Andy95W

I’m not buying that. If that were true, they would have put them on the 201 when they started production on the 231. They didn’t. The 231 needed them for perceived greater stability at high altitudes. The 201 didn’t get them until a few years later (I’m betting because everyone thought they looked “cool”.)

Aeroquip 303 with 491 fittings. Installation mandrels are also available (I have most sizes.) After assembly, you should have it pressure tested to be legal. https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/aq303.php

No they don’t.

Same. @Horis- it sounds like you have an installation issue. My suggestion is to take your plane to a shop that has a lot of experience with JPI products and work with them. Probably not the shop that installed it. Most of the time if there are issues it is the ground wire. Either it is not installed per the manual or no longer providing a good ground connection. Good luck, keep us posted.

One option that might become popular for the lower end airplanes is an IRAN like @hammdo just did for his M20C. He got 4 new cylinders, new camshaft and lifters, new bearings, and it was reassembled IAW the Lycoming overhaul manual and is up to date on all the ADs. All for a lot less money (and time) than waiting for a big engine shop to do the same thing. IIRC, his engine is well past TBO and has been opened up twice since its “official” overhaul. Under FAR part 91, we don’t have to overhaul our engines. That word “Overhaul” adds a big mark up in price and liability insurance for the engine shops.

I agree with Wombat, above. One additional note- the JPI 701 is a good instrument but is small and not easy to read. Your airplane can be upgraded to a JPI 730, 830, or 930 that are larger and easier to interpret at a glance so that you can monitor the engine more quickly. Your engine probes would be reused and more can be added to make the engine monitor more useful. The 930 is a legal replacement for all of your existing engine gauges if you wanted that. https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/jpi730830upgrade.php

Yes. Standards are standards and are dictated by the FAA. They may get the job because they are a minority, but they don’t keep it if they don’t pass the checkrides. And I’ll bet the ATC positions are exactly the same.

Aviation Consumer magazine talks about tires on a regular basis. They’ve stated that to meet the TSO for tires, they must still be to the standard dimensions. But you probably still wouldn’t want to use them for a nose tire. Balance, older age, and quality could be concerns. At the flight school where I was a CFI and A&P, we put retreads on the mains but only brand new on the nose for those reasons.

Hey Jim- @Jim Peace- You should consider a remote oil filter on the co-pilot side. Sorry about the poor photo quality.

Mooney changed the design of the cowling in 1965. Everything prior uses about 70 screws and bolts and is a PITA. After 1965, it’s a 5 minute job for the cheeks and top.

It’s probably both. And I’m not saying it’s right or wrong or that you should do anything differently. God knows I did some incredibly risky things 30 years ago that I wouldn’t do today. Without trying to be a psychologist, I think as we age we become more knowledgeable of the risks (like Hank said) in addition to becoming more risk averse. Maybe we start realizing how much we have to be grateful for and we find reasons or alternatives to justify our reluctance to push boundaries, whether real or imagined. I’m not saying you will or won’t change how you feel. But I do know that the person I was 30 years ago could never believe I would make the statements I just did.

I guarantee that in 30 years you’ll understand what Hank means.

That’s good to know, hopefully Michigan is similar. I’ll have to do some research.

That list says: If your order is shipped to (or picked up in) one of the following states, it is subject to sales tax. So it looks like you and I have to pay sales tax in North Carolina and Michigan? And also on the freight charges?

@chunko- Where exactly would this fall into the FAA’s definition of a major alteration? This issue was addressed in 1994, reissued in 2001, and the quotation below is from a clarification letter written in 2015: ————————————————- The term "major alteration" is defined in 14 CFR § 1.1. As stated in that section: Mqjor alteration means an alteration not listed in the aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller specifications- ( I) That might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or (2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations. —————————————- (PS- I’ve been an A&P for 25 years and an IA for over 20).

I’m with Eric. It seems like it’s gotta be either no compression or no fuel to those 2 cylinders.

One plug? Maybe. Both plugs? Not likely. What happens when you advance the throttle to 1500-1800 rpm? What happens when you lean the mixture?

I’m glad to have had the opportunity to know you, Andrew. Godspeed.

I suspect these comments here on MooneySpace are preaching to the choir. Other than a pro forma “any lead is bad” argument, nobody here has really voiced these issues. Your post would be incredibly important presented to Congress or the public, where I’d bet these facts would go absolutely nowhere. Think about it- if one small airplane crashes, people are in an uproar about safety. Meanwhile, every year over 40,000 people die on the highways, most due to drunk driving, but nobody pays any attention.

I’m really hoping that George Braly and GAMI can find a formulation that definitively doesn't affect paint or sealant and that still meets the detonation margins required for our engines. There seems to be a wide range of allowable percentages of the individual chemical components, perhaps they could even stay within the existing patent and STC. I hope they succeed. The mere fact that other companies with huge resources such as Shell tried and failed makes me cheer for the success of a “little guy” like GAMI.

That’s really close to my airframe time. It flew pipeline patrol for about 10 years.

If the release screw is set correctly, it shouldn’t be that bad. On mine for a go around I lift the lever for a three-count and push it back down. That’s really close to take off flaps. I hope you, your family, and your friends are okay with the fires in LA, Richard.

I just wanted to follow up on this thread since I was the one that started it three and a half years ago. I ended up installing the PS Engineering PMA 8000G about a month ago. I talked to Mark Scheuer ( @Mscheuer )the owner/founder of the company, at Oshkosh last year at the PS Engineering booth and I’m glad I did. I had been considering the Garmin audio panel but I’m really glad I got the 8000G. One simple reason- I’ve had some post installation questions and Mark gave me his cell number to call if I needed to. I guarantee nobody at Garmin would’ve done that. I’ve never been much of an audiophile and after 10 years in the Army and 35 years being around airplanes I’ve likely lost a good bit of hearing. But I was shocked at how clear and good the sound was in my headsets compared to before. I don’t listen to music while I’m flying, but I plugged in the music from my phone and couldn’t believe the clarity and sound. It’s better than my car, and my car is really good. Lastly, I love not having to adjust the squelch for the intercom. I decided on the 8000G over the 450 series primarily because of price (about $600 cheaper after all was said and done). Plus, I really like the large buttons and I really didn’t need 2 Bluetooth inputs. So anyway, I’m very happy with my choice and I don’t think you could go wrong with any of the PS Engineering products. I upgraded from a King audio panel and a basic intercom which I always figured “Meh, it’s good enough.” But this is really so much better.

That is not uncommon, assuming the pump was assembled correctly and the bleed down screw is correct. The flap pump is very difficult to get primed, and until it does it tends to just pump air. You can’t even bleed the system until you start pumping fluid. Worst case is you pull the pump assembly back out and pre-load the cylinder and re-install. Once it starts pumping fluid, the process goes fairly quickly. Usually, though, you just keep pumping the handle and slowly enough fluid gets into the cylinder that it starts pumping and you can bleed the air out of the slave cylinder at the back. Good luck, it’s actually a very good system that tends to work really well- once you get it done.

Is that the study @George Braly said they pulled out of because somebody there was attempting to infringe on the G100UL patent? I’m not pro or con anything here, but I’m definitely against theft of intellectual property and patent infringement.