EricJ

It's fairly intuitive to understand how power output affects the ability to carry more weight. Lift causes drag, and drag can be overcome with power (thrust). If you want to carry more weight, it'll require more lift, and from that same wing that means proportionally more drag. If you want to get that same wing with more weight to the same speed in the same amount of time (e.g., for takeoff), you'll need more power to do it. So if you take a particular airplane and put a larger engine in it, it will have capability to overcome more drag and use that to create more lift. So, done right, a larger engine can create a larger GW with the same wing. As mentioned, there are other concerns, like low speed and stall characteristics, but those may be manageable.

Yeah, no need to risk fingers or any kind of skin. IR temperature guns are cheap these days. You can have somebody else shoot the heads/pipes while it's running and sort it out pretty quickly.

Depending on the local ordinances and definitions of "accident" there may be an issue with leaving the scene of an accident.

For Part 91 operations most maintenance is "on condition". In other words, if the equipment is in condition to meets operational specs (e.g., static rpm, compression, max oil consumption limit, etc.), then there's no requirement to overhaul. Flight schools often operate engines to 3000+ hours between overhauls, because they operate in conditions that are good for engine longevity.

I was thinking that might be what he's doing.

Points for style, I guess.

Isn't that why the seats are spongy? Maybe I've been doing it wrong.

The relay should have a diode across the coil if it doesn't have one built-in. If adding a series resistor helps make it work right, since that's kind of what it was designed for, then it's not a bad way to handle it imho. A cap across the terminals for debounce should be as-needed, I think. If it doesn't need it, don't bother. An LED string might need it if it sees it as a momentary interruption used to pick colors, or something.

I'm guessing the cowl was from a different serial number range than the airplane.

If there is a derelict Learjet or similar on your field, the same stuff seals the nose hatch covers over the avionics access. It is used on a lot of airplanes, and if there's a derelict that you know a contact for, just ask if you can snag some off the airframe before it goes to the recycler. There was a Lear here that got chopped up a few months ago and I should have asked if I could have taken it while they were chopping it up. There's probably ten feet of it just on the nose hatch on those airplanes. That said, there are alternative part numbers: CM2610, CM2610-2, CM2610-2084, R581559 Or search on "silicone seal with pull-throughs", "pull-through silicone", "pull-through rubber seal", etc., etc. I bought some of this about six months ago but I can't remember where. It took a trip down the rabbit hole to find the alternate part numbers, but I eventually found a supplier. It's not cheap, but it does make it very easy to attach and maintain at the oil cooler. If you have a ram-air door, the same stuff seals around the door.

I just did this, too. The inspection criterion for the nose gear pucks is that there is no gap under the retaining collar. I thought I noticed a 1/8" or so gap on the last inspection, so I ordered the pucks so I could change them while the motor was out for overhaul. It turned out the 1/8" gap I thought I saw was really the spacer, so the pucks were actually okay. When I took it all apart the retaining collar was deformed into a cone and the bolt holes were elongated into ovals, so I had another one made at a local machine shop. It appeared that the original hole in mine was in the center, so that's how they made the new one. All this means is that flipping it over doesn't change the position. I put it all back together without the spacer since I thought the new collar and new pucks might be okay. Once the motor was back in I checked the caster per the service bulletin and it was a tiny bit out of spec, so I took it all apart again, put the spacer in, and rechecked it. It moved a couple of inches! That was a little surprising, but makes sense given the geometry of the nosegear. Pics of the before and after string position when checking caster. The before pic the axle is a little bit in front of the string. Spec is that it can't be more than 0.060" in front of the string. Mine was about 0.08"-0.10", so I put the spacer back in. That moved the axle way behind the string, which means there's plenty of caster. It tracks better and there's no more clunk when I go over a bump, which I think was from the elongated bolt hole in the collar.

Another thing that can happen is that a larger screw than expected is put in the tinnerman a few times and then it won't grip the proper screw.

Scotch Brite is the shizzle. I rarely sand anything any more, and just use scotch brite instead. You can get scotch brite buffing (and essentially grinding) wheels if you want to use power tools.

Over the last five or six years I've replaced all of my engine cables. The first two were using McFarlane's OPP process and I sent them in for duplication. The last one was after McFarlane started shipping Mooney part number cables. That one was the only one that didn't quite fit right. I made it work, but the two OPP cables were perfect. YMMV.

Whenever I see a post like this my first thought is that a search for another IA should be in order.