All Activity

Perhaps mentioned previously….One way to (sometimes) mitigate risk is to plan a downwind departure and in some cases continue to climb over the airport. Turning toward the downwind earlier than “normal” starts to set one up for an airport landing earlier. I fully recognize this is not always practical and only find myself using it when I’m feeling paranoid at an airport with limited options and favorable traffic. I will also use it after performing significant engine work (paranoid). I know there is still a window on initial climb out where we are still at risk, but the technique does get you to glide range sooner than simply flying away from the airport. This is not unlike how some instructors teach always remaining in glide range of the runway when doing pattern work. Flying a tight pattern is not 100% bulletproof, but can contribute to better odds during an engine out. Just watch your AOA in the turns. Play the game, “where would I land now” to see the best departure/ pattern from airports you frequent. Your mileage may vary depending on trees, terrain, airspace, traffic, etc, but it sometimes reveals some options you may not notice in a true emergency. Anyway, my 2 cents, and always hoping for some extra luck at the moment we need it.

Insurance would be pretty useless if it didn't apply when you screwed up/broke a rule/didn't follow the POH.

Just let me know if you want them. I could ship them to you and see if they work

The POH for my MSE calls for flaps to takeoff, then gear, then flaps up, so that’s the way I do it. If something goes wrong, and you don’t follow the procedure outlined by the manufacturer, your insurance company might have a leg to stand on if they wanted out of a claim. Not likely, but why open that door? I’ve practiced both methods and don’t notice a difference aside from the pitching moment, which is what I believe Mooney is trying to limit with their published procedure.

You can get both radios with glide slopes. It’s the built-in resolver that’s different. One has it, the other doesn’t. It’s an HSI / OBS (nav indicator) thing.

also for those of you with G5s you can get into situation where you turned the battery off then back on to check something then off again and you throw the G5s out of sequence and they will not start the count down and power off...they just stay on....dont ask me how I know.....

Both of my 155’s have glide slope receivers.

Often through-bolts require the case to be split to replace them. I don't know whether that's the case with this one or not, but it would be nice if not. Even if not it might be worth consulting with Continental or a relevant shop on what inspections might be a good idea if the engine ran for a while with no tension on that bolt.

Also… add to your checklist… walking away from the plane… always look back to see the red flashing strobe isn’t operating… could be a memory issue, or a worn relay… Best regards, -a-

Things to remember… Solenoids and relays are names for the same device an electro magnetic switch… the word solenoid is headed for the dustbin of magic words… they last for decades before failing… each time they operate, a tiny spark occurs, releasing a few atoms into the air inside the case… they are slowly wearing from the first day… they have key details in the part name… normally open and normally closed…. NO NC. they are wired in an interesting way with the avionics relay… this provides the avionics to work in the event the avionics relay fails…. It will fail closed. take a look at how your strobes are wired… if your relays are original… you may have three that are very similar… carry a spare of each the NO and NC… Start, master, avionics, battery selector… plus a few more… PP thoughts only, not a mechanic… Best regards, -a-

I believe the KX-200 IS a slide-in replacement for the KX-155/165 Oh, and some KX-155s DO have built-in Glide Slope receivers. Depends on mod/version.

KX165 has glide slope… KX155 does not… fancy panel from 1994 has both… let’s invite @Alan Fox to this conversation… Alan is my preferred supply of pre-flown avionics… Keep in mind… the newer BK avionics are rebranded devices built by somebody else… it may be interesting to find out what a KX200 really is… that may explain why it isn’t a slide in replacement… Best regards, -a-

I carry a spare master solenoid with me

A KX-165 is not a direct replacement for a KX-155. One has a resolver (155) the other doesn’t. You’ll probably need a different nav indicator. Just a heads up for those looking at this.

The install cost alone plus the inconvenience of having to rip apart panel that I am fairly happy with strongly favors KX200 option. While I like Garmin products, I am not obsessed with brand loyalty to the point of incurring unnecessary expenses just to have all Garmin panel.

These still working? I might need to make some. Lasar doesn’t have any real ones and my new plane needs them.

I don't know the timing of the company transitions but the KY 197s were original in the plane from 1980 (1979 actually as my plane is a 1980 model year but the airworthiness cert is from 12/1979).

Thanks, I watched that part (starts at 40:00), as expected UND were abusing their engines…even with 100LL they would have the exact same problem (they did not even run 50% vs 50% of fleet on 100L vs UL94) Definitely not aromatics as Lycoming suggested, I did run the same Archer with same engine on UL91 (Avgas available in Europe, basically 100LL without TEL and no aromatics) and many times using SP98 auto-fuel (full of aromatics, sort of EN228/AKI93 with even lower MON 87 octane rating), however, I flew richer than 100ROP and I swear, I never ever let CHT slip above 380F, that Archer still fly using Mogas with no issues ! Swift claimed no one else had valve recession problems using UL94 in the last 10 years, except UND (they have engines replaced regularly on warranty anyway even with 100LL )

My suspicion is that the KY-197s were designed AFTER King was sold off to Allied Signal and Bendix. The KLN-94 was an even later (circa 2000) design...might be even after Honeywell bought them?

The new solenoid in your pictures on the crossmember next to the inline fuse is not powering the main bus, I don't think. It would need to have the big 2 gauge wires going to it. It's powering something else, and I can't tell what.

For clarity, if your F is wired like my K, and it looks like it is, this one is your master relay/solenoid, mounted on the rear of the battery box where you have to lean way into the tailcone to see / work on it:

the aircraft spruce link you provided was for a solenoid. the solenoid pictured above IS less than or around a year old, but it is not what the arrow is pointing to. the arrow in pic 1 points to the inline fuse and the arrow in pic 2 points to the relay, which has been there since I've had the plane. I'm question if the RELAY is part of the problem, not the solenoid.

@eman1200 My parts catalog calls it a relay. It could also be called a solenoid. Pretty much the same thing. The solenoid with the arrow pointing to it in your photos does not look less than a year old. There is another one mounted on the crossmember that is not present in my plane that looks new, and also like it should have some protection over the terminals to prevent accidental arcing. I suspect someone has done something non-standard with your wiring that may be contributing to your situation.

Maybe I'm in the minority but I switched to a Garmin panel 18 years ago when both of my KY 197s failed within a month of each other and my KLN 94 started to overheat. Haven't had a single issue since.

Yeah, that's the excellent question, isn't it? Thankfully, my KX-155 is still soldiering on (I have one segment in one of the seven-segment displays out) but at some point I'll be faced with this decision. The KX-155 has gone well beyond being a proven design...it's pretty much the gold standard in a great, reliable radio. So, having it repaired and upgrading the display is pretty compelling. OTOH, there's not much of a guarantee of how much additional life I'm going to get for my $2.5K. Thus, the KX-200, at $5K becomes a possibility. It's new and shiny and has a warranty. Thing is, it has NOT been field proven by any stretch of the imagination (think beta tester when you buy), and it is $2.5K more money out of my pocket. Keep in mind that the Bendix-King that designed the venerable KX-155 is most definitely NOT the same company that has designed the KX-200. I'm not convinced they're now a better company than they once were. So, at the moment, it is pretty obvious I'd go with the repair/refurb option. But who knows when mine dies enough time may have elapsed that the KX-200 has become well established, and Ed may no longer be fixing KX-155s! I'll wait and see.