All Activity

A question related to the OP: How long can you 'store' a new tube? Have had one on the shelf for over 3 years...

I put two desser retreads and two desser tubes on our plane a few years ago, one was flat when we let it off the jacks the next day, we took it off, and I was seeping out of one of those mold line seams. They sent me another one, I put that in. The other one, a year later, failed when I took a customer over to Dugosh to pick up his plane. I literally landed, after a half hour, I taxied over to the fuel pump, and it was flat when I got out of the plane. I haven't used one since.

A quick google search on 6041H53 shows it to be a Cutler Hammer which was bought by Eaton. This looks like a pretty good fact sheet. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Misc_Pdf/6041SeriesPowerRelays.pdf 28V 2PDT Has an MS number MS25031-D1B I found the F model flap relay NOS at like Relays.com or something. I should probably sell it.

In a straight line.

Porsches had a bad rep way before the turbos. Trailing throttle oversteer. The turbo just gave you the additional option of spinning the car using power.

I'm in the same camp as you. I still have my original KX155's from 1991. They are bulletproof, and cheap to repair or replace if needed.

Different HP ratings. In the 60s up to 1972, HP was SAE Gross HP. That is without an exhaust system, headers, not driving any accessories (including not running the water pump), no air filter. Then they changed to SAE Net HP. Which was the engine as installed in the car. With full exhaust system and air intake with air filter and all accessories. In the late 70s and through the 80s, the HP numbers fell even more due to meeting emissions targets with the technology at the time. There is also the factor that most companies report the highest HP they recorded for any engine they tested. And they did not test most of the production engines. And, in some cases, the changed the specs in a way that lowered the HP without changing the reported output. My 85 Dodge Daytona Turbo Z was reported at 148 HP. But talking to the engine shop that did mine (and specialized in Chrysler engines) stated that every engine they had seen, the compression was about 1/2 point lower than what Dodge said it was. So it seems they lowered the CR for engine safety, but did not change the specs.

In what way? All an ASTM standard means is that you got a bunch of people to agree to make a standard for THAT mix. It does not address the suitability of THAT mix to the desired use. Swift still has not changed their stance that the fuel is NOT suitable for a good proportion of the piston fleet.

How far lean of peak? And, did you use the same number of degrees lop at 65% power that you did at 75% power?

Thinking about it. Whoever gave this turn the "impossible turn" name did every pilot such a huge disservice. The name is total misnomer. It's not impossible, more like it's very risky and very likely too risky! If it were called the "super duper risky liable to kill you often turn" people would likely have a much better attitude towards it. It would be clear it's sometimes possible in the right conditions but just that the risks with it are way higher and that it is in fact a far better idea to look for lower risks options if at all available.

The fourth item is: This is the first time in life that you can only recall three items on your list. Happens to me all the time at market.

What would be required to install this on my M20E IO-360-A1A? e.g. Will I need to send it to JPI for reprogramming d/t different fuel tank quantities? -David

That’s the solenoid which is probably less than a year old. We were thinking the relay or the wiring ,like you said.

Check for slop in the elevator bellcrank by moving the elevator halves relative to each other, elevator pushrod drives elevator bellcrank, two short links drive elevators, the bellcrank is riveted together and the rivets may have worked themselves loose

That's your master relay. It could be bad, or you could have a wiring problem between it and your master switch. I believe a short to ground between the master switch and the relay could cause what you're seeing, in most installations. Don't let the A&P go down to the local auto parts store for a replacement. Spruce sells good FAA/PMA ones. https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/solenoidx610028.php

Right, that’s what I’m after - I don’t really care about the small alignment mismatch unless it’s a safety-of-flight issue.

Hindsight being 20/20, this is one of the reasons why when you buy an airplane you are so much better off buying an one where someone else has paid for the upgrades. They will get only part of their upgrade cost back when they sell and if you include a thorough avionics pre-buy you'll get an airplane where all of the upgrade glitches have been worked out. What you're looking for is the owner who did everything he could possibly think of to upgrade the airplane and has now run out of things to do, so now it's time to sell. (Like me for example on the last couple airplanes I had before this one . . . lol)

To gain access, it might be possible to drill each of the rivets out around the inner portion of the access panel, remove that portion and then you’d have access to put a backup wrench on the nuts. Then you can reassemble using the dome style nut plates or find serviceable ones to reinstall.

More like "die trying hard." Some fields have no good options other than a turn back. At home, I have a good option straight out on 36, land on the nice divided 4-lane highway; but on 18, it's forest then lake, so I'll get to practice a water landing and get out of the plane before she sinks . . . or try turning around, there's a great cleared area before the runway.

I definitely thought that until I saw that the court said the search warrant was unrelated.

You're right, they don't. That would explain a lot.

I agree there is that gamblea element and it gives a flase sense of security. Aside from myriades of variables like wind, length and layout, most of these "impossible turn videos" talk about ONE SINGLE variable: the critical altitude from which you you bank 45deg (or 60deg) and pull to turn near stall or like there is no tomorrow... What is missing is SECOND variable which is the altitude by which you tend to level wings on 1G with speed near Vref? I assume second altitude is about 300ft-400ft agl in Mooney? and reasonable altitude loss for 270 deg turn is 600ft? while reasonable altitude loss for 360 deg turn is 800ft, so there you go 1100ft-1200ft agl for 360 return and 900ft agl for 180 return (even if one can fly tighter turns in 20s, they ars still showing -1000fpm for these), these are the usual "patten altitudes" where one can make it back from engine failures, anything bellow is "highly optimised": as someone said, in emergency, you either raise to the occasion or descend to the lowest level of competance Without some sort of "stop loss" for altitude, the whole manœuvre is pure gamble (or it's "all-in") When one fly forced landing from an altitude higher than pattern, they tend to have some key position ("called low key") to reasses if they need to stretch or tighten their base leg (or put flaps), when one fly forced landing straight, they tend to have an aiming point in the field ahead, when one flies "impossible turn", it's more like do it or die hard trying...

My KX165 is with Ed at kx155.com right now. I will give a pirep when it gets back to me this week. i went through all of these iterations (KX200 vs new Garmin navcom, etc) on what to do with my number two radio, and in the end this simple radio went 40 years trouble free so I figured for less than $3K for a refurb, it was worth a shot.

Yesterday I flew to Augsburg, outside of Munich. There were many firsts for me. The first first was the NOTAM for Augsburg (EDMA) stating that overflight is prohibited due to bomb disposal (exhibit A). The second first was getting the call, "free of storks" on climb out. At my home airport, we have an offset approach due to a stork sanctuary. Yesterday there were at least three of these flocks circling next to the runway and possibly directly over and around the grass runway. The photo is the best I could do from the taxiway. I counted about 70 in that flock, so there were at least 250-300 storks total flying in our airspace (exhibit B). The third first was this factory I saw in Germany in the middle of the forest. Maybe @MatthiasArnold knows what it is. Strange location; hundreds of employees (exhibit C). I had a fourth first, but I can't remember what it was. Anyway... interesting day!

Exactly. And no one has really taken on board my main point. Which is that even if you execute the turn back perfectly you still are left with only the one good option, low and slow. Never put yourself in a position without an out. Straight ahead if you set up for a field and you're high, maybe there's another field beyond it that you can take, but you can take more time to set up in the first place making hitting that field so much more likely. My main point is, unless you are Bob Hoover, if you make the turn back it's a gamble, not a predictable outcome. It's a gamble that may end in death - as it so often does. I just wish people, who plan to turn back, would admit to themselves this reality and see if maybe there are lower risk options. These demonstrations with idle engine instill a false sense of security because every single one of them has an out that wouldn't be there otherwise - the engine. All the while the same time could be spent on learning to judge your glide better, how to aim at fields and making sure you hit them, we have plenty of deaths from people over/undershooting perfectly good fields too. If only we admitted, finally, collectively, that this maneuver is ALWAYS a gamble and there are safer options. But alas, let's debate the bank angle for this gamble and kill some more people.