afward

Ok, we’re going to try the bolt first. If that doesn’t work, I guess we’ll have to check the fitting and bushing… Hopefully it’s just the bolt! Thanks for the advice everyone! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think I need some help; We’ve found that the copilot side horizontal stabilizer has nearly out of limits movement up and down. My IA thinks it’s the bushing in the upper attachment on that side. Looking at the ipc (67 M20F) there’s hardware labeled as 1, but no bushing. What do we need to be looking for? Any ideas? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well... I'd disagree on that. A fixed timing electronic magneto can be built using some power supply circuitry, hall effect sensors, a coil, a set of power MOSFETs (I think; may need SCRs for the high voltage), and a handful of other minor components. I've also looked at using an Arduino to do that (plus some), and the code involved really just isn't that complicated. Once prototyped it's a triggered timer with lookup tables. Just about any 2nd year CS student could code that to a decent level of functional. All that said, I'm not jumping on the EI bandwagon anytime soon... I literally just put new mags on (haven't even spun the engine yet) and would prefer to wait for possibly a better option later on.

What you are describe is E-Mags: https://emagair.com/ Sadly, they have specifically declared they will not pursue PMA / STC for certificated aircraft.

Auto's Aviation @ KSUZ. He's still full time Air Force, but I've been happy with the communication and work I've asked him to do so far. Good to know. That said, this is after we (mostly my avionics guy) pulled out and organized a bunch of stuff... WTF has been uttered more than a few times thus far.

It started as a GPS install... But after some serious consideration we decided to do more. Bye-bye vacuum system!

"not recommended" is not the same as "prohibited". Something to keep in mind: The manufacturers can only make recommendations that are supported by hard data generated as part of the certification process. It would cost extra to certify LOP operations (plus add liability concerns due to past guidance), so they don't... And probably won't. Thing is, they know LOP is a valid and useful operational mode... They just won't directly say as much (though if you look at all the charts they publish, LOP is absolutely in the valid operational ranges... as is under square operation). I do think it's interesting that their idea of "Peak" means your richest cylinder could very well be running at a much higher CHT than if you ran 150F ROP, even though it's making less power and burning a lot less fuel... Like I said before, how you choose to run your plane's engine is up to you... As long as you aren't abusing the engine (like full power 50F ROP!) it'll get you where you're going. Heck, the M20F POH actually _calls for_ 50F-100F ROP fuel flows for certain settings, and they aren't exactly known for falling out of the sky...

To some degree, changing the guidance with newer (but derived!) engine designs would be admitting the old guidance was wrong. Considering attorneys nearly always advise against admitting fault, no one should be surprised... LOP, done correctly, won't hurt the engine. Even at relatively high power settings (>75%). The trade-off is that you cannot get rated power that way (must run too lean to maintain detonation margins). The benefit is lower CHTs, lower oil temps, cleaner oil, and lower fuel burn. There is some concern for turbo health on such engines (hot oxygen may not be good for them), but I don't know that anyone has actually studied it yet. Now, whether you choose to run LOP, peak, best power, or fully ROP is up to you... All will get you there, just with different trade-offs. I personally like to run LOP in most cases. That gets me at least 17 MPG in cruise (TAS/FF), which is better than my truck so I'm happy.

I think there's enough circumstantial evidence visible to indicate there really was a crash as depicted in the video... As pointed out above, model planes don't move like full size (Reynolds number cannot be scaled, among other things). Faking the wreckage would be prohibitively expensive. There's no reason to hide fire extinguishers in your pants legs if it's fake. Those are just off the top of my head. I can't imagine how he wouldn't be up for enforcement actions in short order (FAA timescale).

Ok, it's fixed now. Turned out to be a bad crimp on one of the wires connecting the field switch. Amperage and voltage are now both rock solid. Thanks for all the pointers everyone!

Thanks for all the suggestions! I did go through the PlanePower troubleshooting guide and found that the switch/breaker/enable wire need replacement (I'll figure out which one in particular once I go to fix it) and the aux wire from the alternator isn't driving the aux input on the regulator (which is wired to enable & sense??). Voltage drop across the VR is minimal so I think it's ok. Once those items are fixed I'll test and update here.

Hmmm... Sounds like I need to work through the troubleshooting flowchart. Hopefully it's something easy (and cheap!) to fix.

Just want to double check things... My 12v system tends to run around 15v in-flight. It used to run lower, but has always bounced around quite a bit, especially the amperage. The alternator isn't the issue. Any ideas why and if I need to replace the regulator?

@Alan Fox how much for an iVSI?

I think the point is mostly that a typical "weekend warrior" pilot isn't going to be consistently sharp enough to ensure proper and timely reaction to EFATO in a twin. I know I personally am not flying enough to feel comfortable operating a twin... End of the day, in the hands of a proficient pilot a twin will be safer (if noticeably more expensive). I'm still keeping my single.