All Activity

Yes, as a practical reality, there is not much to be done with getting vendors to cease greedy monopolistic pricing. What would I do if I was unfortunate enough to need these V-band clamps? I.e., how would I 'fight back?' I'd look at OPP...I would investigate my suspicion that the turbochargers on our aircraft are NOT any special design but, rather, an automotive design 'converted' to aviation via a different part number! As such, I'd then determine the appropriate high-quality riveted automotive clamp. Then find a willing DER to come up with a QA/testing protocol to 'test' the automotive part against the materials/properties of the old aviation clamp. Finally, apply the OPP protocol using that 'testing' methodology to legally approve the use of the part on my aircraft. The question is where each individual's 'pricing pain point' is located before going to that much trouble. It appears that many here are 'happy' to pay the current $1700 price...but everyone is going to cry 'uncle' at some point. Again, just my guess, but if the OPP method proves viable, and others 'go to that trouble' we will magically see the price of these clamps plummet to a fair price.

(on my former J) I also thought nothing of my vibration levels, but was convinced by my A&P to let him do it. Sure enough, it was a seat of the pants measurable difference, for all of my typical operating speeds. I do not think that balancing for 2500 rpm means that 2600 and 2400 rpm will be rough as a trade off. I do not think I have heard anyone complain that balancing did not make an improvment.

When I did my brake calipers the first time the 5606 FLUID HAD CHANGED TO JELLY under the brake puck!

I hate to bring this up...but any chance the old material contains asbestos? If so, I'd be very careful, and wear a VERY good respirator, when removing it.

While ago I had tough time crossfill flight plan between two navigators (2×G430 in Cirrus), it turns out that Garmin prevents this when the two of them are running on two different cycles. This is not an issue of "expired database", however, it shows the kind of problems one gets when there are two set of avionics that have two databases that are out of sync...

Yes, do it. I just had mine done last Friday. I usually do it every 3 years or 500 hours whichever occurs first. I was talking with the shop about changes that require re-balance and changing cylinders is one of them.

Any opinions on rebalancing after changing cylinders? (3 since balancing after prop overhaul)

For flying with expired database, in Europe, we are allowed as long as it's only one AIRAC cycle (28days) and you can cross-check, however, my understanding examiners will fail the test if the database is expired. I was curious if FAA has any rule or guidance on this for P91 ops, however, it seems Garmin limitation sits above AIM guidance ! I am bit mixing EASA vs FAA (sorry for that) but I am very curious on any discrepancies, I always get questions here and there, especially for GPS operation or substitution, it's far from being trivial and it's hard to follow, it changes quicker than software versions...

You are right, VFR should not trigger PBN clauses... I am not sure about P91 rules but for NCO rules in EASA or ICAO Ops, if the weather is good for VFR or IFR in VMC nothing prevents you from planning visual, contact and circling approche and executing whatever you like: for approch procedures in VMC, you are not even required to carry an equipment and you can ask for LPV and navigate it visually while ensuring visual separation on approch and runway. Only landings in IMC require equipments to be carried. https://regulatorylibrary.caa.co.uk/965-2012/Content/Document Structure/07 NCO/2 Regs/20530_NCOIDEA195_Navigation_equipment.htm Aeroplanes operated on flights in which it is intended to land in IMC shall be equipped with suitable equipment capable.... For departure, arrival and en-route you are required to comply with PBN or RNAV specs and limitations for airspace when route separation is mandated (these applies to VFR or IFR in VMC). One easy way to think about it is that the approche procedure is not part of the ATC flight plan (or ICAO format), no one files ILS25 or LPV25 in their flight plans, they just file some navigation fix or airport. However, STAR+IAF, AWY, SID are part of flight plan and require equipment carriage. In US, things could be different as visual separation and visual navigation in PBN airspace is allowed, even in Bravo, and vectoring is pretty much available everywhere, including VFR, so I would have expected VFR not having to comply with PBN specs. However, FAA still mandate VFR to comply with PBN as if it's an "IFR flight", however, this constraints is likely moot if VFR never file a flight plan or if VFR can claim they can navigate visually. The other thing is that even VFR have certified GPS equipment for ADSB which allow them to navigate even in Charlie or Bravo, it does not comply with PBN specs or limitations but it is still display TSO'ed GPS position on iPad even if aircraft is not equipped with transponder or outside radar coverage, you can call this sort of "mini-RNAV" for VFR We have a group of pilots who spent some time pushing back against ICAO PBN, asking VFR to comply with PBN in controlled airspace or routes will kill lot of freedom with no safety benefits. This topic becomes even more interesting when talking about flying IFR procedure in EXP or LSA, I think there is not much to discuss on PBN (RNP or RNAV) when you have GTN installed but no AFMS paperwork As far I can see for FAA guidance, if a VFR can navigate visually, it's all good.

I agree with you. The debate occurs because the AIM provided guidance is the same as what Garmin provides for enroute. But since the AFMS always trumps the AIM the AFMS is the controlling guidance. So it would be a big mistake to show up for Instrument Practical exam with an expired database knowing you’ll be expected to fly an RNAV approach. But in more practical terms if an approach plate has not been updated after the database expired it’s going to be fine even though not legal - unless it’s been retired in which case ATC won’t clear it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don’t think anyone here is saying suck it up like money doesn’t matter. but there aren’t any legal options. how exactly would you fight back?

Yes, I do dynamic balancing (as an a&p) and every single one of my customers said they could feel the difference.

Except for a few authors, I have not be impressed by the quality of the writing and often questioned the journalistic integrity. I didn't see anything negative about Van's Aircraft... I can't help but think that it has to do with the advertising.

Amen to that. Emergency use only. I made a restroom visit part of passenger pre-boarding check list for my wife. Speedbrakes are awesome if you need to get down from 16k quickly. Had to do it not so long ago for a forced potty break.

My SO experimented with one at home. While the look the same, the Travel Jane worked better (less chance of leakage. But she found that one of the funnels was even better. To be used with the Travel Jane as a receptical. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08T97KZDD?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_conn_dt_b_fed_asin_title_1&th=1 This is strictly for emergencies, but we typically fly 14,000 - 17,000, so it is a good 30 minutes to the ground, plus taxi to parking, etc. So, if the need is really there ......

Well you do have to take the prop off to replace a 1 piece crank shaft seal

Does anyone have updated information on the Long Body Gross Weight Increase STC?

Always remember, you can sleep in an airplane, but you can't fly a house!

Great Pinecone! But I believe MikeOh is correct, easier to fly a whole plane! Not sure if 1/2 a prop, one aileron and 1/2 an elevator will work well, not to mention the intense draft!

Yes, here we go down the rabbit hole. This is well and good, but the Reference Guide is yet another pamphlet-like document that is not the voluminous Pilot's Guide often found in the cockpit. Even the Reference Guide is not required unless "navigation is predicated on the use of the GTN." I think most would agree that flying IFR departure/enroute/approach procedures using guidance from the GTN triggers that clause. I'm less sure about VFR ops and lean toward arguing those do not trigger the clause. Getting a bit off topic here, but an AFMS limitation that comes up in CFII debates from time to time is this one: I've had fellow instructors claim there is nothing in FAA literature which prohibits flying an instrument approach with an expired database provided you "verify each waypoint for accuracy". That may be true, but if you're Garmin equipped it doesn't matter, because the AFMS for Garmin navigators explicitly prohibits it, allowing the "verify each waypoint" trick only for terminal and enroute ops. I don't know if other navigators (e.g. Avidyne) contain this same AFMS limitation.

Can't say, I've never been to H81. I just know that KTDW has treated us well, many times. @midlifeflyer's story about KAMA being quiet makes sense to me, and I wouldn't avoid it because it's "busy", I just think KTDW has cheaper gas, is closer to town, and now has the restaurant. Getting a bit off topic here, but in my experience, Class C towered airports are a lot more pleasant to fly into than Class D towered airports. I think a lot of pilots get introduced to towered airport ops at a busy Class D, and conclude that flying into a Class C must be even crazier, but it's often the opposite. Here in the Denver Metro area, I'd take a flight into KCOS over one to KBJC or KAPA, any day, and any time of day.

According to my painter, aircraft polyurethane is more flexible and applied thicker than auto paint.

I don't know where you heard about that reputation and I certainly have not seen it other in isolated situations. It's these situations that need to stop the fighting and bickering. This is the single BEST place to talk Mooneys and it's important for all of us to make it a welcoming and productive place for Mooniacs to hang out and share experiences (good and bad) that others may glean valuable information. I'm sorry if someone made comments about your weight. That's not right in any fashion. Also, if you went back to all of my posts, you will see that I have not attacked or said negative things about anyone personally. Including you. We want everyone here, let's help this forum have a really good vibe.

That's concerning. I switched to them last year as their quote was excellent compared to the others and their terms a bit more reasonable (not nickling and diming to add instructors, etc).

W. Brown & Associates stopped underwriting Mooneys thru their online quoting platform that us agents use. They discontinued Flight Design aircraft at the same time. They will still review them manually for individual consideration, though quoting continued coverage is not guaranteed. I would see if your agent has asked W. Brown to manually review.