philiplane

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.

The biggest downside to ripping out the original gauges, and going all EIS, is when the EIS fails. Then you have nothing, and you're grounded. The advisory monitors can give you all the information you need, without that risk. I have an Insight G4, and my original gauges. All of which have been overhauled, so they function perfectly. I've fixed four complete EIS failures so far this year in customer airplanes. Three were failures of the GEA71 engine computer, which grounds the plane. The fourth was a shorted power line to the 5 volt sensors, which takes out fuel flow, manifold pressure, and oil pressure, also grounding the plane. How often does this happen? Not often, so far, but these systems are already aging since they date back to 2004. But with legacy gauges there is no single point of failure that takes out everything.

Friends don't let friends buy MT props. Stick with a two blade for speed, light weight, and durability. Hartzell is best in that regard.

I've had no such problems. I apply it on a dry surface after washing, rather than the wet method that can also be used. I would guess that spotting might occur using the wet method, if the water has contaminates in it. Like chlorine, minerals, or salts, which is very common. But the instructions also direct the user to towel dry the vehicle after using the wet method. Which is where some people might get lazy, and end up with spots. I don't see any way that the product itself could cause the problems they're having. All sealants require a clean surface first. Good sealants will seal any contamination or stains in, just as well as they seal the paint. So of course, those defects would be "hard to remove". I've also used all those others, and the previous best paint sealant I liked was Rejex. The only downside to Rejex is that it takes more effort in application. I've been using hydrophobic coatings in my mining equipment applications for ten years. Those coatings are applied more like clear coat, and they are designed to prevent mud and calcium dust from sticking. They dull the paint, but they do have a life span of 5-6 years. It seems that MAXL has figured out how to combine hydrophobic properties with high gloss, which are normally mutually exclusive.

The MAXL brand MAXEasy product I referenced above can be used on all paint, plastics, and glass.

Forget the hassle and expense of "ceramic" coatings. You should try MAXL MAXEasy. It's easy to apply, repels everything, and lasts about year. It's not expensive either. It's a triphene coating with extreme hydrophobic qualities, so dirt and bugs don't stick, water slides right off, and the gloss is outstanding. I've been using on the plane and the cars for six months so far. Unbelievable product!

Half of that loss is due to forward CG alone. The three blade prop has more drag than a two blade, but worse, it's heavier. And that extra weight is all the way upfront, causing more load on the tail. Figure out how to get your CG further back. Push your seat back in cruise, add weight to the baggage, etc. Mooney, like all other manufacturers, got the book speeds with the plane loaded to gross weight, but also with the most favorable CG. But most pilots fly at or near the forward limit, which adds a lot of drag, slowing the plane down. Cooling drag is the next big item to tackle. If the engine baffles aren't perfect, a lot of air goes through the cowl, but in the wrong manner. You end up with higher CHT's, and can lose 2-4 knots depending on how bad the leaks are. External things like antennas and gear door rigging, and flight control rigging, are the smallest contributors to your problem.

oil starvation due to main bearing shift, or other blockage of the oil system. I personally know of two dozen ventilated Continental cases over the past 25 years. But zero Lycomings, even though I've seen more large Lycomings over the same span. Lycoming failures tend to come from broken exhaust valves, and that doesn't trash the whole engine. Also, since Continental camshafts are at the bottom of the case, all that extra oil just falls into the pan. The top mounted cam in a Lycoming spills its overflow oil onto the crankshaft.

It's yet another big Continental with a hole in the case. It seems to always be #2 or #6.