EricJ

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).

I don't know that it was BS. This was the new owners of LASAR restarting a process after making a geographical move, so I wouldn't be surprised at all that there were genuine problems that the regulator caught. LASAR put themselves into the position of having to redo a lot of their authorizations, that was their decision.

I used the ASA Prepware software and it was highly relevant to the written, a little less than two years ago.

My expectations of affordability just went down.

Another view for those with FB. No significant flare is evident here, either: https://www.facebook.com/share/r/19uAvssXkE/ Edit: I missed seeing ohdub's post above. It's the same as this one.

Most of it is ABS plastic, which is the easiest thing in the world to work with for doing repairs. There are tons of YT vids, because lots of people do it, and there are several techniques and most of them are pretty easy to do (e.g., weld it with a soldering iron, make a slurry glue/filler with acetone and ground up ABS, etc., etc). Texture it and paint it to the desired color, etc., etc. It just takes a little practice on some scrap stuff, which is easy to find, and you'll likely be good to go and making it look like new. And repairing interior "decorative" pieces are all completely within Preventive Maintenance, so there's no barrier to you doing it all yourself. Oh, and nice airplane! That looks like quite the score.

I didn't see much of a flare. May have just touched down too hard.

I watched the press conference when she was saying "radio altitude". It seemed to me that she was saying that just to distinguish it from altitude indicated by radar or just because she was speaking to the general public. She seemed very knowledgable and cogent to me, and I thought she did an excellent job of clarifying what she meant as she was going along.

I discovered a quirky and fun thing that Mooney did with the first J models. My J is SN 24-0077. 24-0076 was the last J model completed in 1976, and mine, 24-0077, was the first J model completed in 1977. I can think of no other reason for this than somebody thought it was cool to schedule them that way. Anyway, that makes mine the first actual 77 J model, although the earlier ones are also considered 77 for those who care about product years for airplanes.

I use one. They're very handy in many cases. It makes a lot of the zerks much easier to grease.

FWIW, the disks don't need to expand when on jacks. The replacement criterion for the main landing gear pucks is that the gap between the retaining collar and the top plate exceeds 0.6" when the weight of the aircraft with full fuel is on the landing gear. What the discs do when the airplane is on jacks doesn't really matter if your gear safety switch is airspeed based. This is in the SMM, 32-81-00. I think you have a good plan to use the rubber tip on the grease gun for the missing zerk, as long as things aren't too gunky in there and it accepts the grease. I'd suggest getting a replacement zerk in there or something to keep dirt out.

It's normally been in the water for long periods of time before it flew down here. The thing coming off of the tail of the wing tip float is part of a boom circle that was around the entire airplane. It's also attached to the nose. I don't know what the boom was for other than potentially to keep curious kayakers or boarders out (which I think is also why the pontoon boats were there), or to help keep leaking oil or fuel a little bit contained around the airplane.

It was only in the water there about a day, but I got some pics of it there last week. I was kicking myself for not taking my kayak with me, I could have gone out and paddled around it and got some cool close-ups. They pulled it up the boat ramp the next day.

And the wing can be replaced with a logbook entry. It is not a major repair.

I use Aeroshell 64, which is Aeroshell 33 with some moly already in it. The Lubriplate is for the jack screw, not the gears.

Spar caps can be changed out, but it's not cheap. I think Alan Fox managed to do one that was perhaps "minimally invasive", but was still a project. Probably also matters whether it is top or bottom, how bad, what else is affected, etc.

One potential issue is just IA availability. If an A&P is available to do the job, but you have to wait another month for an IA, that's a barrier.

Using thermal expansion puts the least amount of stress on the wheel casting. Pressing it in/out is the next best option, and, as stated, a drift works but is the most likely to cause a deformation or crack in the casting. They all work, they're just different tradeoffs on effort/complexity/risk.

Is this it? https://lasar.com/switches/stall-switch-v3-2451-d8 I don't know how Honeywell's part number system works, other than V3- is the basic pin-plunger microswitch, and the -D8 is for the 0.188" wide quick-connect (spade) terminals. Otherwise it'd be fairly easy to try to find an equivalent or crossover just using the specs, but the -2451 doesn't appear in any of the documents that I can find. If somebody could post a pic of the assembly with the switch part number showing that would be better to get it right. The good news is that nearly all of the V3- and V7-, etc., microswitches are the same dimensions, so finding one with sufficient specs will fit and do the job. It's not like it's carrying massive current or a big voltage or anything. I'd also add that sometimes when these get intermittent it's just the connections on the spade connectors. Working them around a little or seating them better might be sufficient to getting it working again.

The NTSB just had a press conference and offered a few tidbits: The Blackhawk crew may have been wearing NVGs. The Blackhawk was equipped with ADS-B-out. They don't know why it wasn't transmitting. The Blackhawk recorded a radio altitude of 278 ft at the time of collision. They believe that data is good data. They don't know what altitude the crew saw on their displays. Some of the recorded information is known to be bad, so part of the ongoing work is to determine what altitude the crew saw on their displays. The CRJ went to full up elevator before the crash and was at a nine degree pitch up. The Blackhawk was essentially straight and level at the time of collision.

McFarlane can make a cable by duplicating your existing cable. There is a process that is described on their website: https://www.mcfarlaneaviation.com/customs/custom-push-pull-controls/

FWIW, your A&P will determine whether 337(s) need to be filed. I know of no regulatory requirement to file a 337 for this repair. There does not seem to be agreement among the relevant masses that a 337 is required to remove an STC, if this was installed with one, but you do hear that opinion a lot. Some argue that the original, pre-STC configuration is already approved, so if removing an STC restores it to an approved state, that's...already approved. I don't think many people file a 337 to remove a Brackett air filter (which requires a 337 on many airplanes). The other side of that is that the TC is altered by the 337 and altering it back requires another 337, for the record keeping if nothing else. I don't know of any clear regulatory guidance either way, just opinion. YMMV, your A&P/IA's opinion is the one that counts.

I highly recommend it to any aircraft owner who wants to and is able to do so. It's definitely a time commitment, but I found it fun and educational. Not being dependent on somebody else's schedule is very nice, and it makes it a lot easier to deal with issues that may come up during travel.