philiplane

GAMI has this on their site:

Of course it matters how it was painted. Each paint calls for specific mil thickness when dry. Not too thick, and not too thin. Thick paint ages faster since it absorbs more heat rather than passing it to the structure. Thin paint has poor chemical and solvent resistance, and poor abrasion resistance. It tends to peel easily. You're misunderstanding the damage. It's not "eating" the Jet Glo. It's dissolving the primer underneath it. And then the top coat shrivels up and peels away. Even concrete will crumble if you wash away the soil underneath it. The majority of paint jobs have poor surface prep and they use cheap primers to save money. The nice paint on top looks great until a scratch, a nick, or edge wear on access panels gives a solvent a chance to contact those cheap materials underneath. Some shops even use generic hardeners instead of the correct (expensive) ones, and the paint never fully cures.

To be clear, GAMI is not a paint manufacturer. There is no practical way for them to test their fuel with every paint. A paint system includes the aluminum surface prep, the primer, any sealers, and the top coat. Listing only the top coat doesn't give enough information. Nor does he indicate the mil thickness of the paint, which is a critical item. You can apply Jet Glo, one of best aerospace paints, on top of cheap undercoats. It will fail easily when exposed to solvents, where it will not fail when a complete, compatible system is applied. I've been painting custom autos, heavy trucks, and airplanes for over 40 years. Dozens of my antique truck restorations are in museums. While the A&P's video is pretty thorough, it lacks the specifics that would tell us if the damaged panels were correctly painted in the first place. From my perspective, they were not.

For what it's worth... A 1975 vintage Mooney with only 3,000 flight hours, has been sitting for 435,648 hours. Sitting, gathering dust, rain water, mice, insects, sun, hot weather, freezing conditions, battered by winds, moved by careless line men, etc, etc.

For what it's worth, fuels are not tested to be compatible with paint. They're not expected to be routinely applied to painted surfaces. Also, the test videos shown do not specify what paint systems were used on the parts. This is a critical part of testing. As for rubber components in the fuel storage and distribution system, it seems obvious that more testing is needed to identify and develop solutions to any potential G100UL compatibility issues.

Catalyzed paints (2-part polyurethane, acrylic urethane, or acrylic enamel topcoats like Acryglo, Imron, etc ) are normally immune to even the worst solvents. However, most primers are sensitive to lacquer thinner, and enamel reducers, which include toluene and xylene. My bet is that the paint damage shown started with the primer coats. With the primer corrupted, the top coat goes along with it.

One overlooked hazard of LOP operations is the wear on the exhaust system. People say EGT's don't matter, which is mostly true at the cylinder, but not in the exhaust system. ROP EGT's might be 1450, and LOP will be 100 degrees hotter. Which translates directly into more thermal stress on the exhaust system. An exhaust system that is expensive on any turbocharged airplane, but even more so on a limited production plane like the Bravo.

do you have the autopilot pre-flight test instructions? It's supposed to be done before every flight. STEC autopilots (except for the new 3100) are rate-based, so they will always play catch-up. So they need an occasional tune-up to work reasonably well. If the control head gyro speed is low, it will be lazy. If the servos aren't exercised regularly, they will also be lazy.

The correct answer from the EI MVP-50 installation manual is: I. If this instrument is to replace an existing gauge in the aircraft, it is the installer’s responsibility to move or replace any existing instruments or components in accordance with FAA approved methods and procedures (see AC 43.13). Interestingly, the later CGR series primary instrument manual says: If the CGR-30P is to replace an existing gauge in the aircraft, it is the installer’s responsibility to INOP or remove any duplicate instruments in the panel using FAA approved methods and procedures (see AC 43.13).

Max Easy works very well, lasts a year or so, and is incredibly easy to apply. I use it on the planes and cars with great results. Even on the truck's chrome wheels, which now stay clean after hundreds of miles. It stays slippery so bugs don't stick on leading edges. The few that do get splattered wipe off with a damp cloth. For older paint, it's best to buff it first to remove contamination. You don't have to go crazy though, just clean it up. For newer paint, a good washing, and clay bar treatment is best. Max Easy is the best value paint sealant there is.

Not tailgating while approaching the light. I mean, don't leave 2,3 or more car lengths between cars while stopped at the light. This is crazy common in many urban areas. Which also prevents drivers from getting into the left turn lanes, because too many empty spots are in between cars stopped in the straight through lanes at the light.

The loops cover way more than you might expect. I'm involved in the control logic business.

Because the active traffic sensors (eddy current loops) buried in the road will sense more cars at the light, and change it to green faster. That is why you're better off getting to the light faster when the lights are closely spaced. You also want close spacing between cars, not the 2-3 cars lengths some people leave in between. More density means that when the light turns green, it will stay green longer to accommodate all those vehicles.

slower gear extension is better. Throwing out the gear at the max speed allowed is poor form and rips up the gear doors and linkages. There is neat feature on all Mooneys that can save fuel, maintenance costs, and aggravation when slowing down to land. It's conveniently placed in front of of the pilot. It works every time/ The throttle.

Once you have a new cylinder installed, there are ongoing maintenance requirements you will find here: https://www.ctcseminars.com/files/technical/8900_1_vol3.pdf The biggest take away is the 3 or 5 year hydrostatic test. If you fill the cylinder to capacity just before the test is due, you do not have to do the hydro test until the cylinder is empty and need refilling. For low-use operators, you might get several extra years before needing to do the hydro test. Very few mechanics understand this. But it is based on pressure cycles as much as calendar years. A low-use cylinder will have few pressurization cycles, and therefore will not degrade as quickly as a commercial operator who might fill the tank on a weekly basis. "A cylinder filled and installed in the aircraft before the requalification becomes due may remain in service until the cylinder is removed from the aircraft."

A friend with a Cessna 182 is on his FIFTH set of GFC500 servos. Garmin must be losing their shirt on this one. Parts and labor for five warranty repairs. With no guarantee that the replacements will last. A few people on the Beech forum report similar results. Meanwhile, my 40 year old Century III autopilot soldiers on, with no special care, and I can trust it in IMC.

Tempest is very good at replacing any defective plugs. They had a few isolated batches with center electrode problems. Josh is your contact at Tempest: Josh Christopher O: 336.449.5054 Ext. 539 M: 864.314.9462 E: jchristopher@tempestaero.com www.tempestaero.com

Pitot static tests do not test the accuracy of the airspeed indicators. There can be leaks in that part of the system, while the static side is perfectly tight. That said, it takes a lot of poor rigging or open gear doors to cause more than 4-5 knots of speed loss. I think you have to start from scratch and analyze the engine power instruments, the airspeed indication system, the rigging, to be sure you're getting valid data and that the plane is reasonably rigged.

this is simply an injector pressurization line. The bend has no effect on flow whatsoever.

Climbing quickly above the Florida heat and weather is best done with a turbo. In the summer, I find that 11,000 to 17,000 feet is needed to be above the tops where it's cool and clear. Passengers don't like bumping around in the heat and in the clouds that you find between 3000 to 9000 feet from May through October.

camshafts are ground to deliver specific power at a desired rpm. No different than street, RV, or race cams for auto engines. The Lycoming cams are designed to get peak torque at 2450.

The four cylinder Lycoming camshafts are optimized for 2450 rpm. That would be your optimum cruise RPM setting.

Traveling with four aboard, will be difficult with any Mooney. You run out of space pretty quickly. And you need enough power to do it safely in the higher density altitudes that Denver is known for. People focus on fuel burn, and compromise the aircraft selection to fit that choice. You really need to focus on the mission, and the fuel burn will be what it is. It's not as big of a number as you might think. You're going to need more than 200 HP, or turbocharging, or both, to fly the West safely, fully loaded. A K model might work, but space will be an issue every time. An Ovation would be OK but they are expensive. And the cabin is still not very big for a four person vacation machine. 25 years ago, my travel requirements with three kids pushed me into a six place airplane, and due to the high costs of six place singles, I ended up in a Piper Apache. And also a Twin Comanche, and now an Aztec. But the lower capital costs more than offset the higher fuel costs. The huge cabin made everyone happy too. A happy family means more airplane trips for the happy pilot too. Don't buy a plane that the family hates to travel in. The same goes for the speed. 5.7 hours in a comfortable plane is better than 4.7 hours in cramped conditions. And one hour is all the difference there is on an 800 mile trip at 140 knots, versus 170 knots. But it costs a whole lot more to go 170 knots. You might consider a Turbo Lance. Plenty of room, plenty of power, the speed you want, and there are some in the $130-150K range that have good engines but may need some avionics updates.

Radiant Power charges $6k to repair the engine data computer for the early Cirrus EIS that displays on the Avidyne EX5000 MFD. The computer used to cost $1100 exchange from Cirrus, before RP took over the line.