up with was I had
gotten a load of ice (for those of you who have not flown this model,
the updraft carb attaches to the intake manifold which runs through the
middle of the oil pan -- difficult to get ice, but I managed).

In your case I am thinking that you need to pull and inspect your fuel
filters and/or screens. You may find them contaminated with water (or
perhaps some other foreign substance).

But then, just like in my case, static run ups, sumping fuel, etc.
shows nothing. And the plane runs just fine like it was all a figment
of your imagination.

As another person noted (being much more familiar with your model than
I am - I can only drool at the M20 parked over at the maint hanger),
you may have pockets in your tanks that allow for trapped water and by
luck of the draw...

BTW - This PA28-180C is the first I've owned. Used to fly rental
Cessnas which seemed to always have water. This one has to fly through
a serious rain storm to get any water. Seems it sucks it in through the
tank vents!

Later,
Steve.T

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 13 Dec 2004 15:10:43 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

>I had a plug go bad and that cylinder's EGT actually went up. I never
>understood that.

That is what should happen. Has to do with flame fronts and burning time.

Assuming you have EGT monitors for each cylinder, watch what happens when
you do your mag check. EGT's in all cylinders will rise significantly.
AAMOF, that is one recommended method (in the Insight GEM manual) given for
checking.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Paul Smedshammer]

In article . com>, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>Paul Smedshammer wrote:
>> In article . com>,

Thanks to everybody for your responses. Sounds like the general consensus is
either water in the fuel or some other fuel contamination. I'm taking the
plane up to LASAR to have them drain the tanks and go through the whole fuel
system. Hopefully they can find something that would explain what happened.
This sure makes me think twice about VFR on top or even night flying.

Paul,
1967 Mooney M20F

[Bill Denton]

Just a curiosity...

I believe you mentioned that you did not yet have your instrument ticket,
but you keep referring to VFR-on-top, which is flown, in the US, on an IFR
flightplan.

Am I missing something?




"Paul Smedshammer" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article . com>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> >
> >Paul Smedshammer wrote:
> >> In article . com>,
>
> Thanks to everybody for your responses. Sounds like the general consensus
is
> either water in the fuel or some other fuel contamination. I'm taking the
> plane up to LASAR to have them drain the tanks and go through the whole
fuel
> system. Hopefully they can find something that would explain what
happened.
> This sure makes me think twice about VFR on top or even night flying.
>
> Paul,
> 1967 Mooney M20F

[Paul Smedshammer]

In article >, "Bill Denton" > wrote:
>Just a curiosity...
>
>I believe you mentioned that you did not yet have your instrument ticket,
>but you keep referring to VFR-on-top, which is flown, in the US, on an IFR
>flightplan.
>
>Am I missing something?
>

As far as I know, and maybe I'm wrong, a VFR pilot can fly what would be
considered VFR on top. Maybe I'm using the technical term "VFR on Top"
incorrectly but I'm just trying to describe the situation. The situation was
a 600 foot overcast with tops at 1,500 feet. Clear above 1,500 feet with
visibility well over 10 miles … more like 50 miles. Correct me if I'm wrong
but a VFR pilot can fly at 4,500 feet in this situation. It might not be
smart but it is legal. Let me know if I'm wrong.

[Bill Denton]

Thanks!

I'm still a wannabe, so I don't really yet know what is correct, but it
struck me that while you might find a hole that would let you climb above
the clouds on departure, what would happen if you were still above the
clouds and there were no hole at your destination airport?



"Paul Smedshammer" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >, "Bill Denton"
> wrote:
> >Just a curiosity...
> >
> >I believe you mentioned that you did not yet have your instrument ticket,
> >but you keep referring to VFR-on-top, which is flown, in the US, on an
IFR
> >flightplan.
> >
> >Am I missing something?
> >
>
> As far as I know, and maybe I'm wrong, a VFR pilot can fly what would be
> considered VFR on top. Maybe I'm using the technical term "VFR on Top"
> incorrectly but I'm just trying to describe the situation. The situation
was
> a 600 foot overcast with tops at 1,500 feet. Clear above 1,500 feet with
> visibility well over 10 miles … more like 50 miles. Correct me if I'm
wrong
> but a VFR pilot can fly at 4,500 feet in this situation. It might not be
> smart but it is legal. Let me know if I'm wrong.

[zatatime]

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:06:10 -0600, "Bill Denton"
> wrote:

>Just a curiosity...
>
>I believe you mentioned that you did not yet have your instrument ticket,
>but you keep referring to VFR-on-top, which is flown, in the US, on an IFR
>flightplan.
>
>Am I missing something?
>

I think he means VFR over the top.

z

[Paul Smedshammer]

In article >, "Bill Denton" > wrote:
>Thanks!
>
>I'm still a wannabe, so I don't really yet know what is correct, but it
>struck me that while you might find a hole that would let you climb above
>the clouds on departure, what would happen if you were still above the
>clouds and there were no hole at your destination airport?
>

I had about 30 miles of this 600 foot overcast to pass over. It was clear on
the otherside with many places to land that were all forcast clear and my wife
was able to verify the weather at our local airport also. I just don't want
everybody to think I'm totally nuts.

[zatatime]

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:01:00 GMT,
(Paul Smedshammer) wrote:

> I just don't want
>everybody to think I'm totally nuts.


Too late....<BG>.

z

[Big John]

Paul

Been so long not sure you can do this???

In cold country you can get an alcohol based additive that will absorb
water in tank and let it go through the engine with no problem.

If the 360 system is suitable for the alcohol based additive then you
can get any water (small amounts you can't drain on pre flight) out of
tank that way vs major work by an A & E.

Check this out.

Any comments from the peanut gallery <G>

Big John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:55:32 GMT, (Paul
Smedshammer) wrote:

>In article . com>, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>
>>Paul Smedshammer wrote:
>>> In article . com>,
>
>Thanks to everybody for your responses. Sounds like the general consensus is
>either water in the fuel or some other fuel contamination. I'm taking the
>plane up to LASAR to have them drain the tanks and go through the whole fuel
>system. Hopefully they can find something that would explain what happened.
>This sure makes me think twice about VFR on top or even night flying.
>
>Paul,
>1967 Mooney M20F

[Happy Dog]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks!
>
> I'm still a wannabe, so I don't really yet know what is correct, but it
> struck me that while you might find a hole that would let you climb above
> the clouds on departure, what would happen if you were still above the
> clouds and there were no hole at your destination airport?

The Canadian rules are at:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/PART6/602.htm#602_116

Note the requirement for weather forecasts.

moo


>
>
>
> "Paul Smedshammer" > wrote in message
> om...
>> In article >, "Bill Denton"
> > wrote:
>> >Just a curiosity...
>> >
>> >I believe you mentioned that you did not yet have your instrument
>> >ticket,
>> >but you keep referring to VFR-on-top, which is flown, in the US, on an
> IFR
>> >flightplan.
>> >
>> >Am I missing something?
>> >
>>
>> As far as I know, and maybe I'm wrong, a VFR pilot can fly what would be
>> considered VFR on top. Maybe I'm using the technical term "VFR on Top"
>> incorrectly but I'm just trying to describe the situation. The situation
> was
>> a 600 foot overcast with tops at 1,500 feet. Clear above 1,500 feet with
>> visibility well over 10 miles … more like 50 miles. Correct me if I'm
> wrong
>> but a VFR pilot can fly at 4,500 feet in this situation. It might not be
>> smart but it is legal. Let me know if I'm wrong.
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bill Denton wrote:
>
> Thanks!
>
> I'm still a wannabe, so I don't really yet know what is correct, but it
> struck me that while you might find a hole that would let you climb above
> the clouds on departure, what would happen if you were still above the
> clouds and there were no hole at your destination airport?

You would have to find another destination. When I fly over clouds as described
here, I make sure that the cloud cover at or before my destination will let me
descend and is forecast to remain that way.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Newps]

Paul Smedshammer wrote:


>
>
> As far as I know, and maybe I'm wrong, a VFR pilot can fly what would be
> considered VFR on top. Maybe I'm using the technical term "VFR on Top"
> incorrectly but I'm just trying to describe the situation. The situation was
> a 600 foot overcast with tops at 1,500 feet. Clear above 1,500 feet with
> visibility well over 10 miles … more like 50 miles. Correct me if I'm wrong
> but a VFR pilot can fly at 4,500 feet in this situation. It might not be
> smart but it is legal. Let me know if I'm wrong.

It's legal, goddamned stupid, but legal.

[Paul Smedshammer]

In article >, Newps > wrote:
>
>> a 600 foot overcast with tops at 1,500 feet. Clear above 1,500 feet with
>> visibility well over 10 miles … more like 50 miles. Correct me if I'm wrong
>> but a VFR pilot can fly at 4,500 feet in this situation. It might not be
>> smart but it is legal. Let me know if I'm wrong.
>
>It's legal, goddamned stupid, but legal.

How is it any more stupid than say flying at night? I liken flying VFR over
the top of an overcast to be almost identical to flying at night when you are
out of gliding distance to a lighted airport runway. The only difference I
can come up with is at night if your engine quits you should be able to find a
non-populated area to come down in.

[David Rind]

Paul Smedshammer wrote:
> How is it any more stupid than say flying at night? I liken flying VFR over
> the top of an overcast to be almost identical to flying at night when you are
> out of gliding distance to a lighted airport runway. The only difference I
> can come up with is at night if your engine quits you should be able to find a
> non-populated area to come down in.

Actually, I think flying low IFR is more similar to flying at night over
dark terrain. In both situations, an engine failure is reasonably likely
to end very badly.

Flying VFR over the top has the above problem (engine failure likely to
end badly, particularly for a non-instrument-rated pilot) and the
additional problem that if the overcast doesn't clear you may be unable
to get down safely if you are not competent to land on instruments. I've
certainly flown a number of times where the forecast was for a layer
below me to clear when instead it became more solid in all directions
(and I needed an IFR clearance to get down).

But all of flying involves balancing risks. Personally, I was never
willing to fly over a solid overcast until I had my instrument rating,
but if there were definite clear conditions in reach in several
directions I don't think it would be an insane thing to do. Flying from
Boston to Long Island, for instance, there is frequently a solid layer
near the coast, with the layer dissipating both as you go a little
inland and as you reach Long Island. It's reasonable to want some
altitude while crossing the LI Sound, so you might not want to fly
beneath the layer. Hard to argue that flying over such a layer is really
that much more dangerous than flying at night.

--
David Rind

[Andrew Sarangan]

Actually, I would say that engine failure at night is worse than an engine
failure in IMC or VFR on top. At night you will never be able the see the
details of the terrain until after you have landed. You can head towards an
unlit area, but you don't know if that is an open field or a mountain. In
instrument conditions you will not know where to head towards, but at least
you will see the last few hundred feet and should be able to maneuver
around obstacles, unless you have zero/zero conditions all the way to the
surface.


(Paul Smedshammer) wrote in
. com:

> In article >, Newps
> > wrote:
>>
>>> a 600 foot overcast with tops at 1,500 feet. Clear above 1,500 feet
>>> with visibility well over 10 miles … more like 50 miles. Correct me
>>> if I'm wrong but a VFR pilot can fly at 4,500 feet in this
>>> situation. It might not be smart but it is legal. Let me know if
>>> I'm wrong.
>>
>>It's legal, goddamned stupid, but legal.
>
> How is it any more stupid than say flying at night? I liken flying
> VFR over the top of an overcast to be almost identical to flying at
> night when you are out of gliding distance to a lighted airport
> runway. The only difference I can come up with is at night if your
> engine quits you should be able to find a non-populated area to come
> down in.

[Robert M. Gary]

Good choice. Lasar will do an excellent job, they have a great
reputation in the Mooney community.

Yes, technically, VFR-on-Top has its own FAA meaning that is neither
VFR or necessarily "top top". A controller issuing a clearance
"VFR-on-top" is issuing a type of IFR clearance. However, we all knew
what you meant. BTW: I fly out of Sacramento, are in near here?

-Robert, CFI

Paul Smedshammer wrote:

> As far as I know, and maybe I'm wrong, a VFR pilot can fly what would
be
> considered VFR on top. Maybe I'm using the technical term "VFR on
Top"
> incorrectly but I'm just trying to describe the situation. The
situation was
> a 600 foot overcast with tops at 1,500 feet. Clear above 1,500 feet
with
> visibility well over 10 miles ... more like 50 miles. Correct me if
I'm wrong
> but a VFR pilot can fly at 4,500 feet in this situation. It might
not be
> smart but it is legal. Let me know if I'm wrong.

[Robert M. Gary]

I think there is another problem here. I've owned my Mooney for quite
some time and always kept it outside. I've never, ever, gotten water in
my tanks. I always replace all the cap seals (2 seals per tank) at
annual and ensure the cap tension is correct. I also never park my
plane with more than 15 gals per side (so much for the wives tale about
empty tanks collecting water). Even at that, I never get water. If a
Mooney pilot is getting water in his tank, he has a problem that needs
to be fixed.
-Robert, CFI M20F owner.

[AJW]

>
>I think there is another problem here. I've owned my Mooney for quite
>some time and always kept it outside. I've never, ever, gotten water in
>my tanks. I always replace all the cap seals (2 seals per tank) at
>annual and ensure the cap tension is correct. I also never park my
>plane with more than 15 gals per side (so much for the wives tale about
>empty tanks collecting water). Even at that, I never get water. If a
>Mooney pilot is getting water in his tank, he has a problem that needs
>to be fixed.
>-Robert, CFI M20F owner.
>
The problem that needed repeated fixing on my M20J is getting the FBO minimum
wage guy to put the damned caps on correctly! I've had that problem in too many
places, esp on fairly long XC flights where you land in the rain, tell them to
top off the tanks, go to your hotel, work the next day, go out to the airplane
in the rain, drain and drain and drain the damned tanks because -- well, you
know the story. Have you noticed, as I just did, that drain is D RAIN? As in
damned?

[G.R. Patterson III]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
> In
> instrument conditions you will not know where to head towards, but at least
> you will see the last few hundred feet and should be able to maneuver
> around obstacles, unless you have zero/zero conditions all the way to the
> surface.

While true, as a VFR pilot, I would hate to have to bring my Maule down through
3,000' or so of cloud with nothing but a magnetic compass and a T&B to help me
keep it straight.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[G.R. Patterson III]

AJW wrote:
>
> I've had that problem in too many
> places, esp on fairly long XC flights where you land in the rain, tell them to
> top off the tanks, go to your hotel, work the next day, go out to the airplane
> in the rain, drain and drain and drain the damned tanks because -- well, you
> know the story.

I have the FBO top the tanks just before I leave. May not be feasible all the
time, but it would prevent this sort of problem.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[AJW]

>e Problems in Flight
>From: "G.R. Patterson III"
>Date: 12/16/2004 10:24 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>
>AJW wrote:
>>
>> I've had that problem in too many
>> places, esp on fairly long XC flights where you land in the rain, tell them
>to
>> top off the tanks, go to your hotel, work the next day, go out to the
>airplane
>> in the rain, drain and drain and drain the damned tanks because -- well,
>you
>> know the story.
>
>I have the FBO top the tanks just before I leave. May not be feasible all the
>time, but it would prevent this sort of problem.
>
Hadn't thought of that. Might delay t/o a bit, but it's a good idea, thanks.

[Newps]

Paul Smedshammer wrote:

> In article >, Newps > wrote:
>
>>>a 600 foot overcast with tops at 1,500 feet. Clear above 1,500 feet with
>>>visibility well over 10 miles … more like 50 miles. Correct me if I'm wrong
>>>but a VFR pilot can fly at 4,500 feet in this situation. It might not be
>>>smart but it is legal. Let me know if I'm wrong.
>>
>>It's legal, goddamned stupid, but legal.
>
>
> How is it any more stupid than say flying at night?

I didn't make the comparison.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 16 Dec 2004 11:51:20 GMT, (AJW) wrote:

>The problem that needed repeated fixing on my M20J is getting the FBO minimum
>wage guy to put the damned caps on correctly! I've had that problem in too many
>places, esp on fairly long XC flights where you land in the rain, tell them to
>top off the tanks, go to your hotel, work the next day, go out to the airplane
>in the rain, drain and drain and drain the damned tanks because -- well, you
>know the story. Have you noticed, as I just did, that drain is D RAIN? As in
>damned?

That's happened to me so many times that, unless I know the person who is
doing the fueling, I always supervise.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Paul Smedshammer]

In article . com>, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>Good choice. Lasar will do an excellent job, they have a great
>reputation in the Mooney community.
>
>Yes, technically, VFR-on-Top has its own FAA meaning that is neither
>VFR or necessarily "top top". A controller issuing a clearance
>"VFR-on-top" is issuing a type of IFR clearance. However, we all knew
>what you meant. BTW: I fly out of Sacramento, are in near here?
>
>-Robert, CFI
>

Based out of Petaluma. Heading up to Lasar today to see if they can find
anything wrong. Thanks again everybody for all the information. I will post
what is found or isn't found.

Paul

[Paul Smedshammer]

In article >, (Paul Smedshammer) wrote:
>In article . com>, "Robert M.
> Gary" > wrote:
>>Good choice. Lasar will do an excellent job, they have a great
>>reputation in the Mooney community.
>>
>>Yes, technically, VFR-on-Top has its own FAA meaning that is neither
>>VFR or necessarily "top top". A controller issuing a clearance
>>"VFR-on-top" is issuing a type of IFR clearance. However, we all knew
>>what you meant. BTW: I fly out of Sacramento, are in near here?
>>
>>-Robert, CFI
>>
>
>Based out of Petaluma. Heading up to Lasar today to see if they can find
>anything wrong. Thanks again everybody for all the information. I will post
>what is found or isn't found.
>
>Paul

I just spent 4 hours of mechanic time up at Lasar. At my request they went
through everything. Checked the tanks for water, checked the gas collator,
servo, injectors, spark plugs, exhaust for blockage, air intakes (filter,
alternate air, ram air) all without finding anything. Test flight afterward
and the flight home both had the engine running perfectly as if nothing had
ever happened. Everybody is scratching their heads a little but I'm pretty
sure the culprit was water in the tank. On the flight that I had the trouble,
I made a step bank turn to stay under the fog ahead and I'm thinking there was
some water trapped behind a rib in the wing. The steep turn could have
stirred it up and had it settle to the bottom of the tank, which then got
pulled into the engine. It ran really rough for a while as it was a mixture
(recently stirred up) of water and fuel and then when that mixture was all
pushed through, it cleared up and ran normal. Leaving no sign of what had
happened.

Lessons learned, 1) do not fly VFR Over the Top unless you absolutely have to
and if you do get a lot of altitude so you might have a chance to glide to a
clear area to land and 2) really work the wings and sump the tanks vigorously
after rain or even dense fog - or for that matter anytime before you go flying
- you might have trapped water in the wing somewhere.

Thanks again to everybody who responded. I have learned a lot through this
experience.

Paul
Mooney M20F

[AJW]

>
>I just spent 4 hours of mechanic time up at Lasar. At my request they went
>through everything. Checked the tanks for water, checked the gas collator,
>servo, injectors, spark plugs, exhaust for blockage, air intakes (filter,
>alternate air, ram air) all without finding anything. Test flight afterward
>and the flight home both had the engine running perfectly as if nothing had
>ever happened. Everybody is scratching their heads a little but I'm pretty
>sure the culprit was water in the tank. On the flight that I had the
>trouble,
>I made a step bank turn to stay under the fog ahead and I'm thinking there
>was
>some water trapped behind a rib in the wing. The steep turn could have
>stirred it up and had it settle to the bottom of the tank, which then got
>pulled into the engine. It ran really rough for a while as it was a mixture
>(recently stirred up) of water and fuel and then when that mixture was all
>pushed through, it cleared up and ran normal. Leaving no sign of what had
>happened.
>
>Lessons learned, 1) do not fly VFR Over the Top unless you absolutely have to
>
>and if you do get a lot of altitude so you might have a chance to glide to a
>clear area to land and 2) really work the wings and sump the tanks vigorously
>
>after rain or even dense fog - or for that matter anytime before you go
>flying
>- you might have trapped water in the wing somewhere.
>
>Thanks again to everybody who responded. I have learned a lot through this
>experience.
>
>Paul
>Mooney M20F
>
Paul, you may want to think about that "steep bank to avoid fog ahead" comment.
It suggests

1: you may have been low,

2: if it stirred up the fuel tanks it may have been uncoordinated.

Man, if there's a nit to be picked. . .