Jump to content

Vance Harral

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Vance Harral last won the day on July 23 2021

Vance Harral had the most liked content!


Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Erie, CO
  • Reg #
  • Model

Recent Profile Visitors

5,454 profile views

Vance Harral's Achievements


Mentor (12/14)

  • Dedicated
  • Reacting Well
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • One Year In

Recent Badges



  1. Availability of overhaul/exchange fuel pumps has been an issue for some time now, I'm not surprised the OP is having problems. We went through this about a year ago with similar results: no overhaul/exchange units to be found anywhere. After a couple of days looking, we gave up and shipped our own unit to Aeromotors for overhaul, and they were able to turn it around relatively quickly. I think the airplane was down a total of less than two weeks. Not a big deal to us, but our airplane is just a hobby toy, we don't use it for business.
  2. The mechanic first tried to drill out the screw, and when that didn't work he simply wrenched the yoke off the shaft, which of course left a big score in the shaft that had to be addressed. No one was there to stop him from ham-fisting it (we don't use that mechanic any more). It was a nightmare, and a perfect example of the unintended consequences of a "mandatory" inspection with thin justification. In a word, no. The yoke shaft type against which the AD was issued doesn't have the set screw at all. It has a roll pin instead, and is a smaller diameter shaft. It's literally not the same thing. Unfortunately for those of us with late-model M20Fs that have the newer yokes and yoke shafts, AD 77-17-04 doesn't exempt our airplanes from the yoke shaft inspection, even though we don't have the parts on which the problem was observed. Those of us who follow the letter of the law are unquestionably performing unnecessary inspections. Those who don't perform the unnecessary inspections aren't following the letter of the law, and may get hassled by future IAs and/or buyers. Pick your poison.
  3. Do you have "late model" rams horn yokes? on your airplane? If so, you're not going to find what you're looking for in the M20F IPC, you have to look in the M20J IPC. The set screw is documented in section 27-30-00, it's an AN565-D416-H4. We applied a very light fingertip "dab" on one side of the threads, similar to what one does with anti-seize when installing spark plugs. It's entirely possible that you used less of the stuff than we did, and that you'll have no trouble later on. But when you start getting into a debate about fractional differences in the amount of thread locker you apply being the difference between damaging a yoke shaft on the next removal, I'd argue it's not worth it. The set screw is not a structural item, and the yoke isn't going to come off the shaft if the set screw is loose and allows some slop. It's just annoying if you're trying to do something like hand-fly a smooth set of lazy 8s.
  4. Neither did we, but in our case the set screw wound up "glued" in so tight that the mechanic who performed the next inspection wound up damaging the yoke shaft trying to remove the yoke to perform the yoke shaft inspection. Talk about irony. Because of this incident, I strongly recommend against using any kind of thread locker on the set screw. Yes, it will loosen up and have to be re-tightened periodically. We keep a specific Allen wrench in one of the seat pockets to do so.
  5. I've never used a paid system like Adlog. But years of doing my own AD research has convinced me that the value in such a service would not be in the nice paperwork they produce. The value is almost entirely in the extent to which they can hunt down ADs issued against "appliances" that may or may not be attached to your aircraft. Anyone care to speak to that? To elaborate, it doesn't take much knowledge or skill to produce a list of ADs against a particular airframe/engine/prop combo, but appliances are insidious. An AD issued against the magnetos in your airplane is not going to show up under "Mooney" or "Lycoming". Neither is one issued against your ADS-B out Tailbeacon, your Saf-Air oil quick drain, and so on. Obviously a vendor cannot provide you with good service in this respect without a lot of input from you, the owner. So there's really no way around the responsibility of understanding what components on your airplane, who manufactured them, and what their serial numbers are, so as to keep an eye out for ADs issued against them that aren't going to show up under "Mooney". Accepting that responsibility seems to me to obviate much of the value of a vendor AD service. People understandably sign up for those services because they want a professional to help them be responsible for ensuring they know about all ADs applicable to their airplane. But I'm not sure those professional services can help much with anything other than the grossly obvious. Frankly, I think you can do about as well just monitoring our community here on Mooneyspace. People were posting about the recent elevator counterweight AD before it even became official. I'm certain those of us here were better informed, sooner, than someone who was waiting on Adlog or similar service to tell them about it. And that's for an airframe AD. We're also a lot more likely to tell you when an AD has been issued against V-band clamps on turbochargers, Garmin autopilots, etc. vs. waiting for a vendor to tell you about it.
  6. For those who don't know, the PROTE setup is not a "chamber" in the sense you might think of. It's simply a "tent", into which abundant quantities of nitrogen are injected, to reduce the available oxygen. There's no question this reduces your O2 saturation - you can see it on an oximeter. As such, you can experience symptoms of hypoxia, and that has value. That said, whether or not nitrogen dilution at ground-level pressure produces exactly the same symptoms as reduced partial pressure at altitude is debated. For example, my wife is a professional research scientist. Her and her colleagues work experiments in an actual altitude chamber a few times a year, as part of their research on pulmonary hypertension, and thus have accumulated dozens of experiences over the years. Occasionally they are asked to assist with experiments involving a nitrogen dilution tent like the PROTE chamber. They all swear that the experience and the symptoms in the tent are not the same as in the chamber. The fact that the people in question are scientists doesn't make this any more "data" than "anecdote". It's not a double-blind study, and I'm sure there is some group reinforcement of beliefs in casual conversations. But it stands to reason that in addition to hypoxia, lowering of pressure can have other effects on sinuses, bowels, etc.; all of which may or may not contribute to feelings of unwellness or euphoria. I've done the PROTE chamber thing, but conversations with my wife have made me curious enough to want to get an actual altitude chamber ride and compare the experiences. She has yet to sneak me into one of her experiments, though.
  7. Magnetic field strength decreases cubically with distance, so interference with the compass is largely a function of distance. Our compass is conventionally mounted on the center windshield post. We have two highly magnetic Steelie Ball mounts sticky-taped to the yokes, which are about 24" away from the compass, and there is no discernible effect on the compass. There is a noticeable effect on the compass if I set my phone with its magsafe case anywhere on the glareshield, though, which is a small part of the reason I prefer a yoke or kneeboard mount down low to a suction cup mount up high.
  8. If you're using G5 altitude to define when you arrive at minimums, please make sure your "secondary" G5 altimeter was/is tested and calibrated by a shop that knows how to do so. Apologies if I'm beating a dead horse about this, but the problems I've seen are not one-offs - I have a number of data points because I work part-time as an instructor. The flight school I primarily teach at has five aircraft with dual G5s. None of them are calibrated, because they don't have to be. Every single one of them reads at least 75' higher than our 5055' MSL field elevation, when set to the altimeter setting given on the AWOS. One of them reads 125' high. Not a single one of them reads low, all the errors are in the "dangerous" direction. The G5 ADI in our Mooney had exactly the same 100-ish-foot-high error, until I asked our transponder/static check guy to come out with his test equipment and calibrate it. I also give instruction to owners in their own airplanes, some of which are equipped with G5s. In some cases, those G5s read very close to the certified altimeter, and are accurate compared to field elevation, like our Mooney is now. I'm assuming these units were adjusted by the shop at installation. All the other cases have the same large errors in the "dangerous" direction. I realize that my 10-or-so data points aren't really enough to identify something systematic about the G5's pressure/altitude system, but what I've seen with my own eyes has made an impression on me, and it could kill someone in low IMC, hence my fixation on it. One piece of information I don't have is what would happen if you flew all these "bad" units down to sea level. It may be that the source of error corrected by calibration has more to do with the pressure/altitude relationship curve over thousands of feet, than a baseline bias.
  9. You'll find many, many pilots who agree with you... ...but most of them are not pilots with a lot of experience, and time in IMC, including approaches to minimums. There is an inverse correlation between this experience, and fascination with iPads, and it's not just because pilots who have a lot of experience are old and/or iPad-phobic. You seem to have pretty much made up your mind on this, and I don't want to be a jerk by arguing about for the sake of argument. What I will say is that if you're genuinely looking to test an opinion you have, you should work hard to find input from those who disagree with you. The easiest way to find that input for this particular topic, is to talk to people with a lot of time flying actual IMC in the system. In my experience, all of these folks really like iPads and the wealth of information they provide; but none of them would even glance at an iPad inside the FAF, much less rearrange their panel to prioritize it over a certified altimeter. If the panel in question were for VFR only, that changes things; but I get the impression you want to use your airplane in IMC. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  10. I don't actually know the owner of EarthX very well at all, and I'm disinclined to get into a lengthy conversation with him about his aircraft battery business. Having said that, I have two comments, numbered Anthony-style: I generally agree with the posts above, that an EarthX aircraft battery as it exists today is not a compelling product. I think everyone's implicit assumption - that the purpose of EarthX developing aircraft batteries is to make money selling a superior aircraft battery product to piston single owners - is likely incorrect. EarthX makes batteries for many different types of vehicles, and there are literally millions more non-aircraft vehicles in their target market than aircraft. My guess is that the aircraft battery product is some combination of marketing ploy ("aircraft grade" battery for your motorcycle!), R&D side gig, and hobby, on which EarthX is not currently dependent for profit. The guy in question is not an idiot, and I'm pretty sure he's already aware of all the legitimate criticism being made in this thread. I'm extremely confident he is not confused about battery weight, current capacity, or total energy capacity, as compared to competing solutions.
  11. I can vouch that I have made several flights in a Mooney (specifically a 231) with an EarthX battery installed. We did not run out of electrons or catch on fire. The Mooney in question is owned by the principal owner of EarthX.
  12. Your point is well taken, and yes, people should check part numbers. This can be "artificially confusing" for the G5, however, because the number of G5 variants is less than what is implied by the part numbers used for sales purposes. There are exactly two flavors of G5 instrument: experimental and certified. The "experimental" G5 (P/N 010-01485-01, see https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/514383) is not certified for anything. Garmin doesn't want this unit in any certified aircraft for any reason, though I'm sure a few people have played games with stretching the interpretation of rules in a way that jives what they want. There is only one "certified" G5 instrument, and it's certified as primary for any/all of the functions I mentioned above (see the installation manual for details). If you visit https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/570665/pn/K10-00280-01, however, it appears there are three different flavors of certified G5 with different part numbers: one for use as a certified Attitude Indicator, one for use as a certified DG/HSI, and one for use as a certified HSI "with GPS interface". This is misleading. Again, there is only one certified G5 instrument, and it can be used for any of the certified functions. The different names/part numbers just reflect additional gizmos that are bundled with the instrument when you order it. If you order a "G5 Attitude Indicator", you get only the G5 device itself and nothing else. If you order a "G5 DG/HSI", you get a the same G5, but also a GMU11 magnetometer which provides heading information to the G5. If you order a "G5 DG/HSI with GPS interface", you get the G5 plus the GMU11 plus a GAD29B bus converter that allows the G5 to talk to ARINC429 devices. But you can buy the GMU11 and/or GAD29B from one vendor, connect them to a "G5 Attitude Indicator" you bought from another vendor, and still have a legally certified DG/HSI. Garmin is very clear about this if you dig into details and/or talk to their support staff.
  13. The G5 is certified primary for use as an attitude indicator, DG, HSI, or turn coordinator. When configured as an ADI, the G5 display also shows airspeed and altitude tapes, and a VSI indication. But those are for "entertainment purposes only", the G5 cannot replace the factory instruments. In my experience, this is not well understood, and many pilots assume the G5 altitude is "better" than the old round dial. The fact that a GFC500 autopilot gets altitude hold information from a G5 adds to the confusion. to be clear, G5 altitude and airspeed accuracy isn't inherently poor, it just needs to be calibrated to be accurate. The calibration is electronic rather than mechanical, it's set through menus in the unit. The shop that does your biannual static system check can easily perform this calibration, but it takes extra time, and they will understandably bill extra to do the work. Most shops know that (1) it's not required; and (2) many owners don't want to pay extra for this, so they commonly leave the G5 calibration at the factory default setting and only check the certified primary altimeter. In my experience, this almost always results in the G5 altimeter reading high relative to the certified altimeter, when both are set to the same Kollsman setting.
  14. I would not fly instrument approaches in an airplane whose only certified altimeter was on the far opposite side of the panel from the attitude indicator. I don't buy the argument that "The G5 altimeter is good enough even though it's not certified primary", for approaches down to 200' AGL minimums. I've flown in too many airplanes with G5s where a combination of owner ignorance and shop confusion over what the owner wants, lead to uncorrected G5 installations with indicated altitudes which are over 100' in error in the "dangerous" direction.
  15. I used to use and recommend WingX too, but it seems like Hilton and his one-man WingX band dropped off the face of the planet a few years ago. It's not exactly dead, but it seems like it's barely hanging on, with no active support. If you visit https://hiltonsoftware2.com/wingx, you'll see essentially nothing in the way of updates, just some notes about testing with the latest O/S updates. The promo video for v9 is 3 years old. That doesn't mean it doesn't work, and it may still be a fine backup, but I just got the point where it didn't seem supported enough to rely on, even as a backup. I haven't looked into it in a long time, anyone have more current info?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.