redbaron1982

I came here to ask about EAA. The only benefit I found in AOPA is fighting against things like ATC privatization, or restricting access to certain airports to GA traffic. How good is EAA lobbying for GA in congress?

To this day, Mr Braly denies that G100UL is any different than MoGas or 100LL in respect to paint.

To Braly's point, as long as the CAF can keep flying, then the fuel is a success. If it can keep the CAF flying, then it's a failure.

Can the battery minder be connected to the APU port without having to turn on Master? My batter charger / minder has a procedure that indicates that master has to be on. It's a paint to have to open up the tail cone access door, remove tha bettery cover, etc, to connect the minder directly to the battery terminals.

Yeah, I do those almost every flight before starting my descent. It always checks out good.

This is the complete flag log: https://apps.savvyaviation.com/flights/10422228 I don't see anything on the EGTs. The stumbles happened right when I start a descent from 10.5k to 9.5k fee, at around 51:33. They were two, a few seconds apart and lasting just an instant. At around 52:23 I turn on the boost pump to see if anything changed, but I turned it back of 5 seconds later.

Mag check on cruise LOP always checked good. The stumble is just a second. I can't even see anything RPM or MAP wise in the engine data.

A little background, I'm chasing a random stumble the engine has while in cruise. I asked Savvy multiple times and they can't figure it out. The most I got was that some they said I was running "too lean" in some occasions. The thing is that this 20s oscillation of .6 or .7 gph makes adjusting the mixture difficult, like I can finish setting the mixture at 8.4gph and 20 seconds later I look and it is at 7.7gph. Or maybe it is at 9.1gph. So my main concern is whether my servo or fuel pump might need overhaul or not.

Hi guys, are these fluctuations normal in FF and FP? As you can see FF and FP correlates, as in everytime there is a drop in FP there is a drop in FF. I don't think this is a sensor issue.

+1 to this. adlog.com is amazing!

Thanks, y'all for the responses and ideas. I think the higest priority is the flying couple approaches with vertical guidance. Also, reading at another post, I think it would be really cool to add GPSS, as it sounds like a great bang for the buck, specially to fly holding patterns. Any recommendation of a good shop in the houston area? I'm based in KSGR.

No changes afterwards, the only thing is that KFC150 altitude hold was not working, but I got that fixed by Bevan and Jake told me that the flight computer passed the bench test after the repair, so everything should be functional from the KC192 point of view. The thing is I have no idea how much to expect for someone to go and work on this small items, is it 5 hours, 20hours, 80 hours? And then, how likely is that they will mess something up and have more issues afterwards.

A full panel upgrade now it's completely out of the question, it would be north of 70k most likely, and is money I rather save for an unexpected big ticket issue. What I have now is old, but is fully functional, so yeah, it would look super cool, reduce workload a bit, but I don't see it worth the investment, even more so if the current avionics is not giving me much headaches.

Hey all, I've been thinking for some time now whether to fix some small avionics issues I have with my airplane. For context, I have a '85 J model, with a KFC 150, GNS 430, KX155, GI275 EIS, and DME. All quite old, except for the EIS. Everything works fine, except it looks like when some of the avionics were installed they were not integrated with the request of the equipment. To be more specific, this is the list of issues I'm referring to: The autopilot (KFC 150) is not picking up the glide slope. Either when doing an ILS or LPV approach. The HSI shows the GS indicator, but the GS mode in the KFC doesnt engage. The KFC 150 was bench tested by Bevan Aviation and it's ok. The GI 275 is not getting info from the GNS 430, so I don't get fuel to destination, etc. does not have an OAT probe, so no % power. no fuel sender information, still using the old analogue gauges. no batt info, neither volts or amps. The DME works only on NAV2, it looks like it is not hooked up to NAV1 (GNS430) The items are sort from highest to lowest priority. My question is, is it worth having a shop open up the panel and making all the required fixes or small modifications? How much should I expect an avionics shop to charge for this? Is this something I could do under an AP supervision, I'm an electronic egineer, so I know the stuff, but I have no experience openning up an airplane panel, and I'm afraid it could be a complete wiring mess, really hard to work on.

I know this reads like sad news, but there is a bright side here that's worth celebrating. You made it to 87, healthy enough to fly, with a lifetime of aviation behind you. Even more impressive, all those years and all that experience haven't dulled your judgment: you recognize that flying less often, especially in IFR, can put you in a place where "just one more push" with weather could end badly. That level of self-awareness is rare and admirable. I hope someday I'm in your position: able to look back on decades of flying and savor every moment, knowing I did it on my own terms and with a clear head. One more positive side to it: now you will be “flying for free” with fellow mooniacs who would gladly cover the gas just to spend a few hours in the cockpit with someone who carries even a fraction of your wisdom.

Oh, now I see, the wheel fwd/aft movement is directly linked to the pucs, so reducing the load on the wheel make it move fwd and allows the pucs to expand. Thanks!

Maybe a stupid question, but how this helps the pucs? The airplane weight is still on the pucs. If any, the only thing you are helping is the tire itself.

I think George already stated that if your tank leak is because your aircraft has an inferior design or was not maintained correctly. Also, if you have any issue with your fuel system is because you have neglected your airplane for many many years. Finally, if your paint gets damaged it's because you don't exercise standard refueling hygiene. Any issue that you have in your airplane after you start using G100UL is due to correlation, not causation. Fancy words to say: it was just coincidence that your tanks started leaking after you switched to G100UL, it would have happened exactly the same if you would've continue with 100LL. I'm not saying that I agree with Mr Braly, I'm just summarizing what he has repeated everywhere, in some cases, as a expert witness in the CEH California trial.

This is George Braly declation, defending the motion to ban 100LL in California. https://drive.google.com/file/d/14JkPLQIAVY-hA24TZQWy0i3UhMost47B/view DECLARATION OF GEORGE W.BRALY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH’S REPLY TO SETTLING DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ENFORCE CONSENT JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO MODIFY CONSENT JUDGMENT Which includes a passage specific about the defective Mooney design (quote from Mr Braly declaration): "Mooney aircraft have a unique and inadequate type of fuel tank construction, as compared to the standards for the certified aircraft industry."

It is important to remember that good old George was advocating for banning 100LL state wide in California. Such a nice guy and advocate of General Aviation he is.

Didn't he go as far as saying that the fuel selector o-ring size defined by the manufacturer is wrong and a smaller one should be used? Like, anything but saying that G100UL has material compatibility issues.

True. Up to this point my thinking was "Hey, Mike Busch doesn't want to get involved in this drama, I respect that". Now I am not so sure. Interviewing Braly without bringing up all the issues with G100UL is almost the same as endorsing G100UL.

What about the Cessna 421 that was totalled by the insurance company after all the damages caused by G100UL? I'm really curious about it. I'm baffled about the ongoing denial by GAMI on all the issues people are having after using G100UL. If GAMI would be more transparent I would be open to using it, but their denial is a safety of flight issue.

Who deemed it un-airworthy? Lycoming? If Lycoming replied "hey, yeah, that was us when doing hardness test back in the day" and it ended up inside your engine, they at that point it was airworthy, so why would Lycoming now, without any additional data, say that's not airworthy?