danb35

Well, the annual took quite a bit longer than I'd expected. I decided to replace the InterAv regulator and overvoltage relay with the PlanePower regulator, following PlanePower's installation instructions. On the test/break-in flight last week, voltage was rock steady irrespective of system load. I'm going to call this one fixed.

N74795, as N601RX (how about some names?) points out, the Plane Power regulator (which includes OV protection) is about the same price as either the InterAv regulator or the OV relay (one is $160, the other is $200, while the Plane Power unit is $185). The OV relay is not user- or field-serviceable--it's completely potted in epoxy. I haven't checked out the regulator yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same. Therefore, neither of those parts can be fixed; the defective part must be replaced. I'm not interested in proactively replacing parts that haven't failed and don't give any indication of failing, simply because there's something "better" available--this is why I don't intend to replace the entire setup with the PlanePower alternator conversion at this time. However, it seems very likely that either the regulator or the OV relay (currently the regulator seems like the more likely culprit) is defective and must be replaced. If I have to replace it, is it better to replace with the same InterAv unit, or to use PlanePower instead? I don't have personal experience with PlanePower, but everything I've read about their products is good. I like that they integrate OV protection into their regulator. I'm not committed to PP, but I'm leaning strongly that way.

If wired per the InterAv instructions (which my plane seems to be), there wouldn't be any way to do a crowbar, since there's no field breaker. The 5-amp pullable breaker that's mounted in my panel goes to the input of the OV relay; it isn't in the field line. Tested the OV relay on the bench today, and it seems to be fine. The resistance between field in and field out sits at 0.2 ohms until the input voltage reaches 16.5 V DC, whereupon the field terminals open. To restore the field circuit, I need to remove power entirely from the device. I haven't yet tried heating it, but I have left it at 15.5V for about an hour with no change. This seems to rule out the OV relay as the culprit. My new hypothesis is that the voltage regulator is allowing a voltage overshoot which is being caught by the OV relay. I have an idea of how to test this as well, but it involves running the engine, which is missing a cylinder at the moment.

N601RX, that makes perfect sense, and I have a bench power supply that should do the job just fine. Might even try heating it a bit with a hair dryer to see if that makes a difference.

Thanks for all the suggestions. I recognize that the Plane Power alternator is a better unit, and when my current alternator is beyond economic repair I intend to install one. I had the current unit IRAN'd about 18 months ago, less than 100 hours ago. The brushes and bearings were replaced. Does anybody have a copy of the InterAv troubleshooting guide, or a suggestion as to how to either confirm or rule out the OV relay as the problem?

I've seen several references to a troubleshooting guide that InterAv is said to have had available. Unfortunately, they're out of business, and although QAA has picked up the product line, I don't see that guide on their web site anywhere. Would anyone happen to have a copy they could share? Here's the issue I'm trying to resolve. Last week when preparing to take the runway for takeoff, I turned on the landing light, whereupon my low voltage warning came on. I pulled and reset the field breaker, and voltage returned to normal (~14.1 volts). Once airborne, the low voltage light came on again. Intending to reset the field breaker again, I pulled it. When I did so, the voltage rose to ~14.5 volts. When I reset the breaker, the voltage dropped slowly, eventually dropping below 13 volts. When I pulled the breaker again, the voltage immediately rose to above 14 volts (but under 15). Given the fact that the alternator is clearly charging while the breaker is pulled, it doesn't seem likely that what I'm calling the field breaker is, in fact, the field breaker. It's a 5-amp pullable breaker in the RH panel, placarded with instructions to pull and restore it in the event of a overvoltage trip. I've since located InterAv's installation instructions, and from the wiring diagram in those instructions, the 5-amp breaker in the panel isn't for the field at all--it's for their overvoltage protection relay. The fact that pulling the breaker lets the alternator charge as normal suggests to me that the relay is defective, but I'd like to be more certain before replacing $200 parts (in which case I'd likely replace it and the regulator with a PlanePower unit).

Don't use their ancient software; use my gadget instead (some assembly required): http://interociter-enterprises.com/Interociter_Enterprises/Downloader.html Unfortunately, I don't have any experience with Win8 to directly answer your question.

I've also been pleased with RDU the couple of times I've been in there, using TACAir both times. Once was a weather diversion, and they were able to set me up with a hotel and hangar the plane with minimal hassle and reasonable cost. I haven't had occasion to fly GA into RDU very often, but it's worked well when I've been there.

Obvious troll is obvious.

There is no legal or regulatory requirement to carry FARs onboard, nor charts, with a few very limited exceptions (certain airspace around LAX, for example). There's consequently no requirement for backups or anything else. See http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/faq/#q8b for the FAA's answer. Of course, it's strongly encouraged, and if your lack of charts results in other violations, you'll probably be violated under 91.103 as well, but there's no specific requirement to have the charts.

What Jamie said. For Part 91, at least, there is no such thing as a "legal" briefing. A record of having gotten a weather briefing might look good in the accident report, though.

There are two shops I know of that specialize in Mooney tanks: Weep No More in Willman, MN; and Wet Wingologists somewhere in FL. Two other MSCs seem to do regular work on them, Advanced in Oregon and Midwest Mooney in IL. Don Maxwell does patches, but I don't believe he does complete re-seals. I had my tanks resealed by Paul Beck at Weep No More, and was very happy with the communication and service, but I can't speak to longevity as it was just done earlier this year. However, Paul's 5-year warranty includes his travel to your location to fix issues, so it would appear he's quite confident in his work. With the singular exception of one member here, everything I've seen or heard about Paul's work has been top notch. I've heard generally good things about Wet Wingologists as well, but I felt more comfortable with Paul's mainly chemical removal process than with their mainly mechanical scraping process. OTOH, they have a 7-year warranty. Midwest Mooney uses a polyurethane sealant instead of the polysulfide material called out by the factory. They claim additional benefits for their material; I haven't seen anything indicating whether their stuff is good or bad.

While this may be true in your state, it isn't correct as a general proposition. And even if you hide the purchase in an out-of-state corp or LLC, the tax is still legally due. Depending on the state, there may be property taxes as well.

I don't unless/until I have to go around. Otherwise, I just keep my cruise mixture setting until shutdown, +/- giving a little more gas if the engine stumbles (which, if it happens at all, is usually during taxi). Don't touch the prop either. Normal descent for me is to just trim nose down to maintain ~ 500 FPM descent, and pull back on the throttle about 2000' above pattern altitude.

On logs, the answer is simple: Don't carry them on board. Then, if you're ramp checked, and if the inspector asks for them, you can truthfully say you don't have them with you. If he still wants to see them, you can produce them (or selected portions of them, like your last flight review and last annual) at an agreeable time in the future. No need to argue that you don't want to produce them now even though you have them now, and no need to lie to the inspector (which is, as mentioned a few times already, a federal felony). There's rarely a good reason to carry either aircraft or pilot logs (unless you're a student pilot), and plenty of reasons not to.

Well, yes, they can demand (or, perhaps, "request") them at the time of the ramp check--and if you do have them, good luck arguing that presenting them immediately is not reasonable. However, you're not required to carry them with you, and obviously you can't produce them immediately if you don't have them with you. To Byron's point, it's definitely true that only certain records need to be kept, both for the pilot and the aircraft. If, in fact, you only keep the minimum required records, those are all you can produce when they ask for them. If, however, you're like most of us and keep detailed maintenance records, are you going to go back to the inspector and say "this is all I'm required to keep, so this is all I'm going to produce"?

(emphasis added). This isn't quite correct. You're required to provide both pilot and aircraft logs to the FAA on "reasonable request". If they ask for them during a ramp check, and you do have them on board, you must provide them (lying and saying you don't have them is a felony, as you know, under 18 USC 1001). You are not required to have them on board, though, and they can't detain or otherwise punish you for not having them. They can, however, require you to present the logs at some point in the future.

The reason you'd use boiling water to check your probes is that it's a known temperature. With hot oil, or anything else, you could confirm that your probes were all reading the same, but you'd need another thermometer of known accuracy to confirm whether they were accurate.

I understand that spark plug washer probes typically read higher than the bayonet-style probes. I have a UBG-16 as well, with a "piggyback" style probe on #1--it's a washer-style probe that goes under the factory CHT probe. It consistently reads about 100 deg F cooler than the other three cylinders. I've considered just pulling the factory probe and installing an EI screw-in probe, but of course that wouldn't be legal...

The problem with water and ethanol is that water dissolves in ethanol, which it does not do in avgas. Water can and does get into our tanks, which is why we sump the tanks before flight. If our tanks are full of ethanol, we have no way of knowing how much water is in there. Yes, as long as it's a reasonably low amount and remains in solution (I'll leave that question to others on the thread who understand the physics), the engine will run just fine, but where there is water there can be water-soluble contaminants--and pH is the least of the worries there. The deal-breaker to me, though, is energy content and density. If I have to burn 50% more fuel to generate the same amount of power, my range is greatly reduced. If the fuel is more dense than avgas, my useful load is decreased. Mooneys are sold as cross-country traveling machines; reducing the range by 35% seems to defeat that purpose.

My thoughts on this, given my descent profile (again, I typically leave mixture and prop at their cruise settings until shutdown), are that even if I forget to push prop and mixture forward, and just hit the throttle, I will still climb out--after all, I should be at a pretty close approximation of cruise power. It won't be the best climb-out, but it will still get me climbing while I take care of resetting prop, mixture, flaps, gear, etc. The process, though (which I've practiced) is mixture, prop, throttle. Takes a second or so.

35% less energy content than avgas with a greater mass. That's enough reason in my book.

My descent profile is trim nose down to ~500 fpm, WOT, 2500 RPM. If things are, or look like they could become, bumpy, I'll pull throttle to keep it out of the yellow arc, but otherwise I don't bother. I also don't generally touch the mixture until shutdown (cruising ~ 9 gph LOP).

How else would you post? Well, you could do as many here (including me) do and just use your name--mine appears in my sig at the bottom of each of my posts; others use it as their sign-on name. You could also determine my address pretty easily if you were so inclined. BeechTalk requires using your real name, and I tend to think that's a good idea, but obviously opinions vary on that.

Obviously missed the sarcasm--sorry about that. I've seen a few too many posts go that way (a single example of X failed -> X is crap), even on this very board. Can't help but notice the irony, though, that the one talking about "anyone can personally attack someone with anonymity" is posting anonymously...