danb35

100 watts of heat epoxied directly to the aluminum sump will heat the rest of the engine much more quickly than a 100-watt light bulb hanging in the air near the engine. Aluminum is a pretty good conductor of heat, while air is an exceptionally poor conductor. If you have other heaters on the engine as well (cylinder bands or head heaters), so much the better, but even just a sump heater would be much more efficient at heating than the light bulb.

Yes indeed--and detonation margins are greater when LOP (especially when enough LOP) than ROP.

I imagine that copyright issues would be a concern with hosting them here or elsewhere. The manuals are still copyrighted by Mooney.

The conservative solution is to fix what's shown to need fixing, and keep a close eye on the engine to make sure you catch it. Watch your engine monitor, borescope your cylinders, do oil analysis, cut open your oil filter, etc. A problem with one cylinder doesn't indicate a need to work on the others, much less tear down the bottom end.

Old Wives' Tale. I should add that I do have an alarm set on my engine monitor for shock cooling, and it's set for 40 deg F/min, just to see if/when it happens. I have tripped it, but only very rarely.

"Shock cooling" is an OWT in the first place, and in the second place it's pretty much impossible to violate Lycoming's recommendation (50 deg F/min) at least in my F. I wouldn't use the presence or absence of a shock cooling alert as a deciding factor in an engine monitor.

I just installed the Aveo LED nav/strobe combo. It was an easy installation, removes the Whelen power supply (saving 2 lb. or so), and works great. My IA was willing to sign it of as a minor alteration, thus no 337 required. I understand they're European TSO certified already, FWIW.

A Mooney of some sort, anyway. Maybe the viral marketing will help Mooney out.

Well, it's been a while since I posted an update. I've been busy on some other things, and had a few frustrations, but the project is still coming along nicely. Latest update is (again) posted at the web site: http://www.interociter-enterprises.com/Interociter_Enterprises/Downloader.html Some additional photos: http://www.interociter-enterprises.com/Interociter_Enterprises/Photos.html

The standard EGT probes that EI ships respond pretty slowly to changes in EGT. EI sells "fast response" probes, which have finer (and therefore lower-mass) tips, and therefore presumably respond more quickly, but I have no direct experience with them. I haven't found the lean find mode on my UBG-16 to be very useful, but that seems to be the nature of the beast. You're probably better off setting your MUX-8A to burst mode, leaning to near peak, and then very slowly leaning through peak. Download the data (possibly using my handy gadget) and graph it, and you'll get your leaning information. With a little bit of practice, you'll know a fuel flow that will do what you want, and then just lean to that fuel flow. M20F, my M20F also came from 06C, a little under 5 years ago.

Seems like an awfully expensive caution, with just as much chance of creating new problems as solving existing ones. Seems a bit of time inspecting the existing cylinders would be well-spent. Then, if any need repair/replacement, take care of the ones with problems.

Only an LPV can be a precision approach (and not even all of them are).

I'd think, especially with TSO certification, it should be a minor mod as a direct swap. W&B could well be changed (getting rid of a 2-lb strobe power supply will do that), but that doesn't make it major. I don't see any way that it fits the definition of a major alteration from FAR 43. Apparently, though, some FSDOs consider connecting anything to the electrical bus as a major alteration, so maybe this is just to make things easier with them.

Well, some of them, anyway. AVEO has recently obtained FAA TSO certification for their Ultra Galactica wingtip lights (nav/strobe) and the Redbaron Galactica beacon; they seem to expect certification on others soon. They also say that STCs are in process for several aircraft, including Mooneys. My A&P was willing to sign off on the installation of the non-certified units as a minor mod, based on AVEO's meeting the TSO specs despite not yet being certified. If you have an A&P (or FSDO) of a different opinion, though, this may be relevant to your interests. The lights are very nice.

1. When your 430 powers up, it should indicate on the startup screen whether it is a 430 or a 430W. The latter is WAAS; the former isn't. If you're getting glide path indication on any GPS approaches, it's a 430W; the 430 (the non-WAAS model) doesn't give glide path indications on GPS approaches. 2. If your 430 is WAAS, the approach you're shooting has published LPV minima, and the signal integrity is good enough (the latter two of which will be indicated by your 430W annunciating "LPV" in the lower-left corner of the screen as you pass the FAF), you can shoot an approach to LPV minima. 3. As with the last question, the minima you can use are indicated on the 430's screen in the lower-left corner once you pass the FAF. Under no circumstances may you descend below the MDA until you have the runway environment in sight, no matter what the glideslope needle tells you.

Make sure they come with the appropriate STC paperwork, including a permission statement that will allow you to install it on your aircraft. If they don't (which is likely), call S-TEC and see what they'll want to make it legal.

Their DRS-1 software works just fine, if a little klunky. I'm working on a standalone gadget to download the data to a microSD card. Some information is here: http://www.interociter-enterprises.com/Interociter_Enterprises/Downloader.html though I need to update the website.

The website is savvyanalysis.com, and it does seem to be pretty slick. After a few rounds with tech support, their support for the EI UBG-16 even works!

Interesting. I've made one flight/week at about 1700L to the NW for the last several months, and would have very much liked to be able to swing my visor over to the side window. Unfortunately, the Rosens won't fit my '67F.

No, you can have multiple devices on a single subscription with Foreflight. I share the subscription between my iPad and my iPhone.

I like polarized lenses for the reasons mentioned--better contrast, better color rendition, reduced glare. However, they may interfere with the screens on some electronics. In particular, with my Maui Jim polarized lenses, the screen on my iPad blacks out completely in the vertical orientation. In the horizontal orientation, it's just fine.

Why pull the power back? Do you want to climb slower than necessary? Your engine is certified for continuous operation at full power (and once you're past a few thousand feet elevation, you're not at full power any more anyway). If you have noise concerns, pull the prop back a bit, but there's no need to touch the throttle. A setting of 100 ROP is a bit lean for the climb, at least for early in the climb. Recommend instead leaning to a target EGT ~= to the sea level EGT at full rich (for me, it's around 1250 degrees). Setting 50 ROP will yield the hightest CHTs and peak internal cylinder pressures possible. Any mixture setting richer or leaner than this will be kinder to your engine. You'll see best power at 80-100 ROP (and cooler CHTs), and considerably better economy at peak EGT (and, again, cooler CHTs). LOP will give better economy yet, but may not be practical with your engine. For my engine, "as required" in the descent is not at all. I descend from cruise altitude and land without adjusting the mixture. Good, but < 380 is better.

IMO, it's perfectly acceptable (morally speaking) to move an STC'd part or mod from one aircraft to another without the STC holder knowing about it, much less approving it. However, Congress, in its dubious wisdom, has decided to give a form of protection to STC holders that is enjoyed by no other form of intellectual property (and believe me, copyright and patent holders would love to have this protection, have fought that battle, and lost). Consequently, you're legally required to have the permission of the STC holder to install an STC'd product or perform an STC'd mod. Sometimes that's in the form of a blanket permission statement (for example, the Garmin 430W installation manual has one); sometimes it's tied to a specific aircraft. That said, I really don't know what kind of enforcement mechanism is in place for this. I'd suspect the IA who signed off on the 337 for installing an STC'd part, without having an appropriate permission statement, would be facing a certificate action if discovered--but I don't know how likely it is that he'd be discovered.

Gwcolwell, an STC is a Supplemental Type Certificate. It's one form (and probably the most common form) of "approved data", which is required to approve an aircraft for return to service following a "major alteration" (the phrases in quotes being regulatory buzzwords). A 337 must be prepared any time a major alteration is performed to a certificated aircraft, or a "major repair" is performed by anyone other than a certified repair station. Depending on the nature of the work, and the data used to support it, 337s may be submitted to the local FSDO or to FAA HQ in OKC.

That would be Tapatalk.