Ryan ORL

I have both but I keep my G3X default (and on my iPad in ForeFlight) to showing SXM always. I almost never look at the ADS-B WX in my own airplane. (But I use it often in aircraft that I instruct in) SXM weather is just better. More detail, further out, faster refresh, etc. Now, maybe that isn't worth it for the type of flying you do, but it depends. But, as a Central Florida pilot who is always contending with thunderstorms, one feature of SXM that I find absolutely crucial is the ability to look at both Composite and Base Reflectivity. ADS-B does not offer Base Reflectivity, but that is the picture that shows you better where the really nasty stuff is. I don't particularly care about precip falling up in the flight levels. Particularly after the thunderstorms have begun to dissipate, the Base vs. Composite picture can tell two very different stories. I also appreciate that SXM has the storm cell attributes, etc. It has a few nice little features like that.

Mike and GeeBee, that theory sounds very plausible to me! Will definitely report back what happens w/ the new condenser. I suspect you're right.

Going to try that and see what happens, thanks everyone!

I don't know the exact mechanism but the logic goes something like this... (Mike Busch described this calculation in general terms on a podcast once, but it basically just follows logically): First, the engine monitor has to decide whether the engine is ROP or LOP. This can probably be pretty easily approximated just from looking at whether the fuel flow is in the plausible range (given those tables) for "best power mixture". Anything less than a particular fuel flow for a given MP/RPM combo can be assumed to be LOP. If ROP - Excess fuel, air (MP) is the limiting factor. % power is given by MP/RPM table lookup. Fuel flow has little measurable impact on horsepower, probably mostly disregarded. If LOP - Excess air, fuel flow is the limiting factor. % power is computed by fuel flow and RPM only, probably using some figures from the BSFC curve.

So this is a bit of a strange problem. Starting a few months ago, I started noticing significantly diminished comms reception, and a loud rapid clicking on the comms. Some brief debugging revealed that it wasn't really comms reception at all, but rather the loud clicking noise was playing hell with the GTN auto-squelch and the problem seemed to be slowly getting worse. Some further troubleshooting revealed that the problem was only evident on the RIGHT magneto, i.e. the clicking noise disappeared entirely when running only on the LEFT magneto, and the clicking was certainly RPM dependent. It was easy enough to break squelch on COM1 and just listen to the click disappear and reappear when switching the mags. My local shop started debugging this, first checking for loose grounds (etc) and checking the magneto harness for pinching, chafing, or arcing. They found one slightly loose shield and corrected that. They did some kind of high voltage test on the harness (~110 hours old, new at my recent engine overhaul) and found no problems. There was also nothing visually obviously wrong with the harness or leads. So I did a bit of further debugging with a portable radio. The clicking was actually audible on the portable comm radio with all my aircraft electrical systems entirely turned off, in other words it was most definitely arcing somewhere, and our assumption was it was inside the magneto. Sure enough, the shop tested the condenser and found it was a bit out of spec, and they put in a known-good spare that they had while we ordered a new one and waited for delivery. That cured the clicking entirely. Comms totally quiet on either mag. Hooray! As an engineer myself I also wanted to understand what went wrong... so fortunately this also entirely made sense... a bad condenser would lead to the points arcing, case closed, I thought. The new condenser is due to arrive this week, so I am still flying on the 'spare' one. I had around 5-6 trouble-free flying hours on it. But on Saturday when I went to fly the airplane... the clicking was back! Now, we haven't had a chance to dig into this yet... we're of course going to install the new condenser, but my concern is that either I am just enormously unlucky, or something else is killing the condenser and the new one will just fail again. So does anyone have any theories on what the hell might be going on inside this magneto? The mag itself is relatively recent... 110 hours also, from the overhaul, it was an overhaul unit from Quality Aircraft Accessories. At this point I suspect there must be some other internal fault there... I am inclined to just send the whole thing out for overhaul or even try to get an exchange unit. I am honestly tired of chasing the issue. Could it also be something with my plugs on that side? I run all Tempest Fine Wires that have maybe a few hundred hours on them.

Certified Engines Unlimited in South Florida. $1500 expedite fee. To be fair they only promise 8 weeks for that but they got it done in 4.

Base IO-360-A3B6 OH cost (March 2024) was $40k plus or minus $1-2k (based on at least 8 shops I got quotes from). That assumes reusing basically everything and OH’d cylinders. Standard turnaround time 14-18 weeks plus or minus. I opted for a new camshaft and new (PMA) cylinders, plus freight and a couple minor extras. $48k for the engine shop altogether. Paid to expedite and got it in 4 weeks. I spent $14k on the rest… removing and reinstalling the engine, new everything (mounts, hoses, etc), overhauling my governor, etc etc etc.

What even is the point of the debate on who is enforcing the STC? It's obvious that it's nobody... Who is enforcing that you aren't doing all your own maintenance without an A&P? Who is enforcing that you don't install unapproved minor mods? Who is enforcing that you are actually current? Who is even enforcing that you have a pilot certificate? In 20 years of flying I have never been ramp checked by an FAA inspector. The only person who has even looked at my pilot certificate is US Customs when coming back from Canada/Bahamas. So if I was only flying domestically I likely would still not be asked. Obviously the vast majority of aviation is on the honor system. STCs, maintenance paperwork, currency records, etc.

Because you were quite transparently implying that I am some kind of shill for GAMI or G100UL. Even now-- "the script", as if I am not capable of independent thought.

I have never met or communicated with George in any way and frankly the implication is insulting. Why can't other companies make a good blend? You would need to ask them. The fact, however, is that these other companies aren't holding these things under wraps... there have been public statements on their composition and the likely limitations. These are well along the path towards certification. Whether or not it may be possible to create a 100UL blend that has no drawbacks and the exact same (or better) performance characteristics as 100LL, the fact is that nobody has done so and there is nothing like this currently in the pipeline anywhere in the world.

There are only a handful of companies working on 100UL fuels and, as far as we can tell from their public statements, the formulations they are targeting involve significant compromises on detonation margins such that modifications to engines and in-flight procedures will be required. Maybe someone comes out of left field with a new as-yet-unannounced candidate fuel (probably unlikely because these take a long time to develop), but for now the situation, based on public statements and evidence, seems to be: G100UL - Potential (or actual) materials compatibility issues with sealants and o-rings, but superior-to-100LL detonation margins Swift 100R and Lyondell/VP UL100E - Maybe (??) better materials compatibility (but with potentially ethanol-related complications) but significantly-inferior-to-100LL detonation margins I think George's point, which is fair, is that if we're talking about unleaded 100LL replacement fuels, your choice is those two buckets. There aren't any magic miracle fuels coming. So which basket of complications would you rather have? Personally, I can't buy any of these fuels in my area and I'd rather not be an early adopter anyway. But if 100LL does eventually get banned (which many feel is inevitable), I know which set of complications I would rather deal with, and it is not remotely a tough call.

It is not just about glide ratio, it is also about glide speed, which in our airplanes is quite a bit higher than a Skyhawk, Cub, etc. A very high glide speed makes your turning circle much larger, increasing the difficulty of the maneuver.

Per the Instrument ACS, DPEs are supposed to be testing on autopilot usage for aircraft that have one installed. "To assist in management of the aircraft during the practical test, the applicant is expected to demonstrate automation management skills by utilizing installed equipment such as autopilot, avionics and systems displays, and/or a flight management system (FMS). The evaluator is expected to test the applicant’s knowledge of the systems that are installed and operative during both the oral and flight portions of the practical test. If the applicant has trained using a class portable EFB to display charts and data, and wishes to use the EFB during the practical test, the applicant is expected to demonstrate appropriate knowledge, risk management, and skill." If you have an autopilot installed, you should expect a DPE on an instrument checkride to require you to demonstrate its use on at least one approach and if you struggle with it or display a lack of understanding on it, that is valid grounds for a bust. (Notice of Disapproval)

It would be (and is) just like the Bonanza. There are practically no scenarios where a turnback is workable in a Mooney, unless you happen to already be on a crosswind before the failure occurs, and there is an intersecting runway available. (Or similar) The issue is the very high best glide speed. Mooneys do have a good glide ratio, but do so at a relatively high speed, which causes the turning circle to be quite large. Conversely, I still conduct flight training in 172s semi-regularly, and I demonstrate what does and doesn't work for turnbacks in that airplane. With a 65kt (and practically even lower at typical weights) glide speed, turning back from 600 AGL is fairly easy, and often even results in being high.

In the referenced FAA Approved Model List (AML), which you did not attach here.