Basic Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

44 Excellent

About Aviationinfo

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Southwest WA
  • Model

Recent Profile Visitors

455 profile views
  1. Aviationinfo

    N943RW at Hawk Aircraft Paint

    Fantastic! Can't wait to see the entire thing when it's done.
  2. Aviationinfo

    Tail light - buld replacement

    Well, that would certainly be a good source, no argument there. I’m not sure that the parts catalog serves as certification for acceptable parts used on a given airframe though— I thought that was partly done through the TCDS. For instance, the TCDS actually specified a battery and manufacturer. I am curious about the certification basis of using certain parts though, that for instance, are in the original parts catalog but are no longer available because their manufacturers went out of business. I don’t have an example but would be interested to hear how we’re supposed to handle it from a regulatory perspective.
  3. Aviationinfo

    Tail light - buld replacement

    I don’t think the Mooney TCDS says anything about the landing light at all. Nor about the lightbulbs for nav lights. Am not certain but I think in this case it means you can use what is considered to be a “standard” part. The GE tractor (landing) light bulbs, for instance. Although the question has been raised about their PMA status... if they don’t have a PMA and they’re legal for use, why wouldn’t other bulbs meeting the TSO requirements be legal?
  4. Aviationinfo

    Tail light - buld replacement

    I think you're confused about who posted what. I was quoting tommy123 who said that it was easier for him when he was working for the airlines. Also, this is not my thread and I did not endorse what you seem to be attributing to me. I will say though, that you seem to be ridiculing owners (the "rich" guys) who go ahead and spring for $200 certified upgraded light bulbs. If you don't believe in non-certified standard parts, and you don't believe in expensive legal upgrades for improvements, please share with us all exactly what it is you think we should be doing? Sometimes you can no longer buy original parts from the 1950s and 60s. This is a mountain out of a molehill. The vast majority of us trust our IAs to make these decisions; that's what we are paying them for. The OP's original question was simply about a light bulb.
  5. Aviationinfo

    Tail light - buld replacement

    I want my airplane to be safe and hopefully legal at the same time, but I think we all know there’s a difference between airline and private maintenance. It’s one thing doing maintenance on transport category airplanes for which parts are readily available, and quite another on 50-60 year old airplanes where standard (read that to mean...automobile light bulbs and tractor headlights) parts were used. There are no experimental aircraft flying in the transport category world or trust me—your management would be ALL over the FAA and Congress to let them use the parts. They are the ultimate CBs. There is room in the regs for IAs to make decisions about what may be installed with a signoff and when certain items are major mods. I hope an IA working on a Part 91 privately owned GA airplane would exercise that discretion if he wants to keep these airplanes around (although I would respect his final decisions). I don’t want or need a drive-by annual but I do expect my IA to have enough judgement to understand that the purpose of an annual is not to make these airplanes new again.
  6. Aviationinfo

    Tail light - buld replacement

    Don't get me started on Experimental vs Certified parts. ADS-B? Why the heck is it ok for an RV to fly IFR in the same airspace as the airlines with an uncertified ADS-B out unit, communicate to the same ATC and land at the same airports, but our Mooneys cannot? Ludicrous. So a stupid light bulb that is safe on an RV ought to be safe on any other GA airplane.
  7. Aviationinfo

    When do engines fail on takeoff?

    I bet you’re right. I believe the enrichment facility applies only to carbureted engines. I’m just guessing but injected engines probably have a target fuel flow at full rich at max power, that provides for cooling.
  8. Aviationinfo

    When do engines fail on takeoff?

    Your point is very well taken. I wouldn’t let my normally aspirated cylinders get that hot either. The magic number is apparently 400 and the prevailing advice seems to be to use some margin below that, like 380, as a safe maximum. Even normally aspirated cylinders have ridiculously high red lines, but that doesn’t mean it’s ok to fly them right up to that temp.
  9. Aviationinfo

    When do engines fail on takeoff?

    PS: I have read elsewhere that the engine-failure-due-to-power-reduction-after-takeoff scenario was really only applicable to radials; it’s not an issue or it’s certainly less of an issue with these engines. I can’t remember if that was from a Busch article, or Barry Schiff, or someone else. I believe that we might be talking about engines where max horsepower is only allowed for a short time period. That wouldn’t apply to these O or IO-360s. My personal practice is to avoid power changes until 1000’ AGL or greater, simply to get above obstacles ASAP—-not because I worry about power reductions being detrimental. I have used the WOT technique in the article in my previous post and find that it works well.
  10. Aviationinfo

    When do engines fail on takeoff?

    Here’s an interesting article, shared here just for fun and to add another perspective, on setting power for climbs. http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/powersettings.html
  11. Aviationinfo

    New Member - Need Trusted Advice

    Lots of really good advice on this thread. I would add that it’s important to try to find an airplane that hasn’t simply been sitting around. There are too many airplanes that hardly fly at all between annual inspections. Due to camshaft placement, these Lycomings will develop rust (after the oil drains into the sump after shutdown) which will cause problems down the road, and there’s no way to examine the cam without removing cylinders. Most owners will probably not agree to such an invasive process simply for an inspection. Lycoming has advice on how much an engine needs to be flown at a minimum in order to burn the moisture out of the oil. It’s on the order of 45 minutes at normal operating oil temperature, at 10 day intervals—-or something like that. The key takeaway is that ground running does not satisfy the requirement because the oil doesn’t get hot enough to burn the moisture out. It simply circulates the existing moisture throughout the engine. I shoot for a minimum of 50 hours a year myself, but there are no hard numbers. If a seller has taken steps to mitigate the effects of inactivity (using antirust storage oil/ Camguard/ an air circulation apparatus/or etc) then at least you have a fighting chance of some improved longevity. I completely agree that it’s cheaper to buy an airplane that has already been modded with a panel and paint that you can tolerate, but if I had to prioritize I would place the relative activity of the airplane and preventive maintenance history ahead of those. I would rather buy an engine with higher time that flew regularly than one with lower time that flew infrequently. Part 91 owners are not required to overhaul their engines at TBO. Are you planning to have partners, or are you buying it solo? That will help you determine how much if anything you are willing to spend on the panel and paint, if necessary. PS: A C-182 is a fine airplane, but it flies like a truck because it was designed for a different mission than the Mooney. And there is an expensive AD out for some manufacturer’s cylinders on the O-470 IIRC. There was a recent one on the O-360 as well, it seems it only applies to engines overhauled within a fairly small window during 2015/16. I’ll try to look for it or hopefully someone else can remember. (Once I discovered it didn't apply to my engine I stopped worrying about it.) Enjoy your search!
  12. Aviationinfo

    MT 4 Blade Pirep

    Wow Russ, that prop looks GREAT on your airplane. Holy cow. You have created a whole group of "prop-aware" fans! We installed the MT 3-blade on our E model and have been very happy with it. Although the dynamics are surely different with one fewer blade than yours, we noted immediate differences with the Hartzell 2-blade prop. The first one was the lack of inertia / flywheel effect of the heavier prop, and a much faster response to rpm changes. We definitely improved our takeoff and climb performance, (although it's by no means scientifically derived data). It accelerates more quickly on the ground. Our cruise speed has not seemed to suffer and remains the same before / after the change. When we shut down the engine it stops nearly immediately, which gets one's attention. It has made me much more conscientious about ensuring the boost pump is turned on prior to takeoff---the engine spins down so fast that I don't think I could get the switch flipped on fast enough, should the engine-driven pump ever fail at a bad time. Overall we really like ours. Congrats to you!
  13. Aviationinfo

    Icing encounter

    Great writeup and frankly the decision making wasn't poor by any stretch. One thing to keep in mind---deviations off a more direct path make less of a difference time wise on a long trip than they do a short trip, because they are hopefully a smaller percentage of the total distance. Put another way, if you have a long way to go, it matters less in terms of miles travelled if you go a long distance out of your way to stay VFR and avoid ice, than it does over a shorter distance. On an 800NM trip, 100 additional miles travelled is 12.5% of the total distance. On a 500NM trip, it's 25%. Just to put things into perspective a bit. (It's always worth any deviation to avoid ice in a single engine airplane, but we all like to fly those perfect great circle routes when we can.) I always appreciate it when people write about what they perceive as their mistakes so we can all learn. Thanks!
  14. Aviationinfo

    Breaking News

    You are absolutely right, couldn’t agree more. (I was trying to imply that the budget reauthorizations are of such short duration we can’t really relax.)
  15. Aviationinfo

    Breaking News

    We can all take a breather until the next reauthorization... https://www.aopa.org/News-and-Media/All-News/2018/February/28/ATC-giveaway-push-to-end-for-now?utm_source=ePilot&utm_medium=email&utm_content=adv&utm_campaign=180301special