GeeBee

+1 on vortex generators. Had them on my PA-18. Could not get the airplane to stall. A Mooney airfoil would stall albeit at a much lower speed and your aileron control would be superb all the way to stall. You should check out this option first.

One of the best jacking systems I ever saw was a hangar at LAX. You put the airplane on stands, but you did not raise it. The floor then was lowered around the jacks. That way you did not have the airplane teetering high in the air on the jacks. Very pricey, very secure.

The idea is if you have failure or short on the main DC busses you can kill your master switch, activate the guarded switch and have power to the avionics bus from the hot battery. There is actually avionics master boards in the experimental world that do the same thing for you without a separate switch. I have installed a similar system on my boat so that I can kill the main DC power but power to the helm, navigation and radar keeps operating. What you don't want to do is switch off the master and leave that switch on or you will come home to a dead battery and as Hyett6420 said, if the short is on the avionics, do not activate the switch. How do you know where the fault is? Not always clear so activation of such system has to be only in cases where you absolutely know where the fault is, and a greater emergency exists if you don't activate the switch. It used to be in the old days, there was massive checklists to "isolate" faulty busses. I remember running them in the simulators. The theory now is let fault protection do its thing and get the airplane on the ground ASAP and let maintenance sort it out. Both Air Canada 797 and Swissair 111 drove home that method of operation is correct.

Every time I have tried "integral" filter adapters I have always found them wanting. I always end up taking them off and installing an Airwolf. For my money if you want to add a filter, Airwolf is the bomb. You have the added advantage of putting the filter anywhere you want for easy removal.

Sales contract. What is the form and conditions. Under what state's laws will you place the contract under, yours or the sellers. Title search who you going to use Escrow and title transfer. When will you be satisfied to close and how will you title the airplane.

It is cool stuff but the laws of thermodynamics and heat conductivity cannot be repealed. It takes huge amounts of heat to de/or anti-ice a wing. Even 20 amps at 24 volts is 480 watts of heat. In SLD that would not cut it for a second let alone 30 seconds to get out. If you look at most jets, they are running 400 degree air out in 4 inch ducts to the wings at 30-50 psi. Think about how much heat that represents. I have to say most people underestimate the amount of heat required in icing conditions. I've flown in conditions where windshields with continuous 120 volt heat thermostatically set to 90 degrees have gone opaque from ice. If you ran these pipes, while it is an excellent heat conductor, the aluminum wing would have to absorb the heat and radiate it across its entire area, a huge radiator, unless you put in an insulated leading edge. With that then you have the problem of "run back", that is water running off the warm surface onto a cold soaked structure. With TKS you have the advantage that the TKS fluid is running back across the wing and protecting a large portion of the structure. I have to say, not having flown TKS until my Mooney, and having flown boots and magnificent bleed air systems coming out of 80K of thrust (each side), out of arctic airports, I am highly impressed with the TKS system. Yeah the fluid is a little heavy, but its coverage and effectiveness is way better than boots and the run back problems with bleed systems just does not exist if you operate the system correctly.

Maybe we can turn it over to the skateboarders. Looks like it would be a good ride if you didn't fall through.

We use them for our dog, however we have to use a head band to keep them on. https://www.amazon.com/Happy-Hoodie-Small-Purple/dp/B07N2M9WKD/ref=sr_1_15?crid=2F4BAY74BUNCB&dchild=1&keywords=dog+ear+muffs+for+cold&qid=1607109024&sprefix=dog+ear+muff%2Caps%2C427&sr=8-15

Lancescaper is absolutely correct. Your best value is to find one with it already installed.

Notice a common color here? https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/cockpits.html#a330 https://www.airliners.net/photo-albums/view/Boeing-737NG-Cockpit/29027 https://www.airteamimages.com/boeing-787_EC-MOM_air-europa_342427.html

A lot more than easier starting. It would bring LESS maintenance, greater reliability, better LOP operations to name but a few.

I've driven a good number of Mercedes and Audi's pedal to the metal, wide open for a good amount of time.

Now you are saying what I believe.

They are wedded to what the airframe was designed around. To do some other power plant would require new mount, cowling etc. I don't think a lot of kit builders are down for that.

65 to 80% power at what? 2400 RPM? In those 2000 hours you will likely change the oil at least 40 times, IRAN the ignition 4 times at least, likely go through one set or nearly so of cylinders and pistons at a cost of about 4K per jug. 2000 hours on a car at 60 mph is about 120,000 miles. In that time on my car I will have to change the plugs AT 120K. Pistons and cylinders will still be good and change the oil about 12 times. The engine will easily go 250,000 or 4000 hours in airplane terms. You and I both know what is needed here, unleaded fuel, continuous lean burn, FADEC and liquid cooling. There is no reason why we cannot have it except those wedded to "good enough".

The point is this. In 1979 you did not have FADEC. However now you do. It is a 30 year old tech on recips that shows unbelievable reliability. I own 4 cars, one of them as old as 2002, two of them diesels and not one of them has a throttle cable. They are all FADECs. Yet.....no FADEC for our engines. We're still moving mixture knobs and glassy eyed at EGTs.

I'm searching for reliability, efficiency and ease of operation. Our internal combustion engines in aviation compared to other modes are lacking. I can drive my car from from the Jersey shore to Pike's peak and never touch a mixture knob, and it starts in a split second in both places. Not only that, the mixture is always "on the money". If detonation were to start, in a fraction of a second it is stopped. If it looses coolant it "limps" home. Hundreds of miles if needed. It is 6 cylinders and puts out 382 hp. Power to weight ratio? Got it in spades.

The Celara is a joke. Peter Garrison in this month's Flying magazine has a nice piece on how big of a joke. I've seen the "Celara movie" before. Jim Bede would be proud. Let's stick with the doable.

There is no doubt electric is coming. Do you have a million dollars for the new tech? I don't. You're still going to be buying avgas when I am taking a dirt nap. Going back to the doubters, think about this. I just put a new cylinder on my IO-550G. You all know by rote, a very specific break-in to get the rings to properly seat. I had to use mineral oil. Now do you break in a car engine? Do you break in a marine engine? Nope. Indeed manufacturers of marine outboard have the design so refined, you don't do anything to the engine for one year or 100 hours. My new car came with Mobil 1, and the computer ran the car 12,000 miles before it said, "Change oil". No break in, no break in oil, nothing. So if you think that materials and methods are no longer "1930s" consider it the next time you are running mineral oil for 25 hours at 75% power. Third rate show for Ferrari prices.

I had one of those, and month later, it fixed itself. Don't be in a big rush.

The issue is not an automotive conversion although that is what has been done here. The issue is what CAN be done with engine technology in our airplanes that is not being done. We have a thread on this board about an engine failure induced by a spun bearings because the case halves were mis-assembled. Equally so, we see spun bearings from cylinder replacements. Why are we building 1930's engines with split cases? Why don't we have have mono block cases with the cylinders bolted on such that removal of the cylinder does not threaten to compromise the main bearing assembly? We continue to struggle with air cooled engines when the benefits of liquid cooling are well known and engine technology has advanced to create light weight aluminum blocks. Go back to 1963 and GM created an aluminum V-8 that weight about the same as an O-320. This not to mention the increase in power to weight ratios. We see new 6 cylinder engines putting out 400 hp, unheard of 10 years ago. I have not even touched upon ignition, fuel etc. As is pointed out, the Corsair engine can limp home on 4 cylinders, try that with your IO-540. Point is this. There is some very good and established technology and we in aviation are not getting the benefit of it. We continue to struggle with a 19th century ignition system, and early 20th century fuel systems and a design, horizontally opposed air cooled that even VW left 40 years ago.

Compressing the spring extends the shaft and thus the cross way beyond the body which allows you to angle it more to the panel and get the cross through the hole. After that it is done.

I've always said we are paying top line prices for a third rate show. This guy has broke the code. What is needed is volume to amortize the certification costs. https://airfactsjournal.com/2020/11/the-20-an-hour-cessna-172-experiment/?trk_msg=C221B64EFR7KH3AU4TLITUU47C&trk_contact=PI3IG216Q2GFB19F8ETMFI1S8S&trk_sid=Q8OMEEVENKHGD1IT6LPG6TAO50&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=READ+MORE&utm_campaign=A20114C&utm_content=Fast+Five+-+November+28

We had some folks from Tempest come and give a presentation at our EAA meeting. They basically took over the old Autolite facility, to start their company. They are very good folks who care deeply about the quality of their products. They are proud to go up against "Goliath" and build a better product and they have done just that. Their spark plugs have proven better and I buy their filters because I like to support small business, especially in aviation. We need more competition.

I just bit the bullet, bought all the tools and all the Camlocs needed to maintain the airplane. When one is needed I break out the "Camloc" kit and replace. Quick job when you have all the right stuff. Also on my Ovation for the 2700 series around the stacks and the air scoop I went to Mil-Spec 2800 series with a thin washer underneath. Stronger, but the main thing is if you are in the field you can get your fingers around the edge sufficiently too compress the spring and extend the stud. No tool needed. They are not nice and "flush" as the 2700 but they look fine as the cowling is riddled with 4000 series exposed anyway. https://milspecproducts.com/c_spec_2000_series_general_purpose_fasteners__camloc__compatible_