N201MKTurbo

It is probably your trim disconnect relay. So, yes head to the avionics shop.

I used to work with a mechanic who used to work for a small airline that flew twin otters. He was working on the engines one night and wanted to test them out, so he was doing high speed runs down the runway. On one run the plane got airborne and he closed the throttles, but didn’t think he could get it stopped, so he shoved the throttles to the max, flew it around the pattern and landed it again. He was a private pilot with about 100 hours. He swore he didn’t mean to do it. He said he never told anybody at the airline about it. It was an uncontrolled airport and he was the only one there.

They have changed that brush holder 3 or 4 times. All the brush holders will not work with all the brushes, but if you buy a brush holder and it’s compatible brushes, it will work on any of those alternators. I would suggest buying the latest brush holder and a new set of brushes.

I would stop worrying about it. These problems are pretty rare and only affect idle. Your worse nightmare would be the engine quiting on rollout and you have to restart to taxi off.

If the flow divider got stuck open, from a broken spring or some crud that jammed it open, the idle fuel distribution could be uneven. If it was jammed closed, it would be in the cutoff position and the engine would not run.

The flow divider will stop fuel flow and trap the fuel in the injector lines when fuel pressure is removed from its input. It has nothing to do with the idle mixture. The idle mixture is controlled by the position of the spool valve in the servo. It is set up to give a fixed fuel flow when there is not enough air pressure to open the servo control valves that are opened by the diaphragms. The problem seems to be associated with the machining of the spool valves.

Is it possible that you have the gear rigged so it is over stressing the gear when it is raised? That could cause it to spring back.

It seems the ITT actuator and some of the old Dukes actuators had brakes. They have 4 wires. The newer Dukes actuators only have 2 wires. SB-M20-189A says only the ITT has a brake.

I have worked on motors with such a brake, I wasn’t aware that the Dukes actuator had that. It seems that it would make manual extension difficult. I have never disassembled a Dukes motor.

I don’t recall it having one.

What is wrong with it?

The switch has heat shrink on the wires to keep them from shorting to each other or to other things like ground. Yet with the switch in its pictured position, the center conductor is connected to the uninsulated terminal on the right. So be careful where you put that switch.

What? Who are you people? Get off my lawn…

Well, it is not factory. The soldering is not up to snuff and the factory wouldn’t use a DPDT switch when a SPST switch would do. So, it is a field mod done by somebody for some reason. So, you need to find the one who did it.

My experience is if you look straight down from the filler neck and the edge of the fuel is at the inboard edge of the filler, you have 5 gallons. If it is at the outboard edge of the filler you have 6 gallons. That assumes the plane is level right to left.

It seeme there is an issue with the idle mixture shaft. I read a few and they would not hold a consistent idle mixture.

I would imagine there have been SDRs about it. If you subscribed to SDRs you would already know about it. Go here and enter Avstar in the part make field. https://sdrs.faa.gov/Query.aspx

Isn’t that what I said? https://www.ti.com/product-category/amplifiers/comparators/overview.html https://www.ti.com/product-category/logic-voltage-translation/logic-gates/overview.html

Probably just an analog camparator. There were plenty of microcontrollers available back then, but probably just logic chips.

I still think of my home drome as a small suburban airport. It didn’t have or need a tower when it got one in like ‘93. Heck, we used to drag race on the runway. Now it’s like the 11th busiest airport in the country.

If it bothers you so much, you can get your own inspection program approved by the FAA. I have one. After that the inspections will be required.

There is no specific inspection requirement per se. But the A&P signing off the work is saying it was done properly. Well, not actually, the log entry and signature only says he did the work. Im not trying to be vague. The regulations are very vague.

No inspection by an IA is required. The work the A&P does should be done properly, so he should look it over. And another set of eyes ever hurts.

There are two ways a non A&P can legally work on your plane. They either work under the supervision of an A&P or they work for a repair station that has specific work instructions for every task. And the worker must be trained on every task. In the first case, the A&P is responsible for any work done by the worker he is supervising. In the second case the organization is responsible for the work being done properly.

You are twisting my words. You are conflating the duties of an IA and an A&P. An IA is responsible for inspecting the airplane. He is not responsible for repairing it. The IA is not responsible for the airworthiness of your airplane, you are. On the flip side, if an A&P does maintenance on your airplane, he is expected to do it in an approved manor. This by definition would leave the things he worked on airworthy. If they are not, then he didn’t do his job properly. The way it normally works, the IA and A&P are the same person, that performs both roles. Instead of finishing the inspection with discrepancies, they will fix the issues and then reinspect so they can complete the inspection with no discrepancies. In most shops the airplane is inspected, repaired by any number of people and when it is done, the IA signs off all the work. This is not what the regs say. They say that if an A&P works on an airplane, they must make an entry in the log and sign it saying what work they did. That rarely if ever happens. In reality, you should have a log entry from everyone who touched your plane.