philiplane

I have an IO-550 in the shop for other repairs. It has a worn starter adapter shaft, even though the plane has been running Phillips 20w50XC so you can't blame synthetic oil or anti-scuff additives for the wear. This adapter has less than 500 hours since NEW. Continental is covering it under warranty.

You have one failed path from any of the LRU's to the G1000. You can find basic errors in the status page on the MFD. IF they aren't shown there, you need a technician to get into maintenance mode and check the configuration. And restore it to the correct configuration. This is not something for the unfamiliar since you can make a lot of errors if you don't know the system.

The Skytec C24 series is specifically made to release the drive spring when the engine starts. All other lightweight starters release slowly, especially the Iskra starter. It doesn't fully release for a minute or more. During that time the spring and shaft are grinding away at each other. Having a slippery oil would actually help cut the wear on these parts, if it were a flooded assembly. But it is only drip lubricated from the accessory drive oil returns. The old energizer starter releases instantly like the lightweight C24ST5. If you have a C24ST5 and still have short adapter life, then the adapter was built with the wrong shaft clearance. There are parts to fix this issue available from Niagara Airparts. There is a mod to put the older style, wider spring into the newer housing. This eliminates all the wear issues. Of course any knowledgeable shop working on Continentals would know this, and should have made the recommendation to you.

That is the notorious Iskra starter that releases slowly and eats adapters. Get it off there today! Install a Skytec C24ST5, which is currently the best starter for large Continentals. Engine oil has NOTHING to do with this failure mode. It's caused by the inability of the starter to release quickly. So the engine is running while the starter drive spring is still gripping the drive shaft. This wears the spring, and the expensive shaft. Change the starter, and have the adapter repaired for about $700. Or let it go longer, and it will cost $1500 after the shaft is worn below limits.

FXE is the best overall choice since it has five FBO's, rental cars, a train station nearby, Uber, pilot shop, maintenance, etc. Also right next to I-95, and the Turnpike for easy access to Miami, about 40 minutes south. OPF is second best since the prices are 30-50 percent higher than FXE, and OPF is in a really sh*tty neighborhood.

The valve cap cannot read tire pressure unless it has access to the air inside the tire. It does this by depressing the schrader valve in the valve stem. Then, the Chinese rubber seal in the transmitter leaks, and voila, you have a nice flat upon landing that ruins your fairing, tire, and wheel, and wallet.

Lots of Cirrus owners tried them, and took them off. They don't work reliably, and worse, have been known to deflate the tire.

I think this model uses an electronic dimmer and not a rheostat. They are known for inducing a buzzing into the audio under some conditions. A precision ohm meter is required to verify the ground plane is correct between the affected components first, and then the dimmer must be tested if the problem persists.

some of you are looking for evidence that the old nav light lamps had a TSO or PMA. You might not find one for Grimes as the manufacturer, since they would have made the entire assembly under a PMA and not the lamp itself. Grimes would buy the lamp from GE, and the whole assembly may have a separate PMA, or it may have been sold directly to Mooney for example, and Mooney's Type Certificate would have included the nav lamp assembly from Grimes, under a Mooney and a Grimes part number, and individual replacement parts for the whole thing in the Mooney parts catalog. Buy any replacement part from Mooney and it's all covered under their Production Certificate. Buy any individual replacement part from a different source than Grimes and NOW YOU have to make sure it is a legitimate airplane part. Clear as mud but that's how this whole thing works. It should be easier but it is a product of a Federal bureaucracy that is tasked with safety first at all costs, job security second, and whether it makes sense to aircraft owners is mostly irrelevant.

No, HID's are a different topic and require different approvals. They require STC or a Field Approval, because they can cause RFI that will interfere with your comm and nav radios on certain frequencies. That is why they must demonstrate no adverse affects under DO-160. Field Approvals of non-STC HID lamps are not difficult. I was an early adopter and have dozens of approvals, including the first Cessna Citation approval that is now in the Lopresti line of STC'd HID lights. I'm also developing other lighting but the high power LED's present such problems that only deep pocketed developers can get them to work correctly. LED's also present radio interference problems in some installations, and they also do not run cool as some suggest. They just disperse heat differently. That is why LED's require heat sinks or they will catch fire. The heat sink can be a finned housing like on the back of the Whelen Parametheus or the Teledyne Alphabeam, or it can go through the airframe if the LED is incorporated into an aluminum housing on a nav light. Either way if you don't dissipate the heat the LED board will fail in short order. Or the LED's will fall off the board like this: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hb0t176wsxc3wv2/AAC-yRbRj3-7V3EBdVgJbRGUa?dl=0 And if the data exists to prove the PSA paddles meet the specs, then they only have to pass RFI tests under DO-160, and submit the paperwork to the ACO for a PMA. Of course then PSA will have to maintain an FAA approved parts manufacturing facility which will add a lot of expense. Now you understand why certified lamp assemblies cost $600 each. Low volume products with high barriers to market entry always cost a premium.

well, tracking us will be easy when everyone is ADS-B compliant. Then your transponder will allow Uncle to track your every move, and scarier yet, that information is kept basically forever if they store it like they store every other piece of aircraft and airmen documentation. It's probably coming for cars too, since they need a way to track mileage of electric and alternate fuel cars that aren't paying road tax...and to be fair, they'll just have to track everyone and send a nice bill every month.

If you did get asked about them by a curious FAA Airworthiness or Operations Inspector, and they wanted to press the issue, it gets ugly very fast. It doesn't matter what the part is or does, an Unapproved Part is the same big deal to the FAA. They would cite you for operating an unairworthy aircraft, and each flight is an individual violation. As a Civil action, that's a $500 per flight fine, and as a Certificate action, it's generally 30 days per violation, but they have some discretion. If you installed them as a private pilot, you might get away with a letter of warning. If a mechanic installed them and was dumb enough to use the log entry shown above, he would probably get a 90 day suspension. This is based on similar Unapproved Part cases in the last few years. The penalty all depends on how big of a deal it becomes. But the reality is quite clear, as nice as these might be, they aren't approved. Whelen has a great product in the Orion series, and there are some other options but they are also complete lamp assemblies. The main reason there are no drop in replacements is that is impossible to meet the "field of view" requirements with a drop in LED. You get blind spots, of which some people here have already noted.

The definitive basis is very simple. These lamps are not legal since they are not manufactured under a PMA. Anyone making replacement parts for Type Certificated aircraft must have a PMA. That's in 14CFR Part 21 The company does not have an FAA approval to produce aircraft parts. Because nav lights are required by regulation and the reg specifies TSO-C30c as the basis, any lamp you use must be conform to the TSO. Which means the company has to apply for evaluation of their product, pass the tests, be granted a PMA to produce them, and them mark them with the TSO number, FAA approval, and so on. From the FAA: Who Needs A PMA? a. General Requirements. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) § 21.303(a) requires any person producing replacement or modification parts for sale for installation on a type-certificated product to get a PMA. A PMA is a combined design and production approval for replacement parts. Also we may use a PMA for the production of modification parts from supplemental type certificates (STC). The prior STC approves the design and installation of these modification parts in products. However, if any replacement part alters a product by introducing a major change, then 14 CFR § 21.113 requires an STC for the approval of these parts. See FAA Order 8110.4, Type Certification, for STC procedures.

These engines make full power even down to 30 psi static compression. They will just use more oil. Depending on the master orifice reading of the day, if you follow the Continental service bulletin, the compression may be in the upper 30's and still be airworthy. It's relatively normal for 550's to drop into the 50-60 psi range after 800 hours, and basically stay there until the engine is ready for overhaul. It's also rare for a 550 to maintain compression in the 70's past 800 hours. It's nothing to worry about unless you want to spend some money for the sake of a higher compression reading.

scan and email the invoice to me for review if you like. I am a Connecticut refugee and know all the shops in New England.

So if a lot of potential chute buyers say that they're OK with $10K, but not OK with $25K, does that mean they only value their life at $15K, which is the differential? Granted, the probability of needing a chute is low, but like a fire extinguisher, you hope to never need it but when you do you are glad you have it. I may be one of the few who would put a $25K chute on a $50K Mooney without worrying about resale or other nonsense. I also know several people who have been saved by chutes so maybe that influences the opinion.

Current repack costs for a Cirrus are about $16K because of an upgrade & change to the rocket motor & firing mechanism. With that complete, a 2005 & newer Cirrus repack with new rocket every ten years is about $9K. But, you are all thinking about money versus value, twin versus single, added value to the airplane.... all the wrong things to question. The real question when evaluating safety equipment costs is very simple....how such is your life worth? Spend as much or as little as you think it's worth. Because when you haven't taken advantage of every life saving measure, and you finally need it, you will be wishing you spent the money as you plummet to the dirt and your death.

timing that changes more than a few degrees, like 2-3 max, in less than 250 hours means something is wrong with the points. And, If a magneto is loose enough for the mag to engine timing to change, it will leak oil like crazy. So you have to investigate the "slippage". Was it simply set wrong in the first place, or is the internal mag timing changing? The former is an installation error but the latter is a potential problem that requires mag disassembly to verify the point setting.

That's hilarious.... fine wires will make it worse? It's the other way around... Anyway, check the magneto before you assume anything about the cylinder condition. Especially if you have Slick mags. Slick mags are notorious for misfires that appear to be the fault of the cylinder when it's actually the plug not getting enough juice. Weak ignition will cause oil consumption on the affected cylinder because the rings will not seal due to low firing pressure. Also verify the condition of the spark plug harness with a load tester. A weak wire will also cause problems. Once these are ruled out, revisit the cylinder with a compression check and borescope inspection.

If the cylinders were "repaired" then valves may be re-used. If they were "overhauled" then it is required to replace the exhaust valves. 200 HP Lycomings are known to eat an exhaust valve from time to time. The head snaps off in part or in whole. When this happens parts of the valve head often go back into the intake and migrate to the next cylinder in firing order. This is where field repairs and overhauls often cost more down the road, because a lot of people don't know the requirements for overhaul. And some very old parts get re-used. If the cylinders were simply "repaired", then if the existing exhaust valves were unserviceable, a used valve from the shop's spares pile, with unknown hours, could be used to repair the cylinder and it's perfectly legal. Unwise, but legal.

If you want to sell and add the most value a factory rebuilt or new engine is the best route. Plus you get product improvements you don't get aftermarket, such as the roller tappets. And a new crank and crankcase. Don't forget that 540's can develop case cracks in front of #2 and on top of #6. I just sent an engine back to a well known shop, because it had a little oil seepage 50 hours after overhaul, which turned into a nice crack above #6 by 150 hours (less than a year.) This was a first run overhaul of a 1900 hour engine, just for comparison. Fortunately they are going to warrant the case, but the owner would have been better off spending $5k more for a factory rebuilt. The plane will be down again for several weeks while this gets repaired.

If it's running well, and oil analysis doesn't show abnormal wear, why euthanize a perfectly good engine? It probably will not explode right at 2000 hours ;) Magnetos should be inspected if they have more than 500 hours on them, and vacuum pumps should be replaced at 1000 hours since they aren't known to last much longer than that. Turbo bearings require a play check and a borescope inspection of the turbine wheel every 500 hours as well. But so long as your engine is healthy, monitor it with regular cylinder inspections and oil analysis, and it will tell you when it needs overhaul. Don't go to Premier at FXE...

You should always have an original maintenance & parts manual dated as close to the date of your plane's manufacture as possible. That is the "current" manual as far as the FAA is concerned. Most older manual have part numbers listed with the manufacturer's part number and a generic part number following in parentheses. As years go by, manufacturers delete the generic part numbers, making it hard to find normally priced parts. You also want to have an up-to-date manual for parts changes that are the result of product improvements or service bulletins.

Slick mags are worse than garbage. Slicks empty your wallet and cost you flight time. At least garbage can be used to make compost... On the other hand, if the new mag does just what the old one does, the problem is probably not in the magneto. If you have Champion spark plugs produced between 2008 and 2014, dump them ASAP.

It will do all they claim. I put one on a 67 F model about 7 years ago. The owner still has the plane and the exhaust has been one of the best upgrades he did. The only other high performance option available would be the 210 HP mod, which uses slightly higher compression pistons from the helicopter version of the IO-360.