EricJ

Either they knew, or suspected, that it would cause issues and deployed anyway, or they didn't do sufficient testing to know that it would cause issues and deployed anyway. Neither scenario reflects well on GAMI at this point.

On race cars it used to be normal to have tires shaved, even expensive race tires, because they'd be a little bit faster out of the box. They wouldn't last as long, but you'd be faster. So shaving tires is an established, time-tested process that has been done for a long time. On an airplane it's kind of a last resort to make a tire fit on a retractable gear airplane, but it's not something that's unheard of or unusual.

If nothing else they'll be good dimensional parts to check fitment, etc. I was also going to suggest that once you get where you want to go with these, a perhaps more desirable part would be the one-piece doors that eliminate the need for the trailing fairing. Since the fairings are also maintenance items, that would provide not only a little more aerodynamic solution plus a reduction in parts count and maintenance. I'd buy a set a of those.

Sorry to hear. Thanks for the update. I will miss his posts and humor. :'(

Yeah, you really need to get caught up via the thread on G100UL.

I've long suspected that the reason GAMI went to an STC process was that they didn't want the level of scrutiny that would be required in PAFI, or perhaps knew that they wouldn't survive it. We're only just now seeing why that may be, and the growing number of unfortunate aircraft owners who have suffered for being essentially beta testers is not encouraging. I don't see how G100UL survives in the marketplace with the current amount of evidence of serious damage, and I suspect we've not seen the last of it. I am glad, however, that so far the damage has been limited to airplanes parked on the ground and there have been no injuries to operators or passengers. STCs do always carry more risk, and for any STC it is the responsibility of the installer to determine that it is compatible with existing systems, including other STCs that may have been installed. Sometimes this can be tricky.

Wow. That'll be impressive if they do get the data out. That's some good system and implementation engineering right there if it works.

Don't assume they want more than they do. It's much better to assume that they want a small, basic amount of supporting data, and then let them ask for more if they need it. Sometimes they don't, especially if they've heard similar from somebody else trying to solve the same problem. If there's an identifiable crossover part number to an automotive/truck/tractor/race/whatever part, that may be very easy and potentially even installable as a logbook entry if it is the same part. If a part number isn't the same, but the part is very close to the same, you'll need more data. At a minimum, showing the physical dimensions are the same will lay a foundation, and then if the intended application uses more boost than an airplane (which isn't a very high bar), that is also useful data. It's also reasonable to call and just present some or all of that or additional measures as a plan and ask if that'll be useful in establishing an AMOC. It may help if somebody installs it on an airplane and does some test ground runs to demonstrate functionality and no leaks, etc., but that's the sort of thing I'd offer to do if it was helpful.

I cannot find it now, but years ago there was a video going around of a Mooney in a shop putting the jacks through the wings. Sometimes it rolls off scales or the gear is retracted when the jacks are under the wings but not set at the hard point, or faulty jacks are used or whatever. I think people have researched many different ways to do it over the years. In A&P school we had an instructor who had spent a career at the airlines, and emphasized that whatever airplane it is, airliner, twin, single, etc., if it isn't being held up by the jacks, the jacks should not be under the wings. Apparently it's a fairly regular occurence to put jacks through the wings of airliners, too. A hangar neighor was weighing his Comanche and had the jacks under the wings while it was on the scales. A dust devil came by and moved the airplane just enough to roll it off the scales and put the jacks into the bottoms of the wings.

An AMOC might be something as simple as finding a good quality automotive or racing V-band that fits and installing it with a required short inspection cycle or something like that. A reasonable inspection cycle might substitute for a PMA'd part at least until they're availabe or something like that. I'm sure the FAA is fully aware of the parts availability issue on this particular AD, so it might be worth a discussion to find a reasonable AMOC path. It shouldn't require redesigning anything.

The hydraulic lifter is there to make sure the clearance stays at zero, and if something happens that makes the lifter stick a little full, then there will be pressure on the cam lobe all the way around. This could also happen if there was maintenance done and somebody swapped the pushrods or replaced a pushrod with one that is too long.

That my question, why are they even allowed to converge on short final to a runway? Especially at night? Usually the only place I see helos crossing a busy runway centerline is over mid-field, which makes more sense to me.

Because the mechanics of the impulse coupler dictate when the magnet snaps (and all the internal parts with it, including the cams, points, etc.), that sets the timing for the starting spark. The post holds the timing static, then the release dictates when the spark happens. So the "advanced" timing is delayed until the release disengages the coupler, so the spark happens at that instant.

Totally depends on how you value your time...and money. Many barn finds are not economically beneficial unless someone pays you to take it away.

Maxwell's in TX have been doing tank patches for many years. They patched my airplane about seven years ago and it's still good, and now also offer full reseals. They're probably the closest. There are a few locals that can do patches, but I don't know of any place in AZ that can do a full reseal.