A64Pilot

$7 bucks on Amazon, cheaper if you don’t want the hose, my hose was dry rotted

They are metal tanks held into the wing by metal straps, very much like an old car. The fuel lines to the strainer are steel, I don’t think there is any rubber in the fuel selector, but there may be one under the cap where the lever is attached. The original carb float was brass and the original needle and seat are steel, but I think modern floats are plastic of some kind and some needles have neoprene tips as the original steel on steel could leak slowly. Primers can be a source of engine failure / low power as if not closed they can make an engine run stupid rich. Normally the O-ring wears and I think the primer leaks slightly when used. Real easy to change but can be a significant airworthiness issue.

Report I saw said 1172 FPM, that 72 isn’t insignificant, that combined with the fact that the right gear took almost all of the load instead of half if it touched down normally is probably well in excess of ultimate load. Touch down was at 7 deg right roll, so the right took most. The pitch attitude at touchdown was from what I read 1 deg nose up, meaning to me no flare. We can all demean the little CRJ, and maybe one of the old gen Boeings would have shrugged it off, but I think the Pilot takes the blame on this, but the non flying Pilot shares some too in my opinion unless they were raising hell for a go-around and were ignored. They have a vote or are supposed to surely, Military they do anyway. Pilot reduced Ng to 40 ish percent (idle) higher up than called for too so I assume he perceived he was high and or fast. I think he was over 100 ft and the Airline called for 50 I think, the approach was otherwise on speed etc. normal until right at the end from what I read. Turbo- props normally have two idles, ground and flight, flight is higher to help reduce spool lag, but the bigger PT-6’s anyway you can slam from flight idle to full and it’s about three seconds before it comes back, but when it does you had better reduce throttle quickly or you will overtorque and over temp in a hurry, Garrets being single spool engines respond nearly instantly just like a piston does. I have no jet time, but assume they are similar to the PT-6. Smaller PT-6’s respond more quickly than the bigger ones.

Sorry I can’t help you. I’d guess due to the vintage of the aircraft that it’s likely you may be looking at an Owner Produced part, if your unfamiliar a quick search will lay out everything that’s need to produce your own FAA legal part, it’s very straight forward

You keep saying that, but don’t understand what I am saying. I’m saying that there is a range of say 1 to 5 oz weight measured at the trailing edge. If your at one ounce then your biased towards nose heavy, 5 oz and your biased trailing edge heavy. That weight is just numbers, I have no idea what a Mooney’s weight is but strongly suspect it’s different by model based on VNE, but haven’t looked. Not that I’ve seen that many flight controls balance specs, but I’ve never seen one that you weigh the nose, always the trailing edge, so they are all trailing edge heavy The only point is that if you’re towards max trailing edge heavy, it reduces your flutter margin, meaning flutter is more likely than if you’re at the light end of the range “nose heavy”. A catch 22 that I’d expect to see if weight is added aft of the hinge line is that it takes more weight to return the flight control to acceptable limits, the problem is that your only allowed a limited amount of weight that you can add, you may be at max weight and barely in the range. But if your having to change weight, I recommend balancing to bias nose heavy, within limits of course, the reason is as an aircraft ages the flight controls weight changes to bias towards tail heavy from any repairs, paint touch ups or just dirt accumulating over the years. It does that because almost all of the area of the control is aft of the hinge line. I have never seen one’s CG move toward the nose.

Validate the gauge, easiest way I know of is to remove the sender and put it into boiling water, the outside of the sender might have to be grounded to the engine.

It will be immediately apparent upon visual inspection, usually. Never say always. I think rarely a scanning electron microscope is needed to see the beach marks, but that’s above my pay grade. Classic fatigue leaves witness marks called beach marks and they radiate from where the crack started. Not sure why they are called beach marks, maybe because they look like wave marks on a beach, maybe? https://www.quadco.engineering/en/know-how/material-fatigue-how-can-it-be-recognized.htm You find an inclusion prior to failure by NDT, often either eddy current or x-ray if we are talking aluminum, other methods for composites and magnetic steel although eddy current works fine for steels like 4130 etc.

How deep do you want to run a Lyc IO-360? Mine will continue to run smoothly well below the point where it loses a LOT of power, (D single drive mag) at least 75C LOP, although a hotter spark will allow larger electrode gap and that will ignite lean mixtures better. Oh, and the throw away Slicks were decades ago, back then they were cheap, so much so that a new one wasn’t much more than an overhaul, but they ain’t cheap anymore. You overhaul them now I’m told. Nickel is much better than SS

It’s also not necessarily real definitive, the defect must be present at the surface for dye penetrant to discover a crack, then of course the test is only valid for the time the test was done, unless your willing to strip and rest yearly or whatever the interval the experts determine is less than the time between a discoverable crack and failure is. I couldn’t even hazard a guess. A better test would be eddy current as it will find sub surface defects, and I think doesn’t require paint stripping, but don’t quote me on that My SWAG is this prop had an inclusion in it, and that was the defect that the crack propagated from, or possibly if it had an avoid range that the pilot ignored it, in short I hope this was a one in 100,000 kind of thing and won’t effect the series. If it was an inclusion they will find that pretty quick.

Issue I believe is they can’t just take a part off of an old engine and use it, it will have to be overhauled IAW the manufacturers overhaul manual, unless the FAA allows otherwise which I doubt. I did build several crop dusters with customer supplied yellow tagged engines and props, but only because the FAA specifically allowed those two items, a customer could have given me a brand new set of wheels and brakes and I couldn’t have used them.

Believe it or not but a few of us did on long distance cruising sailboats. Reasoning was that God forbid but the weather was so bad that the boat rolled you didn’t want the engine coming loose in the cabin. What could you chain it to in an airplane though? It’s not just the rubber that breaks on an aircraft, it’s the tubular engine mount itself. We did it only on the left side of drag cars if memory serves because torque pulls the L side up.

That to me on a mid time engine is NOT normal, I can buy maybe what Lycoming says is OK on a new overhaul, but a mid time engine in my experience makes essentially no metal in 50 hours. I’ve seen what amounts to a tiny bit of powder so fine it feels like grease on internal filter magnets that is normal. I’m talking like maybe a drop total, which is I guess 1/4 of a CC or less? Just because you have metal now doesn’t mean it was there last time, if it made this much every 50 hours there wouldn’t be any left. So we can’t make any judgement calls on the prior mechanics inspections. I think investigation is in prudent myself, especially if you fly nights or IFR

It is. Sometimes essentially ripping the engine off its mounts. The attached report from memory rendered the aircraft unable to maintain altitude because the engine was mostly ripped loose and hanging down or sideways maybe but whatever it created a large amount of drag. https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/36677 The cause of this prop failure was traced to “reactionless mode” and I think this high profile accident is what caused it to be addressed, essentially reactionless mode is a harmonic that causes extreme stress and therefore blade fatigue, what’s so bad about this mode is when it occurring there is no vibration felt, it’s actually very smooth, hence the name reactionless, but it’s why yiu hear some Pratt four and five bladed aircraft with such high ground idle speeds so high they sound like Garrett’s. I dealt with it by having the MVP-50T flash yellow if you were in the range instead of turning the idle up real high. https://hartzellprop.com/FAA/NE-06-13.pdf

It seems almost every year someone crashes after a door pops open, never understood why. A couple of years ago someone had I think a Cessna Corvalis I think it’s called door pop open, being as it’s one of those cool gull wing doors it tore off of the aircraft, apparently it didn’t take the tail off and they went around and landed. I guess it’s happened more than once, one guy even opened the door. How do you do that face palm emoji? At least he owned up to it. https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/291808 https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/32818-cessna-door-falls-off-lands-in-parking-lot

I bought my Mooney it had an old KT-76A in it, worked but wasn’t a digital display and of course didn’t display the alt I was transmitting. It simply just didn’t match the rest of the radios. A yellow tagged kT-76C was maybe a couple of hundred bucks, slides right in and is plug n play with an A. What I can’t wrap my head around is all these people that spend tens of thousands of bucks on new glass, when their engine is past TBO, sure it may last a little longer but the clocks ticking. I just don’t fly IFR anymore and my dual ILS, with Garmin 430 old King instruments is just what I want, and guess what, I can still buy replacements cheap, and or still have the old King stuff repaired, but bet the much newer 430 if it’s not already but soon won’t be supported anymore.

I think I would roll a piece of say .032 to match any curve, then coming from the inside use structural adhesive to adhere the patch clamping the two together, then once the adhesive had set a little body putty ought to make the repair invisible and a good painter could I believe make it look like it never happened. You could dimple and flush rivet shaving the rivet heads and make it invisible too, but I’m not that good, I had a guy who worked for me that was, I could take a pic of my 140 fuselage where I removed two stupid big venturi’s and he patched those holes and paint covered the patches.

That is the way it is most often done and is the safest as the two pins aren’t “hot” until the external power is plugged in. However for the Thrush as an example the plug is just wired into the battery direct. Probably because it’s easy to keep a charger on the battery thru the Aux power plug, so you may want to check just to see. Easy check, just take a multimeter and see if the pins are hot or not. However I agree for starting you need a big battery to connect, a Golf cart is an excellent start cart, just connect to the correct voltage battery on the cart because they are often between 36V and 48V, Golf cart also makes an excellent tug. As I assume your 12V your car or truck is just fine, I travel with jumper cables that had the clamps removed from one end and the aircraft plug installed so any car or truck could jump me.

No telling, good point though, anything that will dissolve Jet-Glo is a serious solvent. Problem with actual testing is it takes a long time and for metals it takes a lot more than just eye balls, like does it cause Hydrogen embrittlement in steel etc. However I still think that a real issue here is that the stuff that’s in this fuel is likely more damaging to health than the lead it’s meant to replace. Being as how everything in California causes Cancer or at least anytime I buy anything it has a label attesting to that I’m surprised that hasn’t been brought up, but suspect it’s because of the Laser focus on lead must go. On edit, I’m not saying the testing that has been done isn’t without merit, just saying sometimes the damage doesn’t present itself so quickly and sometimes it’s not visible to the naked eye.

No idea how it could happen, cannot imagine in flight, as it’s peeled outside that seems to not indicate something from the outside like an overhead lift punctured it. I’d fly it, but would probably put a piece of tape over it. As we have a tube steel structure I don’t think the thin skin is particularly structural.

I’m not arguing against what your saying, I’m just saying I guess that unfortunately not all Judges are impartial and ones that aren’t can often find in a way that’s not impartial. However I think that a Judge that has an Agenda will find the argument that requiring a major modification be done to burn a fuel harder to overturn, could still happen just I think it’s a more convincing argument. Long way of saying this might just not be the last we hear of it, that more court cases are coming. I know nothing about California’s politics and CARB etc except what I read and hear, but I’m surprised at this ruling, I expected a rubber stamp. I would expect the ones leading the fight to ban lead to have an apoplectic fit and come out strong. I doubt they will stay quiet, but as I don’t live there and have personal experience maybe I’m wrong.

I think the most important part was him or her recognizing that the FAA hasn’t approved the fuel, but allows it if there is a major alteration of the aircraft done. STC by FAA definition is a major and therefore requires an IA and a 337. Things like the opinion of the definition of Commercially available can be undone I think, but I think saying an STC isn’t a major when he FAA say’s it is, is going to be tougher for another Judge to disagree with. There is precedent for fuel STC’s though with the Mogas ones back in the 70’s, but often they did require significant airframe modifications. I keep thinking that surely the G100UL is dead, but the FAA still hasn’t taken action.

My 2c, ask for copies of the logs, very often the guy who wrote the ad didn’t have a clue what they are taking about. It could have all been well done and maybe it wasn’t. Until you get the logs you don’t know. In my opinion don’t worry much about repairs in the logbook, be very wary of those that aren’t. By that I mean have someone who knows what they are doing look for oversized rivets etc that hint at repairs. Since the requirement that you only have to keep logs for one year has been so widely disseminated, and that log book pages aren’t numbered. I know of a couple of pages that were lost when the razor blade cut them out suddenly it’s a “No damage” airplane. They can’t lose a filed 337 though so pay the buck or whatever the CD costs from the FAA.

You can believe what you want, but I can tell you that if the POH stall speed was off by 6 kts, that aircraft would have never been certified. Secondly the part about consistently beating book speeds is more than a little suspect, I guess you believe that too? My older J came from the factory with the upswept tips, they didn’t come out with the MSE

Burn and Learn, seriously? Why are they so hot to “help accelerate a transition to our unleaded future?” Why the hurry? Shouldn’t they instead be all for a slow roll out to ensure safety or extensive third party testing or similar?

It reduces drag by reducing the vortices that are generated by the difference in air pressure from the top and bottom of the wing. AKA induced drag, one way is just from the decreased wing area at the tip, a big ole fat Hersey bar wing has a lot of area at the tip, a sailplane very little. If your producing little lift at the tip, there is little induced drag, at the tip. If I look I can show you pictures of a Thrush crop duster spraying, the spray is similar to smoke in making vortices visible. In level flight there are pretty much no visible vortices, the spray lays down flat in the field, at the end when you pull up if your still spraying you can really see the vortices, this is due of course from increased angle of attack at the whole wing of course but the tips now have pretty significant vortices. The Thrush has a 1.5 degree washout, not a lot but enough so that there is very little lift in a decently high speed cruise, even though it had the big old fat Hersey bar wing. So yes any kind of “fence” that prevents the air under the wing from mixing with the air above the wing will reduce drag, hopefully more than the drag it produces but on an average GA airplane in cruise the drag reduction is pretty much nothing. But an aircraft that flies at high angles of attack in cruise can really benefit from tips reducing drag, reason you see such high tech ones on an airliner but on a GA airplane they are more for marketing (look cool) But you just can’t convince some, look at these things on a Thrush crop duster, my testing showed the did little to nothing, but they do move the center of mass on the wing and the center of pressure so they will change bending moment etc and most likely increase wing fatigue, how much who knows? I’d try to tell people that if the accomplished half of what was claimed I’d fit them on at the factory, they aren’t Patented, nothing stopped me from building them https://www.johnstonaircraft.com/Ag Tip Winglets.htm I have to think if you got a couple of kts out of J model looking tips, EVERY Mooney would have them, these guys remove steps, hide antennas in the airframe and who knows what else for a kt