DonMuncy

The shade itself is a smoke colored plexiglass (It is possible it is Lexan, but I don't think so). I got it from a local plastic distributor here in Dallas. I'll be glad to get as specific as you like. I, too, have LASAR visors and one cracked. I got the material, made a template and turned me out a couple. I don't remember how much it cost, but it was probably under $15. If your source is too expensive, I can get it here and turn out one (or whatever you need) for the cost of the material and shipping.

When I finish with the side mount ones, I will try to work on some for the center post mount. One of the nice things about mine (and LASAR's and Rosens), is that you can swing them around to shade the side windows. Designing a center mount one that would do that is pretty problematic, without making them way too complex. Comments and suggestions welcome.

Does your B have the side mounts. I thought the earlier models mounted them on the center post. But I don't know which ones did and didn't.

Sorry for veering off topic. I have only been concerned about water in the fuel.

I know there have been recent threads on visors, but wanted input on mine. Since Rosens are so expensive and LASAR seems like they are not going to have any soon, I am attempting to develop some that may be made available if feasible. Attached are photos of my "proof of concept" model. This one is for the models which have the side mounting attachment. How much interest is there on MS if I can produce them. How much would you be willing to pay for a set. I do not anticipate going to the effort and cost of an STC, but it seems clear to me that installing/changing visors is a minor modification with only an A&P sign-off or elf installation. They are a little labor intensive to build, but I think I could justify a limited number in the .1 AMU range if anyone has an interest.

I have an oil catch container I slide under the center gascolator and pull the ring. I can then look at the gas and make sure no water is there. My catch pan has a pour nozzle on it where I could recapture the fuel for my tug, but I usually just let it evaporate. Probably not any better for the atmosphere than pouring it on the ground.

I have always looked at extended warranties the same as other insurance. In my view, you only insure what you can't (somewhat) afford to replace. I can insure things myself and keep the money (on average) that the insurance company would have made. Unless I can't afford to. If my house burns, I can't readily pay the $x00,000 to build another one. If I total my plane, I would have to hurt some to eat the $100,000 for another. So I insure them. If I crater an engine, I could come up with the money to rebuild it. So I insure my house and plane, but not my engine. Now liability insurance; that's a whole different thing.

Not being critical, but why would you prefer the solid rivet. Seems to me that the solid ones look a little neater (if in an exposed place), easier to replace if necessary, certainly cheaper per rivet, but a lot more trouble to install. Although I have never bucked a rivet on a plane. I did a couple in a leather harness arrangement by peening them on a metal surface with a ball peen hammer.

In my opinion, yes. It is close in to town and has most anything you need

Everything Carusoam said.

I liked the XM weather best, but I didn't like paying for it.

What is the thinking on cherry max rivets vs bucked rivets. It would seem that on the outer surface of a plane, you would want the smoothness of regular rivets, but I wonder about structural strength of the two.

I saw a Cirrus in a salvage yard which had deployed the chute. The straps suspending the plane are apparently built into the composite structure of the cabin, and destroyed the outer layer of the cabin. I have a hard time seeing how the plane would not be a total loss, but I am also not knowledgeable about repairing structural glass.

A reasonably competent hangar elf can order a repair kit, a bottle of fluid and a device used in filling the compass from Aircraft Spruce, and get it going again.

You're just trying to get in trouble again

I don't know whether it is luck or not, and I don't have a lot of experience with other combinations, but my K model is substantially quieter and smoother with the MT three blade, as opposed to the McCauley 2 blade. I would buy it again on that basis, without considering the shorter take-off, better climb and lighter weight on the nose. I have not noticed any decrease in cruise speed, but I admit I do not keep up with that very closely.

When you talk about mass up front, you have to consider the material. My new composite/wood, MT three blade is a lot lighter than my old McCauley 2 blade aluminum prop.

Has anyone here had a personal experience of O2 failure; and specifically, does one recognize the symptoms such that they could/would use their emergency O2. I worry that should mine fail (even though I don't fly at those extreme levels) I would ignorantly go into a euphoric state and crash with an unused emergency source.

Does anyone know which mags have the shorting bar and which don't.

I, too, am on the fence about allowing a search. Generally I feel like I have nothing to hide and support authorities trying to deter criminal activity. On the other hand, if they stumbled onto something which I had not even considered a problem, and I wound up with a problem, I would never stop kicking myself for allowing a search that I could have easily and legally refused.

Because they do business in the same town, you assume AA may be crooked? I know you included an "if", but someone with no knowledge reading this might see that as a negative to AA. Read the threads about All American and you will see they are not at all like the broker you dealt with.

I'm a K owner and quite pleased with my plane. However, I recognize the reality of K ownership. You read about the extra speed of the K, which is factual if you keep it flying at high altitudes. Up to about 8,000 ft, the J is at least as fast. Unless you fly a lot of long flights, you will have trouble justifying a K strictly on speed. On hamburger runs, I seldom spend very much time at levels where the K shines. Even when you climb that high, you still have to account for the time in climb. Couple this with the extra fuel cost when at or below 8 or so, and the K becomes harder to justify. All that being said, if you do fly longer legs, it doesn't take long to appreciate the advantages of the turbo. Going from Dallas to either coast will almost invariably involve some weather. I routinely fly around 13,000 to 15,000, and it is really nice to be able to see the buildups and be able to maneuver around them. And if you need to climb to avoid some, it is a non event. If you ever need to fly out of high altitude airports, the turbo removes a lot of the worry. I hardly even consider density altitude when decision making. Can one justify a K on speed or economy; probably not. But I am willing to accept the penalty for the advantages on longer legs.

The thinking has changed. Perhaps the engine manufacturers didn't worry about long engine life as most people do now. Or perhaps the metallurgy has changed. But the modern thinking is that CHTs should be kept below 400df.

I designed and built my own.

These are vague generalities, but basically true. The insurance will not pay for a failed engine, as that does not fir the definition of an accident. But they will pay for the damage resulting for the impact with the ground. A gear up is an accident and they will pay for that. If you do something stupid and damage your plane, they pay. If you do something intentionally and damage your plane, they don't pay. But even very stupid is not intentional. On a airplane insurance policy, unlike a car policy, the "agreed" value is the limit they will pay. If the damage reaches some percentage of the agreed value (the insurance company picks that number), they will declare it totaled and pay the agreed amount. The salvage becomes theirs and they can recoup some of the money they paid.