MikeOH

@kortopates I probably need re-education but I did not think the plane was anywhere near stalling when at absolute ceiling ( 0 fpm ROC). My reasoning has been that Vx and Vy converge at some number between their starting values at 0 feet DA. That is, at an angle of attack near best L/D; not anywhere near stalling AOA. Pulling back on the stick would increase angle of attack, resulting in more drag and a negative ROC; sinking, but not stalling. Pushing the nose over would reduce AOA but a shallow dive would ensue.

Excellent post! Much more polite than what I was about to write.

I'm in the same graveyard with ya

Seems to me this would fall under "owner produced part"

^^^^ THIS ^^^^ I just don't see a need for a 'better' ammeter for our needs. It would just be a gadget. There is no reason a shunt couldn't be enclosed if it really is a hazard. TIre pressure monitoring is an interesting idea and likely somewhat more useful. My reasoned opinion is that a certified system for aircraft would be pretty pricey, however. Honestly, with leak stop tubes I've only had to fill the tires once a year. It's pretty easy to look at the sidewalls during preflight and know if there's an issue. Every couple of months I'll go to the bother of checking pressure with a gauge. The cost would have to be pretty low before I'd even consider such a system. I'm not holding my breath.

While more modern than a shunt, measuring a DC magnetic field requires a more complex solution, for example, a Hall effect sensor since a static (DC) magnetic field will NOT induce a voltage. Most clip-on ammeters will only respond to AC current flow. Hall devices are a much more expensive solution than a shunt which, if calibrated carefully, is very accurate, and Hall effect devices require careful circuit design and temperature compensation to achieve high accuracy. Not really a good engineering solution for the aircraft being discussed here. PP thoughts only, but I am an EE

Personally, I have very low requirements out of my ammeter. Just looking at the thing is enough to realize accuracy was WAY down the design importance list, and cost was clearly number 1. I view it as pretty much a 'digital' device to tell me, at a glance, in conjunction with the voltmeter, that my charging system is performing properly. After startup I first verify that I have around 14V, then a quick glance to see the ammeter is on the charge side. At runup I look again to see it's at zero. During flight I periodically scan the ammeter to make sure it is staying at zero. There's really no need to accurately quantify amps when, if everything is working properly, it should read zero.

THAT is the issue I was alluding to. The costs associated with notifying affected customers and rechecking, not to mention potential liability, can be daunting.

The interesting question is what you do IF he finds any instrument out of calibration?

Earlier in my life I looked into buying a going small business (small, family owned) as I couldn't afford anything bigger. What I learned after looking over about a dozen of these 'opportunities' is that you were, best case, buying yourself a job...and, in most cases, the business WAS the owner! He leaves, you are looking at a VERY tough row to hoe. The BUSINESS VALUE IS THE OWNER. I suspect these owners are smart enough to realize this and trying to find a buyer is not a path worth going down. My $0.02

From a different perspective: 1) A wise individual once advised only to insure things that would materially affect your life if lost. While not fun, losing my plane would not affect my finances significantly. 2) If I look at what I paid for my plane, I would only have to wait three years before the savings in NOT having a plane would be enough to purchase another one! 3) Somewhat related to number 1, if I look back on 40 years of paying insurance premiums on all kind of things, the few claims I've made could have been covered out of pocket without undue pain. 4) Once you've made a substantial claim I suspect, but cannot prove, that YOUR insurance premiums are going to go WAY up; they are going to get THEIR money back over time. So, are you really that much better off? Again, these comments are directed towards hull loss...not being sued into oblivion by grieving spouses for liability.

Completely agree. No way I'm dropping liability; wish I could get more. It's the hull that is getting absurd.

Good point! I always point out the ICA for just that reason.

What about oil and filter changes, lubing the Heim joints, zerks, etc....it's just not that big of a deal.

Good grief! What carrier?

$700!!!! Holy crap and good grief! Yeah, I think I'd be looking at options, too! Wish I had an answer for you. Good luck!

Not really a direct answer to your question, but when faced with a similar decision tree I always ask myself what percent of the total project cost is tied up in the WAY overpriced widget that I'm annoyed about. In your case, IIRC from when I had my donuts replaced, that EACH rubber biscuit was quite pricey. Just how expensive are these couple of special bolts compared to the cost of donuts?

Hmm, me thinks Mooney's logic is way better than Lycoming's... Say the engine weighs 300 pounds (yes, I'm certain that's not accurate, just play along, please) and Lycoming is fine and dandy with lifting ALL 300 pounds by the engine lift ring. Now, we know that with NO engine in the plane the tail hits the ground. Finally, applying advanced tensor integral calculus (or, just common sense if you're a little rusty on the former) says the plane is taking AWAY the lifting force required. Ergo, LESS weight on the lifting ring when changing out the donuts. I'm missing the flaws in my, and Mooney's, logic...anyone care to elucidate? Bueller?? Lycoming??

Hmm, not seeing a problem with loss of dignity, wouldn't be the first time....but, trading in the family jewels, NOT so much

Judging from YouTube videos, the probability goes up if there's a CFI on board

Another happy PowerFlow customer.

I've been more than satisfied with my Scout/iPad/Foreflight combo for ADSB-In. $200 bucks for the Scout and no install cost!

EXACTLY! Sadly, I only fly with immediate family for just this reason. Look at your policy; most are only $100K sub-limits for passengers. IIRC, Avemco has only $100K limits for people ON THE GROUND, too! Frankly, if the industry continues to jack up premiums, I'm going cancel hull coverage and risk eating the value of the plane. I want the $1M liability coverage and, almost more importantly, the legal defense. While it will suck to lose the plane, a PI lawsuit can do FAR more damage to my family's financial well-being.

Hard, yeah, but remember, you can't fly a house

I guess I just don't swim in the same pool as you guys...may well be a great value, but no way you're going to convince me that $695,000 is "not a lot of coin."