danb35

Camguard isn't a synthetic, and its developer doesn't recommend synthetic (or semi-synthetic) oils either. It does have antiwear and anticorrosion additives, the effectiveness of both of which has been confirmed in independent testing. I recall that they do claim it will clean some engine deposits. They don't make any claims, though, regarding increased power. Operating LOP, of course, should also result in a cleaner engine.

The specs may be different, but they both (along with welding O2) come out of a liquid oxygen tank. There's no moisture in there. And welding these days is at least as demanding for purity as medicine or aviation.

The seats look great. I'll take a full set, please.

You don't necessarily have to rent the large cylinders; you can buy them instead. Higher up-front cost that way, of course (I recall around $200 when I bought one), but then the only recurring cost is having it filled, which is done on an exchange basis ($15 or so).

There's no limitation, but at least in my F POH, there's Mooney's ill-advised recommendation to reduce power for the climb. In any event, though, assuming there isn't any difference in the probes, seeing over 380 on the ground (presumably after a cold start, and without really extended ground idling) indicates that something is very wrong. Admittedly, I generally fly out of a small uncontrolled field, but my hottest cylinder doesn't generally reach 200 before takeoff. I wouldn't think that baffling would cause that, nor inadequate fuel flow; I guess mag timing might.

Am I reading this right that #2 is at 389 on the ground, even before the takeoff roll? Does it use the same type of probe as your other cylinders? You should still have the factory CHT gauge installed, so depending on what cylinder it's on (it's on #1 in my F), you'll have a different probe there. If the CHT sensor for your JPI on #2 is a spark plug gasket type, that could account for higher reported temperatures on that cylinder. I can't imagine why you'd want to pull power back for the climb--seems to me you'd want max power for that. You could have higher airspeed (and thus better cooling) for a given rate of climb, or better climb rate for a given airspeed. Your engine is rated for continuous operation at full power, but even if it weren't, you aren't generating full power once you're above sea level.

Byron doesn't have a -A3B6D engine any more; he has a -A3B6. Individual mags, and it comes from the factory with 20 deg. mag timing. However, changing it to 25 is apparently legal if the i's are dotted and the t's crossed.

The problem is that this is a certification requirement (and one for FAR 23 certification, which isn't applicable to many of our Mooneys anyway), not an operational requirement. However, the battery manufacturers also recommend a periodic capacity test, and that the battery be replaced when it is at less than 85% of its specified capacity.

Nor had I, which makes N201MK's story (whoever he is) suspicious to me. The fact that he's declined to answer (or, more accurately, ignored) questions in other threads where he's posted similar claims increases those suspicions. And when those questions raise inconsistencies between his story and observed reality (like why he didn't have Paul come to him to fix the leaks, which Paul says he will do as part of his warranty), the BS detector goes into red alert.

The auto-retracting step does so based on vacuum. When the engine's running fast enough to generate vacuum at the pump, the step retracts. Nothing electrical about it.

I wouldn't want to melt my muffler either--have you? I haven't yet, but I've only been flying the Mooney for about 500 hours. Is EGT known to be related to exhaust damage? And if it is, wouldn't a multiprobe engine monitor that gives EGT numbers be much more useful in avoiding the problem than a single-cylinder EGT gauge that doesn't give actual temperatures at all?

Nothing to do with LOP; it's based on when I had my shop install my engine monitor. They said the EGT wasn't required, so they removed it at my request. I don't remember any FAR that requires an EGT (there is one that requires CHT IIRC), nor is it required on the TCDS. No doubt it has something to do with the fact that there are no engine or airframe limitations on EGT.

CHT is required, but EGT shouldn't be.

Why do you say it's not possible? The rate of thermal expansion for Al is about 3x that of steel--on its face, it seems entirely plausible that the faster-shrinking case could bind the crank.

...which raises the question of why you'd be flying with an FAA examiner for a flight review.

No. The Trig will serve as an ADS-B transmitter when connected to an approved position source (like a 430W). It isn't an ADS-B receiver, though there are plenty of those out there for < $1k. To receive traffic information, you need to be transmitting your own position.

Operating ROP or LOP is highly unlikely to do anything to your valves.

Give serious thought to a unit that's certified to replace your primary instruments. In the JPI line, I believe this would be the 900 or the 930; for EI you'd be looking at the MVP-50; and I don't know about Insight at all. I tend to prefer EI over JPI as a company, though the events that lead to that preference are several years in the past.

Unfortunately, your thoughts on the matter don't appear to match the previous regulations. The previous rule identified database updates as preventative maintenance, which can legally be done by the owner or operator of an aircraft. So far, so good. However, FAR 43.9 requires that after maintenance or preventative maintenance is performed, and before the aircraft is returned to service, a maintenance record entry be made. That entry must contain (1) the date the work was done, (2) a description of the work done, and (3) the name, certificate number, and signature of the person performing the work or approving the return to service. As applied to database updates, it's a stupid rule, for exactly the reasons you cite, but it's still the rule--or was until a couple of days ago. Surprisingly enough, the FAA seems to have realized that the times, they are a-changin'.

"Updates of databases in installed avionics meeting the conditions of this paragraph are not considered maintenance"

New rule published by the FAA a couple of days ago: Not maintenance any more, no more need to log them. Final rule on pilot database updating.pdf

Let me pose a question to those who might be interested in this: how important is the LCD screen to show status? Eliminating it would mean saving about $15 of the parts list and increased battery life (by about 15-20%), but you'd be looking at a blinking LED for status (on, off, blinking at different rates, etc.).

More specifically, the service bulletin "requires" 100 hr/annual inspection, but nothing in the terms of the AD does. Some IAs, including Maxwell, take the position that the AD's reference to the SB for the "how" also makes the "when" of the SB mandatory; I can't see any way the AD does that. Mandatory or not, though, regular inspection of the O-rings (including the inner ring) is definitely a good idea--water in your fuel is a Bad Thing . There's nothing out there requiring or recommending periodic replacement of the O-rings.

This really isn't correct, as time is a factor as well. The standard Reiff system for a 4-cyl engine is 300 watts, which works out to about 1000 BTU/hr; by all accounts it works quite well. It doesn't, of course, heat the engine in 10 minutes, nor does it claim to. If you really need to preheat an engine in 10 minutes, you'll need something propane-powered, but not everyone needs the speed heat. FWIW, most hair dryers I've seen are rated at 1500W, which works out to about 5000 BTU/hr.

Paul Beck owns/operates Weep No More LLC, located at the Willmar airport but not part of the MSC there. See http://weepnomorellc.com/ for more.