Cyril Gibb

There is a plethora of relatively inexpensive radar distance measuring stuff available now that cars have auto sensing and braking. Wouldn't it be easy to fit a ground proximity warning when the gear was still up at 200 feet or whatever? I know that the cost would be higher than it should because of certification requirements. Maybe the govt gods could see the safety advantages to speed certification and reduce costs... And maybe insurance companies could provide an insurance discount for equipped planes? I'd pay for one if I could recoup the costs over a few years.

DIdn't see a response to this. Anyone have info?

We were in Kufstein Austria yesterday and there was an incredibly quiet single flying around. It couldn't have been electric because a short while later it was towing a glider. What does a Mooney require to meet noise regs? Does it cost much engine power? Does it significantly affect cockpit noise levels?

Does anyone with LED technical knowledge know why Whelen didn't use white LEDs under the existing coloured lens covers? Seems redundant to use coloured LEDs unless they come with clear lens covers.

Nice grass strip... made me miss my Mooney back home. Looks a lot different from the winter when we ski here.

I Don't see anywhere on this thread that someone suggested the US needs Canadas atc model. If the US privatises it may or may not totally suck. The point to be made is that we pay 60or70 bucks a year for our atc. Governance and oversight will be the critical items to GA if privatisation occurs. If this appears inevitable then I'd spend limited resources in determining governance than lying down on the tracks. Primary radar in Canada is limited to major cities. Secondary (transponder) radar coverage is essentially complete across Canada. The Hudson Bay area is now covered by adsb. Nowhere to build towers in the middle of hundreds of miles of water. There is no plan to require adsb in Canadian airspace for GA. NAVcanada is partnering in the implementation of worldwide satellite adsb. There's no way we could afford to build towers in the sparsly settled areas we have. There's no shortage of international flights in Canada. Chances are if you're going to Europe, you're flying through Canadian airspace. Seems to be working ok.

I think the certification standard for our Mooneys is 61 knots stall speed. The ultra has a stall speed of 56 knots. What would the stall speed of the Ultra be if the gross was increased 100 or 200 lbs? Are there other structural issues that a gross weight increase would incur? Would it be possible to have a few hundred pounds difference in takeoff vs landing weight to avoid adding strength to the gear?

Your training was incorrect. Sorry. Peak egt varies according to many parameters, some as trivial as where the installer drilled the holes in the exhaust. Read carefully the suggested info above. At the moment, you're not doing your engine any favours. I'd follow HRMs advice until you get it sorted out.

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me if the gami spread is that close and the chts/egt probes are numbered correctly. When you lean, all the chts go down as expected, but CHT 3 goes down more. All the chts don't vary much with the mag checks so I doubt it's ignition related. all the chts then go up in tandem when you enrichen. logic would suggest uneven chts to be fuel system related. Time for the hired guns.

Geez, last name? wanna make a guy feel old or what A failed plug will increase egt on that cylinder when mags are both. if you select the bad plug mag the egt will essentially zero and the vibration will get your attention Right Now. been there, done that

I'd guess there are 2 separate issues. Cylinder 3 starts dropping when you lean and recovers when you richen. If you're LOP at that ff, then the cylinder will cool more than the others if it's a little leaner. Perhaps cylinder 3 injector picked up some fod? What does the gami spread look like?

I fly frequently in the US. I haven't noticed any difference in the quality of service here or the US. Have you flown in Canada after our privatization? I'm pleased with the Canadian system now. I think that Canada's involvement and sponsorship of satellite ADSB shows that NavCanada is keeping technology moving forward. The slight reduction in the already trivial annual fee is a credit to their efforts to keep costs down. I have no idea if privatisation in the US would be as well implemented. Just another data point to consider. I'd be interested in current critiques of Canadas ATC. Anyone had problems?

Lucas "Prince of Darkness" could usually be vanquished by familiarity under the bonnet (hood) with a simple set of spanners (wrenches) in the boot (trunk) with the aid of a torch (flashlight) at night.

13% in Ontario

Correct. Too bad a regional manager for Lycoming doesn't understand engine technology. To expand on N201MKTurbo: the objective should be to get the max cyl pressure at the sweet spot approx 15 degrees after TDC. If earlier, the CHTs rise unacceptably. If later, you waste energy out the exhaust. RPM: given the same mixture, Increasing RPM pushes the peak later. Reducing RPM pushes the peak earlier. Higher RPM also wastes power because of increased internal engine friction. Mixture: Burn rate slows for either richer or leaner than "ideal mixture". If you lean more, the burn slows and pushes the peak later. If you enrichen more you also push the peak later. That's why we enrichen for takeoff. The mixture burns more slowly and pushes peak pressure later, keeping temps down. (excess fuel has nothing to do with it, it's just to slow the burn and delay the pressure peak) ... for those that understand engine dynamics, with more precise and automated control (that we don't currently have), LOP takeoff would also be ok. 20-25 degree advance: with 25, you have the flexibility to use rpm and mixture to get the peak in the right spot. With 20, you have less options and have to get a faster burn to get the peak in the correct spot using excess fuel that doesn't burn completely and pressure also doesn't last as long. Also, the power advantage that people see in fine wires is because of less shielding around the spark that traditional massives have. Fine wires give a larger initial flame front resulting in a marginal advance. BY plugs (in theory) do the same by initiating a flame front deeper in the mixture.

As a retired geek, I check my downloaded engine data at night after my flights. Perhaps my F with the stock cowl and the guppy mouth closure has different cooling characteristics than a J. My cowl flap open approaches never have come close to that cool. It's always 220-230. I run LOP, so cruise CHTs are typically 300-350 depending on OAT. I choose to run my engine in a narrow temperature band. Most days my cyl temp from takeoff roll to taxi back to my hangar is within a 120df range. I do have to play with throttle, mixture and rpm to maintain that. It's fun to be able to make the engine do what you want.

I always open my cowl flaps before landing. It's one less thing to do on a go-around (or touch and go). The concept of shock cooling using air as a coolant never made sense to me. Why doesn't flying WOT at cruise speed with high cylinder temperatures into pouring rain at 40F have a damaging effect? I'd imagine throwing bucket loads of cold water onto the cylinders at high speed would be several orders of magnitude more potent than just opening cowl flaps.

I read somewhere that you should only cycle the prop with full flaps if you have an AOA indicator, otherwise you'll burn up the cylinders.

A quick search on the AOPA site shows an issue beginning in 2014. I see an article in January of this year and then several since then. I still see zero information but lots of hand-wringing. "Documenting" outrageous fees provides no value to GA unless it's published. AOPA has the data. As an AOPA member, I'd like to see the data. The ONLY solution is to make the fee structure visible so we can decide where to spend our $$. This isn't rocket science. Edit: yes, I have requested from AOPA the collected data thus far

It all comes back to AOPA. They say they are speaking for us, but it sounds more like they are afraid to offend the FBOs. I believe that competition is the key to keeping FBO costs down. It's not anywhere near practical to call each FBO at every airport near our destination to ask a series of questions: Do you have a ramp fee, do you have a security fee, do you have a customs ramp fee, do you have a handling fee, do you have a fuel surcharge, are there any other charges I haven't asked about that I'll have to pay? And then call the airport admin with the same questions, because the FBOs don't always collect fees for the airport. Then call customs to see if they have any charges.... sheesh ! It's NOT the fee! If we have the information we can decide to use their services or not. It's not knowing what the fee IS until they already have their hands in our pockets!

Yes, no landing fee and I think it was around 10 bucks a night tie down. Pocket change in US$. It's a tiny skydiving school airport, so ya gotta dodge the parachutes constantly raining down. Make SURE you're in Unicom contact to avoid picking up a hood ornament. We travel by bicycle, so I don't know how convenient a cab or Uber would be.

Yup, Quebec City (CYQB). I landed to wait out a thunderstorm across the river at my destination, St. Jean Chrysostome (CSG5), rather than circle for 10 minutes. I wasn't even going to go into the FBO. One of the line guys walked to the plane and told me I owed a ramp fee of 60 something plus tax. A few weeks later I got a landing fee bill for $28. We tied down at Republic (KFRG) a couple of months ago. Nice airport and very convenient visiting NYC. U.S. customs fee of $150.00 that they don't tell you when you're calling to make an arrival appt. Luckily, they didn't have a slot available so we did customs in Buffalo. KFRG was another example of a post-post-visit surprise. I got a landing fee bill in the mail for US$2.50. It cost them $1.36 in postage to send it to me. Similar to the US$8.00 customs ramp fee in Erie I received a few months after stopping there.. I wish they would tell me so I could pay it while I'm there.

The issue is really the surprise factor when you get an unexpected charge. The solution is simple: have the charges published somewhere. AirNav has proven to be almost useless. Competition does work. If not at a single airport because of a single FBO, then between airports in the vicinity. AOPA should get off their butts and do the obvious by publishing the charges already reported to them. If they get perhaps a hundred reports a day, it should easily be handled by one headcount. 8 hours * 60 mins = 480 mins / 100 reports is almost 5 minutes each to post. Even a government employee could (almost) keep up that pace. COPA should do the same in Canada. Stopping in Quebec for 10 minutes to wait out a local thunderstorm was a $100 shocker.

What, other than price and the part number, is the difference between a G5 for certified aircraft vs a G5 for experimentals? Does it come off the same conveyer belt at the factory? Same question between an Aspen VFR vs IFR unit.

For those that have the time and curiosity, this is and interesting read about air traffic privatisation: http://www.wctrs-society.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/abstracts/berkeley/G3/654/ATM in Canada Britain and US.doc edit: just wanted to add that the Delta study provides more heat and less light into the discussion. They talk of the Ontario fuel tax as being an example of increasing cost despite privatisation. The Ontario fuel tax is a provincial level tax grab from wealthy aircraft owners and has zero to do with ATC and just drops into the provincial coffers. No different than state, local, municipal or airport fuel fees or levies. I lose confidence in the findings of any study (like Deltas) that uses misleading information to bolster their argument.