danb35

Just received the latest Aviation Consumer today, and it has an article on AeroFusion. In short: it doesn't work, it isn't FAA accepted, and the bottle they bought appeared to have contaminants that shouldn't have been present. No change in airspeed, climb rate, fuel consumption, EGT, or CHT. None of the alleged people who left the alleged testimonials on the AeroFusion web site were willing to talk with AvConsumer either (which leads me to suspect the testimonials were/are fraudulent, but I could certainly be wrong). No big surprise.

I have the FP-5L in '48Q, and I'm very happy with it. I would expect the LCD on that to be easier to read in bright sunlight than the LED display on the FS450, and the backlighting makes it very readable in low-light conditions. OTOH, the FS450 has two LED displays; one shows the fuel flow all the time, while the other can be switched among a number of other parameters (fuel used, fuel remaining, time remaining, etc.). I'd appreciate this feature, though not enough to change out the instrument. I've had excellent experiences with EI's customer and tech support; I've heard mixed reports of JPI's, though I have no personal experience with them. If you don't have some sort of multi-probe engine monitor, it would be a very worthwhile investment--something like the EI UBG-16 or the JPI 700.

I guess WOT/2500/full rich would work, but 25"/2500/20-30 LOP would burn a lot less gas. Might not be quite as fast, I guess...

If there was no change in EGT, your issue had nothing to do with mixture (plugged injector, etc.).

Quote: jwilkins even when you do meet the criteria for owner fabricated parts, they are supposed to be installed by a licensed mechanic.

In my case, when I start the engine for the next flight, or when I go around, not before.

Quote: rocketman Please respect the wishes of the majority and move on to other topics (not Topix) that we all enjoy learning about.

Another good choice is Kroil. I get it from Brownell's (gunsmith supply shop), though no doubt there are other sources.

Quote: tony I don’t understand your point for posting this other than you have an axe to grind. I guess it doesn’t matter with whom.

I used Boeshield on '48Q, and similarly have had little to no weeping (I also use it on my shop tools, but that's a different story). It works on a different principle than Corrosion X and ACF 50, and I don't think it penetrates as well into tight spaces. FWIW, Mike Busch doesn't feel that Boeshield is particularly appropriate for GA use.

It is a required response, and the AME is required to obtain the relevant court documents if it was within 5 years of the date of the medical exam. If those are available, and BAC was <= 0.15%, the AME can issue. If it was over 0.15% or refused, the AME can't issue, and must defer it to OKC, who will probably require a psych eval. So, reportable, yes. Disqualifying, not necessarily. But he will be required to report the next time he goes to renew his medical. He's also required to report the arrest, within 60 days, to the Airman Security Branch. Missing this one could land his certificates in a world of hurt. Of course, the BAC hasn't been made public yet. I'd personally suspect that if he were sufficiently far gone to be driving on the wrong side of the road, it was considerably higher than 0.15%, but that's just my guess.

A single DWI is not necessarily immediately disqualifying. Multiple DWIs are likely to be.

A 1000+ mile (one way) trip is going to be a very long trip in any vintage Mooney, at least if you intend to do it in one day. They're great planes, but this might be a bit much.

Keep in mind that there's an AD on injected Lycoming engines (2002-26-01) that requires the injector lines be inspected whenever you mess with the lines/injectors, and needs to be signed off by an A&P. Check the GAMI spread first before changing (including cleaning) anything, and you may well find that you don't need to change anything.

Quote: N4352H The trashing Cole thread wasn't fair.

On my F (same engine), it's boost pump off, mixture at idle cutoff, wide open throttle, crank until it fires. Then quickly enrich mixture and retard throttle. I find it works 90+% of the time.

I'd disagree--if anything, reports of poor mx are far more valuable when they name names. They, of course, need to be factual, and if things sound like they don't add up, it's quite sensible for others to ask questions. But the frequent fear of naming a business with whom one has had a poor experience is very unfortunate.

Quote: Steve65E-NC I assume your friend is, or has available, an IA since that is what is needed to sign off an annual.

Travel boards are not needed for an annual, unless you suspect the flight controls are misrigged. Gear preload tools are, and are the only Mooney-specific tools I can think of that would be used at annual--and yes, they can be rented; one source I know of (though have never used) is hangartoolbox.com. There are special tools used for the shock discs, not sure if the job can be done without them or not. Again, can be rented from the same source.

If you want an explanation of that company's actions, it would be better to ask that company--I can't understand why they would do that, and take the additional step of advertising their unit's lack of functionality. The only explanation I can come up with is that they overreacted to the FCC's notice from much earlier this year. The 406 MHz units conform to an established TSO, which is (or corresponding specifications are) effective worldwide. I have no insight into sales figures, but there are a lot of manufacturers making them, and (with the sole, and baffling, exception of ELT) they all include a 121.5 MHz homing signal. There are differences in features, most notably the ability to broadcast GPS data, but I've not seen anything to indicate that there's any uncertainty in the technical requirements for the devices.

Quote: Steve65E-NC I wish that I believed that the FAA has finished defining the requirements for this equipment.

...and you can get EI's installation instructions at buy-ei.com. In short, 2-4" from the head, and they should all be a uniform distance. Absolute EGT values are all but meaningless.

There's a Mooney drawing that authorizes replacing the yokes with the J style on older Mooneys (no doubt it came with the kit, but I imagine it was available separately also). It was done on mine with only a logbook entry; there shouldn't be a need for a 337, and definitely doesn't need a field approval (it's already approved via the Mooney drawing, as long as the work conforms to that drawing).

I would (and did) look at the EI digital to replace my mechanical tach. Works great, and tach time runs at 1:1 when the engine's over 1300 RPM, and not at all when under 1300.

I've seen discussions on the subject get pretty heated too, and there's really no need for it. The rule is pretty simple, and has been clear for 27 years, even if its application is necessarily somewhat subjective--if (and only if) you need to use the instruments to keep the plane under control due to outside conditions, you can log the time during which that is the case as actual instrument time. I think the confusion stems from the FAA using very similar terms to describe very different things. In this case, you have IFR, IMC, and "actual instrument conditions". The terms are similar enough to be confused, but they mean very different things--and if you start to thing that actual instrument conditions and IMC mean the same thing, you're going to get confused in a hurry. Unfortunately, the FAA seems to enjoy doing that; another example is logging PIC vs. acting as PIC. It really isn't difficult to understand, as long as you can remember that even though they sound like the same thing, they're actually completely different.