jaylw314

AFAIK, there are no FAA regulations related to portable oxygen systems. There are no minimum requirements or TSO's that need to be met. The only person who will have a problem with an out-of-date cylinder is the supplier you buy the oxygen from. On the other hand, if you fill a current tank and then transfill to an out of date tank, I suppose nobody would know. I think aluminum cylinders need to be hydro tested every 3 years. I think it cost about $10-15 at my local welding shop. It's cheap and I think that is important since aluminum does fatigue. I don't know if steel or carbon fiber cylinders have different limits, though I bought oxygen cylinders here. Order tanks with the "low-profile valve" option, so the regulator sits vertically instead of horizontally http://www.cramerdeckermedical.com/category.php?category_id=2 with this regulator https://www.lifemedicalsupplier.com/compact-regulator-opa520-0-15-lpm-cga-540-barb-outlet.html with the MountainHigh needle valve/flow gauge http://www.mhoxygen.com/index.php/portable-constant-flow/constant-flowother/79-xcp-mh3-a-mh4-flowmeters and Oxymizer cannulas http://www.shoplet.com/Drive-Medical-Conserving-Nasal-Device-Continuous-Flow-Oxymizer-Adult-Mustache-Style/MCK22413900/spdv?gclid=Cj0KCQjwq7XMBRCDARIsAKVI5Qa5BY6RkRwEhmHVqDkyeZ5JztjgX_XWiAF9lkl-MjpwbVExaCN0_o0aAhs0EALw_wcB Total cost was about $250 for one person and tank. Two people and one tank would be $350 (with two needle valves and two oxymizers)

Thanks for the feedback so far, guys. Taking that into account, I feel a little better that my cost is not wildly inconsistent with others' experiences. I still have a hard time with the argument that the install took 30 hours, but I suppose that's neither here nor there for me.

The old transponder was a KT76A

Well, I think I need to chalk this one up as a fail on my part. I got the work invoice for my KT-74 install, and it was 16 hours of labor. When I asked for a more detailed breakdown of the labor hours, I got an explanation as to why working on my panel was difficult and how the actual work logged was 30 hours, but since they had only quoted 16 hours in the estimate they honored it and were giving me a huge bargain. Some of the factors they suggested were: not a lot of room in panel blind wires installed previously racks require unriveting to get access software update for the 530W was difficult for unclear reasons I had had the transponder cable switched to RG-400 at annual, I already have a blade type antenna, and I had specifically asked them NOT to connect the TIS and aural alerts. So really the install should simply have been swap the tray, connected 1 wire to the 530W, connect 1 wire to the airspeed switch, install airspeed switch, and software setup. My gut tells me I'm being taken, but there's not really much recourse at this point. I'm guessing from the description of others' experiences that a KT-74 install with a 430W/530W averages 8-12 hours, so I suppose if I'm being taken, it's only a $500-600 lesson. To add insult to injury, they spent 4 more hours troubleshooting a static system leak. I won't disclose which avionics shop I went to for now until I hear enough feedback, although I think I have mentioned it before. In the end, the total install cost ended up being $2700 for the transponder and airspeed switch, and $2100 for labor. To add more insult to injury, Bendix King had been running a $500 upgrade rebate that got reduced to $250 last month. How does this compare to others' experiences with their KT-74 installs? Is my incredulity unreasonable?

Yes, as far as I understand, all those requirements are specific to the Peregrine STC for the KT-74 / Garmin 430/530 combo to be approved for ADS-B Out

Dang it, I knew there was something I was forgetting I'm guessing most M20J's have the blade type antennas, though

It is only a slide-in replacement if you install it as a Mode S transponder WITHOUT ADS-B Out. To get it to comply with the ADS-B Out requirement using the Garmin 430W/530W, it MUST be installed in accordance with the Peregrine STC. I can't find a copy of it online, but what I understand is it requires: installed in a FAA radio shop transponder cable upgraded to RG-400 instead of RG-58 an installed airspeed switch on the pitot line connection to the WAAS source Did I miss anything? The original tray can be reused if you don't use the second connector, which is for aural alerts and TIS traffic. On the other hand, when I spoke with Pacific Coast Avionics, they shrugged and said it's simple to replace the tray so they might as well. They also suggested my old KT-76A might not work with the KT-74 tray if I wanted to sell or reuse it.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. IFRC, fuel flow to the injectors is metered by airflow, mixture setting AND throttle setting. So more throttle on priming means more fuel. On the other hand, if you don't move the throttle between priming and cranking, you will get more airflow in proportion, so the end result should be the same.

I suppose you could a couple of pneumatic manifolds, like http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/hapages/alummanifoldfit.php?clickkey=54711 On the other hand, then you would have a web of MULTIPLE pneumatic lines running around behind your panel. Since they can't bend as easily as wiring, it seems like that would be more of a mess than running one pneumatic line past all the devices with a short run off a t-union.

That's one of the better lines I've heard in a while

There are also the 3D printed switch covers on Shapeways. They're only $5-6 but they take a bit of prep work. Klixon https://www.shapeways.com/product/BVM7ZU8CK/switch-cover-klixon-20tc-v0-6-smooth-front?optionId=56024576 ETA https://www.shapeways.com/product/YR7FSMMJW/mooney-rocker-switch-cover?optionId=10492487

No grease drips out with the prop vertical or horizontal. I don't think of grease dripping, though, so I think you're talking about oil. And I do have a McCauley 2 blade, so I guess that means no adding grease. It's definitely more than a few specks of grease, though I always thought you kept the prop horizontal in general so it's less likely to be hit by another plane taxiing nearby.

If I understood reading the AC correctly, the expectation is that you perform the listed maneuvers to demonstrate your equipment performs adequately in various phases of flight. As an AC, they are guidelines for your test flight and not required by regulations. They do make a lot of sense, though. The rebate rules are a little unclear (and certainly not regulatory). It just says 30 minutes in rule airspace, with 10 aggregate minutes of maneuvering flight. It doesn't say which maneuvers from the AC, and there's no way you could do ALL of them in 10 minutes. The performance report probably just verifies your data is good for 30 minutes straight. I can't imagine that it could try to verify that you did ANY maneuvers in that 30 minutes. Short story--if you just fly around in rule airspace for 30 minutes with a good install, that will probably get your rebate approved no matter how you maneuver. It's probably a good idea to futz around a little to make sure you actually have a good install.

Damn, that's cold!

Yeah, it's obvious but not a lot, and doesn't happen every flight.

Zerts? What are zerts?

Got through my second annual with no major hiccups. Yay! I'm holding my breath for something big next year, I've been lucky twice now. Had it done at the nearby MSC last year for $3.6 AMU, this year I had it done with my local IA for $2.3 AMU. Only significant issue is some grease leaking from one of the prop blades. My IA thinks it's not urgent and will need a reseal eventually, but he worried about sending it to the prop shops in the region because they seem to overhaul everything. I asked my friend who is an IA who said the same thing. I just wonder how much grease is left and when it will run out. I'll probably chicken out and send it in for a reseal this winter and hope for the best On to the KT-74 install next week. I asked my IA to install RG-400 cable so I don't have to pay the avionics shop to do it. It's like I'm bleeding money The hilarious thing was that my wife actually encouraged me to buy the plane because she thought it would help us save money for the RV-10's engine in 10 years. In all fairness, I did tell her that was a terrible reason to buy a plane (I think I laughed as well), but I think she just told me that because she wanted me to be happy. I'm a lucky guy.

I think the plan was for the passenger to jump onto the van. Plan not well thought out.

I suppose you could go with the argument that the switch cover is a "decorative" repair to the cabin interior that can be performed by the pilot-owner.

Thread hijack, sorry. Has anyone else noticed the waypoint names? Star Wars references - WINDU, SSOLO, VADRR, JEDYE Homage to Stevie Ray Vaughan - STVEY, RAYYE, VAWWN I'm not sure what the connection with Smurfs and horses are, and who the heck is Sewzy?

I can say from owning a M20J, the cabin (and I assume this is common to all M20's) fits tall people quite well. I'm 5'7", and that is probably the MINIMUM height to be able to reach the rudder pedals with the seat all the way forwards. If I were any shorter, I'd need pedal extensions. I think 6'2" would be perfectly comfortable in terms of leg room. On the other hand, you'd be cramped in the back seat, but I find it quite comfortable In terms of gas mileage, I recently made a 700 nm trip nonstop on 36 gallons. Granted I had a nice 15 kt tailwind, but hey

I know Hannah, she's a hard working and good person. I hadn't seen her in a while and didn't know she was doing this, I'll have to make fun of her and/or see if I can buy a set for myself!

Just a quick sidebar I heard about from one of Mike BUschs's webinars--while PPI's are important, I think it is important to be explicit with both the seller and the mechanic that the PPI is NOT an "inspection." I think sellers get scared off by PPI's, and to some degree rightly so, thinking that their plane can be grounded by an unscrupulous IA away from home who can hold them hostage for an airworthiness issue their own IA has signed off on. To that extent, if I were a seller, I would certainly NOT agree to having an annual inspection done away from home, even if paid for by the buyer. An "inspection" allows an IA to determine airworthiness and ground the plane. If it is agreed upon ahead of time with everyone that the PPI is NOT an inspection (call it an unofficial "exam") and ONLY allows the mechanic to give an opinion to the buyer, that might make the seller more willing to agree to the PPI.

Looks like BK is "reannouncing" the KI-300 for Sept 2017. They've added airspeed/altitude/slip, so the functionality looks similar to that of the G5, except there's presumably an option to drive the King autopilots. They also announced the AeroCruze, which looks like a glitzy touch screen replacement for the autopilot control panel. Just looks kind of stupid to me, the touch screen is too small to have all those buttons on it.

Check out Mike Busch's webinars at EAA.org. His argument is that a high-time engine has fully depreciated in value, but may run longer. A low-time engine has not depreciated but can pose problems from lack of activity. He suggests getting a near-TBO engine--the engine will not lose any more value and may run much longer. Even if it dies, the money to overhaul it would have been money you would have to have spent for a low-time engine anyway. Of course, I went out and did the exact opposite and got a factory overhauled engine that sat around a few years turned out ok so far, though