MikeOH

I believe there is a movable (vertically) weight rigged to a bellows of sorts. When you climb or descend the force of vertical acceleration compresses or expands the bellows and provides an instantaneous increase/decrease of pressure vs. the delay caused by the calibrated leak in the case.

Not a thing, IMHO as an EE. The reality here is that these antennae we are discussing are NOT high-Q; i.e., they are 'broadband' enough and easily handle the bandwidth required by the modulation schemes used for both the transponder and ADS-B. As @skykrawler said, 'no reason to replace an antenna if it's working properly' I doubt most antennas 'fail'. Rather, the coax, connectors, and connection to the ground plane deteriorate over time.

Keep up with posts like that and you're going to lose your CB card!

Curious as to details on that inverter. My concern would be electrical interference from a SMPS.

I have heard (i.e. I don't have a cite) that there are different dipstick/tube possibilities...IOW, it is possible you have the wrong one installed and are getting an incorrect reading.

Sounds like it's QAA that might need the manual forwarded to them!

Hmm, the FAA comes pretty close

Could be. Maybe Mooney knows?

LOL! That makes way too much sense!

IMHO, the issue is if G100UL was misrepresented in its advertising. Was there a false statement of fact? Claimed to be a "Drop in replacement". Is it? Was being a 'drop in replacement' a major reason people chose to buy the STC? By relying on that did buyers suffer damage/losses? While damage to your aircraft from using G100UL is certainly a loss, so is the cost for an STC that you cannot use because the product will not meet claims advertised. I see no reason you have to actually buy and use the misrepresented fuel to have a financial loss from the misrepresentation. Paying for a 'license' (the STC) to use a misrepresented product is still a loss due to relying upon a false statement of fact.

Hmm, Kevlar was invented in 1965...57 year old M20C, ya think Mooney was that early an adopter?

If have some material you can buy a test kit at Home Depot and send it to a lab to find out (IF you want to know) https://www.homedepot.com/p/PRO-LAB-Asbestos-Test-Kit-AS108/202731785

That's why I'd use the commercially available automotive part as a 'base part' to upscreen and prove it is equal or better than the aviation part; so, way less than $1700. Yes, the DER would be one plane at a time...and, his cost might ruin the financial break-even. Again, my response is how I would proceed to investigate an alternative. Might not workout...but I'd try it before bending over and just accepting $1700 for a 50 buck part!

Thankfully, I haven't faced this issue....yet. After reading the problems with Skybolt, my normally CB self wonders just how much of a price premium I would pay for Camlocs? Sounds like it might just be worth it!

Yes, as a practical reality, there is not much to be done with getting vendors to cease greedy monopolistic pricing. What would I do if I was unfortunate enough to need these V-band clamps? I.e., how would I 'fight back?' I'd look at OPP...I would investigate my suspicion that the turbochargers on our aircraft are NOT any special design but, rather, an automotive design 'converted' to aviation via a different part number! As such, I'd then determine the appropriate high-quality riveted automotive clamp. Then find a willing DER to come up with a QA/testing protocol to 'test' the automotive part against the materials/properties of the old aviation clamp. Finally, apply the OPP protocol using that 'testing' methodology to legally approve the use of the part on my aircraft. The question is where each individual's 'pricing pain point' is located before going to that much trouble. It appears that many here are 'happy' to pay the current $1700 price...but everyone is going to cry 'uncle' at some point. Again, just my guess, but if the OPP method proves viable, and others 'go to that trouble' we will magically see the price of these clamps plummet to a fair price.

I hate to bring this up...but any chance the old material contains asbestos? If so, I'd be very careful, and wear a VERY good respirator, when removing it.

Yes.

Sure, if I want to lose half of everything in the ensuing divorce

Top Gun didn't think so when they performed my annual. Not surprisingly, I'll take their judgement over the lack of yours.

Like a joke that you don't get, it's pointless to explain it to you.

@IvanP I couldn't agree more with your post. I'm getting old enough to be pretty cynical about 'miracle' coatings having seen many different 'miracles' touted over the decades I've been detailing my vehicles. Frankly, like getting a good paint job in the first place, it's the quality of surface preparation that results in a superior finished look. As far as longevity, I've had the best luck with hand applied pastes/waxes vs. 'spray on' or thin/watery 'coatings' IMHO, longevity is largely/mostly a result of coating thickness, more than what 'miracle' material is employed. Sure, technology has improved UV resistance, but thickness matters

Yeah, usually a mallet was all you needed

I believe WAAS also provides more accurate lateral guidance; not just vertical.

This is the correct answer for these V-band clamps!

Only on MS can I learn a Lucas joke I never heard before!