DVA

Paul, thanks for responding. I’ll offer one last thought here - which doesn’t apply only to this topic but to so many I see. It’s not directed at you personally. It’s unfortunate that when the smartest groups of real experts get together and discuss advanced theory - of any topic - in front of others that are learners who look up to them, that many of the learners will take all they say as blind fact and propagate it as such. This is analogous to LOP and that continued false narrative. Those same “Experts” have told us for years that airplanes “will fall out of the sky” for misuse of the red knob and many “learners” who are very good AP’s and / or owners otherwise just blindly believe it to be true and propagate it. If I were in that seminar and heard someone use the words “brought down an airplane” I would be questioning them as to why I was part of the chosen few to get to hear this? I’d be asking why an airplane falls out of the sky with concrete evidence of the reason and there is NO AD or mandatory service advice? I’d be shocked to have heard this and more so appalled that nothing was being done about it! Weren’t you? I’m a learner. I’d want to know specifically what galley in the oil circuit got plugged? Why didn’t the screen catch this? How long was the engine running before the problem happened? What part of the engine failed catastrophically due to lack of oil? My last question would be “hey guys, who else knows about this besides us in this special seminar?” I’d be worried then and I am now. You seem to agree that this technique if carefully performed has some merit. I do as well. You may choose not to do it, but factually the technique isn’t flawed. I maintain that if Continental as an entity viewed this as a problem that could be a liability issue in any way shape or form we see it in red ink. (They for sure have a history of overreaction.) Now that you have explained the source and there is an apparent lack of any published data, my thesis is that some expert - one time - saw a tear down that had a piece of filter element stuck in some oil galley - which contributed to but did not cause the failure. They back traced it to a guy who punched a huge hole halfway through the filter with a tire iron and blew it out into the engine with 200 psi of dirty shop air. (Exaggeration for effect, hoping for a bit of levity.) But I learned something even more important from this Paul. I am not going to offer any advice here any longer. Not because I don’t think that my advice is solid but more so because my advice is not complete. If I wanted to share this properly I should have written it up in the format of a procedure document, with specific steps and cautions as one would expect to see. It’s very real that someone here could actually try this and create a problem for themselves because they don’t understand the theory and construction of the oil filter well enough. But until proven otherwise I also think the story you heard in the seminar was just as incomplete, likely exaggerated a bit and certainly not considered a problem by Continental as a company. I will be taking your advice and contacting them this week to try to source the incident you wrote about. Because if this is true, we need this information available to the aviation public, not just those lucky enough to go to a special seminar. Do you agree? Thanks for the great opportunity to share thoughts. Dave Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have never heard of any advice from Continental or anyone suggesting that this practice “brought down an airplane” or has caused any issues whatsoever. That said, you scared the crap out me. I can tell you that I see this technique used regularly all over the place. I’m always learning - even at 60 - and will change my mind on understanding how this can cause a catastrophic issue as you point out. I retract my advise here based on your very specific counter argument that is clearly scary. Please do not do this! However, I base my actions on facts. I have never seen any issue on any engine that this procedure was properly used on. The pressures used are within the lower limits of the engine’s oil pressure system when it’s operating. The direction of the air is flow is the same as the normal oil flow. If you punch the hole in the far rear you are away from directing pinpointed air on the filter element. Finally the very small oil passage channels in the middle section of the filter would likely not allow a large enough piece of material to escape that would clog any single oil gally that I know of that would kill an engine. But still your expertise and my respect for you have me concerned. I have just Googled every which way and found nothing. I searched all my Continental and Lycoming references (can’t say it was a complete investigation but it covered the major Service advisories) and found nothing. 43.13 is void of cautions, and I would think if Continental found a catastrophic procedure that should be avoided they would call it out in M-0 (which is silent on this). Can you source your facts, Paul? Thanks Dave

A salty ol mechanic taught me to first slightly loosed the filter until you could just turn it by hand, then take a rubber mallet and #3 Phillips and poke a hole as close to the rear of the filter as possible pointing up. Then with the oil drain still open and the dipstick loose or out, place a flexible end (rubber) air attachment solidly in the hole and with about 50psi or so blow shop air in the hole for about a minute. Wrap a shop rag around the filter and screw off - nary a drop - been doing it now for decades. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s interesting that someone decided to smear Buna-N (the red film) on the inside. That’s not a sealer (it’s put on as a top coat over the sealer) but it’s also unlikely to be part of your current problem. You could try making sure the screws are tight but I doubt it will help much, with the caution that you might make it worse. Both the sender and the pickup seem to be leaking from what I can see, right? As the resting pressure of the fuel increases with fuller tanks, you get more weeping. The sealant becomes less pliable over time and temperatures affects it more, and the gaskets on both units degrade. This looks like an relative easy fix if you are only leaking past the gaskets. Both units can be manipulated through just the top aft fuel panel. Here’s a pic of what the inside looks like if you e never seen it. We do fuel tank reseals regularly, I see this often. DVA Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With all due respect your response is incomplete as you are focusing on simply the term “known ice” which has had it share of ambiguity. That said, you could arguably be technically correct in one aspect and very wrong in total. The FAA (and common sense) does agree with me, and its because my response took collateral rules into consideration where yours omits them. Here’s something for you to please read. Let’s try to promote safe flying here, the rules are a collection of advice, rarely does one stand on its own. Best regards, Dave http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2009/090126icing.pdf Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you suspect icing conditions in the climb? Are there any reported icing conditions in the area? Is the temperature in the clouds conducive to forming ice? If yes to any of that then, no, that’s flying into known icing. Yes if your FIKI. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only differences between inadvertent and FIKI that I recall are the requirements for the addition of a second pump circuit, a heated stall vane (stupid expensive) and dual alternators. I don’t recall ever hearing about someone who upgraded, but it’s reasonable that it could be done. Call CAV. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like the flow bench shown here? http:// Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’d find strong argument against that comment by those skilled in the art of fluid engineering - which is not me. But that’s why forums like this are entertaining to follow I guess. Smh. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good question, because this thread is centering around only aspect of the GAMI injectors; tuning based on cylinder location. The other and very significant GAMI feature is consistency. These injectors are very precise and manufactured to very tight tolerances. The factory injectors are often inconsistent and as such one cylinder may get more of less fuel than another. So in engines that GAMI has evaluated to have a fairly good and even airflow intake system (rare) a marked improvement may be seem just by installing precisely accurate injectors. Does that make sense? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ll respectfully disagree with a detail here but not the intent. The air/fuel imbalances are not cylinder dependent. Each cylinder has exactly the same bore and stroke and hence a very equal draw of air - all things equal. They also have a predictable fuel pattern flow past the injector. It is the differences in the intake manifold length, turbulences within, and pressure timing as the intake valve opens that the folks at GAMI correct for by precisely adjusting fuel flow. This is why they don’t care anything about the cylinders you have installed when they send you the first set (which in my experience often is right-on for non turbo engines). They base the first set on years of data from the various engines they support. A cylinder change, unless it corrected for an unknown intake leak should not adversely affect the original fuel distribution spread. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The JPI 830 has a offset adjustment to set the resting MP to the corrected sea level reading. Page 46/47 of the JPI Manual explains this. You can spot check which instrument (ship gauge or JPI) is off by taking the current ATIS altimeter reading and subtracting for the field elevation. Each 1000 feet above sea level equals 1” of pressure. So if your field is at 1000’ asl and the current atis is 30.05, your engine off MP should be 29” (29.05 to exact but that’s not necessary). The relationship for pressure is linear so if your field elevation is 300’ asl, then subtract .3”, etc. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2FA is optional, where are you seeing the request pop up? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We’re really talking about this? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’ll fit, but you’ll be tightly enveloped by the left side. If you have your friend next to you, you’ll need to really like him cuz you’ll be rubbing shoulders for the whole short trip. Short? Because depending on the model you’ll likely be at max gross with less than full fuel. This is literally the only challenge in owning a Mooney; useful load and interior comfort. As far as everything else is concerned, you can’t do better. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk