PT20J

ForeFlight will connect to the IFD for ADS-B In. Can you not just use that interface rather than the Stratus 3? That interface also advertises flight plan transfer. ForeFlight has a particular interface that they test for the Stratus 3 and that's what they guarantee. It sounds like either there is a setup problem or perhaps FF has altered the operation of an unadvertised feature. In my experience running software development, lots of commercial software has unadvertised features; sometimes they are there for testing, sometimes they are future unrelease features still in development, and often they are just design errors. The support team will likely not know about them. Certified products will very seldom have "hidden" features because they generally comply with RTCA DO-178 which puts severe restrictions on such things. From the link @LANCECASPER posted, it kind of seems like not much is guaranteed if you try to use a GDL 90 device.

"Replaced left and right recognition light bulbs with Whelen 01-0770303-20."

Here is the RSA fuel injection troubleshooting guide. RSA Troubleshooting.pdf

That would be the proprietary drawing submitted to the FAA by RAM for approval per 21.303. 21.303 Application. (a) The applicant for a PMA must apply in a form and manner prescribed by the FAA, and include the following: (1) The identity of the product on which the article is to be installed. (2) The name and address of the manufacturing facilities at which these articles are to be manufactured. (3) The design of the article, which consists of— (i) Drawings and specifications necessary to show the configuration of the article; and (ii) Information on dimensions, materials, and processes necessary to define the structural strength of the article. (4) Test reports and computations necessary to show that the design of the article meets the airworthiness requirements of this subchapter. The test reports and computations must be applicable to the product on which the article is to be installed, unless the applicant shows that the design of the article is identical to the design of a article that is covered under a type certificate. If the design of the article was obtained by a licensing agreement, the applicant must provide evidence of that agreement. (5) An applicant for a PMA based on test reports and computations must provide a statement certifying that the applicant has complied with the airworthiness requirements of this subchapter. (b) Each applicant for a PMA must make all inspections and tests necessary to determine— (1) Compliance with the applicable airworthiness requirements; (2) That materials conform to the specifications in the design; (3) That the article conforms to its approved design; and (4) That the manufacturing processes, construction, and assembly conform to those specified in the design.

From the FAA PMA database: PMA Holder Name: Ram Aircraft Limited Partnership Status: Current CFR Part Reference: PMA Holder Number: PQ0399SW Office of Primary Responsibility: AIR-883: San Antonio MIDO Section Supplement Number: 117 REV. 2 Supplement Date: 10/28/2021 Part Name: V-BANDCOUPLING Approved Replacement for Part Number: CAT Inc P/N 653337 Make: ContinentalAerospace Technologies INC Model: TSIO-520-BE; TSIO-550-B1B | B2B | E1B | E2B | E3B | E4B FAA Approval Basis: Test and Computation per 14 CFR § 21.303, Dwg: 2172, REV H, Dated: 01/20/03, or later FAA approved revisions Sub-Status: CFR Subpart/Appendix Reference: CFR Section Reference: Sec. 21.301

Ever notice how thick the Aircraft Spruce catalog is? I don’t see how they could keep up with fluctuating prices on all that stuff. They do have a price match policy. I’ve never bothered because I usually find that Spruce’s prices are better when shipping is included. I know several A&Ps that buy from Spruce.

Typo. Thanks for pointing it out. I’ll correct the original post.

If it were mine, I would tighten everything up, solvent wash the engine and ground run it up to operating temperature and then inspect to see if it's still leaking. I would carefully inspect EVERYTHING firewall forward and fix anything questionable before replacing the cowling. Fortunately the case parting line does not appear to be leaking -- somebody just applied a bit too much sealant. And, I'd keep their screwdriver.

According to the IPC Note 7: 610289-007 SAME AS 610289-003 EXCEPT HANDLE (POINTER) (KNOB) IS DELETED.

Wow. A lot to unpack here. An engine requires GAS to run (Gas, Air, Spark). Assuming that you did a runup before takeoff and both mags were working, a sudden power loss would not likely be spark because there are two magnetos and it's unlikely (but not impossible since you apparently have the IO-360-A3B6D with the dual magneto) that both would be acting up. At any rate, the mag has been IRANed so that is no longer likely the problem. So, that leaves air and fuel. Since the intake ducting would have been removed to replace the servo and nothing was reported found blocking airflow, it was gas. This is also indicated by the fact that you lost power but it didn't run rough which indicates that it was something affecting all cylinders. So, it probably wasn't something as simple as a clogged injector. The "rust" in the lines is suspicious. There isn't much in the fuel system that can rust. The tanks are aluminum, the lines are aluminum or synthetic rubber. So, the question is what was it, how much was there, where did it come from and is it all gone? Fuel flows through a fine mesh screen in the gascolator before it gets to the servo and the servo has a very fine finger screen at it's inlet. So, it is unlikely (but not impossible) that anything got into the servo internals. It would have been good to flush the fuel system out before replacing the servo. But, that's a done deal now. If the mixture control is stiff, either something is not right with the servo or the cabling, but something is wrong and your mechanic should have checked and corrected this as part of the installation. The afterfire and black plugs and the fact that it is difficult to adjust the idle mixture all point to a problem with the servo. You said the mechanic replaced the servo and flow divider, but you didn't say with new or overhauled or who did the overhaul. I'm a little confused about the EGT. You said that you don't have an engine monitor, but you reported different EGTs for various cylinders. Do you have a multi-cylinder EGT? An any rate, a stuck exhaust valve will take one cylinder completely out of action and the engine will shake like the dickens and the cylinder with the stuck valve should be cold not hot. I would definitely not pull the cylinder (even if it were a stuck valve, the standard procedure is to ream it on the engine, not remove the jug) and I would investigate the servo installation. Good luck.

I asked Garmin aviation support the following: During a RNAV LPV approach, if the altimeter setting is grossly incorrect so that the baro altitude is significantly different than the GPS altitude, how will the GTN be affected? Will any error messages be displayed? I just received the following answer: Thank you for contacting Garmin International. If the barometer is not correct, you could receive warnings for low altitude or busting through minimums on an approach. Once passed a certain point, a missed approach warning could result on the screen. I guess I do need to add this to my list of things to test

Problem is that the wheels are magnesium and corrode readily. These seals will last essentially forever and will keep the moisture out of the wheels. Have you priced wheels lately?

Since someone will ask, here are the modern lubricants I use: Landing gear/flap actuator ball screws: Lubriplate 630A Landing gear zerks, trim jack screws: Aeroshell 22 (MIL-PRF-81322G) Control push-pull guides, trim torque tube guides: Aeroshell 7 (MIL-PRF-23827C Type II) Wheel bearings: Mobil SHC 100 Rod ends: Tri-Flow Flight control surface attach points, and other small bearings: LPS-2

And, if you want to keep the bearings free of moisture, the newer molded seals are much better than the original felt seals. PRM95-Molded-Bearing-Seal-6-inch.pdf PRM100-Molded-Bearing-Seal-5-inch.pdf

The primary effect is to increase drag. Recall that for unaccelerated flight, lift is constant and essentially equal to weight. If the speed brakes reduced lift, it would be like reducing the area of the wing and the stall speed would increase which it does not. If you keep them deployed all the time, it will cruise like a Piper, too . Can't you offset your final to avoid flying directly over the tree? I used to fly to an airport (long closed) in Scotts Valley CA that was short and had a big hill off the approach end. We used to sit out there on weekend mornings and watch people fly over the hill, end up way too high and go around. Sometimes they would figure it out on the second or third try and sometimes they'd just give up and go away. All of us that flew in there regularly just learned to offset our final about 15 degrees and avoided the hill.

I have been thinking about this. A lot of us find that the airplane lands perfectly well without speed brakes. But, some clearly prefer landing with them deployed. There is a possible explanation for this. Problems with Mooney landings are usually caused by too much speed. The airplane has low parasitic drag and the closeness of the wing to the ground causes a more pronounced reduction in induced drag during the flare than many other airplanes. These combined effects make the airplane very sensitive to airspeed at the flare. But, there is another aerodynamic factor at work here. The minimum drag for an airplane is the point where the induced drag and parasite drag are equal. Below this speed, induced drag predominates and increases with reduction in airspeed, and parasitic drag falls off rapidly with reduced airspeed. This is the region of reversed command or "backside of the power curve." Since the parasite drag of a Mooney is low relative to many other airplanes, and the stall speed is similar, Mooneys necessarily fly deeper into this region during approach than some other airplanes. This means that airspeed control becomes more difficult as the approach speed decreases because the natural speed stability is reversed. Deploying the speed brakes will increase the parasite drag and move the region of reversed command to a lower airspeed. This will improve the airspeed stability of the airplane and make it easier to fly the final approach. The airplane seems more stable, not because it is necessary to carry more power, but because it is being flown at a speed where the airspeed stability is greater. Personally, I think it is better to learn the proper technique without needing the speed brakes. But the AFMS approves landing with them deployed and includes a procedure for doing so, so I can't really fault anyone who finds them helpful.

I believe that the AFMS for all speedbrake models state that there is no change to any airspeeds listed in the POH, and the AFMS Emergency Procedures state that the speedbrakes should be retracted in the case of a spin. They probably don't have much affect on spin characteristics because the wings are mostly stalled in a spin and airspeed is low so they wouldn't be adding a lot of drag.

3M General Purpose Purpose Adhesive Cleaner works well. Let it soak and rub it off with a rough rag. Depending on how much glue was used (often overapplied; all you need is a thin coat on both surfaces) it may take several passes. Xylene is one of the main components of the 3M product, so that might work, also. https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?mwsId=SSSSSuUn_zu8l00xl8mxn82xPv70k17zHvu9lxtD7SSSSSS--

Must be something about yours - maybe they forgot to heat treat it.

The vane is heat treated and very stiff. It’s most likely a bad connection or a bad switch.

They probably have some effect on lift, but not very much. Almost all the lift comes from the forward 25% of the wing chord (maybe a bit farther aft for a laminar flow airfoil). The brakes are mounted far aft on the wing. If they killed a lot of lift, you would feel a big sink when deploying them because lift would suddenly be less than weight and the airplane would accelerate downward.

Amerex A352 It looks like the current replacement may be a C352TS

I believe that flying a published missed approach requires a clearance. If you are cleared for an approach that has a published missed, that clearance includes the published missed. If you are cleared for a visual approach, you are not cleared to execute the missed approach for a different approach (e.g., ILS) unless you request it. My understanding is that the TSO-C145 navigators calculate glidepath using GPS. Baro-aiding is used in these units to improve integrity checking. Normally, an APV approach requires solutions from 5 satellites, but baro-aiding can substitute for one satellite. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/RNAV_QFacts_final_06122012.pdf Skip

I believe the current Mooney seal is Brown Aircraft T-9088 https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/brownaircraft_05-21893.php. It replaces the old foam core stuff. The most important thing about installing the seal is getting it placed properly. The door frame and the door don't match up exactly especially in the corners and at the bottom and it is important that the seal press against the frame all the way around.

I don't recall -- the receipt from the last time I had it recharged only says 2.5 lb Halon.