Andy95W

You don't need the tool for the mains. With full fuel they will compress enough to get the collar on and off. On a short body with only 54 gallons, worst case scenario is you might have to have someone sit on the wing or pull down a little on the wingtip.

In a different thread I mentioned that I was going to be modifying my baggage door IAW an article I found in an old MAPA Log from January, 2012. I finished the work and ended up differing from the original article a bit. Please excuse the fact that part of my interior is out, part of it is grey, , and part is brand new (the baggage door cover, which I think came out pretty nice). Baggage door mechanism before modification: This is the door mechanism after modification. I replaced the 2 standard washers with 3 'L' washers that are half the thickness of the standard. I made a short pull mechanism out of 1/16" control cable and standard swages. This shows the latched position. This shows the unlatched position. The changes that I made to the original design were to make for a better looking installation, IMO, and having the pulling direction to unlatch the door to be to the rear, not forward. This will make it less likely for a child to see the pretty red handle and pull it. The baggage door must remain unlocked for this to operate. This is different from later model Mooneys. Of course, with the baggage door unlocked, it could also be unlatched, which will cause it to open in flight and cause damage. Use at your own risk, as always. The placards are simple Brother P-Touch, made using a very old machine. I trim the labels as close to the lettering as possible, and it sticks quite well to the fabric. The pull handle is velcro'ed to the fabric. The labels are actually the same as I did all of my placards, just smaller sizes. They look great from about 6" distance. My logbook entry will be as follows: "Modified baggage door by the addition of 1/16" cable to allow emergency egress in the event of main door failure. Operations check satisfactory, no change to original function of the baggage door. Interior placard installed. Weight and balance change negligible."

I am nearly positive that is how I did it when I installed my PlanePower regulator 7 years ago- but your best bet is just call PlanePower. 5 minute phone call and you'll have the exact right answer.

Geez, talk about about making mountains out of molehills. A 20 knot, 45° crosswind would throw off your heading by about 7°. Compare that to the guy in the old 172 who hasn't reset his heading indicator for the past hour to his wobbly magnetic compass that hasn't been re-swung since it left the factory 50 years ago. I'm not saying we should ignore the difference between heading and track, I'm just saying most of us have a lot better things to worry about.

And the A&P mechanics in 1965 would wash their hands in MEK. Thank God we've progressed a bit since then.

Oh, to be single and 25 years younger...

I'm with Cliffy. Notice it has track select? Just let the autopilot track the ILS final approach course while you monitor the needles. At glide slope intercept VS select 500 fpm down to your DH- which you can set as an altitude preselect. BTW- this is way more capability than a DC-9 which is flying final at 150 knots, not 90.

But how will you start the engine?

Calvary is where Jesus was crucified. Cavalry are Army soldiers on horses. (Sorry- pet peeve of a former soldier. It's like when someone says "nucular".)

Absolutely the best selling point for STEC autopilots is that they're rate based, so they use the turn coordinator. If my vacuum pump fails, the autopilot will fly the airplane, not allow more than a standard rate turn, and will hold altitude. If you have GPSS, it will even fly a full approach.

Alex- this is fairly normal for overhauls, partially because Lycoming changed the limit to 115 psi, but our POH still has a limit of 100 psi. Your engine overhaul shop did the right thing and set the oil pressure according to the new specs. Tight tolerances will also give you slightly higher oil pressure which will probably go down a very small amount in the next 100 hours. I wouldn't worry about it, but enjoy the knowledge that you will be getting enhanced oil pressure and flow where you need it the most- through the lifters and pushrods to the valves, and a greater chance that some of that oil will find its way to the camshaft lobes.

Technically speaking, you’re not supposed to untwist the wire because you will weaken it slightly. Then again, I’ve seen owners who didn’t even know they were supposed to safety wire their oil filters, so I don’t think I’d worry about it all that much.

ISTM using the LASAR mod to move the oil cooler to the back of the baffling and installing a 2d landing light in its place (also a LASAR mod) would be the fastest, cheapest, and least hassle way of getting basically the same benefit. Not as cool, though. I get that, too.

Well, I was really hoping another IA was going to submit a response to this can of worms, but evidently not so I'll give it a shot. The document absolutely does not say that the radios are "certified". The question is whether or not they can be installed in a certified aircraft. Additionally, from the Aircraft Spruce website, in a question about the VAL NAV radio: Is the NAV 2000 certified for IFR flight? The NAV 2000 can be used for IFR flight in experimental aircraft only. Can the Val NAV 2000 be installed in a certified aircraft? Val´s website shows that this NAV 2000 meets or exceeds TSO standards. What does it mean? The Val 2000 cannot be installed in certificated aircraft. It meets the TSO specifications, but it is not TSO approved. This isn't the end of the question, however. I was taught there there are 3 requirements for the installation of a piece of equipment in an airplane: 1.) Is the equipment allowed to be installed on the particular airframe, i.e., will it significantly alter the aircraft to the degree necessary to call it a "Major" Alteration? This requires some additional level of approval, either an STC or a Field Approval by the FAA. 2.) Is the equipment itself allowed to be installed, i.e., is the equipment "legal" and is the installer sure that it won't create a hazard in the future. 3.) is the equipment installed properly. ----I'll try to answer these each in turn------------------- 1.) The conventional wisdom is that avionics installations are not major alterations simply because they don't meet any of the standards of a major alteration, and therefore, it is a minor alteration and the only documenting needed is a logbook entry. One piece of proof I have for this reasoning is the FAA itself in regards to the installation of a "legacy" GPS as an IFR installation. The first step is to install the unit as a VFR installation and make a logbook entry. After that, it can either remain a VFR only installation, or the airplane and GPS can be flown and tested in order to upgrade it to an IFR installation. It's a simple logbook entry for the minor alteration of installing a piece of avionics. 2.) If the equipment in question is TSOed, or PMAed for the specific aircraft, or included in an STC, then this is simple- the equipment is "legal" and has been checked by somebody else, so no problem. But what about an Owner Supplied Part, such as a McFarlane propeller control cable? Those aren't any of the above, but if it is supplied by the owner and verified by the A&P that it is appropriate, then it is legal to be installed on the airplane. Therefore, if you gave the VAL NAV radio to your A&P and said that although it is not TSOoed, it does meet or exceed the TSO, and that could be checked against other equipment standards, then there really isn't a reason that the A&P couldn't install it and sign it off. 3.) The installation itself is on the installer and is legal if he follows accepted standards such as AC 43-13 and signs it off in the logboooks. ---- But here's the kicker- not everybody agrees with this rationale, so you'll have to find an A&P who agrees with what I wrote above. ---- And there is the possibility that one day you may run across an FAA inspector who is stuck back in the 1970s who says that it's illegal, unsafe, and must be removed from the airplane immediately. --- And there is the possibility that at your next annual, your IA will see the "offensive" radio, disagree with what I wrote, and demand that it be removed before he signs off your Annual. BTW, I also think the VAL radios are very cool and I'm constantly trying to convince myself to install one (or more) of them.

Well, not certified, at least not the current versions. From the Aircraft Spruce catalog: Is the Nav INS 429 certified for IFR use in a certified IFR airplane? The Val INS 429 is built to TSO standards but is not TSO certified. It is up to your local FAA office if this instrument will be approved for use in your aircraft. One of their early NAV units was TSOed, but not the current ones. You will need a willing IA or A&P who agrees it is a minor alteration and the equipment is acceptable for him to install. Putting it on a 337 and getting the FSDO to agree to it would make it 100% legal and unquestioned by a different IA down the road. With that said, the Bendix/King KX-175 wasn't TSOed either, and those were installed in thousands of airplanes in the 70s and 80s without any difficulty or problems. They used to show their stuff at OSH, but haven't for a few years. They are very impressive units and look like they are nicely built.

You'll have to pay an amount comparable to your actual doctor so that the A&P can purchase malpractice insurance, just like your actual doctor. And he probably won't release your airplane back to you after an annual inspection unless every single discrepancy, no matter how trivial, is repaired with brand new factory parts in order for him to satisfy his insurance company. And then you'll complain that his prices are too high and you, his only customer, will take your airplane to someone else.

The InterAv can still be overhauled, quite possibly by QAA, like Clarence said. I most recently heard this at a forum recently at OSH. It seemed like it was fairly common and definitely worth checking on when the time comes.

IIRC, José ( @Piloto ) had an interesting solution of adding a piece of split rubber hose to the flat aluminum piece that rides on the cam.

Because on the Continental your red line cuts through the alternator connections, Byron!

We do the same here, except instead of maple syrup you get water boarded and sent to Guantanamo.

This has always been my understanding, too, that the hole provides localized cooling for the area around the probe but does very little for the overall cylinder cooling.

Makes me glad I kept my InterAv alternator and only swapped out the regulator for the PlanePower. Best of both worlds.

My 64 has the exact same ones.

You can probably negotiate something reasonable. I love ripping out old wiring, but I won't do it if it's inaccessible. With the instrument panels out, I'd take 2-3 hours labor and gladly put in a lot more to do a nice job. Might depend upon how big a shop it is.