EricJ

Some people won't like the idea, but the Delphi Weather Pack connectors are very good and designed for wide temperature ranges, vibration, and keeping weather/water out. If you just need one or two you can sometimes get them off the connector rotary rack at an automotive store, or Mouser, or Amazon or a bunch of places. They're pretty popular. They're pretty much my go-to when I need a reliable connector with good environmental qualities.

Do you have an engine monitor? What is the oil pressure doing during these events? Any new oil leaks?

The valvewizard is not a bad choice for an angle-valve engine. For parallel valves there are some easier tools, and some DIY methods that also work well. I have a valvewizard for the angle-valves and one of these for parallel valves: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/compressor.php Edit, there's also this, for Lycoming engines: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/compressor2.php

And don't forget the M301, which wound up being very successful...with a different company after Mooney spent the money on development. I think in recent times the M10 sucked up a lot of money for zero benefit. Decent concept, just horrible execution.

The idea is to get the signals to or from the circuit boards in the radio as cleanly as possible, and pin 15 is the closest connection to the grounds on the circuit board(s). That's where the received signals enter the receiver, and where the outgoing signals are generated. There are compromises that can be made, but generally that's the idea.

Did you try both intake and exhaust? It can be either one.

Pins 15 and 5 are the current returns for the radio unit. They go wherever they need to go to serve that task. There is an indicator to see Note 5, which may have some clarification on details. There are some decent YT videos out there that show how to use solder sleeves as as easy way to terminate shields at a connector. You can even buy solder sleeves with a wire already attached, and this makes it easier. It's about the only place I recommend using solder sleeves on an airplane, or solder in general. That makes connecting the shields to the recommended ground fairly easy, but the shields should terminate at the radio connector to provide maximum protection for the signals they're shielding. With shielded connectors this is sometimes easier, but in any case, ground the shields as close to the connector as possible. I mentioned earlier that in aviation shields tend to get grounded on both ends, although this is not always optimal from a signal protection point of view. Nevertheless, for mechanical redundancy or whatever reasons, many aviation shields get grounded on both ends. It's not difficult to do, it's just a little more work. Shields always need to be grounded as close to the connection of the signal they're protecting as possible to help prevent coupling any external energy into the signal being protected. That's the purpose of the shield in the first place, so the diagram makes perfect sense from that perspective. Edit: How to terminate a shield with solder sleeve. How to daisy chain shield for multiple wires:

You want the shields grounded as close to their termination as possible, so the connector is the ideal place to do that, and pin 15 provides that. You also want the shield grounds to be the same as the radio ground since their purpose is to reduce the amount of radiated rf or other electrical noise that gets into the shielded signals. Using a ground further separated from the radio may reduce the effectiveness of the shields.

It works well as an oil additive in some cases, and some have found benefit as a fuel additive. It's been used in aviation since before WWII and was shipped in 50 gal drums for use in the big radials in WWII. MMO has a long history of beneficial use in aviation, but it's certainly not a cure-all and needs to be used carefully IMHO. It does seem to be heavier than fuel, and if you add even a little bit at the top of a tank of 100LL and then take a sample from the sump, it'll be clear or discolored and smell funny almost immediately. Some people think it makes the fuel at the sump smell like paint thinner. Since many tanks have been patched over the decades with unknown methodologies, it is not unheard of that a non-leaking tank may start to leak a bit after the addition of MMO. In the case I was involved with a previously non-leaking tank started leaking (weaping a little in two spots) and stopped leaking after the MMO was run out of the tank, so perhaps the sealant hardened back up a bit. I know of another case with a PA-28 tank that leaked after the owner started using MMO. The history of that tank is unknown as well, but it can happen. On the other hand, many people use MMO in their fuel regularly and don't experience leaks. I suspect tanks that have been patched with non-standard or non-approved sealants may be the most susceptible, but that's a guess on my part. The tank that sprung two leaks and then fixed itself looked like a calico cat inside, so it appears to have been patched over the years with a number of different sealants. In any case, I suggest using MMO in fuel tanks cautiously, at least initially to see whether it causes any problems.

My engine has done the occassional morning sickness for years. An acquaintance that has been in the aviation lubrication business for a long time suggested that going back to W100Plus would likely help eliminate the problem. I'd switched from W100Plus to W100 a while back for reasons that I don't recall (something about undesirable side effects of the additive), so it may be worth trying.

I wouldn't recommend putting MMO in the fuel tank, although some do that. It may increase the likelihood of a tank leak. It's more often an oil additive, especially just before an oil change.

Ground is ground, and there should only be very small, stray currents going through the shields, so the wire doesn't need to be large. Any current in the shields should be going to the ground rather than through the pin into the connector, too. The 18awg wire indicated from pin 15 to ground is mostly to carry the return current out of the nav/com, particularly during transmit. The note referenced on the drawing may have some additional suggestions.

That line is indicating that all of those shields are grounded at Pin 15. Electrically just grounding one end of a shield (usually at the receiver if it is unidirectional) is better, but in aviation it is common to see shields grounded on both ends. I think this is just for mechanical redundancy in case one end becomes disconnected, but who knows.

No, it doesn't mean that. Airframe approval is separate from engine approval. This is why the limitations in the aircraft POH and specs in the aircraft TCDS drive rather than what's in the engine TCDS.

They do, but just like in cars they can get unregistered and spin. Letting pressure off the bearings during cylinder removal seems to increase the likelihood of this, so it is recognized procedure to not let the case relax too much. Cars also have the benefit of main bearing caps and much more rigid blocks than we have. We have two essentially relatively floppy aluminum case halves to keep the bearings in place.

Appendix D is the minimum regulatory requirement. There is also a regulation that an inspector must use a checklist, and Appendix D is the minimum checklist. Other checklists can be used, like the factory checklist, but they must contain all of the items in Appendix D. I came to the same conclusion, especially after repeatedly repacking bearings that were still full of good grease. There's a tradeoff between doing useful maintenance and increasing the risk of maintenance-induced failures, and doing stuff too often is not productive and adds risk. Agreed. The Lycoming service document on cleaning injectors warns that excessive cleaning of the injectors is detrimental.

There is no requirement to remove wheels or repack bearings for an annual or 100-hour inspection. FAR 43 Appendix D describes the scope and detail of 100-hour and annual inspections. Item (e)(7) in the landing gear section says: (e) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) the following components of the landing gear group: ... (7) Wheels—for cracks, defects, and condition of bearings. Many inspection items are done blind, like inspecting the condition of rings and valve seats via a compression test, or the condition of seals or gaskets by leak checks, etc. Likewise "condition of bearings" can be tested without removing the wheels, and wheel crack inspections may be done visually, with mirrors or borescopes for parts that are otherwise difficult to see, etc. All of this is done to the satisfaction of the IA, and some may feel that it is necessary to remove the wheels to be comfortable with assessing the conditions of the components, and I think some do it just to assure that the bearings get adequately lubed as that is an oft-neglected component sometimes. The bottom line is that there is no requirement in FAR 43 Appendix D to service anything, except that it is required to "thoroughly clean the aircraft and engine" in Section (a), the very first item in the list. Everything else is just inspection. There may be components, like propellers, that require or suggest annual maintenance in their ICA, and most folks let those coincide with the annual inspection, although it is not required to do so, and ICAs aren't mandatory for Part 91, anyway. Some ADs might have annual requirements, or requirements that are just dealt with at annual for efficiency. I think annual inspections tend to grow in scope because many use it as an opportunity to catch up on deferred maintenance, i.e., they just leave stuff unaddressed to be handled at annual. An airplane with no deferred maintenance would be expected to have an easier time at annual, but even so, if the deferred items aren't airworthiness concerns or covered in Appendix D, they don't really even need to be addressed at annual inspection. It is in a shop's interest to point out as many things as they think they can get hired to fix, so often that's what they do.

Or the lawyers getting paid to send the letters? Yes, it's a convenient way around the bravo, so I think they were sending a lot of these letters out. This was about six years ago, and I haven't heard of anyone getting one of these letters for a long time. That was kind of still early days for mandatory ADS-B-out, too, but I don't know how else they would have been getting tail numbers to look up registrations.

A number of Mites were built as experimentals from drawings, so those drawings existed somewhere. In experimental category there shouldn't be any barrier to converting the wings to metal, or however much of the airplane you want to convert. The FAA would have to be convinced it is safe in order to get an airworthiness certificate in experimental category, but that should be doable.

Significantly west of the river. I dug out the letter, and the description is: 1/2 mile East of Pima to 144th St North/South between Stagecoach Pass and Happy Valley Road. That includes the preserve area around Granite Mountain and Brown's Mountain, but also coincidentally includes Troon (a fairly wealthy neighborhood in North Scottsdale). The request in the letter is to maintain 2000 ft AGL, which is generally not unreasonable. Still, I'm sure they were using the ADS-B-out tail number and registration info to get the addy's to send the letters to.

I noticed that a while back, too, so it's not super-new. Seems to have been done sort of quietly. A few years ago somebody a bit north of where I live would hire a lawyer to send a "strongly worded letter" to anyone who flew below a certain altitude over a particular open area to discourage aircraft from disturbing the wildlife there. It was along a route that is handy to use to avoid the Phoenix bravo airspace and some of the high-density traffic areas sometimes, so I cruised through there once and got one of those letters. Enough people were getting them that the AZ Pilot's Association looked into it enough to include a bit in their newsletter that they're just lawyer letters and could be ignored, but please be considerate about altitudes when you overfly things.

Somewhere I still have my 8" floppy disks with my PDP-11 assembly language assignments on them.

We don't get a lot of IFR around here, so when I'm feeling like I need to fly just for proficiency I'll often go shoot an approach somewhere in VMC, no hood, just flying the approach and doing the buttons and all the equipment setup and manipulation. My autopilot has been inop for many years, so I hand fly all of these. It's not IMC, but it keeps you proficient with anticipating events and flying the airplane according to the approach procedure. I do the usual proficiency flight every six months with a safety pilot, and no autopilot, and that winds up being pretty straightforward if I keep up with doing practice approaches regularly. All that said, I'm not a fan of actual IFR without an autopilot. There's too much multitasking required for me, especially if you get a reroute mid-flight in IMC or something. Fortunately around here it's not been a problem since it's rarely an issue to not be able to get where you need to go VFR.

If it is ever demonstrated in a group that that can be done continually and successfully without creating and tension and division it is an exception to the norm. Even in the barbershop politics and religion are discouraged as conversation topics for generations because the lessons are repeatedly learned. I'd discourage religious conversation here as well, but that doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment. I do like that this thread has been pretty civil, but I wouldn't tempt the beast.

Most states in the US are still very purple overall. The swings are driven mostly by the edge cases in the statistics, which blow back and forth based on events contemporary to particular elections. It is the same everywhere. What you think a particular place is like is often driven by media consumption rather than reality.