• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


takair last won the day on August 31 2018

takair had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

639 Excellent

About takair

  • Rank
    Won't Leave!
  • Birthday 11/04/1968

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Oxford, CT
  • Interests
  • Reg #
  • Model

Recent Profile Visitors

3,182 profile views
  1. If I were to run a wire, I would consider running it to the switched power out of the transponder that brings up the encoder (in other words, to the encoder power) such that the ADS-B is always on when the transponder is on.....or simply give it a dedicated breaker on the avionics bus. Paperwork wise, I would note this as a minor alteration to the STC within the 337. Oh, came across this today, just to add to the list of documents that make this not so clear. https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/installation/media/ADS-B_Out-In_Installation_Tech_Paper(9-25-17).pdf
  2. Upon reading the referenced letter closer, I’m not sure they did much in the way of clarifying things. In the case of an STC, even this one, I still come to the conclusion that a 337 would be the preferred way. At work, typically if it changes the approved flight manual, it falls under major. This would be one of those other qualities. In this case, the fact that you need to turn on the lights all the time might be that factor. The Mooney being CAR 3 might leave an opening. Ultimately, I don’t think a lack of 337 would be a huge issue until an annual in a region where the interpretation is different, in which case that IA can inspect the install an issue a 337.
  3. Classic lack major-minor of clarity, but I do agree the letter from FAA counsel would have more weight then a comment on their home page. Will save that one in my archives. That said, it’s not too hard to submit the 337 as a belts and suspenders approach.
  4. And this from the FAA web site: An STC will not be issued to: approve minor changes, or for approval of identical replacement parts, unless the installation of such parts constitutes a major change to the type design
  5. Sample 337 from uAvionix: https://uavionix.com/downloads/skybeacon/Sample_skyBeacon_337_form-Rev-D.pdf
  6. While the installation is simple, my belief is that, by definition, an STC is a major alteration. As I recall, the uAvionix install manual suggests a 337 be submitted. I’m sure this one could be debated endlessly, but in my recent experience, the FAA won’t talk to someone about issuing an STC if they believe it is a minor alteration.
  7. It is really too bad he called the FSDO instead of the IA doing the install. That said, not sure the FSDO is authorized to override the STC without an AD. Im sure a field approval for minor change is ok, but not disapproval of the basic premise. As others indicated, the 337 goes straight to Oklahoma City. There are some peculiarities with the install, like the fact that the status light can’t be seen from the cockpit on a low wing with the wing mounted beacon, or at all on the tail. That said, the FAA has been pretty anal about ADS-B approvals since the NavWorx fiasco, so I’m sure they are aware. The Nav light does get a placard to keep it on. Regarding connecting it to the strobe or beacon, I would be hesitant. This particular system picks up own-ship transponder data through the power wire, not RF, so noisy power like a strobe may impact that reception. This, by the way, is the point of contention in the Garmin patent infringement lawsuit.
  8. That is a matte finish, so rubbing it with most things can cause further polishing and pretty soon you will have to do the entire panel. You may want to try using a finger to see if it is simply oil residue. Or try dabbing with a clean cloth.
  9. Is this purely indicated speed? Did you compare against GPS speed, adjusting for wind? If only indicated, look for cracked or loose pitot fittings.....basically a pitot leak. If you have a water drain, it may be stuck partially open.
  10. This one shows arm and the other is calculated moment arm. Multiply weight times arm from this chart and divide by 1000 and I think it’s the you will see the number on the other chart. Mine looks like this and I find it more intuitive.
  11. I always assumed it was back flow of oily water out of my cowl. There is some reverse flow from the large cowl opening. I usually see some streaking on the upper leading edge of the cowl. Also, I will occasionally wipe inside the starter ring/pulley. I find it build a little oil residue over time, likely from very light weeping of the crankcase seal.... That said, I understand that you indicated it was not oily....so maybe it was some chem trail residue.
  12. https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/installtool.php?gclid=Cj0KCQjwn_LrBRD4ARIsAFEQFKsylaFTTc59y9IqmxOLSF6i86u5OTnQGaq694hUnGr-NBjb6rBofxgaAt5gEALw_wcB
  13. Not in the modern sense, but that vintage all had the two “manuals”. The flight manual was highly customized for the serial number. It included the factory weight and balance, equipment list and the standard limitations section. It was FAA (CAA?) approved as well. I suspect Mooney no longer has those originals. I made copies....the original and a copy sits in the safe with the log books, one copy in the airplane. The POH was generic and not specifically approved. It was more like part 2 of a modern POH.
  14. There were two manuals that came with the plane. The Pilot Operating Handbook (aka Owners Manual) and the Aircraft Flight Manual. The AFM contained a graph format CG envelope and a manual computation sheet. The POH was a professional looking booklet, likely what you have. The AFM was a crude , 11x8.5 “photo copy” with hand markups and signatures. This is often lost in stacks of old papers, but should actually be with the aircraft. Are you missing that? I have a 1964 E version and a newer version for another aircraft I can send you if you IM me your email. Can’t recall a descent chart. I think I estimated fuel flow. I usually use cruise speed for the speed and figure fuel flow by taking a 5” reduction in MAP.
  15. Funny you brought this up. I live 5 minutes from my airport, but lose my hangar at the end of the month. I am in the middle of purchasing one at an airport that is about 45 minutes from home, but 15 minutes from work. Still hoping to find a rental (affordable) nearby or eventually I suspect we will move closer to work and hangar. During ownership, on a average I have beeen 30 minutes away. I can tell you, there is nothing like being 5 minutes away. I fly far more and am far less frustrated when working on the plane, especially when you forget something, like an airport badge or a tool. Your situation with the group hangar adds another dynamic that is a consideration. Having the plan towed adds a risk of gear damage that needs to be factored in, plus many community hangars frown on work being done, especially if you go up on jacks. Sounds like you have a better situation in that regard. I suspect you are also paying reasonable rent...that is my biggest issue here in CT.