kortopates

Agreed, the POH shows installed equipment, but it is also easy to ascertain OPTIONAL equipment, which is what I referred too. Optional equipment is not X'd in the original master list (before its modified for your serial #); hence its optional. Now its also true being standard or non-optional does not make it Required, but optional equipment can not also be required. If it wasn't optional, then yes we would have to dig deeper beyond the POH find it was required. You're quite right about how its is an obtuse process to look up and the TCDS is where to start. Mooney wasn't nearly as friendly as some manufacturers that added columns to their equipment list for what was required for Day VFR, Night VFR and IFR like for example Cessna does on their AFM's.

Yep, you could do that all right. But that is pretty much reserved for when the IA and owner are in disagreement and want to end the inspection and complete repairs elsewhere; perhaps a disagreement of method of repair or cost. But it is not a return to service signature like an airworthy plane would get: - 43.11(a)(4) "I certify that this aircraft (or engine or prop) has been inspected in accordance with a annual inspection and was determined to be in airworthy condition" instead - 4311(a)(5) ...If the aircraft is not approved for return to service because of needed maintenance, noncompliance with applicable specifications, airworthiness directives, or other approved data, the following or a similarly worded statement -- "I certify that this aircraft (or engine or prop) has been inspected in accordance with a annual inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items date, (date), has been provided for the aircraft owner and operator." As noted the actual list of discrepancies does not get included in the logs, its a separate piece of paper. So as a result, the return to service signature comes from any A&P that signs off on each of the items on the list. In this particular case, since its an item that is permitted to be inoperative under 91.213(d)(2), then the IA must also ensure its placarded "Inoperative" and as stated any A&P could then sign it off with a maintenance log book entry that either fixed it or removed it. Although it never got to this point in this, if it had, generally speaking though, as long the relationship isn't soured its going to be better to just defer his/her airworthy sign off till after you complete the repair or removal so that you can avoid having the unapproved annual sign off all together - at least I wouldn't want the inspection signed off with a list of discrepancies noted in my log book as long as there were reasonable alternatives since its going to raise eyebrows down the road about the owners maintenance habits. But that's my opinion, YMMV.

Even better than George's is to send your Electric Cowl flap motor back to Globe Motors (the OEM) and they will "rebuild" it to new at the current spec/newer part no (that uses larger pins to secure the shaft ) for a fraction of what new cost from Mooney. See the details of doing this in another thread on Cowl Flaps in this forum section. Its takes about a week.

Thanks Anthony, Of course its always the owner/operator that is ultimately responsible for the maintenance and airworthiness of a part 91 aircraft. And certainly an IA shares in that when (s)he signs off on an inspection or annual and doesn't want to risk their livelihood or certificate by ignoring discrepancy's - but I am sure we've all seen some of these rules stretched one time or another. You scratch your head though when you read some stories such as Eric's above.

Amelia. I hear you.What I wasn't sure of was if the 231's had prop heat as optional added equipment. And now I recall a few clients that did not have prop heat so I also just looked at a early 231 POH and sure enough, Prop heat was optional. It did become standard equipment later but that's irrelevant, point is the certification didn't require it. Anyway this reasoning is just to say that you and your IA could opt to remove the prop heat and be done with it. But as mentioned previously that would be silly since removing it would likely be more expensive than fixing it and would certainly cause a hit in resale value. But it really has nothing to do with being FIKI or not. Consider your other anti-ice device on the pitot tube - pitot heat. You could placard and in-op pitot heat for the same argument you make on the prop heat under 91.213 but come the next required inspection, your annual since you don't fly for hire, 91.405 requires that it must now be fixed.Or hypothetically speaking, one could probably get approval to replace it with unheated pitot tube i.e. remove the heated probe. But of course it would be preferable to fix it and that's the intent of 91.405. Your IA was just trying to do the right thing. Anyway, I am betting it must be the brushes that are worn since you mention it happens every few hundred hours. If so, the brushes run ~$70 (i recall from the last time I replaced mine using the RAPCO PMA part) and your regular home based A&P/IA should be able to change them for you. Its also been shocking seeing the cold spells out east this winter, hope you see spring real soon!

Technically, I believe your IA was right originally; since the aircraft was certified with the prop heat (unless I am wrong it was optional equipment - I am not certain). With respect to the regs - seems like many of us just refer to the ones we want to make use of. Most owners understand 91.213 which allows us to operate with an inoperative instrument or equipment. But fail to understand that this is not a permanent authorization to operate with the discrepancy. 91.405© Maintenance Required spells it out "Shall have any inoperative instrument or item of equipment, permitted to be inoperative by 91.213(d)(2) of this part, repaired, replaced, removed or inspected at the next required inspection. (91.405 d goes on to say the inop instrument/equipment needs to be placarded as as such, but it is referring till it's fixed at the next inspection). So I am sure your IA was reacting to 91.405 as he was taught to do which requires all previously allowed inop equip to be fixed or removed if they are optional equipment. I really wouldn't want to see it removed if it was mine, as I would expect to see the plane take a substantial hit in resale. In the case of the Bravo with a TKS retrofit, that is entirely different because the Type certificate has now been modified by the STC for TKS and the STC (whatever it says) governs the prop deice issue. But it sounds like all has been removed except for a button on the panel so still very different. So what has been the problem with getting it back to working? Brushes are cheap, boots aren't that bad, the ammeter was $800 last time I saw but the timer I imagine would be the most expensive to deal with. Hopefully its not the timer.

I agree with Cruiser (Tom) above. To demonstrate meeting the "performance requirements" of a TSO is akin to getting a TSO Authorization which is an FAA design and production approval issued to manufacturer that has successfully demonstrated meeting the performance requirements of the TSO - see CFR Part 21.601 and 21.603. Do you really believe the FAA is going to allow manufacturers to claim they meet the performance requirements on the honor system?

The "DGAC" quoted fee looks suspiciously close to the DGAC's Multi-entry fee which is again 1441 pesos this year and at the current very favorable exchange rate it should come out to $100 US if you pay in pesos, but of course you'll never do that good paying in dollars as they'll always exchange at a more favorable rate to them. You still have to pay immigration fees each time you enter, regardless, the multi-entry fee waives nothing officially, IF you check the Crew box on the immigration form rather than Tourista and (only if you aren't staying more than 7 or 10 days) then the pilot will only pay a very small immigration fee (~60 pesos). Pax will normally pay a 366 pesos immigration fee at arrival (entering the country) and then a small fee at departure (leaving the country) at around 5 US. At the great exchange rates going on right now, gas in Mexico is a great deal at just over $3.52/gal US based on a 14.8 exchange i.e. pay in pesos! (BTW, its always a challenge to accurately post fuel prices since whether you buy 1 gal or 100 gals you always pay their Wing tax of ~$10US on top of the per liter price and vat. In this case, the quoted example price was for 32 gal with taxes)

Cabo San Lucas used to be a great flyin destination for GA but that was ruined in my opinion when it became mandatory to hire a handler and pay the exorbitant fees. I haven't been back since before the mandatory handling fee. I recall when this first started, they took and gave you a nice 8x10 glossy of your plane landing at the airport as some justification of the charges. I guess enough people complained about that that and they have since dropped the picture and increased their charges. At least I haven't heard about the picture in years anymore. Although I have been sticking to La Paz and Punta Pescadero ever since, I understand the preferred airport for the south cape is now the big one at San Jose Del Cabo - but you have to ask to park in the public transient parking area to avoid FBO handling fees. Jack at Baha Bush is always willing to step you the process if you are a member and give him a call. I'd recommend that since I last heard parking was very reasonable there at MMSD. These days though they have such great care rental deals at La Paz that most folks are drawn there. As for using Ensenada to enter - why? Although I have never used them, they have a reputation for being very nice but very slow and have recently been requiring advanced reservations to land there do to construction going on at the field. Hopefully you are aware of that and know how to call to make one. That said, you should have the range to make Loreto and I would suggest clearing there and if not, then San Felipe which is the most efficient place to process through but fuel prices are bit higher. Anyway, the scenery is far superior flying down east side of baja plus there are landing options along the east side every 30-45 minutes as well.

Its also available from Amazon a bit cheaper. I prefer the 2" width because 1" requires 2 overlapping pieces to cover my cowling. Other sizes such as 1.5" are available, but i only see the 1.5" available in 5 yds and slightly wider ones in 36 yds which gets expensive. http://smile.amazon.com/dp/B000SPLDI0/ref=biss_dp_t_asn

Dead? I don't know, but I'd be surprised if they are still selling it. You'd have to keep the GNS firmware at a level that does not meet ADS-B Out location requirements for one, and you wouldn't be able to utilize the improved capabilities available for advisory VNAV and many more. Flightstream though is really cool and really helps to modernize our GNS navigators adding airways and would have hit a home run IMHO if they had just integrated the GDL 39 capabilities into it. But they claim you can interface an Android or IOS device to both simultaneously.

The shops download the s/w update for free from Garmin, they do need a separate program card to make the update. But my avionics shop updated both of my GNS430W's for free after I pulled the units, dropped them off at their place and then picked them up a few hours later along with a free zerox copy of the new AFMS which did cost them some money to duplicate/print. Although I am an A&P and did the paperwork myself, this falls under the guidelines of allowable owner preventive maintenance. Just be sure to replace the older Garmin AFMS, that should be in your POH, with a reduced copy of the new one and log the update in your Airframe logbook. If you have a good relationship/history with an avionics shop they may not charge you like mine.

I use the same O2 backup for flying in the flight levels when getting down is going to take some time. I have never needed to use it, but it provides peace of mind. I whole heatedly agree with the comment by M016576 to equip yourselves with a CO Monitor, but the $2 version is a joke. I started with a Home Depot unit that got great reviews from one of aviation/survival type of websites for more like $40. But I found that with a portable unit it just wasn't getting used reliably like it needed to be in order to provide realistic protection; especially after the novelty of acquiring it wore off. Maybe I lacked the discipline to make it a regular part of my flying but our plane and avionics is already more complicated than we'd like so I bit the bullet and installed guaranteed protection in the panel by replacing the clock with a TSO'd Guardian CO Monitor. That's a serious commitment of $ since the unit's ICA requires the sensor to replaced every 5 years. But our Mooney is serious travelling x-country machine and therefore we take the threat seriously. Understandably those that use their Mooney for short scenic hops are not going to be as concerned about the threat. CO poisoning is very insidious. At lower concentrations its not going to kill you till after many hours but will cause headache, VERTIGO or dizziness, a general flu like sense of malaise and it does impair judgement. So its possible the pilot did became handicapped from CO poisoning. You'd think though if the pilot was feeling sick and therefore wanting to get on the ground asap, he'd opt to go the 20+ miles away to MVFR airport. But maybe his judgement was that affected. As Bonal said, we'll have to wait for the report. Don Muncy is also right on about the 02, but its even more than that as its considered the anti-dote to CO poisoning. Pure clean air isn't adequate to get rid of it fast enough since as Don explained due to the bloods greater affinity to CO over O2. So saturated O2 is needed and typically administered in a hyperbaric tent. His other good suggestion is opening the storm window. Opening the storm window will evacuate smoke in seconds, unlike the vents, therefore its got to significantly dilute the CO levels as well and provide the next best protection in addition to O2 in mask. I'd like to think some medical issue, like Fantom suggested, such as CO poisoning was the result of this tragic loss. But it seems the majority of these accidents are from the more obvious simple issues - like the extreme example provided by AirFrance. We'll have to wait for the report though to see - probably sometime in early 2016 unfortunately. And I'll be very curious to read if they learn anything about the status of autopilot prior to the flight i.e. working or not. You'd think a pilot having a hard time would use it, even more so if not feeling well if that was the case.

Assuming you have an airspeed switch on your Mooney behind the ASI, did you consider using that in lieu of installing another switch - since it does the same thing?

For those that don't lock your baggage door before departure - I was the same way at first. I used to keep it unlocked, believing I may need to leave it open for an emergency responder to get me out if I couldn't get myself out (i have the emergency release pin on the lock allowing me to open the baggage door even if locked from the inside but that doesn't help someone from the outside if I can't get to it.) It was really hard to believe a properly latched baggage door can come open in flight or on the takeoff roll. But after many year of working with the MAPA Safety Foundation, initially as a participant then as an instructor, I have learned of first hand accounts through other longer time instructors that it has happened after they insist the baggage door was secured closed yet not locked. If the door isn't secured properly, its very unlikely its going to stay closed in the takeoff roll, but to open well into flight is really pretty strong evidence the door was indeed secured to stay closed that long before opening. In one of the instances I heard, the baggage door departed the aircraft and hit the tail doing some very expensive damage. Anyway, the first hand stories made a believer out of me. As a result of this past history, its been a MAPASF rule for quite awhile now not to depart till locking the baggage door and most instructors won't fly with you if you don't. Anyway the reported history is something to consider. Plus although I have never tried it, I understand the plexi-glass in the side window can be kicked out pretty easily if necessary, so my initial reason for keeping it unlocked is probably not as important as I thought it might be. Damage to the tail in flight is now my bigger concern.

JL, I don't think you mean to say going LOP results in increasing EGT's (I assume in response to Anthony's comment about his reducing), Perhaps what you meant, as suggested by your later comment, is that a typical LOP setting for the same (high cruise) power level will be less lean of peak (~60F) than the rich setting is ROP (~150F) and thus higher? That's certainly true. Also I trust when you say power increased you are referring to airspeed and not the power level indicated from the JPI as this is a algorithmic calculation assuming ROP operation. I should clarify I didn't mean to suggest a change in fuel flow will create a significant change in MP, just that a significant change in MP (or RPM) will create a significant change in fuel flow. However, i understand you're saying with the Merlin, it does. To get to a given LOP power level such as 55%, the challenge of course though is to keep fuel flow the same while increasing MP if you want to watch and collect data to see cylinders lean to peak and then track degrees of EGT below peak. (Even if you started at a higher fuel flow, once you leaned to the desired fuel flow with mixture, you'll likely need to continue leaning with more air at some point.) So have you collected any data on your JPI which illustrates the difficulty you are having trying this that you can dump and share? (e.g. savvy analysis perhaps)

The official source for the Mexican approach plates is their PIA which was available from www.eaipmexico.org.mx/ However, It's been since 2013 if I recall correctly since the last time they let us download from the site. Originally anyone could create a login ID and then download - but not now. Yet perhaps worth monitoring - I am hoping they turn it back on. Currently the only other official source is to pay the mexican gov for a subscription and maybe that's why they changed their minds on allowing free internet access. So that leaves you with a Jepp trip kit. Their electronic trip kit is what I use if I am going south for an extended period, It gives you the plates on a iPad with their JeppFD app and in the panel if you are so equipped. Mexico and Canada and really opposite seasons for the best flying. Save Mexico for a winter trip and do Canada in the summer.

The first statement is absolutely correct - but not the second. Any increase in MP or RPM will increase Fuel flow, and decrease in either will be accompanied by a decrease in fuel flow as Schule made the point in the first paragraph. This has nothing to do with the type of wastegate. Its controlled by the fuel pump and the throttle body. The fuel pump is providing fuel pressure primarily proportionate to RPM, while the throttle body is metering the fuel based on throttle position. So increasing throttle to increase MP gets a corresponding increase in fuel flow. Increasing Prop RPM increases fuel pressure put out by the pump also increasing fuel flow. The only thing different among the various Continental installations is that our turbo charged motors have a altitude compensating aneroid in the fuel pump to provide an auto-leaning feature - it senses ambient pressure. All in all the Continental fuel injection system is the simplest. In contrast the Lycoming RSA system uses venturi to schedule fuel flow proportionate to mass air flow; compensating for air pressure and temperature unlike our simple Continental Continuous Flow system that operate on RPM and throttle body position only. A bit verbose to make the point that fuel flow will change in response to a MP/Throttle or RPM change in any installation but hopefully the explanation makes it clear why. All of the wategates, either air pressure based Merlin or the TCM hydraulically controlled unit in the TSIO-360-MB and SB engines are merely trying to maintain the same MP. The primary difference between the Merlin and TCM hydraulically controlled wastegate is that TCM will do a much better job of maintaining constant MP as you climb and descend, but even the TCM wastegate will vary a bit in setting below max with altitude changes and is only a truly "set and forget" device at max power while climbing. So there is nothing unusual about needing to continually tweak fuel flow as you increase throttle to lean the mixture going further LOP. Assuming your engine analyzer has MP in addition to fuel flow (and preferably RPM) this is very easy. There is no need to twist both throttle and Mixture knobs simultaneously. As you increase throttle by about 1/2" MP, you do need to lean the fuel flow by the couple tenths it went up. But this hardly invalidates the process. As Anthony pointed out, the JPI probes are fast acting and you see an immediate temp change. This tweaking doesn't require a lot of time, but its also why I suggested starting at a low power setting of 50-55% power because one does need to learn the process at lower power levels so they can move through it faster at higher power levels when higher temperatures are more critical and need to be avoided. The fact that the EGT's will vary a bit up and down as the mixture fluctuates is not going to invalidate your engine analyzers ability to continue to track for peak EGT and then show you the delta from peak. Its not that hard and we're only talking about 10-15F temperature variations. Of course power and speed will not go up with further leaning past peak (on the LOP side) - just the opposite. But power and speed will go up by just increasing MP or throttle without adjusting back the change in fuel flow, since the increase in MP also accompanied by increased fuel flow. That's why it's so critical that your engine analyzer includes fuel flow. If you are also correcting to maintain constant fuel flow to increase leaning with increased throttle, I am very puzzled since if you keep increasing throttle to further lean the engine is just going to stop or get very rough.

How about two high end 29er Mountain bikes plus a bike rack to boot for the rental car on arrival! I put the frames in there own nylon bags and wheels in wheel bags that hold a pair. Keeps the interior clean. Everything is secured with ties down straps rear seat belts. We like to travel on mountain biking vacations. Our 252 does have folding rear bucket seats which is probably like cheating on early models that have bench rear seat. It take less than 3 minutes to reconfigure my rear seat for cargo. But there are options for folding rear bench seats which are much more practical in planes that don't already have that.

You can certainly easily do this in 252, one of my longest legs was KMYF (San Diego)-KERV (Kerville) at 939 mi, But frankly I hate long legs like that and could only pull that off flying solo, not because of weight but for pax comfort. Even a 633 nm leg from KMYF-MMLP Lap Paz is about our limit for comfort at 3:34 in the air. The 252 is ideal for trips like this to SE Alaska and beyond. Couldn't of made it without the Turbo or without a long weather delay, as we had to climb to FL200 to get above the weather (icing) and fly in the sunshine from Bellingham to Ketchikan. And that was only a 3 hr flight. But since we were there for the beautiful scenery on subsequent leg from Sitka to Homer we flew low from 6-10K hoping to find an altitude we could at least be between layers and spent all but the start and end of that in solid rainy IMC at a cost of an extra 1/2 hr of flight time from staying low and never did get any scenery till abeam Anchorage,area but we headed for Homer on that leg. Those three legs with approx distances, and actual times and fuel are below to give an idea of 252 capabilities for Southern Alaska. So really no need to do 4-5 hr legs flying to SE Alaska. BLI-PAKT 520nm 3:00 48 Gal PAKT-PKSI 160 nm 1:27 22 Gal PKSI-PAHO 564nm 3:30 48 Gal As I am sure you are aware, the turbo gives you lots of options over a NA aircraft and the 252 excels at this with a critical altitude of 23K, service ceiling of 28K powered with the complete turbo system of the MB that runs very efficiently in the flight levels and includes dual alternators, electric standby vacuum, built-in O2, speed brakes etc.

I'd suggest the following: 0) Before flight, pick 2 or 3 power setting you want to collect data for, begin conservatively with 55% power and go up from there consecutively as long as TIT allows, such as adding another 5-10% so that you go to 60% or 65% then another 5% or 10% for a 3rd power level etc.. I would add 5% at a time. Ultimately you're looking to learn how much power % you can operate within temperature constraints you are comfortable with as well as what the specific numbers are for that power setting. Not just CHT and TIT but how many degrees LOP you are are for EACH cylinder; thus while you're collecting data you'll be looking at EGTs too. CHT is not an issue, but EGT & TIT will be in 2 possible ways. Eventually with enough power you will likely find that either that i) your TIT exceeds your comfort threshold (that could be redline or it could be a more conservative 1550-1580F) or ii) you are not able to get EACH cylinder sufficiently LOP before the engine begins to run rough (that could be 10-20F LOP for each cylinder at lower power settings to 60-80F LOP at higher power settings approaching max cruise power. Don't pull these numbers out of hat, but read Deakin's Pelican Perch (see avweb) articles and allow your self to make an informed decisions. Or better yet, take the APS online (or in person) class when you can. But I personally would not recommend following Mike Busch's simplified approach - at least not initially - to forget about EGT and just look at TIT. Instead first educate yourself about the process and your engine and then with proven experience in both you can elect to simplify just using TIT as your guide. But this should be only AFTER you have collected the data to prove to yourself that all your cylinders are sufficiently LOP for the given power setting configuration you intend to use. If you don't want to do this, then just stick to lower power settings such as around 60% to keep your engine out of trouble. This is only a real concern for us turbo guys since the NA aircraft can't operate at high power settings LOP unless they're flying real low to begin with. With a turbo we can get into trouble real quick. So you are ready to begin your flight once you have i) calculated fuel flows and ii) pre-planned temperature limits for TIT (single limit for all pwr settings) and a minimum target degrees LOP for each cylinder based on power setting. Additionally for optimum data collection results, I would recommend i) changing the data sampling rate to 1 sec from the default of 6 (e.g. JPI) if your unit allows, and ii) know how to put your engine analyzer into LOP mode rather than ROP mode when you press the lean button. In flight, the following is just one way to do this that allow accurate data collection. But if possible take a safety pilot up with you to help with data collection and/or traffic watching. 1) climb at max power to altitude typically ~36" with an intercooled 231 or 252 (but whatever your intercooler documentation suggest), max rpm (2700 GB/LB/MB or 2600 SB), full rich. You should find that it runs cooler (CHT and TIT) at max power with full rich than it does using the POH cruise climb power setting in your POH. 2) level off and set power to your first power setting, suggest 55% ROP per your POH, using the prop RPM you customarily use for cruise flight. Configure cowl flaps as required (hopefully closed) 3) allow plane to stabilize in temps and speed. If desired, also write down Indicated air speed and fly 3 GPS tracks at 120 degrees apart to calculate True air speed later at both ROP and LOP for each power setting to allow for comparison later. 4) Begin the lean test, set your engine analyzer into LOP mode. Then slowly lean the mixture to your pre-calculated fuel flow for the desired power level (e.g., 55% = 9.5 gph). Once at target fuel flow, start raising MP slowly to continue leaning the mixture. While doing this, you are watching lean find operation in LOP mode on your engine analyzer. It will inform you when the first cylinder peaks, and as you continue leaning it will indicate each cylinder as it peaks. When the last cylinder peaks it will then indicate how many degrees LOP the last cylinder is as you continue to add air (i.e. continue to lean by adding air). Stop leaning when either you reach your target number of degrees LOP or get roughness that would make a back seat pax nervous (that's not very much). At 55%, even running at peak is safe, but you want to ensure all cylinders are running LOP, including the last to peak with at least your targeted number of degrees LOP before going to a higher power setting. After familiarizing yourself with the literature (e.g., Deakin's articles) you'll see at 55% you are fine just running at 10 LOP. At 55% power this should be an easy exercise and useful learning experience. In performing this, you will have learned you may or may not have a large variety of variation in degrees LOP between your cylinders. For example, your last to peak may be only 10F LOP while your first to peak may now be 60-80F or even more LOP. This variation is what leads to the engine roughness we often get with continued leaning and stems in part from how well balanced our injectors are but can also vary significantly due to potential issues in your induction system or ignition system. I am only making these points to underline the importance of collecting the data at the cylinder level before you begin to lean solely based on TIT; especially at high power levels. But once you've convinced yourself every cylinder is running sufficiently LOP for any given documented power level settings then you should be comfortable moving on to quickly leaning to your documented power setting (FF, MP & RPM) and just using TIT to tell you your engine is running as expected. Many skip this important data collection stage, but given the cost of our engine's I personally think that's unwise. If one doesn't have a modern engine analyzer with the data collection capabilities to do this then your next safest bet is to use the TIT only method while sticking to lower power settings (<65%) till you have the proper data to support higher power settings. Without data recording capabilities you're really operating blind. Note when leaning, for the purpose of collecting this data, don't be concerned about exceeding your target TIT or even redline TIT momentarily for upto approx 30 seconds as you go back down the LOP side, but avoid a transient deviation of more than 1700F as your POH advises. Should you find you encounter roughness before you achieve your desired degree LOP for your last cylinder to peak, then there are few things you can do to help. You can first try again with a different RPM (such as going from 2400 to 2500 cruise rpm), and you can also try going from massive plus to fine wire plugs. All of this assumes you already are free of induction leaks and your ignition system including magnetos, wires and plugs are all in good shape and timing is correct but these are also reasons that can lead to engine roughness that manifest itself when LOP. So if you are encountering roughness LOP, a good diagnostic is to perform a magneto test in the air while LOP, but preferably with a low enough power setting that you have a smooth running engine and be below 12K when you perform the test. (if the engine quits on one mag, before you go back to both, pull the mixture to idle to avoid backfire and then slowly push the mixture in with both mags on till it re-lites - an unlikely event but be prepared) After the above you should feel comfortable operating LOP with a high degree of confidence based on the data you collected - not blind faith. But its a very good practice to periodically re-check your data as well as periodically perform the airborne ignition test while LOP to check the health of your ignition system. Way more than I intended to write, but hopes that helps a few folks get started with LOP ops.

Your comparing the blending of a small amount of gas into large amount of oil in radial to pouring a gallon of gas into an essentially empty crankcase? I suspect the prime candidates for an ignition source would be the same ones dictating we don't add gas from plastic gerry cans into our tanks; especially inside the hangar and why we properly ground the fuel source to the plane while refueling. Unlikely? Of course, but it has happened plenty enough to a number of people that saw their plane go up in flames from static electricity buildup while pouring gas from plastic fuel cans; especially in cold dry winter conditions. In your radial engine example, its a closed grounded system, unlike the ungrounded probably plastic gas can you're holding. Surely not meaning to pick on anyone for doing this, but its important to be aware of the risk so anyone seriously takes precautions if doing this, at least for your hangar neighbors that could include many of us!

For what its worth, the factory if of course your best up to date source for all documentation. If you take your maintenance responsibilities seriously you'll want to refer to the most current approved documentation as required by the FARs when doing any maintenance. They provide digital and paper versions. They just released an update to the digital version on many of the maint manuals that they emailed to owners of record just about a month or so ago, including the K, M, R, S & TN. The updates are for Section 5 Time Life components; thus pretty benign unless your bird is affected. They said they would be following up with the paper version this fall. For the K the proper manual is now MAN134 Rev B, yet Rev A can be updated to B with just a few change pages very easily.

Yes, you can get LED versions of the bulb from Spruce or any of the big electronic outlets (Mouser, Digikey, Newark etc). I use an LED bulb in my yoke light. Often the map light stops working when the bulb is still good. The base of the bulb can get a little corroded; especially within a loose socket that just needs a little finger tightening. Sometimes the entire bulb and screw in circular metal retainer both fall out together onto the floor and become lost. Plus its not unusual for the pilot to have no idea what the little retainer found on the floor belongs too and then it never finds its way back before becoming permanently lost and forgotten. So if you don't see a bulb, and just an open whole, look all around the cockpit floor carefully and you might get lucky.

Yes its adjustable and covered in the TCM maintenance manual.