d0tnet

You guys are spot on with the solder comment. That is exactly what the texture feels like, but after scratching my head for a bit I figured it was the result from heat applied to the metal foil from the Phillips oil quarts. Definitely going to be adding this extra effort to the 50 hour regime as part of the oil change. Still need to do the safety wire this evening, but so far not a huge deal to R&R. And correct, the particles cleaned from the screen were not magnetic which is a relief. Also the oil filter was normal. This all leads me back to feeling like I got a huge runaround from the prop shop and them not wanting to do the right thing and warranty a 2 year overhaul ultimately blaming 'metal' on causing the prop to need a premature seal. This of course was after initially telling my maintenance shop that the prop was fine, leading to me having a crankshaft seal replaced probably for no reason. So, in summary a small prop oil seepage which started the whole fiasco turns into 3.5AMU unscheduled maintenance event... wish I would have provided more oversight on this process. Somewhat off topic - is the logic sound that metal in the oil would pass a clean filter and screens to then score the prop cylinder?

Hi all- Had prop overhauled proactively based on calendar time, not hours 2 years ago. Recently developed a minor oil seep and sent it to prop shop for inspection. They noted scoring on cylinder and completed a reseal. So because I presumed potential for metal in oil system that would have caused the prop cylinder to score, I pulled the oil suction screen tonight as part of oil change and noted some small items present. See attached image. Magnet doesn't pick it up and it feels almost like the same material used to seal new oil quarts. Not sure last time this screen was inspected, almost seems like it was overlooked at annual, as the nut barely showed wear. Any one else have anything similar happen? Should this be a cause for concern?

So, it seems after about 20 hours of keeping track, the fuel flow indicated is showing 1.0 GPH higher than actual. I had the sensor cleaned during annual hoping that would solve it, but no luck. Any thoughts on how to approach this?

Awesome- thank you! Learning everyday...

Finally located it, thanks for the help Scott - you always give good insight!

84, 201

Thanks for the feedback guys, it seems like the consensus is that it is the starter relay. I concur it is a wire mess right now, having avionics shop start straightening it out. I am also having them install a voltammeter. However they can't seem to find the ammeter shunt anywhere. I thought I heard the typical location to be under the panel in the upper right side. Any thoughts where it could be buried? Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Located this under the panel inside of my J. What is it? Is this a shunt for the ammeter?

Thanks for the suggestion. Will complete as suggested tomorrow. Won't be able to confirm function until mid-week when annual is done and plane is back in the air. Will also top off tanks and keep track of fuel burn manually to compare expected book numbers to the fuel totalizer reading.

Good point. Yes, that is indeed my symptoms. I haven't been diligent in documenting actual fuel burned vs what the Hoskins says. Will do it when I get plane back from annual. I have an engine monitor and cylinders are peaking similar to before - all around 365-370 F with 2400 RPM, cowl flaps closed. Any specific procedure to clear air bubbles from fuel flow transducer? Maybe when servo was installed air entered the system that hasn't been purged? This somewhat validates what I recently saw - total fuel burned according to the Hoskins didn't match wing gauges. I. E. Hoskins said 59 gallons burned since last reset and I was showing 10 gallons approximately in the tanks Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Why did you change the servo? When you are at 6000, you are releaning, slowly, to 100ROP? Is ram air used in either case? Fuel servo replaced due to reaching stop limit of adjustment for ground idle mixture. Yes, leaning at 2500 and then separately leaning again at 6000. The altitude references are also just to illustrate the point that fuel flow increases with altitude. I haven't been higher than 7500 yet to test if it continues past that point. Ram air closed in all scenarios. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I am leaning to ROP at both altitudes. Manifold pressure may be a bit less than 24" at 6k but rpm in which case would be firewall forward. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I replaced the fuel servo a few months back in my M20J, io360-a3b6d engine. Shortly thereafter, I noted an anamoly with fuel burn that is the inverse of what is expected - I burn more fuel as altitude increases. From memory, down at 2500 feet, 100 ROP yields approx 10.5 gph indicated at 24 squared. At 6000, same power settings require 11.5-11.7. I have a hoskins ft-101 that I am getting my data points from on fuel burn. I had a discussion about this with my mechanic and he explained that as a fuel servo goes bad, it dumps a bunch of extra fuel into the cylinder so when leaning prior to new fuel servo, I had a bad baseline to compare to. I challenge that, however, since I am not concerned with either a higher or lower gph reading, but rather what seems to be a mixture issue since I am requiring a richer mixture as I climb. Any thoughts?

http://www.lycoming.com/Portals/0/techpublications/serviceinstructions/SI%201508C%20(02-10-2011)/Dual%20Magneto%20Attachment.pdf Thanks for sharing! Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Ive been the told this was due to improper tightening of the mag clamps and should be a non issue if properly torqued etc since there is a nylon lock nut being used. Even still, I constantly check the security of the clamps. Has anyone used replacement hardware with crush washers and/or safety wired the nuts?