DonMuncy

If you want to be fancy, you can cut grooves in your stick and fill them with JB Weld.

Sorry, I have never seen a visor like that before.

I think that virtually everyone ignores drying the air inside the cylinders. Probably because depending on which valves are open and closed, it would be a REAL job to assure drying all the cylinders all the time. Some folks talk about seepage past the rings, which I think is wishful thinking at best. Perhaps because the crankcase volume is larger than the cylinder volume, it isn't so critical. In any event, we do what we can within some economic reality, and hope we are making a difference.

An open letter to MSers about my very early visors. When I first started looking into making visors (probably before 2018), back before I started keeping any records, I turned out a few sets of them with articulating ball type joints that I made from scratch. They were pretty crappy. If by any chance any of you that got them, are not completely put out with me, I would like to make it right, to you. If you will PM me, I will build you a new set and credit whatever you originally paid me for the worthless ones, against a current set. Don

What you are describing is an engine with potential problems, but none likely to cause a castastropic failure, or full loss of power. I would not be afraid to fly it, but I would hesitate to get a couple of thousand of miles away from home before I had some experience with the engine. (Oil consumption, metal in the filter, etc.)

I hate to belabor the point, especially as it is of little consequence to me how other people operate their engines. But I think the concept is fairly important. Ordinarily, I defer to the recommendations of manufacturers of equipment, as they are usually in the best position to have superior knowledge about the things they make. But sometimes new technology or just superior attention to details, can over-ride that belief. Anyone who has seen the equipment and instrumentation at GAMI would have a hard time ignoring the data they are capable of providing. My point is, that it is wise to critically examine information and recommendations presented to us, as aircraft owners, and consider other ideas and conclusions. Especially if the original information available has been in existence for a long period of time. After all, if we were to blindly follow the instructions we are given, we would still be operating our engines at 50 degrees rich of peak EGT; about the worst possible place for engine longevity.

The best information I have seen (from the highly instrumented data of the guys at GAMI) is that the turbo temperatures are actually lowest at landing. The taxi time and "supposed" cool down time actually warms it back up a bit.

It is really surprising how well ordinary rattle-can paint looks on plastic parts, if you can't find any the color you want.

It is almost certainly at a screw, not a rivet.

I understand about the surviving the experience. I had the hydraulic clutch line on my Elan break so many times, I sometimes think I drove it without using the clutch as much as I did with it. I don't actually know what series mine was. I suspect it was series 1. I bought it in about 1967. After I rolled it into a ball, I had a new frame shipped over from England and rebuilt it.

Thanks for the explanation.

I'm not sure I understand that. Can you say it another way.

I agree on all points. I have also owned a Super 7 and a Europa.

Not by a long shot. I really enjoyed that series. I also really liked the car. Better than any other vehicle I have ever owned. Too bad it was typical british with oil leaks everywhere, Lucas electrics, etc. If I was younger and had made the time, I would have liked to fix it and still be driving it. I have had a couple of Miatas, and they are close, but much heavier than the Elan.

Byron, By receptacle, I assume you mean the part that is riveted into the lower cowling. Are they not completely compatable with the original camlocks?

I had a Lotus Elan with "pop up" headlights that used a rubber bellows that sounds similar to what is being discussed. When one of mine leaked, I used a hot patch like we used to use on inner tubes. It worked for years.

My advice is to buy the newest nicest Mooney you can comfortably afford. The bigger engine is nice, but far from necessary. The turbo is very nice, but not necessary. The J model will do close to what the newest and nicest will do. In fact, a J will perform as well (or perhaps a smidge better) than my K model up to about 8000 ft. Only above that level does the turbo start to shine. But be careful what comfortably will mean to you. I suspect one who has not owned a plane has no real idea about the costs involved.

I posted this before and got little response, so I thought I would try again. At the Mooney Summit, I won a pair of gift certificates from Wisconsin, one for $250 toward an interior refurbishment and one for $250 toward an annual inspection. Being in Texas, if no one is interested, they will go to waste. They are good for their locations at Watertown Municipal Airport, Dodge County airport and Dane County Regional Airport. They expire 9/19/23. Surely they are of some value to someone in that area. If you have any interest. let me know.

In theory, you are absolutely correct. In practice, there are a couple of problems. I think there are some variations in the capacities of tanks due to minor variations in the production. Also it is very hard to establish where "full" is, both when you are looking at published useable fuel and when you are measuring your own. The extrapolation is also a little tough to be super accurate. It is not as liner as we would like. But this is not much of a problem at the lower fuel levels, as it takes a few gallons before it begins to show on the stick But overall, this method will get you awfully close. We all like to know, down to the ounce, exactly how much fuel is there, but in practice, nobody (with good sense) ever flies that close to the limits. I still think the best way is to fly one tank down to where the engine sputters. (And no, there is no real danger here. It is only a little spooky the first time you feel that loss of power. Remember, the early POHs approved the process) Land and add fuel in one or two gallon increments, marking your stick as you go. I also suspect to be super-duper accurate, you would have to have a separate stick for each side.

Take a look at my album, under the heading "album". That picture is not very good. It is labeled "Dryer". It sits on a wheeled platform. The compressor is much much overkill, but it has been running well over 10 years. Let me know if you need any details.

thanks

I thought I saw it tonight, and now I can't find

I have been using the same dehumidifier medium for 10 years, or more likely a lot more than that.

I built a one-way air escape valve to fit over the oil filler neck on my K model.

My understanding is that a Black Max sells for about $600; meaning yours was about $300. That is a very good price for an engine dehumidifier. Mine was not that expensive, but you didn't have to buy parts and assemble yours; and you don't have to cook the pellets every 4 months or so, like I do. Thanks for the information.