All Activity

Yeah, all I have is a rate of climb table

The OP indicated his source wanted $800 to re-web!!! I was trying to suggest a lower cost non-TSO option (Hooker harness) if the aircraft TC allowed it. No real idea if the need, or lack thereof, for TSO belts/hardware is controlled by the TC.

It’s actually pretty easy. If one has the TSO’d seat belts the webbing is tagged with the TSO on it. It’s the hardware that is TSO’d not the webbing, so all one needs to do is send in the complete old belts and the shop re-webbing the belts will ensure they get the TSO tags on the re-webbed belts using your existing TSO’d hardware. Re-webbing is a lot cheaper than buying entirely new belts. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The more accurate way to determine if your engine is still producing full power is in measuring your time to climb from liftoff to some altitude such as 8, 9 or 10K’ as compared to your POH time to climb table. It’s critical to follow the POH listed conditions such as Vy and will need to still have the same prop. e.g. a 3 bladed prop will climb better than the original 2 bladed. Modern POH’s make this pretty straight forward yet done older POH’s (as well as some STC’s) can make this more difficult and may only give climb rates at different altitudes rather than provide a time to climb table. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fuel density?

Well I am glad that you continued your investigation. Did the inspector strip off the paint to inspect the area? Now you can move forward. Excellent job!

I have an update to share. It turns out the gear really is cracked. I had a magnetic-particle inspection performed last week and it revealed several cracks in the area. Neither Don Maxwell nor LASAR are able to repair this, so I am moving forward with the salvage gear. I will have an MPI performed on this one before installation to verify it is a good part.

Post some pictures

I have a client in Ohio who wants to buy a J but has never sat in one. Anyone in the Columbus area willing let him sit in your J?

The GNX375 is a great unit, you won't be disappointed. I've installed a number of them and I love the unit. I put one in my 172 along with the 255 and 215 (the older version of the 215/205). I hadn't suggested it since you were looking for a COM or COM/NAV, but it really is a great all-in-one kinda unit.

Thanks Jake. I will PM you separately. The unit just went dark after working well during the flight. Resetting the CB made no difference and on the ground I verified the CB works. I have a working spare that is the same model number but different part number and came out of a Velocity acft during an upgrade, so I don’t think I can plug in the spare in my M20J and expect it to work, but may just fry something else. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When hand tapping, I always preferred a tapered tap, followed by a bottoming tap for blind holes. With helicoils or other threaded inserts provided by equipment OEMs, I generally used what they sent for installation.

Both PFD / ND etc

Plugs are rotated between cylinders to even the wear on the electrodes. The voltage applied to fire the plugs is DC but it changes polarity between adjacent cylinders in the firing order. The spark always jumps from the negative electrode to the positive electrode and in so doing it takes a bit of metal off the negative electrode which is vaporized in the plasma of the spark. So some spark plugs will wear the center electrode and others will wear the ground electrodes. By rotating them properly we reverse the polarity and even out the wear. But, it's not a big deal -- the plugs are wearing a bit every time they fire. All you are doing is evening out the wear on between the center and ground electrodes. I believe that the dual mags always fire with the same polarity on all plugs and so there is no advantage to rotating them and I never hear people with dual mags complaining that their plugs wear out faster. There is no good reason to rotate top to bottom in the same cylinder. The bottom plugs may tend to oil foul more if the rings are worn, but if you take them out and clean them then they are all the same and rotating top to bottom doesn't really do anything. The optimum gap for the the SureFly is greater than for the magneto because the SureFly can put out more voltage necessary to jump the higher gap. The higher voltage spark will have more energy and may provide more reliable ignition with very lean mixtures. A smaller gap will cause the plug to fire before the voltage builds up to it's maximum and some of this advantage will be lost. But, if your engine has been running fine with the smaller gaps then it's probably not worth overthinking it.

Thanks! Probably will need a big prayer and offerings to the Gods of Avionics[emoji41] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This was operator error (me). When you choose your mins on the selected approach, the minimums and circling notes persist in the “timeline” view.

^^^^ This.

I think my manual says 2-3 gallons …. Let me check … ETA: Yeah, it says 2.5-3

My F is completely under CAR3 and I replaced all the belts and added shoulder harnesses from Hooker Harness. The J certification reads a bit odd. Maybe @PT20J or @kortopates know if the below would still require the expensive TSO C114???

I had mine rewebbed at an annual a couple of years ago by Aviation Safety Products https://aircraftseatbelts.com/ (recommended by Top Gun). They did a great job with a quick turn around. They have many color choices. I'm not sure but I think I paid $250 for the two front seats lap and shoulder belts.

I sent feedback to Foreflight this evening. I’m copying it here in the event anyone shares my observations and recommendations and also wants to send feedback. If we use similar words to present the same ideas the chances of our comments being grouped together increase and potentially raise the priority of consideration by the development team. Greetings, I’m sorry to say that the Dynamic Procedures implementation is disappointing, especially as compared to Garmin Pilot’s SmartCharts. I’m staying with Foreflight due to the superior aircraft performance features, but Garmin Pilot is catching up on that feature set and once they do I will be more compelled to make the switch to GP. I’ve subscribed to Foreflight since 2011, so this isn’t a decision I take lightly. I installed a full Garmin panel in my Mooney and while Foreflight does everything I need, the Garmin Pilot integration with my avionics is naturally cleaner and the SmartCharts implementation makes it more usable in a single pilot hard IFR environment. I do prefer the weather, filing, and aircraft performance functions in Foreflight but those are all primarily on-the-ground planning functions. GP is moving ahead in the inflight functions that reduce workload when ease of use and timeliness are critical. Specifics on Dynamic Procedures. 1. The disclaimer “Verify with chart” is a show-stopper. For a tailored SID/STAR/IAP feature set to be effective it must be a stand-alone simplified presentation of the applicable data in an easily digestible format. The disclaimer implies things may be missing or incorrect, and that’s not acceptable. I suspect the development team was constrained with a requirement to not produce anything that could fully replace Jepp plates. Garmin obviously had no such restriction and produced a superior product that can stand alone, and could become a standard or template for others to emulate. Recommendation: Drive toward a single page stand-alone presentation of tailored data. 2. The data overlay on an IAP plate, accompanied by the side bar data, is cluttered and feels kludged together. I know a lot of thought and good work has gone in to this feature set but the result has a sub-optimal feel. For instance the pilot must scroll the sidebar or refer to the IAP plate to see the missed approach instructions. The GP implementation makes the instructions available with a single button, and in the very simple graphic format used on NOAA plates. Recommendation: Reduce use of overlay/sidebar data to only supplemental or briefing data that flows and is easily digested. 3. The Dynamic Procedure presentation is only available on the Map page, and an approach must be either entered into the flight plan or sent to the map from the Airport page Procedure tab. This can be cumbersome in a divert scenario when identifying the best divert airfield. Recommendation: Make display of the Dynamic Procedure format available directly in the Airport page Procedure tab. This would require implementation of a single page stand-alone tailored procedure format.

Interestingly Garmin Pilot does the same, but going back to select circling mins is only two button presses. In Foreflight it takes at least four button presses and possibly some scrolling.

It appears that part 23 airplanes are subject to TS0-C114 while CAR 3 airplanes can do as they please? Looking online, two places that re-web belts have prices were at $800 for the all 4 seats while another was at over $800 per seat. I do plan to call around and learn what makes a belt better than another but I'm shocked at the price difference and struggle to see what makes on 4x the cost of the other. It's even worse when a friend with an experimental just told me he has $50 in the job and places that specialize in re-web/certification for race cars are much cheaper than what I'll pay. Is it all about getting belt with the proper paperwork or should I be looking for more? Who have you all used and why? BTW: do you know that that multiple manufacturers have a 10 year limit on belts?

Circling minimums are presented when you select the approach. They don’t persist in the display after adding the approach.

LOL! As a definite NON machinist, I always appreciated having the correct tap supplied!