All Activity

Hi, Trying to help a potential new Bravo owner at my home field KLCI. He needs a prebuy inspection done at KPHF where the plane is being sold. Any help appreciated. Thanks in advance. Alan

Aircraft left at the airport and rented a car to drive 4 hours home Yesterday when I used the card heat at 5500ft, i could pull the control rod in the cockpit out more than it used to, but engine runs fine and landed safely. Did a quick test, carb heat no longer affects RPM. Opened up the side cowling and found the problem...the cable is no longer connected to the level arm.. Looking at the O360 doc online, although not the same setup, looks like the cable is passed through the level arm bolt and bend 90 degrees, and tighten the bolt. I’d like to find an A&P and address it, a couple options: 1. as simple as passing the remaining cable through the bolt to secure it and bend 90 degrees 2. or somehow safety wire the carb heat lever arm to make the butterfly valve open all the time, so i can fly home to fix it I would appreciate if you have other thoughts and suggestions!

Just discovered a broken cylinder bolt during an oil change. Pretty yikes. We had our alternator go bad at the end of an 8 week vacation with like 80 hours flown. When I picked up the plane I noticed they had topped up the oil to 8qts for whatever reason. At the end of the first leg home of course I noticed a fairly substantial amount of oil in the gear door near the breather, but chocked it up to the 8qts blowing out some. Flew the rest of the way home and got around to the oil change today. Immediately noticed the lower cowl and everything had more oil than I expected, started looking for leaks. And I found a sheared off bolt hanging out next to the governor.

Swift said 94UL was an ASTM approved "drop-in" fuel. Except it wasn't in the real world. Now they say 100R is an ASTM approved "drop in" fuel. Except it may not work in 25% of the fleet..... "and that's a fact". "The remaining 25% are more complicated. About 60% of that slice of the pie chart are what he calls “the 550s,” six-cylinder engines in singles and light twins that fill the gap between the engines that are quite happy on 94 UL and the ultra-high-performance boosted sixes that will be the toughest to fuel with unleaded. Testing will begin later this year on a Continental 550 and d’Acosta said it will take about 18 months." What good is ASTM if they don't even know if it will work reliably in the Continental and big Lycoming engines? - I mean Seriously?

at some point, lycoming or mooney tested 96 octane fuel, in my lycoming io-360-a1a and found it acceptable, so pfft don't care at all about some 1000hp engine not being able to use it. where is this blurb 100r may not work in some applications? heck i live in houston if have to reduce takeoff to 1000 fpm to prevent detonation, not seeing an issue, anyone living higher than sea level probably wouldn't have to do anything

I am sure most of us don't exceed CHT > 420F on takeoff? in M20J, you need to climb at VX with cowl flap closed to 2000ft with OAT at 100F, assuming one is full rich (they need to be at least 250F - 350F Rich of Peak to keep out of "red-box"). Most of us already accept lower climb gradients as we tend to "baby sit" engines under 390F on climb by using more speed or more fuel to keep out of red-box, same when we lean LOP under 65% power, it's not optimal but that's how one keep their engines running for a long time. I don't feel that I compromise any safety for keeping CHT < 400F even while using 100LL: I can still fly where I want with no apparent limitations, well I use full rich for takeoff (unless high density), I climb at Vy to cool my engine and I tend to LOP under 65% power. I would do the same with 100R, Of course there are pilots who can melt an IO360 by aggressive leaning toward peak EGT at 100%-75% power, having 100LL or 100R, won't change anything for such pilot...

I bought an EDM 900 for the J I had, but due to a litany of issues, it was never installed. I never even opened the box until today to take pictures, so yes, it is new and never installed. It was set up for my 1984 J with fuel flow. (my neighbor's hangar was next to mine, and I have been told he is selling his tail dragger, so look for other items from me in the next few days) $4500 + shipping or will deliver to Mooney Summit in Tamapa next weekend. Just tell me where.

The problem with UND was not "full power (rich climb)", it was their "leaning technique (cruise)". In UND, they were running Archers at 70%-80% power on peak EGT with CTH > 450F as "normal business", I get that Lycoming engines are certified by FAA to cope with continuous max power and max CHT = 500F on 100LL, however, only a money flies like that (most of us tend to babysit the engine). I have operate the Archer that UND flew, albeit on less hours (450h over 5 years), I flew it using SP98 (87 Octane) on Mogas STC, takeoff were never a problem and I never let CHT > 390F in climbs or cruise: * Patterson STC, prohibited peak EGT operation on Mogas EN228. * Lycoming advise against peak EGT operations at 75% on Avgas 100LL. Basically, they were "red-boxing" even with 100LL, it's not advisable and it's false fuel economy. Most schools tend to have various SOP to keep CHT under 400F, use 55%-65% power? keep full rich? I think on gently engine management, I am sure one can make sacrifices but for airframe, fuel tanks, paint...there is not much one can do... If 100R is fine for airframe, I am fine using it even with bunch of placards on leaning or CHT

The biggest problem with tubes, is they get bigger over time. I’m not sure how that happens, probably the rubber cold flowing under pressure. When they get too big, it is difficult to get them in and laying flat. They will get creases and folds in them and that is where they fail. If you use a new tube every time you put on a new tire you won’t have this issue.

The alphabetical parts listing in the early IPC (‘61-‘64) includes the dome nut plate, pn ESNA-22-NAIK-02, applicable to production serial number 1701 and on. The mx manual (104) addresses sealing of fasteners and nut plates only in generic language. Whoever used plain nuts installing the fuel access panels didn’t follow the IPC for proper hardware, in my opinion.

I kind of suspect that too. They were obviously looking for something since there was an existing search warrant. Reading further into the case sort of leads me in a different direction altogether. I hope they take it - it's an important issue - but can just about see SCOTUS refusing the case for 'fishy.' We have a pilot who apparently has been the subject of surveillance at the airport for something unspecified. Even without more it makes the case less sympathetic. But, having been in that world, I don't have a problem with a jury finding that the pilot saw the same six pack the trooper says he saw through the window. Either way, that's what trials are about and unless you are there and hear the testimony live (even transcripts are a poor substitute) , you don't have the ability to judge the believability of the witnesses. There was a case a long time ago that led me to avoid second-guessing the factual strength of cases I am not directly involved with.

I appreciate that. I don't mind knowing there are issues with certain engines, I do mind when GAMI comes out saying it is drop in and then 25+ planes got bricked and one was totaled $600K 421C. They now have changed their narrative: as there is no perfect fuel, they have added a disclaimer on wet tanks when you buy the STC and changed the FAQ. in November when I (and many others) got the STC it was drop in, don't need to change a thing. and that's a fact.

I think what bothers me about this case, beyond the egregious forfeiture, is the conviction based the pilot's 'knowledge' of the six-pack, which was based on him seeing through a plastic bag. Yes, I understand the jury 'fact found' that he did, but it seems 'fishy' as @M20F said. To me the key bit of information that you provided is, "The troopers were there to execute a search warrant for the airplane (a warrant that had been issued in connection with another investigation)." My 'spidey sense' is they were after him for something bigger and settled for 'getting' him on a lousy six-pack! They searched based on their warrant and that was all they could find!

Definitely more than the Internet provides. After all, you said you found nothing with ChatGPT. Irene as informant? Sure, a possibility. But it doesn't make my spidey sense tingle Maybe I've been out of the criminal law biz too many years?

Seems to me there is a much stronger case to take Irene’s car than the airplane. At minimum why not take both. I will stand by there is something more to the story than the internet provides, my tinfoil hat never fails me.

You had me at blonde and debrief.

Doing some of this recently really made me want an AoA indicator.

There's a blonde astrophysicist somewhere around here who wants to debrief you on this.

So a few people say, but i’ve never had a flat in over 20+ years of using them. Can’t help but suspect some of these reported flats are pinch flats. But what do i know since never had a flat. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh, that. Helen was charged and pleaded guilty. As indicated the the quote I pasted, Helen was the only one going to Beaver. She was the only passenger. After loading and before the search, Irene drove away. Speculation: Could they have charged Irene with something? Probably, but police and prosecutor decided not to. Maybe they felt the evidence against her would be too weak or just too much bother. Sign of something fishy? Maybe. But it sounds normal to my ear.

The pilot didn’t but the beer, never flew to the dry city, etc. I wasn’t asking a question I was making the point it seems fishy. The two individuals who apparently purchased the beer, had apparently intent to bring it to the dry town, etc. received no charges.

“a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character’s words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.” Your not understanding proves the point.

Full disclosure, my engine turned that time. I wrecked the bike and some bikers down the street who watched me tune the thing all the time bought the wreck and put the engine on a drag bike. They did the 9.2 on the drag bike. The most bizarre thing that happened with that bike happened one night at about 2:00 AM. I was assistant manager at a pizza parlor and had to close the place, so I didn’t get out till then. I pulled up to this stop light and a police bike pulled up in the lane next to me. When the light turned green, we both took off an a normal speed, then the cop bike sped up a bit, so I did too, then the cop nailed it and so did I. I pulled well ahead of him. We hit about 140. At the next light we were once again in adjacent lanes. I didn’t look at him and he didn’t look at me. When the light turned green I took off at a normal speed and he turned right.

d. I guess I don't understand your question.

Seems to me Helene and Irene are the perpetrators here and yet received no charges. So no it doesn’t really clear it up.