wombat

I approve of this. (Well, the altitude won't work for me given my location, but taking the post as I think the author intended, which is 'find an altitude that gives you plenty of opportunity to get specifically DOWN out of icing' I wholeheartedly agree) This is what I've been trying to do over the last 18 months of owning my TKS Rocket

Was there actually anything going on with the engine at the moment other than hours? Temps? Oil consumption or color?

I was thinking that maybe some people were getting a factory rebuilt engine or something like that.

How many people here actually have any manufacturer warranty on their airframe or engine?

Do you have a warranty on your engine or airframe? Or reply if you are expecting to soon have a warranty.

If the positions were swapped and we were being forced to switch from G100UL to 100LL right now, the whole pilot community would be up in arms, not even counting the TEL's health effects. Lead fowling in plugs? 100LL is a non-starter! 100LL's performance per volume? 100LL is a non-starter! Can't use modern oils? 100LL is a non-starter! Sure, G100UL isn't perfect and by switching we are trading some flaws for other flaws. (I don't want my paint stained!) But overall I think G100UL is a better solution than continuing to use 100LL. Mostly because of the perception of the health effects of the TEL in airplane exhaust. And we are unlikely to ever have as much data on G100UL as we do on 100LL in terms of engine performance and longevity. Piston powered aviation has passed its peak; even if we magically switched everybody to G100UL now, there will never be as much avgas burned in the future as there has already been burned. Unless someone can state a specific testing metric and threshold that would be sufficient that we have not met, and why the current testing is insufficient, I am not going believe any arguments that 'more testing' or 'more time' is needed. I think this is just resistance to any change. https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/06/20/the-nirvana-fallacy-an-imperfect-solution-is-often-better-than-no-solution/

This is close, but not completely accurate. They have said that their warranty will not cover damage CAUSED BY the use of G100 fuel. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is clear that companies can't void your warranty or deny warranty coverage solely because you use a part made by another company or because you get repairs done or other services from someone not associated with the company. (Unless the company provides the part of service for free under their warranty). This was litigated and then settled in 2022. https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2022/07/ftc-says-companies-warranty-restrictions-were-illegal From Lycoming directly: "Lycoming’s Limited Warranty does not cover damage caused by operation outside of Lycoming’s published specifications or the use of non-approved fuels or lubricants." You can choose to run this fuel if you want to but if this fuel causes damage the damage is on you. GAMI says it won't cause damage. (Naturally they say that!). This is IMO pretty standard. You can use your laptop as a plate to eat lunch off of, but if doing so causes damage to the laptop, that damage will not be covered by warranty. But even if you do eat your lunch off of it if the manufacturer installed bad components and those fail they are still obligated to honor the warranty they provided. One tough part as a consumer is knowing that they all have a legal team and a strong motivation to avoid paying out on a warranty claim. At most you are likely to get the cost of a repair, but if they pay out a warranty claim, there are likely hundreds or thousands of other claims they are much more likely to have to pay. So even if the individual claim is a net loss to them (e.g. they paid $250,000 to defend successfully against a $25,000 repair) they will have a net positive by not having to perform another 9 repairs. And determining the cause of engine damage can be tricky. Did it get run outside of manufacturer's guidance? Too hot? Did you overspeed it? Why did the cam spall? Really hard to tell. https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/reid-hillview-airport-launching-sales-of-g100ul/ https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/lycoming-clarifies-g100ul-warranty-impact/ https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/june/19/cirrus-advises-g100ul-use-may-void-warranties (Or more directly: http://servicecenters.cirrusdesign.com/tech_pubs/SR2X/pdf/SA/AllAdvisories/2024ServiceAdvisories/SA24-14/SA24-14.pdf) Also very interesting to note: (From an email list with my co-workers) Michael S. wrote: There's a decade-old consent decree where a number of California FBOs settled a lawsuit by saying that they will sell the lowest-lead avgas that is "commercially available". As long as 100LL was the only option, that was a no-op. There's later litigation about whether G100UL being available for sale at the refinery makes it "commercially available". Braly says that if RHV sells some to pilots tomorrow, as they intend, that pretty clearly meets the standard. This is overreaching in my opinion, since the settlement defines "Commercially Available" as being available "on a consistent and sustained basis at prices and on terms, in quantities and at times sufficient to meet demands of the customers of that Settling Defendant in California". But you can see where things are moving here. If G100UL is "Commercially Available", then the settling parties have 90 days to start distributing it. Check the actual settlement for details; there's a lot of confusion about it, probably some in bad faith. https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/prop65/judgments/2012-00204J2440.pdf

I don't think you are wrong.

As far as I know, the CAV Ice systems are the only TKS option available for the Mooneys. And performance and coverage wise, they are equivalent between the FIKI and non-FIKI systems. Both systems cover the windscreen, prop, wings, and horizontal and vertical stabilizers. Where the FIKI is different is that it's only certified on the 24V systems, it has a different thickness of titanium panel, and it has a backup pump. @CAV Ice please correct me if I'm saying something wrong here.

I've flown my Mooney (with TKS) through some ice. Not a lot so far, but some. The TKS does not work the way I thought it would. Ice still forms. But then it breaks free rather than continuing to build up. Across most of the wing and what I can see of the horizontal stabilizer, it never has built up more than about 1/16" if the TKS is on (and has been on for more than about 3 minutes before - This is important). There are spots that build up more or take longer to shed around the stall strips but they are small and don't seem to negatively impact performance much. At the speed that I've seen ice accumulate when I go through a squall with heavy of severe ice accumulation I wonder how well it'd work.... I have seen 1/4" build up in about 30 seconds. I've never experiences prolonged flight in this sort of condition though. The heaviest buildup I've let accumulate was about 3/8". But this was WITHOUT having the TKS on. I knew I was flying into clear air with temperatures above freezing soon so I just let it build. My cruise speed at the same power setting was about 5 to 8 knots slower with the ice. I would assume my stall speed was a lot higher too. But for moderate, which is < 3 inches per hour? That would be 1/4" every 5 minutes.... From what I have experienced while this would have slight negative effects on aircraft performance due to ice on the primary surfaces they would be relatively minor and the TKS would keep that up as long as the system was operational and you had fluid. I'd start to get worried about the ice on the unprotected parts though.... Cowling, the elevator counterweight, antennas, etc. Ice intensities as defined by the government: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2003/05/07/03-11237/icing-terminology Icing Terminology and Definitions Icing Intensities Light The rate of ice accumulation requires occasional cycling of manual deicing systems** to minimize ice accretions on the airframe. A representative accretion rate for reference purposes is 1/4 inch to one inch (0.6 to 2.5 cm) per hour * on the outer wing. The pilot should consider exiting the condition.*** Moderate The rate of ice accumulation requires frequent cycling of manual deicing systems ** to minimize ice accretions on the airframe. A representative accretion rate for reference purposes is 1 to 3 inches (2.5 to 7.5 cm) per hour * on the outer wing. The pilot should consider exiting the condition as soon as possible.*** Heavy The rate of ice accumulation requires maximum use of the ice protection systems to minimize ice accretions on the airframe. A representative accretion rate for reference purposes is more than 3 inches (7.5 cm) per hour * on the outer wing. Immediate exit from the conditions should be considered.*** Severe The rate of ice accumulation is such that ice protection systems fail to remove the accumulation of ice and ice accumulates in locations not normally prone to icing, such as areas aft of protected surfaces and any other areas identified by the manufacturer. Immediate exit from the condition is necessary.****

This is why you can't have fewer than two airplanes. One for XC flights. One for making holes in the sky. Also, one for landing on water. One for STOL. One for maintaining multi currency. Keep going like this and the money will start to add up though.

Larches and fresh snow in the North Cascades, as well as a I think it's the Entiat river valley from last Sunday

I just replaced the door seal on my 231 with a new non-inflatable seal. It was previously a non-inflatable as well, but very old. I doubt the new one will leak any time soon. But there are many possible points for water to get inside the cabin and if you have to leave it outside I would recommend a cover regardless of what door seal you have. My door seal was < $250 even including stripper for the old seal and new adhesive. This is trivially cheap in the airplane world. The labor though... Whew! I spent probably 15 or 20 hours on this project. Some door seal threads:

What is the result after the new tire and tube?

Ask here? I'd do it for you, but I'm a little far away for it to be cost effective. Look on the MAPA website for instructors in your area. They'll probably all be willing to do a ferry flight.

For myself, I bring several small bottles (12 Oz) of water and one smallish Gatorade for the large mouth. If my personal reserves of 'good self-control' are low I'll bring junk food. Chips, candy, etc. For the plane, I typically bring one quart of oil. I don't get why people bring all this other plane stuff in the plane with them. Magnetos, alternators, tires, cylinders, I've heard it all. If anything else happens to the plane that requires more than just adding a bit of oil the whole trip is done and I'm finding a way back home then working on the problem from there. Even a long Uber ride and a last minute airplane ticket is likely cheaper than simply continuing the flight in the Mooney even if everything was working properly.

@A64Pilot I think the problem is that if some person in the FAA has written an opinion (A.K.A. interpretation) of a federal law, when it comes time to determine if a specific person's action has violated the law, the interpretation authored by the FAA, even if it was written by just a single person, will be used to determine if that person's actions were within the law or not. In that way, the opinions have the force of law. Let's take the definition of 'congested area'.... Right now there is no clear definition of it, and if the FAA wants to take action against a pilot for violating this, they have to determine both the other facts (the flight path that violated the regulation, etc) as well as making an individual determination of if that area was 'congested'. But if some random FSDO lawyer writes an opinion that "congested area" means any location with more than 50 houses per square mile, regardless of if the houses have any people in them at the moment, well...... Any further flights over areas with more than 1 house per 12.8 acres will need to be above the 'congested area' altitude minimums.

When we know that a hurricane like this is coming, should or could insurance mandate that people evacuate their aircraft or they will not be paid out if the aircraft is damaged/destroyed? This is making my insurance rates go up!

I'm in agreement with you. I was thinking that maybe the 'valid attitude' signal was intermittent and when it goes away and comes back the autopilot does some sort of self-check that turns the lights off and then back on. It's pretty far-fetched though.

This does not sound like a wiring or servo issue. It could realistically be one of about three things that I can think of. I assume there are more possible problems. The KC-192 has some sort of internal failure. This is what I think you are suspecting too. Maybe find/buy a replacement and just swap it in? Your attitude source is no longer sending the correct information. What is your attitude indicator? There is a power or ground problem.

I've finally achieved success on this project. After just stuffing a small thin piece of padding behind the 'side' of the door seal, it now completely seals all the way around and there is effectively no wind noise in the cockpit. I used maybe 16" in several smaller chunks of the packing foam from some random thing's shipping packaging. So pieces maybe 5 to 8 inches long, 1/4" thick by 1/8" to 1/4" wide. This was not a precision cut or measurement, I just used scissors and hacked off a strip then shoved it back there with a flat head screwdriver. But it works!!! The plane is still loud if I take the headset off in flight, so I'm unlikely to start flying around the the handheld mic and speaker, but basically all of that noise is engine and and prop blade thumps instead of wind whistling. The first time I tried to close the door, it was impossible from the inside and really tough even from the outside. But after even 15 minutes closed I was able to close it from the inside. Now it's very much a hard pull and a lot of resistance closing the latch, but my wife can do it without struggling. Nothing that feels like I am close to damaging anything. The first time or two I was cringing though. In the cockpit in flight with the Bose A20 headphones on it's a lot better. I already fly with the volume all the way down on the Bose (and relatively low on the radio) so getting rid of the noise that makes it through the noise cancellation is nice.

Staying in the pattern is not a recipe for safety. For the first ~400' of full power operation you are not going to be able to glide to a runway. For most of final, unless you are really above the glide slope, you won't be able to glide to the runway if you lose your power source. Although for that leg you are likely at low power to begin with and powerplant failure is less likely. The last two times I had cylinders replaced (The most invasive engine work I've had done) I didn't actually just circle the airport after I took off, but I did more carefully make sure I could glide to a reasonable landing spot (major highway, low traffic).

@ziggysanchez Does TKS fluid have any effect on the coatings you use?

It will be interesting to see why the engine seized if a report ever gets published that says why. Should we have a practice of circling over the departure airport after annual? What about if some list of things are done during annual such as if you replace a geared component or a piston/cylinder? Do we suspect that the pilot failed to control the aircraft appropriately? The underscored phrases in your post seem to indicate that we should be paying special attention to those facts, that they are more likely the underlying cause of the accident and we should make sure we don't make those mistakes.

This guy does amazing reviews of all sorts of stuff. Here is one where he reviews different ceramic coatings: