EricJ

The HSI should be getting heading from the GMU11 magnetometer. There is a calibration process in the installation manual for the G5 to properly align the GMU11, similar to swinging a compass. Track will be determined from GPS data, either a nav unit or the internal GPS in the G5.

I have to disconnect the nose gear doors, anyway, to get to the screws for the panel just behind the nose wheel well, so I just do everything with the doors loose. That's pretty easy to do.

That has puzzled me for a long time.

Checking and cleaning the fuel screens there should be part of every annual, and it's the only way to get to them. Sounds like you've got the methodology sorted to getting the panel off. It's not that bad once you have it down.

I haven't, but I haven't been looking for it, either.

And somehow that spreads to it being bad on all airplanes, or raising the flaps on rollout being bad because you might grab the gear handle instead. I got criticized raising the flaps on touchdown in a C182 because it's dangerous since I could have grabbed the gear handle. It is a fixed-gear airplane. Similarly, the OWT about not running an engine oversquare apparently started with one installation of a radial engine where that was an operating limitation, or at least practical guidance. Somehow that expanded to being true for every engine everywhere, even after you point out to people settings in the POH that are significantly over-square. I love whoever it was at Mooney that decided to put the gear handle at the top center of the panel. That makes it visible to everybody in the airplane, it's such a distinctly different location and motion from the flap switch, and it's super easy to visually check anywhere on final. I've always thought other manufacturers should copy that. I'm glad you got over the TNG hurdle.

McFarlane will make one from a drawing that they supply and you just fill in the dimensions, or you can just send in your cable and they'll duplicate it.

The lines under the wing are further apart, though, which means it's slower there and the pressure is higher. The higher pressure under the wing helps push up on it. Likewise the thin spaces between lines means the air is faster there and the pressure is lower, so it pulls up. The number of different forces that come into play make it interesting and complex and sometimes non-intuitive. It's no surprise to me that many people find it a little mysterious or confusing.

+1. I think the main reasons to deviate from this would be if there is an active LZ, parallel runway, or helicopter operations nearby on the right. If there is a parallel runway on your left, the only practical way to deviate is to the right into the downwind side. On my home field (DVT) with parallel runways and a tower, I've been told a couple times to go around and deviate into the downind side if there was traffic on the runway.

They do both. Standing behind a running prop demonstrates the thrust from the high pressure pretty readily. Sucking up rocks during a static stationary run demonstrates the low pressure created in front of the prop. Wings are the same. When the sun is low it's pretty easy to see the skin on top of the wing puffing up in between the ribs and spars, like it's being inflated, but it's just the low pressure on top of the wing pulling the skin up. It's kind of cool to realize that that force pulling up the skin is a lot of what's holding the airplane up.

The entire corridor from Phoenix to Tucson is filled with very active jump operations at nearly every airport in between, including Marana. They jump seven days a week day and night from all altitudes. Once in a while there'll be an FAA Safety or similar meeting with reps from one or more of the big jump operations trying to give advice on how to avoid the jumpers. One of the best insights I recall from one of these is that the drop airspaces are basically cones expanding as they rise going up from the LZ to whatever maximum altitude they wind up using. Some of the military jumps (and it's training from militaries from all over the world) will jump from high altitude and maximum distance to practice tracking to an LZ. They also do this at night. The narrow tip of the cone will always be on the LZ, though, so the usual recommendation for traversing the route between PHX and destinations to the south is to stay low, and following I-10 will generally keep you away from the LZs. Approaching at pattern altitude from the published downwind side works for this reason, too, so it's a good practice. The parachute icon on the sectionals are usually, but not always, placed so show which side of the airport the LZ is on. ATC will definitely vector you around to avoid the jumps, and they at least have the advantage of knowing where the drop airplanes are and exactly when they're jumping. If nothing else, monitoring the local radar ATC frequencies will give you the info since the jump airplanes are talking on there.

It'll make you more attractive and your children smarter and better behaved.

I had to remove my mag and reinstall it (and remove it again) today, so I took a pic of it out with the cap on. There's plenty of room to maneuver it around. It's probably easier on my airplane since the vacuum pump has been deleted, and it helps a lot if the crank vent hose is moved out of the way, the oil cooler hose is disconnected, and the tach cable is disconnected. Those are all easy to do, but it makes a big difference in having room to maneuver. I think the other key point is that the harness needs to be loose, too, which is a bit larger in the PITA scale.

Did you reseal them or have somebody do it? Since that's something people are always looking to get done, can we ask who did it?

In A&P school we were running our C340 and the #1 engine caught fire, pretty significantly. Flames were coming out of the vents on top of the cowl, and burning fuel was flowing out the cowl flaps. We got it shut down and it took a little while and a couple attempts to put it out, but we got it out. Somebody in the previous class that was supposed to prep it (our class was just running it), left the fuel line fitting through the baffling to the wet fuel pressure gauge very loose, so basically it was fuel burning from there around the top of the engine, around the accessory case, etc. We cleaned it up and there was very, very little damage to anything. There were essentially no repairs required. I was surprised, but it was only fuel burning and the fire didn't get big enough to get hot enough to damage anything else. I'm sure if we hadn't shut it down promptly and put it out right away, it would have been much worse. That's my only personal experience with such a thing, but I think in general the usual inspection criteria apply regarding integrity of parts, etc. Fiberglass pieces will be suspect if they've discolored or no longer pass a tap test, and if something like that is questionable it'd be a good idea to look for a materials expert (e.g., the airplane builder, the supplier of the fiberglass system, etc.).

I just got mine back from the overhauler today. I put it in with the cap on and torqued the bottom nut using an oddball combination of adapters and short extensions to get the length just right, but if you do that, it works fine. To install it with the cap on the harness must be loose and just bring it in at an angle. You need something, a couple dabs of RTV or something, to keep the gasket attached to the mag or that'll be the hardest part of the job. It helps a lot to not have a vacuum pump, too. Both times I've installed it with the cap on I was also installing a new harness, so the harness was loose, which makes it a lot easier. I've had it in and out by taking the cap off, too, which is harder to do, but you don't have to disconnect the harness from everything.

That's one high-tech jack screw right there.

That sound comparable to what appears to have happened here. One of my questions in the current incident is why the Lancair didn't offset during the go-around. There is a jumper LZ on the NW corner of the airport, but by mid-field you're past it using runway 12 if there are jumpers present. Radios are naturally a go-to tool for deconflicting, so I'm guessing there was a breakdown there. Sad in any case. :'(

This is the accident C172. The tail number is consistent with the Embry-Riddle fleet. There is minimal apparent damage other than to the tips of the prop. https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/478774

Local discussions are that the C172 was taking off, perhaps after a stop-and-go, and the Lancair was going around because the C172 wasn't clear. They collided during climbout. Word is there was little damage to the C172, apparently the prop contacted the bottom of the Lancair. The Lancair crashed and was desroyed.

Happens all the time. Another common instance is an IA disapproving parts that were previously installed as 'not approved', which is why the VARMA program was created, so that an owner can have an actuall letter from the FAA saying it is okay.

FWIW, the Mooney SMM does not exclude repairs to control surfaces. Most of the sheet metal and related repair guiadance in the SMM refers to AC 43.13. A note in 55-40-02 says that a repaired rudder needs to be rebalanced per 27-91-00, and that's about the extent of the guidance on rudder repairs other than referencing AC 43.13. A repair of a control surface does not qualify as a major repair under 43 Appendix A. It sounds like you've been talking to your A&P/IA and leaving the trim system in place is certainly a valid solution. As always, your A&P/IA's opinion is the one that counts.

Tuning shops are always tuning engines for 100% power, and usually increasing the 100% power level from the original rated power. That's what they do and have been doing very effectively for decades. And, yes, for 100% continuous power. Usually the barrier is cooling to dissipate the increased heat, not detonation. Timing and feedback. Electronic injection allows better timing of fuel introduction. There are lots of other things that are routinely done as well. The bag of tricks is actually very big, including methanol injection, direct injection, etc., etc...much of which has been mentioned here already. Some of these are what Lycoming added to the iE2 engines, and what they did was really only a basic step toward what is possible. Once we do get unleaded fuel, O2 sensors will be possible to get even better feedback for finer adjustment. Garmin panels like the G3X already have inputs for O2 sensors, since they're already used on experimentals. There are lots of people beyond you and I that know how to do this and are already doing it, even on airplanes. This isn't new or immature technology, it's just foreign to certificated aircraft because certification costs.

Tuning shops do this every day. There are experimentals out there that have full-on electronic fuel injection and electronic ignition on Lycoming engines and can adjust fuel/spak map tables just like one does on a modern car. Nobody wants to make the investment to move this to certificated GA because the market is too small (and shrinking) so that a case for any sort of reasonable ROI isn't practical given the cost of certification. Lycoming has made some steps in that direction and has been selling their iE2 engine for a while, and the Thunderbolt is apparently the preferred engine for homebuilts now. I think the cost of certification is and has been the real barrier, not the availability or practicality of the technology, which has been around for almost thirty years now.

Sounds to me like it's not the mag. The pickup and process that JPI uses with the dual mag has been rock-solid in my airplane, but it uses a sensor over the magnet rather than the p-leads (which can be noisy, anyway).