Ragsf15e

I do not have the number, but there’s an AC from ~10 years ago or more that allows replacement of a turn coordinator with an ADI. The G5 STC explicitly says it cannot be used for both at the same time. I think you’ll just have to make sure the Garmin stc for the -275 doesn’t limit using it or a combination of it and a G5 as both TC and ADI.

Oh yeah, I totally agree with that and that my certified mechanic makes mistakes. Multiply that by 50 years. But I have a starting point and certification standards and regulations to work within to fix those things the right way as I find them. I have no misconception that my airplane is perfect because it’s certified.

Or maybe a -275 with a pair of g5s.

I for one, bought a certified airplane because it was built and maintained to certain standards. I agree there are many experimental airplanes that probably have higher standards, however there are many builders / owners that have lower or no standards. I guess my point is, I have some expectation as to what I have in a certified airplane. That’s what the draconian FAA regulations buy me. They have been through a certification process and maintained in accordance with it. The airframes in experimental aircraft, the electronics and the maintenance have been through a less thorough process which allows them to be much more nimble with technology. And cheaper due to the reduced certification requirements. In my opinion, thats why the experimental segment has a significantly higher accident rate than the certified general aviation segment. If you did this to your airplane, who am I to complain? But it would definitely make me think twice before purchasing it.

Call Lasar and ask. The salvage folks usually have serviceable parts as well. what are you needing?

I think it’s a disaster as well, but not for the same reason... taking a 50+ year old certified airplane and changing its category, maintenance practices, and equipment certification begs an insurance, regulatory and maintenance disaster for the current owner, future owners and/or both. In the end, this is going to cost you or someone else more $$ to fix than it would cost to just use certified parts and do work yourself under A&P supervision.

Yeah I have a 930, but that’s how I remember it too. There are a bunch of red lines and limits that are preprogrammed and you can’t change because they are manufacturers limits, but there are a few pre warnings you can set. Cht, and fuel level among them. It definitely took the manual and some trial/error to get it set.

I doubt that. Maybe the airlines are different, but 3/4 of our military fleet is flying on “cannibalized” parts. When an aircraft goes down with a major issue that might take a while to fix, it becomes a donor bird. Parts unavailable in the normal logistics pipeline are stripped to make all the other airplanes in that squadron fly. A used certified part in serviceable condition with documentation (if required) works just as good as the parts of your plane that were once new and now are something less than that.

Or these days, get a Surefly - get rid of the SOS and the Slickstart. It sounds like you can hot start it ok which is usually where new owners have lots of problems. An io-360 is pretty easy to start cold (although “cold” means ~40f +, colder than that should be preheated). Like almost foolproof. If the above techniques don’t work for you, there are a couple mechanical issues that can make it more difficult to start. Failing SOS, failing left mag, fouled plugs are a few... *The Lycoming guidance I’ve seen says preheat below 20f, but I generally use 40f.

The -275s have an optional battery backup certified for 1 hour. As an option, it does increase their price a little. Obviously if you’re using it as your primary adi with a single alternator and battery, you’ll need the battery backup otion. The -275s have lots of options that increase functionality and price. Stuff like syn vis, battery, and autopilot connections are optional. They are a great option in my opinion. I just got 2xg5s which is nice, but I’m a little jealous of the -275 fitting into the panel without the surgery my g5s required.

Yeah I agree, that doesn’t sound good.

Yeah I don’t think the absolute egt is that important either, it just made me think about the sea level fuel flow because that is pretty important. For the record, my fuel flow is around 18gph and then I use that as a basis for my target egt during climb. If yours is really 16.5, there’s a good chance that’s at least part of your issue.

Yeah, I can see that with the higher oat. Interesting that your target egt is higher. I’m sure you’ve probably checked, but what’s your sea level full rich fuel flow on takeoff? If you’re running even a tiny bit too lean, it will cause significant increase in climb cht.

Mike, you’re still that hot with ~120mph climb, very rich, cowl flaps open climb? I use ~1275 as a target egt for mixture in climb and my chts are usually more like 360 in climb. Possibly my cooler oat helps in NE Washington? Is it a stock inlet or a mod? Mine is lasar cowl closure but not sure that helps...

Traditional vacuum ADIs also fail in a way that makes it much easier to get spatial disorientation. They don’t generally alert. At least the G5s, Aspen, etc have some error checking and a big red x for their known failure modes. There are also the requirements to keep your traditional backups and many people have installed 2xG5s for their built in redundancy. I for one, think that my ifr safety has been increased by installing 2xG5s in place of my vac/standby vac and single ADI. I have the 2xG5s and an electric TC/autopilot (stec still works without the ADIs) and worst case I have the FF attitude from the GTX. If I’m really on that, lots of other bad stuff has happened. So, sure, if you install 12 different ADIs that use 12 different power and attitude sources, you could say you have more redundancy than I do and are thus safer, but I just don’t see a reason to do that. If people with 2xG5s and backup instruments start falling out of the sky, I’ll change my tune.

Cody’s just showing off now. That’s awesome.

Yeah I think you’ll like it. Smooth running, real easy starting, and LOP definitely seems smoother and easier.

I’m currently breaking in a new cylinder too, but in an io-360. Mine was noticeably warmer than the others, but nothing like yours. I’m seeing like 380 in cruise while the others are 330. I have the bonus of very cold air temperatures for breaking it in (Eastern Washington in winter). What kind of cylinder is it? Mine is chrome. so one last thing to possibly just glance at... make sure you don’t have a small exhaust leak on that cylinder or the one next to it heating up the area near the probe.

At least for me, run up hasn’t been an issue. It does skip a beat, but no bang, noise, vibration, nothing. When I did the LOP mag check at 65% power, that was more exciting. Next time I’ll try their technique of pulling power after checking the second mag. For some reason, the shutdown check also got a bang. I’ll try to see if I can find something that works for that too.

The attitude function in FF only works with an outside ahrs attitude source. It will give a giant red x without a connected ahrs. So it’s not a function of working off the iPad accelerometers. Supposedly these ahrs have a mtbf of 10,000hrs or greater (which I have no source for). I think we should all thank Skip for having his fail so soon which ensures everyone else’s will last 20,000 hours!

I have a Surefly on an IO360. Its real nice. Better LOP operation, starts really easy. The “afterfire” thing is real though, at least on mine. During runup at 1700rpm it’s just a slight skip. I did a LOP mag check at 11,000’ and 65% power... it was a loud bang. I also got a somewhat smaller bang when I checked the key off position to make sure the engine would shut down at idle power. The issue is that the Surefly takes like 5 ms to start sparking after being shutdown. When you’re checking the Surefly, then go back to both, all is well, there is always a mag firing. When you check the Right mag and then cycle back to both, you pass through the “Surefly only” position on the ignition and it takes 5ms before you get a spark. Depending on power setting, it may be a bang. This is with a traditional ignition switch. I do like it though. I need to do a few more flights and collect more data, but high altitude LOP seems to have a measurable reduction in ff or increase in a couple knots.

On my last flight I did get that CO alarm from the sensorcon but it was only 40ppm which is higher than normal on the ground but not a huge increase (I usually have <20 on the ground and 0 in the air). When I put her away this afternoon I wiped down the cowl and there is a very light exhaust stain along the aft edge of the lower cowl on the affected side. Tough to see unless you’re specifically looking for it. I guess this has been one more example of an engine monitor proving its worth. It was directly responsible for showing me a problem existed and partially identified the exact problem.

Good to know, thanks for that helpful insight!

I see what you did there!

Solved. I really thought the induction leak was the best hypothesis, especially since the problem wasn't really visible at full power, only idle (for the most part - I did eventually find a few anomalies at full power). Did you know that 3 guys (2 x A & Ps and 1 x Pilot/owner) standing next to the engine staring at the #4 cylinder can't see the exhaust studs & nuts? It takes bending down lower to look up at them which I did this weekend when I went to look for an induction leak. Below is what I found. I looked at the ground run after annual and the first flight after annual. The EGT is just fine until midway through the first flight when there are a few weird excursions. Then it's always a bit wonky at low power for the next two flights and a ground run before I realized there was a problem. The last flight I got a Carbon Monoxide alarm from my Sensorcon while taxiing in (40ppm). Way higher than usual on the ground. I still was showing 0 in flight. I didn't start to put that together with the engine data anomalies until this weekend. Based on the data from the ground run and first flight, I believe the nuts, washers and star lock washers were there at one point, but weren't torqued or fell off for some other reason. All have been checked again. This was a little scary after the fact. Rags