A64Pilot

I haven’t even looked, but often there is a retainer strip that is riveted and sometimes they are replaced with screws, but I have no idea on a Mooney. My old C-140 it’s all screws, just a few minutes work, so it apparently differs from one make to the other.

As the crack has run it’s course, I’d leave it alone, I believe anything you do other than replacement is going to make it look worse. I assume thin CA (super glue) would seal it, I’ve never tried, MEK is so thin I’d want a syringe or something as an applicator, even one drop is going to run I think. I’d practice on scrap first though. In the mean time maybe a strip of clear tape to stop the whistle?

1 It’s not quite that simple because the higher Octane allows advanced timing, but I agree that fuel consumption would increase significantly. But E85 is way more than 20% cheaper than 100LL, so range loss yes, but at the cost to fill up I’d take it. But I don’t think the compatibility would be the big issue with E 85, it’s it’s affinity for water, water that likely would come out of suspension at higher altitude and lower temps that I think would make it less than ideal as an aviation fuel. The thing is that it seems like some kind of drop in replacement for 100 LL just ain’t happening, everything will have something that makes it less desirable than 100 LL, starting in my opinion with the price. I just don’t believe anything that comes out, if anything does is going to be only a buck a gl more. Maybe an Alaska gl price buck, but not a Fl US gallon price. I just think Monopolies are sort of known for bending you over the table price wise. Look at Pharmaceuticals for instance once they lose the monopoly see what happens to the generic price.

I have no idea, the rest of us like me in my J can run ADI that has a number attached to it of $12K and I think 40 ish lbs None of the options are going to come without drawbacks, but $ 12K and 40 lbs I could stomach, I’d rather keep 100 LL myself though. I think if tied to a lightweight battery the 40 lbs could be reduced some and keep the CG within range if the ADI system were mounted behind the aft baggage compt wall, bigger Mooney’s may be able to simply remove some of the Charlie weights. For $12K I’d like at least variable injection myself, but everything in Aviation costs more than it should. I mean $100K for a big VW engine for example, it’s just the way it is and it’s not going to get better. IF we accept that lead has to go, personally I don’t accept that but I don’t count for squat. It seems we have maybe three possible solutions. 1. A new “Magic” fuel, that so far no one has been able to formulate. Now personally I think it’s possible, but maybe not feasible cost wise. Seems so far every possible candidate “eats” paint and bladders and other fuel system components and my bet is that it’s effect on health is probably worse than 100LL, but again I’m no expert, but if you do some reading many are raising the flag on aeromatics in Auto fuel based on its effect on health. Are they just nuts? Possibly I don’t know 2. A new engine, some think it could be done for less than $100K and or $100K isn’t much, but for me I think I’d go Experimental or something else first. $100K would push me out of flying. I don’t think it can be done for even close to $100K myself. I think it would be much higher. The scale wouldn’t be there as we would be talking a few a month, not hundreds or thousands that it would take for economy of scale to kick in. I think the requirement of a new engine would kill GA as I think adding more than $100K to every airplane out there would first make the majority of the GA fleet essentially worthless, probably boost the Hell out of LSA’s and Rotax would love it though. 3. ADI for those that need it, apparently 20% of the GA fleet and 94UL alone for the 80% of the fleet that doesn’t. They claim Turbo aircraft can also work with ADI, but does that mean continuous injection? I don’t know, maybe? That’s where I think variable injection would help. Of those three things, only ADI exists, the other two are at this time Vaporware. Perhaps that’s what we need to keep being able to get 100 LL, Vaporware. For decades the Major Auto manufacturers convinced the powers that be and by that I mean CARB that EV’s weren’t a viable platform, that Hydrogen is what we need and it’s only a couple of years away. Hydrogen powered Auto’s are and always have been Vaporware, but touting it kept the Auto manufacturers continuing to build ICE cars which is what they wanted of course. I have nothing against ICE cars, I own a few, just saying the strategy worked is all.

I used to maintain fleets of aircraft that had oil analysis taken on pretty much everything at 25 hour intervals, not only when the oil was changed, by fleet I mean 24 to 28 at a time, all identical aircraft flown in the same location, same mission profile, same frequency, same mission length by the same pilots. They were all turbine powered Military helicopters but the point is that even with all of those identicalities and even though there were hundreds of aircraft monitored identically across the fleet for decades there was never any “trigger” point identified that based on oil analysis that you removed a component from service. Even with all those identical profiles there was just too much spread from one component to another to get there, monitoring trends was useful though, for example soon after deploying to the Gulf gearbox metals climbed substantially, which triggered a change to triple nickel oil, which did bring readings back down. Without oil analysis it’s likely that we would have seen high gearbox failure rates before we figured out the need to change oil types. We used 23699 the same oil since at least Vietnam until then https://www.shell.com/business-customers/aviation/aeroshell/aeroshell-turbine-engine-oils/aeroshell-turbine-oil-555.html The one thing that SOAP was good for was not determining component health so much, but for determining the condition of the oil, moreso for ground equipment like trucks etc., for decades the has Army changed oil in all their ground equipment based on SOAP determining it needed it from fuel dilution, TAN / TBN, viscosity or soot loading and saves huge amounts of money doing so. What I learned is that it’s exceedingly rare for oil to actually “break down” before other indicators trip an oil change. By break down I mean viscosity, far more common for the TAN and TBN numbers to cross over first, or on Diesels especially the modern ones to soot load from EGR The Army pretty much invented SOAP with the first lab in Ft. Rucker in the 60’s I think. SOAP is marketed as being an indicator of engine health and everyone therefore wants it to be that, but it’s not very good at that, but they miss the point, what it’s excellent for is validating your oil change interval, determining the health of the oil and arguably if your using the right oil or not. Not that we have much choice in Aviation.

It’s sad and I hate to see it, every Sun we fly to Crystal River for breakfast, and this time of year I usually end up parking out towards the end of the ramp besides this. It’s been there for far longer than the four or five years that I have been flying there. Lately I’ve begun seeing a lot of beat looking large twins, sad paint etc and botched looking N number changes etc. I don’t know what’s going on with that because it can’t be cheap to keep an old 421 for instance flying even if only occasionally.

The reason given to me why Georgia pumped so much money into Rural airports was in the hope to bring in Business. ‘There was some formula, I think if there wasn’t a runway within 50 miles of your little airport and your runway wasn’t at least 5,000 ft, the Government through a grant would pay for your runway to be extended, they also built hangars and new FBO buildings. The theory was that your little town was more likely to get Companies to build there if there was a Biz Jet runway in the town. In my part of the world hunting, particularly Quail hunting is big business, in Camilla for instance when the new T hangars were built the tied down aircraft were given use of the old shade hangars for free, it wasn’t just being nice, it was to have the ramp space for the Biz Jets bringing in hunters, and these wealthy hunters spend big on their hunting trips enriching the local economy. Attached pic is Camilla Ga with the morning deliveries of hunters in their Jets When I was a kid in the 60’s these hunts went for $1,000 a day per hunter. I assume they are likely five times that at least today? If so and there are an average of 20 hunters, then $100K a day for a little rural town is good money for the local area.

Stall warnings are adjustable, often by moving the assembly up and down, sometimes by bending the vane. If yiu bend the vane make sure the switch still clicks when yiu move it. As part of my production test flights I had to adjust them where they would go off 5 to 10 mph prior to stall in the landing configuration. A has been said moving them up increases the speed / decreases the angle of attack they will alert, down lowers it. They are very commonly bent by people walking by and snagging it or a fuel hose etc. If it works on the ground repeatedly, almost certainly it’s just out of adjustment or bent.

Everywhere I have ever lived the towns have airports for the same reason they build roads and bridges etc. it’s not to make money it for public service. It’s very common for small towns to have airports that may not see any air traffic for days, yet the City, County etc keeps them open. I kept my Maule in Camilla Ga. (KCXU), in a brand new T-hangar big enough for my Maule and my C-140. I paid $125 a month for it and electricity was included. Fuel was cheap too. $4.75 right now. City wasn’t making any money off of the airport, can’t at those prices. Closest airport to me now is Umatilla Fl. X23, I don’t know what hangars go for, but I buy my oil there because I can’t find it cheaper anywhere else even online, they have I think four Courtesy cars and fuel right now is $4.65. I’m pretty sure they don’t make any money either, doubt they even cover costs unless the Feds are kicking in a bunch.

Airports generate very little income, in every case I’m aware of they cost, not make money. I’m talking small Rural airports not large Commercial ones. But besides that sometimes it has nothing to do with that, sometimes it’s a developer wants the land and hatches a crooked deal with whoever in the Government can make it happen for them. To give an example it’s been a few years ago but Panama City Fl sold a Marina to a developer for Condo’s, not long after there was a private sale where some of the City Officials could buy Condo’s the sale was not announced and not open to the public. Mayor got the Penthouse for example, he of course sold it soon after. I never heard what he paid for it but assumption is it was a fraction of what he sold it for.

A vernatherm of course works by expanding when hot and closing off the cooler bypass. There is always some oil flow through the cooler. I would bond a thermocouple to the tank part of the cooler and go fly and see what your temp is, it should be somewhat close to the indicated temp. Have you verified your temp indicating system is accurate?

I’m familiar with CARB, it’s why I can’t buy a gas can that doesn’t leak when I use it. I was speaking more toward the killing off of GA airports. We will see what happens in California, they may ban 100LL even without a viable replacement, it won’t affect the Hollywood elite in their oil burners But I don’t think the rest of the US will ban 100LL, just because California does. Not now, last year if California did I could see the Feds doing so, but not now.

In MP isn’t much boost for starters. For instance the 30 PSI in my Motorhome is when added to the 14.7 PSI atmospheric is around 90 inhg in MP. You get roughly 30 in per 15 PSI of course. But secondly assuming it’s like the old Pratt’s like the R-1340 with its Supercharger that had a T/O rating from memory of around 40 something inches it had roughly again from memory a compression ratio of about 6 to 1. That’s why you can prop a 1340 cuin engine. It will run just fine on standard 87 car pump gas and I’m sure lower. Now the 1340 evolved over the years of course as it first flew I think in 1925? So HP and boost I’m sure varied greatly and I’ve not seen a 1340 with ADI which would allow much more boost. The twin row Wasp R-1830 did of course run ADI. The older DB-601 Benz motors in the BF-109 apparently couldn’t make much boost, they didn’t get a HP boost from 100 Octane like the Merlin did. I think the later DB-605 engine could though Germans ran ADI for high boost and Nitrous Oxide for very high altitude I’m pretty sure they carried enough ETH/water for at least 20 min of use. All this is from memory, and my memory may be a little wrong, but I believe ADI was exceedingly common in WWII and it of course significantly increased HP. The US 4360 on T/O burned 3,000 lb per hour without ADI, but 2500 an hour with ADI and made significantly more power in a “wet” takeoff. Again from memory.

There is more to this spring than it merely keeping the gear from unwinding if you will when retracted. If that was all it did then it wouldn’t prevent extension if it was broken, but apparently it does. I think I’d have to see an actuator disassembled for me to understand this spring. I’m thinking it functions as a sort of clutch if you will and if it doesn’t engage then there is no drive. But if it did that then the motor would just spin, but apparently a broken spring locks something up?

I don’t think you can take California as an example for the rest of the Country. In the last 20 years or so Georgia spent tens of millions rejuvenating the little country airports, lengthening runways, new FBO buildings, hangars etc. It was apparently the tobacco settlement money they spent. This was I guess 15 or 20 years ago. Florida in most cases is expanding little airports, keeping free loaner cars etc. Tax free parts and no tax on maintenance labor I think etc. There are probably at least ten Airparks within 50 miles of me. Ocala is the exception, they I believe have instituted landing fees with my belief the intent of keeping the little nuisance nickel and dime aircraft out so they don’t annoy the Biz Jets. But Ocala is I believe an exception, they cater to the horse crowd apparently and those people charter Biz Jets. Having said that I have no idea what’s going on in the Megaopolis’s like Orlando, Miami etc., they may be closing little airports and building Condo’s where they were.

Good point, one I think worth considering. Army we used copper safety wire on the emergency door releases on the OH-58 and UH-1 helicopters, worked fine there.

When you say chattering is it during retraction or extension? I assume retraction? Is this something that can be heard in flight or just during retraction ground tests?

While I don’t have data on UL-94, we all should be able to with ADI. We could run Mogas too engine wise, but I suspect there would be some kind of airframe mod because of the different vapor pressure causing vapor lock. Having said that it’s likely that Mogas may not be today’s Auto fuel, I say that as auto fuel changes significantly by area, Urban Auto fuel is blended to pollute less, and Summer Auto fuel differs significantly from Winter, and of course California has their own Auto fuel, the huge price difference isn’t apparently all taxes. ‘Apparently even E85, isn’t. Seems it can be anything from 51% to 83% ETH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85 As there are so many different fuels plus the fact it may change again in the future it might be difficult to Certify to. Company I worked for wasted a lot of time and money trying to Certify a Turbine to burn Bio-Diesel but couldn’t because Bio-Diesel isn’t really defined, it can be and is many different things both plant and animal fat based for example. But I assume 94UL is made to an ASTM standard? If it really is just 100 LL without the lead it should have the same vapor pressure and there shouldn’t be any compatibility issue. Again I have never even seen 94 UL, so what little I think I know could be wrong. As it sits now from what little data I have I don’t see anything with less risk and could be implemented with less cost and faster than 94UL, and ADI if you need it, a great many won’t. Most of GA carbureted fleet won’t. I think it safe to say that any aircraft that are eligible to burn Mogas could burn 94UL. Might be worth reading https://www.lycoming.com/content/unleaded-fuels-part-1

I thought you were kidding about grinding tires off. Yes it’s very common in racing to shave tires for racing that the rules require DOT tires, it’s done mostly to cut down on tire squirm from deep tread, and if you have a fast car to prevent excessive heat build up. But it’s done on a machine that controls the cutter very precisely and you end up with a tire that’s rounder than it was before being shaved. I’m not sure you cold control a hand grinder that well. Why would you do this? What’s gained?

It is backass wards, but it is very often done. For instance the balance control springs we used in Thrush flight controls looked a lot like screen door springs. When we ordered them they were cut to length and then a section of the wrap bent 90 degrees so you could attach a cable to them. Of course they broke every so often, every spring eventually does and of course they always broke at the bend. They really weren’t a safety of flight issue when they broke

I would assume that they have a significant investment in developing this fuel. I also assume that it’s taken a lot longer for them to begin to generate any revenue from it than they planned for. I don’t think anything nefarious is going on, he’s I’m sure no dummy and smart enough to know that if the fuel caused problems that he would be worse off than he was before, so I have to believe he was confident that it wouldn’t cause problems. Lots of assuming, just I think until there is actual data we should give him the benefit of the doubt

Often the issue is that only one ply rating of tire was used in the drop tests, so therefore it’s the only tire that’s approved. Would a higher rated tire make a difference? Probably, maybe as I’ve witnessed drop tests and even tire pressure can make a big difference. The tire absorbs a surprising amount of energy, too high pressure and presumably a higher ply rating could pass this energy onto the gear and airframe, on the Thrush a tube in the airframe bent, not the gear so it’s not always the gear. Having said that I believe my mains are 8 ply, because the S2R-T660 tail wheel needed a 6.00-6 10 ply and we mistakenly bought a few 8’s but couldn’t use them, so they were free tires for me. I also have them on my C-140 mains. They are AirHawks and fit just fine. My opinion whatever it’s worth is that a higher ply rating in the nose of a Mooney would be fine, my reasoning is the air pressure we run is on the high end of normal. Higher ply tires usually cost more, it’s unlikely they last longer so unless they are free why run them? As far as Retreads, the Airlines run then pretty exclusively, why not run them? As far as not on the nose wheel, why? Airplane tires are different than say truck tires, other than Airliners we just don’t build heat in our tires like trucks do, Trucks don’t run retreads on the steering axle. I think I’d rather have a flat nose wheel than a main myself, flat mains I think often cause damage and may pull hard to one side? I landed a C-210 with a flat nose wheel, it was a complete non issue other than scaring me when the nose came so far down.

Issue as I see it for any Mooney if insured for less than $100K give or take is that if God forbid you gear up, you may well lose the aircraft. Now I’m not sure about the 100K number it’s a guess, but say if you’re insured for 75, I bet you’re getting a check for 75 and them hauling your airplane away on a truck.. Reason is say they could fix it for 65, they will be out less money if they give you 75 and sell the airplane at Auction than if they fixed it for 65. Those are made up numbers because I don’t have real ones, but you get the point. I’m currently 100 but most likely will go to 125 myself just for that reason, it’s simply that things cost more than even a few years ago.

This has me wondering why the FAA hasn’t pulled the STC? I’m not saying the fuel has caused anything, but it would seem that there is enough data to support an investigation, and the most conservative response safety wise would be to halt the sale until an investigation clears it?

What’s your background to make that statement? Mine is being responsible for the care and feeding of 24 AH-64A aircraft in Korea, 3-6 Cav. Our mission was overwater as in repelling a possible seaborne attack from N Korea, as such we often flew over the Yellow Sea which is of course salt water at low level, so we were covered in salt spray, yes we washed the aircraft and flushed engines immediately on return. You won’t I believe ever see a Naval Apache, one was tested decades ago back as far as 1984, reason isn’t it’s capability, it’s because in its design that Hughes Helicopter put zero emphasis on corrosion prevention, they just had no experience in sea borne aircraft, the Magnesium gear boxes were the worst. We spent millions a year due to corrosion on the 3-6 Cav ones and to a lesser extent on the 1/3 Aviation ones stationed at Savannah Ga. Anyway several different preventative compounds were tested and Corrosion-X was easiest to apply, had the least negative effects and worked the best. As much as I believe my Army experience was good, it’s the Navy that literally wrote the book on Corrosion prevention, they have an advantage as their aircraft from the design phase are heavily influenced by corrosion prevention, but having fleets of aircraft tied down on Carriers and regularly soaked by sea water has to be the worst possible case. I believe the US Navy knows more about Corrosion in aircraft materials than anyone, by a large margin. They use Corrosion -X heavily and I’m sure are an important test bed, Corrosion-X is the only product readily available to us Civilians that meets the Navy spec. https://www.corrosionx.com/pages/aviation