Sandman993

Absolutely!!!

There was a kid that had parents that worked for the faa... he was 15 before he figured out his name wasn’t “No”.

Typically, if you have to ask... the answer is NO

I can't say absolutely whether I should go a little colder, but when I got it back from the overhaul shop, it had the same type massive plugs UREM38. I may call Firewall Forward to pose the question. Not going to change em out until oil change interval in 10 more flight hours. But thanks for the good food for thought. Think I looked and Tempest doesn't offer heat range 36's in fine wire, but I could be wrong.

Never mind... the H and E is for the barrel style

I ordered the UREM38S

Oh shoot... did I get the wrong ones?

That’s the place

Quality aircraft accessories... they have a warehouse in fort liquordale and one in Tulsa

You inspired me...a short look on the internet and I found a set for $610 no tax free ship. Beauty...Spruce and the rest want almost $90 plus tax and plus freight.

They claim a horsepower increase of up to 25 or a smidge over 12%, while everything I see in aviation advertising is usually very optomistic...Just saying it's better than good and If I had it to do over, I would. I'm not around a lot of 201's save the two at my airport...and my old engine had 1600 hrs at the time of overhaul albeit still making the numbers. Suffice it to say, I'm pleased with the power plant and hope it continues to run well going forward. One biggest difference I notice is how many turns it takes to squirrel the rpm's down these days...taking a more turns to put the engine in a bind. Maybe I'm imagining it all, but it seems to go faster on less gas.

That's why I never made it to the Mooney camp at Oshkosh...I must have walked by it a half dozen times. I was parked in the N 40 up towards the red market so coming in and out I often used one of the gates near the Mooney camp. Maybe I was afraid everyone would be walking around with an E6B in their hands or up their *** when all I wanted to do was find an ice cold beer and hear a joke in the evening.

Sorry, I didn't have my whiz wheel and slide rule out. I was simply looking at the 750 reporting GS while the winds aloft at that Altitude was reporting about a 15kt wind hitting me straight across the port wing. In my view, the extra compression does extree well at higher altitudes...While I notice substantial increases across the board the extra ponies do well aloft. I even noticed on this young engine, the four climb outs to high altitude 2) 11,500 and 2) 12,500 seemed to make it run even better. I like this 201...and elated to have a ship that sips gas and can move along pretty well. My hangar mate has the same year model with a three blade and I have around 10 to 13kts on him...our climb rates are about the same...around 1300fpm to 5,000' MSL pitched for 120mph. As long as I don't get too assertive with the red knob, I can't get it hot even in this weather. Speaking of weather, in winter, I have to watch for full throttle takeoffs in minus density altitudes...is that cool or what?

Yessir, I flew mine out to Loveland Colorado to have Firewall Forward do mine. There were many here dogging them as charlatans, but I found that to be another falsehood parroted by folks that had no prior dealings with the company. Firewall Forward overhaul was exactly what I got...Under my cowl is very nice...and the engine rocks! I doubt there's a stock 201 anywhere that can hang with it, in climb or cruise. With the Centrilube cam and the pistons, the horsepower plus stc was around an extra 9k if memory serves. Our little engines share all four intake valves on just two lobes for a double whammy and that's why I wanted the cam STC...it was developed for the Beech Duke, a 380hp overclocked Lycoming that has ruined the engine reputation for an otherwise awesome airplane. My engine struggled to get to 12,500' before...now I can get there with a C182 or before. It's simple...the higher compression makes more hp at higher altitude than it could before. Coming home from Oshkosh at 12.5 she was running 340's cht 1340 egt's at 7.2gph...at over 150kts. I wasn't getting any help from the wind gods as anyone flying south that day would know.

This post, in my mind brings me back full circle to my original thought...Perhaps if the certified airplane authority (You know who I mean) wasn't so entrenched in their obese bureaucratic culture...things might be different for the airplane industry. Or, maybe if they got their booger hooks in Ferrari, perhaps those too, would cost north of $800,000.00 while only having a tangible value of 300ish. There's an injustice here and I can't seem to articulate it for reasons unknown to me.

It's simple...they all betting on an extention. FAA already did it with mode c a long time ago. I had Adsb done 2 yrs ago, before the avionics shop hands turned into depressed, overwhelmed zombies. But I can't get anything done because everyone is swamped.

Agree, and since it's prohibitive in terms of cost...it doesn't help those trying to maintain a rating and by default causes a severe lack of skill. So, there's that too. I see guys that barely fly 10 hrs a year. Spooky ain't it?

Sounds like you're trying to undress a 21 yr old virgin

Well shucks, If value and worth have no meaning in aviation...what not just make everything cost 3 million. I think we've reached an impasse here. A 200mph $300,000.00 Ferrari is way more complex than a $850,000.00 Mooney in every aspect.

Doing a cowl solo is asking for scratches and such...I've had mine off 50 times and I still ask for an extra set of hands when I do...off and on.

An engine that should cost way less than 25,000 bucks costs 60,000 or more because of the inflated certification process is what I was trying to convey...it's systemic throughout all of the processes...from soup to nuts. Again, the recent part 23 rewrite was supposed to address some of this nonsense, but it didn't go anywhere near that. The same stuff for a non certified airplane costs a fraction of what we have to pay. A turbo 550 cid probably north of a 100k. My little 4 cyl costs in excess of 55,000...

So you're going to compare what ultimately is a novice aircraft homebuilder to a full blown assembly line operation? Some guy working in his garage in spare time buying parts here and there, to an aircraft manufacturing plant? I was simply stating the obvious, the obnoxious cost associated with certified aircraft, in as far as the process drives up the cost way beyond reasonable and what's logical. I love my certified airplane and appreciate the differences. One case in point might be how the FAA decides to survey our little 3400' airport for an instrument approach at a cost of $80,000 which entails among other things, they fly around at low altitudes (usually in a king air or small jet) to make certain there are no obstructions from the initial app fix to the touchdown zone and of course the missed procedure...everything I see in aviation is over the top like that, It's like the 500 dollar goobermint hammer we used to hear about... except for those lucky home builders who barely have any rules to follow. I run a Fiberglass manufacturing plant...comparing a novice attempting to make things we make in his garage is laughable at best.

Yep I keep a set on standby...the ramp is a lonely place to look for things caught in a prop blast.

I've heard that about altitude too. I actually used 2" blue painters tape to cover my fuel caps at oshkosh...Somewhere around 5-6 inches of rain...I don't trust those caps even though I overhaul em from time to time. It also comes in handy when the old lady gets a little too yappy...duct tape works better for that though.

Those get loose and sometimes fall off when released...don't lose, although they are available... will shut you down while you wait for new ones to arrive. Most find that out when they blow them across the ramp at the leak check run.