All Activity

ASTM doesn't "test" anything. ASTM simply reviews the reports submitted by the organization seeking an ASTM rubber stamp. If they determine that the submission checks all the boxes it said it would check, you get the rubber stamp.

Any fix for this? It looks like it's happening to my pilot seat now. I've just gotten used to flying like a low-rider until I can take the seat out and look. I've never taken the seat out though, so I don't even know what I'm looking at after I take it out. ('79 K)

I wonder if an "advisory" FADEC would be a first easy step based on NORSEE, monitoring all variables (rpm, crankshaft position, knocking sensor, cht, eht, fuel flow, mp, etc) and provide, for the current power requirement, ideal FF, RPM, MP. It would be up to the pilot to move the knobs, and for sure ignition advance would not be part of this... but maybe is a way to get the ball rolling...

Their claim is that the power increase comes from better exhaust scavenging from the combustion chamber, which reduces back pressure and increases volumetric efficiency. Better breathing = more air = more power. They also claimed that the better flow would pull more heat through the system vs. it wicking into the cylinder walls/heads. So that makes sense to me that they can have more power and lower CHT. EA on the other hand, is increasing spark energy and duration significantly, and advancing the timing below 24" MAP, so that allows more/complete combustion of fuel and thus more power. In that case, more heat is produced and ends up going into CHT if the exhaust is unchanged. While I was at the PF booth at OSH asking these questions, a customer walked up to tell them his newly-installed 6 cyl PF (on his 182) did in fact reduce his CHTs back to "normal" after he installed a single EA system previously. He was not aware that I was asking exactly that question at the time, and mentioned his CHTs went up about 20° just like I have observed in my J. I am hopeful I'll have the same improvement, and if I get a performance boost that will be a bonus too. I know they optimized their J system for ~11,000 feet, which I previously thought was dumb since our optimal cruise altitude is 8-9000 feet, but perhaps the EA + PF combo will really shine at 10k or above. If I measure no improvements in CHT or performance, then I will remove it and return it.

I don't know much about PowerFlow, but I seem to remember reading on MooneySpace that it increases CHT. At the time, I thought it made sense. More power=more heat?

We all do, but it's a lot to expect new Close, but I don't think that actually true. If it were, BFSC would not continue to drop at leaner efficiency ratios.

You can do it and I can do it. However, it took quite a while to get to that point. I think you mean "just a tad lean" of tripping the knock sensor.

These engines are not a mess. They are actually an impressive combination of power, weight, reliability and specific fuel consumption. The fixed-timing, ignition systems with which they were certified is the hurdle to utilizing different fuels. All of the current Rotax models run on pump gas yet are turbocharged and running higher compression ratios than any of the normally aspirated legacy engines. As far as innovation goes, this is what happens when the regulatory barriers to entering the market are perceived to be greater than the return. This is not to say that no one can succeed by innovating in aviation, but it's easier and more profitable to take advantage of the regulatory hurdles by rolling up legacy companies and the doubling the pricing of existing products à la Hartzell Aviation.

Eventually I need to write a detailed review, but overall I'm satisfied. I was an early adopter and we worked through some teething issues with the kit and integration. It is a VERY extensive installation and integration task that I did under supervision. I likely had 60+ hours of effort but expect an experienced shop could do it in 45-50. Maybe faster now that I've learned the backup battery harness comes with enough length so that you don't have to splice it like I did. It is expensive, especially if you're paying full-boat for installation labor, but I expect the continually increasing cost of dual mag service to eventually wash-out the cost of the kit. This system is also truly redundant and gives me more peace of mind, even though I never had any issues with the dual mag. Performance-wise, it seems to have more power on climbout and up high with the timing advance, but that also increases CHTs by ~20°F or more. That limits my power settings in LOP cruise where I have to lean further to keep temps down where I'd like in the summer vs. running more power and going faster. I've ordered a PowerFlow exhaust and expect it will reduce the CHTs after hearing some testimonials from others with similar observations. Several times this summer I exceeded 400°F in climb whereas it never got that hot before. I'm looking forward to the PF upgrade but won't truly know if I'm happy until next summer. I plan to do a rigorous test flight/profile before and after the PF change and will share the data. I wish I had done so with the old mag, but I was down for over a year during the installation due to life getting in the way, so it would have been different test conditions that I'd have to correct for during data reduction. Oh well.

Sorry, everybody: I should have made this its own thread. It really doesn't belong here. I don't think i can move it but will post an update separately. -dan

They have both built and certified them. Nobody buys them.

I assure you a FADEC with a knock sensor is much better at it than you. It is the reason for instance you can burn any fuel in an automobile even if the manufacturer says otherwise. Yeah, you won't get the full performance of the engine design, but it demonstrates the capability of FADEC. The Big 2 in aircraft don't need new engines, they need new engine controls.

But that might be just the invoice portion of the software the shop uses. I’d still ask. Overall solid inspection. On a side note with the connecting rod AD, how are others signing off if affected pN installed? Complied with AD, no metal found?? -Matt

Every 10 minute job is one stripped screw or broken bolt away from becoming a 2-hour project.

I have a red lever that does that.

Wow. Great catch!!

I didn't notice that but, if missing, it would be good for the OP to get it sorted now while it's fresh in everyone's memory.

That’s a great log entry. Separate Ad log is a talking point. All that is required is that the AD is signed off. I list them in the log entry with my sign off like they did vs providing a separate AD log. I just did an annual on an older C model. Log entry was LONG!! I had over 62 hours into it. A Normal full service annual no issues is 20-25h. It also takes about 3 years to get the hours down to that number for the inspection. One thing that could be better is there is not a statement of airworthiness. They did comply with the checklist but… “ I certify that this aircraft has been inspected IAW and Annual inspection and was determined to be in an Airworthy condition at this time. This aircraft is approved for return to service.” END -Matt

Why would Mooney pre-punch anything at this point? Pre.-punched to match what? Mooney is making individual parts only to repair existing handmade aircraft. None of the existing holes on the sheet aluminum on our planes are pre-punched.

My plane is sitting at KMKC right now. It's a great airport, easy access to downtown, Lyft and Uber work great. Easy to fly in under the Class B while VFR. The free transient parking is good as long as you have the time/desire to use the self-service fuel. You need the fuel receipt to get in and out of the city-owned terminal building and access the ramp. You have to self-fuel upon landing or you won't have the receipt to get back in, so leave extra time on your arrival. I've heard you can call the airport manager from a gate and get buzzed in, maybe, if you don't have the code, but I've never done that. Atlantic is very nice and accommodating next to the self-serve fuel, but they don't sell 100LL. They've let me walk through their lobby before and even arranged a rental car for me once. If you're short on time or prefer full service fuel, Signature is the only option. Their prices are usually high but the service is good and the people are nice.

With a FADEC system you are not burning at 14.7 to 1. You are burning much leaner. Except when under severe load (like take-off) a FADEC is always burning lean side of peak. How lean? Just a tad rich of tripping the knock sensor.

Gallagher Aviation is excited to announce that we are providing a 10% off promotion off select Whelen Aerospace Technologies and AeroLEDs lighting products from Thursday, September 18, 2025 through Sunday, September 21st, 2025. Our website is running this flash sale promotion through Sunday, September 21st - Midnight Eastern time. There will be no exceptions beyond that. Additionally, come October (not sure exactly yet) there will be a price increase on most of these Whelen and AeroLEDs products. Gallagher Aviation Lighting Website<-- Link to our website for lighting gallagheraviationllc@gmail.com <-- Email us here for quotes or questions 1-833-425-5288 <-- Call us here, please leave a voicemail if we do not answer 513-401-6495 <-- Call/Text/MMS us here, please leave a voicemail if we do not answer

They did leave it for 3.5 years now in aircraft tanks, this seems to tick all of the boxes, they think composition could remain the same for 5 years inside aircraft tanks, however, they need more data and time to support such claim... For aircraft, they have to show that anyway if it's an industry standard or stc'ed fuel, I think the requirement is something like 2 years when ASTM and 6 months when STC for "stability and oxidation" testing in aircraft. ASTM also test for "stability and testing" in trucks, containers and pumps, I think this is where 5 years matters more? if I am not flying aircraft for 6 months, I would have other worries than draining fuel. Not sure if this is guaranteed when fuels are mixed? most of the proposals seems to aim for ability to mix with 100LL and remain stable (however, they shy away from ability to mix with other 100UL fuels). I would be interested in shelf life of VPRacing 100E fuel as it may have unstable composition and may have high risk of oxidation and unstability (car fuels specs and variants are guaranteed for 3 months or 6 months, they won't last for say 2 years or 5 years unless one adds lot of additives and stabilisers)

No idea but they already have unleaded car racing fuels with high octane that rely on "oxygenation", for a long time now... For aviation certification, if they stick with this route they will have tough time passing PAFI tests or ASTM tests regarding fuel stability and oxidation (how long it stays in tank) as well as pressure and vapour lock limits (pump, pipes) It would be interesting to know what "they have for us", maybe their fuel will need some additives depending on the intended usage (turbos, temperature, high altitude)? flying or storage? "Winter Avgas vs Summer Avgas with mandatory calendar change"

Lost the PTRM servo in June. Ended up being the servo itself, quick swap, capstan/clutch stays. Local Garmin shop guru told me he had equipment to interrogate the servo but in my case it was flat dead. Hope it's not the GIA but I do know they re seat the connectors for those periodically... HTH!