Ned Gravel

That sounds really bad. I have been with the same woman for 40+ years and I don't understand your difficulty............

thank you. I am looking to see if my maintainer can do this.

If 1090ES out (such as we are getting in Canada) requires a Trig tray, can you tell us whether the tray shown in the pictures is such a tray?

Just to throw a wrench into this discussion, I would avoid the use of the term "calibrated" in this discussion because its use is fundamentally misleading. It assigns value/property/worth to a measurement which does not exist here. To quote the international weights and measures council (either CIPM or their technical arm BIPM - supported both by NIST (US) and NRC (Cdn) signatures), calibration is a term used to signify the connection of a measurement (these are all gauges reading a measurement) back to some base or intrinsic property or value which are held and maintained by our national measurement systems. Such is not the case here. The best we can ask of these instruments, without a calibration certificate provided by someone that includes a demonstration of the competence of the person making such connection, (or organisation - within our very good international system of accreditation of such competence) is to "verify" their operation within some tolerance. Very little real traceability of measurement is required for this - just some comparison with a more "trusted" source without chasing after the components of the measurement that relate it to NIST or NRC. Much cheaper and good enough for our purposes. But - and this is reason I am bringing this up, the control of the measurement process determines how good the measurement will be. In the case of the mechanical tach cable - it may have history, but the number of cycles it goes through have a real impact on its performance. In materials science, fatigue is the weakening of a material caused by repeatedly applied loads. Compare the repeated loading and unloading of the tach cable to some electronic reader counting the number of times a specific identification mark passes in front of it - such as this one. Light and/or electrical connection only. Still subject to fatigue loading but with a lot less impact on the validity of the measurement. The fact that EI still probably thinks this instrument is calibrated (when it is not really) is moot. It far outperforms (in terms of stability, precision, and resolution) the tach that came with my '65 Mooney E (which was replaced once before and still exhibited unacceptable performance before that one was then replaced by this little puppy). The design of our engines dates back close to 80+ years ago (1930's and 1940's). Many of our factory installed instruments (from the 50s and 60s) still use the technologies of that era. They still work - but when we are forced to ask ourselves why there is difference between them and some newer technology we have installed - albeit not certified as primary - by law we are forced to accept the certified technology that demonstrates less control of its measurement process. And to reiterate, measurements from both technological eras are not really traceable anyway (would add significant cost to the instruments) although both have been adequately verified as functioning within some stated tolerance - and that is OK. As Carusoam has pointed out, the source of the measurement for the electronic tach is different than the source of the measurement of the mechanical gauge - and for me (engineer) that makes a big difference in how much I can trust it. My 20 cents worth (you can get paid that much too if you can provide the definition of traceability of measurement contained in the VIM).

+1 for the PS Engineering models. Their innards are shielded. The Garmin’s are not. Had to change from a 340 to a PS8000 in 2013 because of that.

Hmm. Less likely caused by antenna proximity and more likely caused by RF emissions closer to the backplane of the radio. I have an "eye poker" (belly com antenna that causes difficulty to maintainers during inspections) on my Mooney too, but it is for the handheld, when all else fails. Com1, Com2, Nav1 and Nav2 are all up on the top - both navs to the whiskers on the vertical stabilizer. The com antennae are separated by about four feet. Running receivers off the same antenna is not a real issue - no power being generated. Transmitters off the same antenna can cause a bit more difficulty. However, RF pushing out of the transmitter (especially near the source of radiated power) can affect unshielded conductors for other systems that may be very close by - and that is what this sounds like to me. The sneaky one for me was very dirty NARCO transmitters keying both sets of radios because my Garmin audio panel had next to zero shielding and one transmitter was causing wash to the other through the audio panel. Fixed that with a PS Engineering audio panel - much better built. Just an amateur Signals Officer. No MUFs, or LUFs were harmed in the making of this amateur observation.

I have used both duPage and Palwaukee (Chicago Executive) to visit different areas of that part of Illinois. duPage is simple (but in the southwest part of Chicago) and Palwaukee is a full service setup with all the bells and whistles - but north of both Midway and O'Hare. I like both and if I was hard IFR down to minima, I would pick Palwaukee.

This is also true if you have the doghouse. The forward edge of the top part of the doghouse has baffling material (mostly rubber or some similar composite) and some folks who work on the aircraft do not always make sure that it is tucked into the top of the cowl. I have had to tuck it in more than once this year following an oil change.

We can do them in an approved simulator (such as a Transport Canada approved Redbird) if we want.

Very nice David. Are you going to bring any of it to Oshkosh this year?

Michael: See the following. Both recorded on an iPhone with an audio connection. However the current cabling is from sporty's. see https://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/nflightcam-iphone-intercom-audio-interface-cable.html This help? .

That is one of the reasons why I like being able to work on my own aircraft in that hanger.......

Lance: I guess I should have mentioned that I may have a little difficulty purchasing avionics off of e-bay or amazon. These places obviously have better prices, but not that much better than dealing with a reputable shop.

Thanks Lance. I checked the standard prices from sportys and spruce and all but the Apero one are north of $3,000. If you know where I can get something like a Trig 31 or a KT 74 for the price of the GDL 82, it would be worth my while to chase it. Important to me because Canada will be using the 1090 system (in about five years when that is mandated for us here).

@LANCECASPER I have a WAAS GPS and I do not see those better solutions (for the price range of $2,000 to $2,500). The uAvionix one is OK, but I want a switch on the panel to turn off the ADS-B transponder (in conjunction with turning off the Mode C transponder when that is appropriate such as formation flying) and the uAvionix one turns off the strobes with it. So, before I go spending the money on a GDL-82, I would very much like to read the options you mean.

I had my E model's prop balanced about five years ago, before I had to buy a new prop and stop the required 100 inspection because of the old hub. The guy did it in front of me and it took 45 minutes or so. Makes no difference about the pitch of the blades - only the speed of their rotation. The prop hummed along beautifully with nary a vibration at all governor settings before I had to buy the newer hub and blades.

I do almost the same thing. A/C is already in the go-round configuration at the FAF. GUMPS check (third time means that prop and mixture are full rich). Throttle is back to allow for 90 mph and two pumps of flaps. When "Missed" is declared, power is added and A/C set to climb. Gear up first and pull the nose up to 95 mph or so (still within the white arc). Flaps up passing 500' or so. Trim down slightly to go to 120 mph.

No change in performance at all. Both provide good service. Speed of ForeFlight was determined by the iPad, not the ads ADS-B receiver. And for that I had to toss my iPad mini 2 for a 4. Reason for change was to get it further from my head, in the event.... Already have a Sensorcon..

Andrew: I would love a PIREP on how your Stratus/Stratux/Sentry receives the space-based ADS-B signals. We are about to have one of our Flight Information Regions here Canada go live with it.

FWIW: I had a Stratus 2 and I sold it for the Sentry. Time was ripe to buy the Stratus 3, but the Sentry has a smaller footprint on my side window - so that is the one I got.

Don't tell me that! I still have a 12D in mine as NAV/COM 2. 480 is NAV/COM 1. I would be OK (safe and airworthy) if #2 goes, but, but even with a handheld backup - the holes in the swiss cheese are starting to line up.

I am with the other guys. TS or anything embedded (TCU or ACC) is a strategic no-go decision for me. Then comes “hard IFR” where it is only soup, perhaps bumpy but not dangerous - my favourite being nimbo stratus (benign and dark) but relatively safe ceilings. Then comes “IFR” in and out of the soup - almost certainly bumpy because it normally comes from cumulus buildup. With Foreflight and ADS-B, I can watch the METARS of potential diversions all the way to the destination when in hard IFR. Easy to plan for those the meet my own minima, just in case. Hard IFR is not hard, but it is complete loss of visual reference to the ground. But that is just me.

The folks at sporty's have already sent out their PIREP on it at https://ipadpilotnews.com/2019/03/first-impressions-after-flying-with-the-new-ipad-mini/.

Station radio licenses (aircraft installations) are required because of the agreement between our two nations. However, in 14 years of crossing the border and flying in both nations, no one has ever asked me for it. One difference is that mine costs me $36.00 Cdn (about $27.00 USD) per year

me too. There but for the Grace of .........