All Activity

Exhaust flanges are held on with nuts, not bolts.

This is a rather large sheared off bolt, thorough inspection of engine and nose gear is in order before flying plane

Derlin Rod. I think it is 7/8. Centering on a lathe is hard without turning the piece after centering. especially at the end of a semi flexible rod. It's also hard to center if you recess the rod into a chuck to eliminate sway. So what I did was cut the rod to width or a little over on a table saw. Then created a square jig to hold the round rod. Then could center precisely on the milling machine and drill the hole using the horizontal table. There was some square up/final dimensioning for the width that could be accomplished with a flat file. I still have a bag of them cut somewhere. https://www.amazon.com/BuyPlastic-Delrin-Acetal-Copolymer-Diameter/dp/B092Y8F2ZK/ref=sr_1_2?crid=39XWK6QWO0NJ4&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.GLKXYP5rUVhCOeaCKW55RBbtcn7FYezCSDlGG2mC0SfvU9-kTBu8Tkru_TNpKX4QJl2GAFe8qSSBpE-oQpRQwLI3JttJh86SvgDc9Pu7tUUgXuu5aF7DujgqlGbXN76BPIvQ1wq6U80Vg-5ufFBhsE7kCGJm_kBx2SnUfmG4x7BMstxtBey7itspjyJQrySv6gcdY_yKc8lI649dblcwK2HL8f0Gi0ih_GX6L4--JB0.eDWZVQWq3C434BWcpVX4h-gceYWaihsuSjw6fXdPr6Y&dib_tag=se&keywords=delrin%2Brods%2B7%2F8&qid=1757792148&sprefix=delrin%2Brods%2B7%2F8%2Caps%2C166&sr=8-2&th=1

I think you guys give too much credibility to the 1/2 flaps thing. The Mooney flaps are not nearly as effective as the flaps on other planes. The only time I use takeoff flaps is for short or soft field takeoffs. For landing they are either up or down. I only land with them up if someone asks me to, or they are broke.

The tit seems pretty reasonable compared to all my egt readings as well. What do your egts read at this power setting?

At all flap settings, the yoke still works. With full nose up trim, it isn’t hard to put the nose wherever you need it. I like to land as slow as possible. Extra speed on the ground never seems like a good idea.

We already did.. In one had, the 100R is already "blessed" by Lycoming in IO36, they had no objection to FAA STC for 100R in C172S In the other hand, G100UL in IO360 is not approved by Lycoming, they have "strong" objection to FAA STC for G100UL in C172S Maybe the difference between Lycoming approval for 100R vs objection for G100UL has to do with Swift involvement in ASTM? As for 550s, yes Swift seems way behind the curve compared to GAMI, they have challenges with these, they may get something from FAA subject to operational limitation or ignition changes. For "550s", an ASTM drop-in fuel could be very hard to achieve one has to work on formulations within some tight controlled parameters. This may take 18 months or even more: Let's be honest some engines break cylinders and valves every 800h on 100LL, I doubt they will make it past TBO on 100R...

"I usually use TO flaps for landing. It puts the airplane in a better landing attitude IMO keeping the nose wheel a little higher off the ground." I think this is great point. I don't understand why so many highlight wanting full flaps to keep the nose down more.

No idea how standards were developed for 5G but I seriously doubt that the standards were set using the "lowest common denominator", the lowest requirement. If big bore Lycoming and Continentals and other high-performance engines are the critical path, then the standards should be set to meet them. It shouldn't be "let's get together and set standards for a fuel that we call "100" but really only satisfies the "94 fleet". i.e. "marketing hype". Let's all hope that it works for the more demanding high performance engine segment. But they should have been testing this in 520's. 550's, 540's, 580's Turbo and NA from the get-go. Not "Announce 100R ASTM - Great Success"....oh but we forgot to test it in engines that actually need 100. - and "Stand by for about 2 years while we begin testing"

I've been the same way. A few times in high-crosswind approaches when I did use half-flaps, I wound up putting the rest in on short final. I think the idea for a faster landing speed with a crosswind is to minimize the correction angle or sideload on touchdown, but I suspect those differences are small for small airplanes. Reducing energy at touchdown feels more beneficial to me, but my experience level is low compared to some others.

Standards development happens all the time for all sorts of things. Do you know what companies participated in the development of 5G? WiFi? Any of the multitudes of SAE standards? Announcing standards participation is not done very often, since it's usually not very beneficial to the company to do so. I suspect we'll hear some sort of support or limitations statements from various manufacturers once a particular fuel enters the distribution system and becomes available to consumers. Relevant manufacturers made statements when G100UL came out, but mostly saying that they didn't support use of it. For a fuel that they participated in acceptance via a standard, a statement may look very different, but I wouldn't expect to see one until the fuel became available or was about to.

Last year I had a GFC 500 installed in my plane which already had the Aspen 2500. I had a GI275 installed to control it. The Aspen system and the autopilot systems are completely independent. That means flight director shows on the 275 and not the Aspen. Altimeter must be set in both.

While the main objective is to seal the baffles, I’m always amazed at how many mechanics will just gob the RTV on like that. Only takes a few minutes to run a couple pieces of masking tape before you apply the sealant. Hit it with an acid brush to make it lay down a nice texture and then remove the tape. Professional looking sealant every time. That looks awful, I don’t blame you for wanting to redo it.

The point is - be realistic. And they should be too. They are not going to institute "new manufacturing". More investment? Ridiculous. They should focus on cutting cost and getting it in line with inflow. They can supply parts using much less infrastructure. And this dream of taking planes in trade and refurbishing is a whole different business model. They are going to drown in negative cash flow. This is why companies restructure, some potentially successfully, in bankruptcy.

I think the theory is that less flaps gives you 1) higher landing attitude so you are less likely to prang it on the nose wheel (particularly at=>; 2) faster speeds so you have more control effectiveness. As I said, you do you. YMMV...

It is a fine thread bolt, so it didn’t come from the engine. But it is very oily. Does your engine leak oil? Is your landing gear oily?

I always use full flaps. I’ve landed in some pretty wicked crosswinds. Can’t see how partial flaps would help. Let the flames begin….

I have the EI tach removed from my Bravo during the panel replacement in 2023. PM me if you get to the point where you might need it. Cheers, Rick

I'll just add this from our M20J (205) POH. Not very often there isn't some crosswind... I usually use TO flaps for landing. It puts the airplane in a better landing attitude IMO keeping the nose wheel a little higher off the ground. Seems most people that have issues landing Mooneys seem to land them flat or on the nose wheel first. Yes, this an airspeed problem but it is what it is... Flaps TO helps this a bit. Also, as stated in the other thread, there are no configuration changes are required during a go-around. None. Just add power and pitch up. That's it. YMMV.

"Since engine and airframe manufacturers were also involved, you can bet materials compatibility was addressed for them as well." Really? Why don't we hear directly from Lycoming, Continental or Rotax about their involvement and approval? Or from the surviving airframe manufacturers that have to warrant their new aircraft certified to use one of these fuels? And in late July, "Testing will begin later this year on a Continental 550 and d’Acosta said it will take about 18 months." Swift Fuels Unleaded Update At AirVenture - AVweb It is fricking 2025 - how can testing on a Continental 550 just be beginning later this year? The horse is behind the cart. How can it be ASTM approved with "engine manufacturers involved" if it hasn't even been tested in the high performance engines????

That generally looks like the size of several bolts that hold the nose gear assembly together. If your thumbs are about like mine, that could be something like an AN6-14 or AN6-15, both of which are used in the nose gear. Take a look at IPC section 32-20-00 for the diagram and a list of all the bolts in that area. I wouldn't put my head under there until either confirming that the critical bolts are all there or attaching a tail weight. You might consider sticking your phone between the gear doors and taking several pictures facing forward. But also, wow that bolt has been through some trauma! There must be a story of how it got so scarred. Let us know if you figure out where it came from.

Valid points. Do you have anything helpful to the fleet to add? The Chinese did contribute. They also spent a substantial portion of the cash on the composite trainer only to drop it at the 11th hour. Long and short of it; what are your options. I will embrace the Lasar group and support their efforts until they give me a reason not to.

I'm running CG numbers right now and even based on 1.5lbs that far back it's going to seriously limit me. My wife likes to ride in the back while we leave the front passenger seat empty. As is, I can do 30lbs in the baggage compartment and 40 lbs in the second rear seat; this puts me right at the aft limit with the gear up. It's no issue if she's in the front seat, but that isn't our preferred setup.

My understanding of the situation is that it's tied up with the FAA PMA approval, and getting the location changed from one FSDO to another, for each individual PMA part. Not related to LASAR'a abilities, processes or people, but caused by FAA red tape.

Boost pump off except for priming and emergencies is common (although not universal) the big Continentals. It's true for the Bonanzas as well. Not true for the SR22.