dkkim73

Hi All, My plane doesn't have a regular "beacon". Ie. rotating or pulsing (but not blinding) beacon, either red nor white. It has pulsing strobes, Nav, and HID taxi and landing lights. There is a blank cover in the overhead panel labeled "Rotating Beacon", so presumable it was either an option or the panel design was in common with another model. Taught (and current) operating procedure is to turn on the strobes for this function. But it's a bit much on the ground. I'm working on a list of upgrade priorities right now and thinking about adding a beacon (probably to the tail, I would think, though belly is an option). Any thoughts from those who have done so? And am I missing something in the design philosophy of not having it to start with? (the plane otherwise does not spare design thoroughness... there are lots of examples of completeness, pre-wiring, the extensive interior convenience lights, etc... so I figure someone thought this was a good idea to not have a separate beacon). I suppose that regs require the use of Nav lights from sunset to sunrise, so they could serve that function. But I don't usually turn those on until ready to move. And during the day, a beacon would work and be less annoying than strobes to signify "hey this is a live airplane and might start soon". Thoughts? David

Hi Dan, Sorry, I'm slightly confused and the pic is a bit blurry (though seemingly obvious to the more knowledgeable). The forward belly panel edge should be tucked *under* (deep) the the lower engine cowl, correct, so that things flow along the outside? I have to go back and look at my plane. It seems that there is a lip in the picture above, which is lapped/tucked under, but you're saying more should be inserted under? Per other advice (maybe from you) I had them put some stripping at that seem to prevent ingress of TKS fluid. I have been having CO problems, so maybe there's a subtle joining/lapping issue I'm missing. David

I saw what you did there.

Why not? If thin foil works for my head (you all suspected it) why not elsewhere?

I do wonder a bit about ability to control for the "span" of training set. Do you mean that the candidate data is from a larger (unsampled) set of data than is represented in the set used for training? So it looks weird simpler because it hasn't been seen before, rather than that it is representative of the Known-Proven-Bad examples. Thanks, guys, for all the tips. I went by after work and looked at it. The valves looked fine, very even signature on the exhaust valve. Good, since it was a new cylinder. FWIW to others, no need to pull any plumbing for the bottom plug on cyl #1, straight shot with an extension and spark plug socket. I did use an offset (kind of a funny crows-foot socket I got from another boarder at my last FBO) to torque the wire cap, but you could also probably wiggle in a few wrenches, too...

Thank you, guys for the quick response. I kind of remember the plumbing getting in the way of *some* of the bottom plugs, just can't recall which positions. I suppose an angle-extension might solve that in some cases. So I was wondering if anyone recalled if this one was a clear shot. Interestingly, I did go via the top plugs last time and found it actually harder to get good pics than the bottom which I had used before...

Hi Acclaim people, My Savvy report flagged cylinder #1 as increased risk of a valve issue. It's not very old, installed new less than 50 hrs ago but who knows. Runs fine (no EGT variance other than the signal Savvy's DNN's apparently detect) and that was only based on a few flights. Have had false alarms before but better safe than sorry... I've been making a point of borescoping all cylinders when the plane is having engine work done (e.g. oil change, have the mechanics leave things open for 1-2 hrs when I swing by and take detailed pictures). But looking in this case to just take a quick look at #1 before the next oil change in about 10 hrs. So... does anyone recall offhand if I can scope #1 (Right-side aft-most cylinder IIRC) without pulling the intercooler plumbing? I know some cylinders you can, some you can't, but my memory is a bit fuzzy on which. Just planning how much of an operation it is going to be... Thanks, David @kortopates in case he also knows

I think @Schllc was selling a prop a little while ago.

I think H. Ross Perot said it best, though not referring to this exact weather map, "you're going to hear a gigantic sucking sound..."

Reiff XP here as well. Great system. I find it works really well the night before. No guessing, and the excess heat does no harm. It's been great on those *really* cold Northern days.

I agree with this 100%. The last gauge I installed with this method was a devil to remove (see photo of the Vlad Tepes earlier in the thread). The other (factory?) gauges popped right out, one with flight and the other with tape... So I went with the "lots of silicone" method earlier today.

Next steps in the process. Got some silicone/caulk remover from Ace (a goo-gone variant, I also thought about MEK), cleaned the pockets, then with isopropyl alcohol. Made masking tape masks with cut-outs at home (laid up on zip-lock bags), also masked the dial faces, and then laid them up with silicone in the hangar. Given my understanding that oxygen starts the cure, I did a thin coat on both surfaces first, then filled the space from the middle (to prevent air pockets). Then I inserted the capsules... It took a suprising amount of force to expel the extra silicone.

Doh, of course both engines would have been shut down.

Well I guess it's ragsf15e and not rollerf15e, so you got a pass...

Wait... The -E doesn't have regular pedal brakes in the rear?