PTK

Shot at 4K at 30 fps but youtube downgraded it to 1080P I think. It was a bit hazy today. Camera is mounted in hole tie down ring threads into. I'll have to fine tune the angles a little bit to get less of the plane in the view.

Cody, thank you for sharing your expertise. You're an asset to MS. The prop is probably one of those things that's not discussed much around here. Certainly not as much as avionics and engines. I do have a question regarding the oil filled McCauley in my J. You mention that there's a quart of oil in it. How many times should it be cycled in order to completely flush and freshen up the oil to be sure it doesn't get stagnant over time? I always wonder about that every time I cycle the prop. I typically cycle it three times. Is this enough? Does the oil circulate much on its own while in operation maintaing RPM in flight?

I came across an excellent article on how helpful it can be to have a plan, including a departure alternate, in an IFR departure. The author makes the very valid point on how a plan on "what to do now" greatly reduces the stress of last minute decision making and guesswork. West, Jeff Van. "Expecting Immediate Failure." Plane & Pilot, Sept. 2017, pp. 30-33.

Here's what Lycoming recommends... https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/Recommendations to Avoid Valve Sticking.pdf

Who manufactures the Lycoming OEM ones?

They have done a good safety marketing job. However, I think the effect has been that it oversimplifies flying. In the sense that an average pilot who bought into the "safety" marketing of an airplane, that is prone to loss of control, is a recipe for disaster. Perceived safety from systems such as CAPS don't change the outcome much. Perception is very different from reality. This is the conclusion I draw from the statistics.

Between 2001 and May 2014, 147 US-registered Cirrus SR22 aircraft crashed, resulting in 122 fatalities. Source: NTSB

For clarification purposes, are these OEM Lycoming or PMA parts?

Although analog, a well functioning KFC200 is a very good and solid autopilot. It's so good that King programed the digital KAP/KFC150 based on the performance of the KFC200.

If still standing you may sit now!

The KAP/KFC150 are digital flight control systems. In fact, they are among the first digital autopilots for certified airplanes. Digital circuits count pulses of electricity in contrast to analog which measure current. Therefore digital are very precise and reproducible. Analog are not. You can buy corn by the dozen or by the pound. A dozen ears of corn is always 12 count. But if you want a dozen by the pound you will not always get the exactly 12. (Now... I do buy silver queen jersey corn at the farm by the dozen and get 14...but I digress!! ) Digital systems can perform math very precisely and reproducibly and store information in microchips and memory chips. They can be programed very easily to peform different functions. They can be programmed to monitor themselves and check their math! Which is what the test does in the beginning of each flight. My point is let's not be so fast to rip out an autopilot for another without knowing what we have. I sense that some people may not know what they have and jump on a passing bandwagon. I agree a new Garmin autopilot is perfectly appropriate for some airplanes that don't have one or have an analog one. However, I'm not so sure I agree that there is benefit to take out a digital one for another. Remove the analog vacuum attitude and give the digital autopilot a digital AHRS for its attitude reference instead! It's a no brainer!

No.

It accomplishes several key things: • enables removal of vacuum system • all inclusive with no need for extra boxes • keep your existing autopilot. Doesn't force you to remove a perfectly capable autopilot only to turn around and sell you another one! • does not lock you down in the Garmin ecosystem

What nd filter are you using? What number?

According to their presentation at Airventure it's supposed to start shipping next month.

Unfortunately the G5 AI will not provide attitude reference for attitude based autopilots such as the KFC150 for example. That's a show stopper for many because it does not address the vacuum dependency. It doesn't enable one to remove the vacuum system without losing the autopilot. Thankfully this does... http://www.bendixking.com/V4/KI-300

The title of your thread, "TFR/FRZ violation permitted" is misleading and plain incorrect. It is not a violation.

Thank you all for your helpful input. I have narrowed my choices to a few including Gopro and Virb. I'm leaning towards the Virb. I like the g-metrix data it collects and the very user friendly and versatile editing software it comes with. I also like the video quality. It lacks image stabilization in 4k but I don't know how important that is.

Contemplating to get an action cam to use with the Mooney and need some advice and opinions on which one to buy. Pros and cons, best image quality, useful features for our use, best battery life, best bang for the buck, etc etc.

On mine the clock gets its keep alive power directly from the battery. There is a small fuse very near the battery that controls it. If that fuse is blown the clock will not stay alive.

And that's precisely what King is doing!

There are no King autopilot woes! I love my KFC150 and I don't like to be told to remove it. I will not do that. All I want to remove is the vacuum dependancy. Nothing more and nothing less. I suspect there's a large market segment who feels the same way. To ignore it was not the smartest decision Garmin made. Or the rest for them for that matter. BK is the only one who sees this apparently.

It's funny that everyone has something to say and is all over BK with their delaying the release of the KI300, yet no one is saying anything about Garmin not giving us attitude reference in their G5 or anybody else for that matter. BK simply decided to give us more features in the KI300 so they changed it and plan to deliver it next month. That's good thing. What is Garmin doing? Forcing is to buy more than we need?!

Check to see what your POH says about oil quantity for extended flight. Starting extended flight with 6 quarts sounds low. I know my POH says 8 qts for extended flight.

Look. The seller knows the airplane he is selling. Or should know. And if he doesn't know he needs to find out before he decides to sell. He can't place restrictions on the buyer because he is unsure of what he is selling or is unwilling or lazy to find out. Or knows something and doesn't want buyer to find out! It's that simple. It's unreasonable to expect the buyer to be concerned if the airplane is going to be grounded or not as a result of an inspection or PPI! That's the seller's problem. If it gets grounded so be it. The seller should've known. It's comical when I hear people say things like "the buyer should have skin in the game!" What skin? The buyer is holding the money and has multiple airplanes to choose from. The seller has one airplane to sell. He needs to bend over backwards and convince the buyer why he should buy his airplane. Not put up drama and waste the buyer's time. The buyer does not know the airplane. He needs to find out in detail what he is considering buying. When the buyer is serious enough to place a deposit he is telling the seller that "...I will buy the airplane you are selling when certain conditions are met. When those conditions are not met I will not buy it." He shows interest and is willing to pay his mechanic to give him an objective opinion. He is also going above and beyond by paying the fuel expense for the buyer to bring it to seller's mechanic. That's plenty of skin and there's nothing more the buyer should do. It's also comical when I hear things like the buyer needs to pay seller's expenses above and beyond fuel. This type of seller is dreaming! If the seller is serious and ethical he would not have these unrealistic expectations. The problem arises when unscrupulous sellers try to pull a quick one over naive buyers. We have plenty of examples of that unfortunately.