jetdriven

Likely, actually. Or it could be the capacitor. Kelley changed their OH manual to say that anything that looks good can be reused. So they do.

As @A64Pilotsays, as you go higher, you have to start raising the RPM and enriching the mixture to keep the true air speed where you want it. For our plane in around 12,000 feet that’s going to be 2700 RPM and 80 rich of peak. Any other power setting is slower. Interestingly, that’s about 9.9 or 10 gallons per hour whether it’s 7000 feet or 12. I recently flew 1000 mile leg last summer, and the only altitude that really worked was 9500 and just slightly lean of peak. There was kind of basically only about nine knots average tail wind, and it’s hard to get that kind of range out of a 64 gallon airplane.

Brake pads and rotors are consumables,

Problem here is that's an approved Navigation light assembly and I don't know if you can swap bulbs out of it and still meet the required brightness and pattern. But you can't put in an OR500 tail LED NAV strobe on that thing and that will satisfy the requirement.

The distribution and sale of G100UL is going to run into a brick wall because all the oil companies have exclusive marketing agreements with FBO's and they can only sell their branded fuel.

It doesn't get simpler than leaving the power where it was and just trimming for the nose to come down at 600-700 feet per minute. The airspeed is still in the green arc and your true airspeed came up 40 kn. Which offsets a lot of the loss that you took during the climb.

You may be surprised to find out the airplane is 5 or 6 knots faster at 2700 RPM that at 2500 RPM at about 10,000 feet or above. And this is with the same fuel flow. You can't make enough percentage of power up there to get what you want, and 2700 is more than 2500.

It’s not so much the oil holes on the crank rod journal because the loads on the rod are pretty low, but what is happening is that instead of having pressure on top of the piston pushing it down you have the crankshaft pulling the rod down and you have negative pressure on top of the pistons and you get ring flutter. It leads to broken rings and other things. Multi engine airplanes doing in-flight air shutdowns, and restarts don’t spend a whole lot of time with the throttle pulled back and windmilling until they are featheredor re-lit. And again, most of this is done at low speed and if the prop is driving the crankshaft at 100 mph is one thing but 150 or 60 miles an hour is something else. If you get on the highway at 60 miles an hour and jam your car into third gear it probably doesn’t hurt at all that much but if you shove it first, the forces are magnified. but generally speaking, you want positive torque on the crankshaft, and you want the engine pulling the prop, pulling the airplane forward, even if it’s just a small amount. In a four-cylinder Mooney, at high speed it’s probably around 18 or 20 inches, and at lower speed it will be less, like 16” and frankly, in the pattern if you’re going 100 miles an hour and you pull the power off and do a short approach it probably doesn’t matter all that much. But it’s at high speed where it does. I went for a ride in an Rv8 of a friend of mine and we flew around a while, and he had this habit of getting right up to the airport and then pulling the power almost to idle, and then shoving the nose down and the whole airplane kind of buzzed and had this flutter because of the air going through the prop air is disturbed because again, negative torque. He also seems to be getting about 400-500 hours on cylinders before he has to redo them, and the rings are always broken. Well, I have a theory as to why that’s happening.

It’s all about percentage of power and at 150+ miles per hour, it doesn’t matter what Rpm it is, at 15 inches, the airplane is pushing the prop. Once you get to 80 mph it’s the other way around.

The 15” limitation is for continuous operation and a momentary power setting that allows you to slow down is not continuous power setting. That said, slowing your plane down to 80 knots to lower the gear, you’re trading wear on the gear motor for wear on the engine because you’re going to be driving the engine with the prop and that’s more expensive than a gear motor actually. For what it’s worth I put the gear down at 153 miles an hour indicated all the time, but we have STC aftermarket lower gear doors which don’t seem to mind. It’s lower doors that curl and tear up not the upper ones. But if you lower it at some number around 130 or so, is probably fine for gear door wear too.

If you wanna stop the cowling for moving, and I mean stop it from moving a single millimeter, put the stopper block on the inside of the cowling on the upper part and put a piece of angled aluminum on the edge of the boot cowl and when those two pieces butt into each other it can’t move. Now for the bottom, Lasar sold this mod that was a little strap. it was just above the bottom of the cowling, with a nut plate on it, and you put a hole through that in a screw with a smooth shank on it. And then the entire cowl can’t move a single millimeter. Whenever we did all this work, we filed the back edge of the cowling with about a one and a half millimeter gap. And 10 years later, the paint still isn’t chipped and the gap is the same. The harder you clamp down on the cowling with fixed nut plates and short cam locks, the more it wears the holes. The metal in the fiberglass layup is a piece of .020” aluminum which slows it down, but it doesn’t stop it. The camlock’s job is to keep the cowling flush with the skin. The shear loads have to be absorbed by something made to hold shear loads, and a 3/8 in. Square of aluminum, riveted to the airframe, butting into a piece of fiberglass that’s the same size. It ain’t going nowhere in 1000 hours.

You can slow down the problem, but you can’t stop it because the grommets start to wear the holes in the cowling into an egg shape. The way you can stop it is to build a piece of fiberglass inside the cowling that is 1/4” high and contacts a piece of angled aluminum riveted to the inside of the boot cowl. And then it could take the shear load and the grommets can do their job by holding the cowling down.

Not necessarily, in the same spot on the curve, that’s true, but the leaner you get from peak, the slower the flame front and eventually power output will decline. Put into practice, 27 inches of manifold pressure at 8 gallons an hour is a certain percentage of power at 30 lean of peak, but if you shove more manifold pressure through it and then lean it back to the same fuel flow, it is now 100 lean of peak, and that won’t be the same horsepower at the crankshaft. You can see this with your airspeed. It’s because the efficiency is less because it’s actually too far down the backside of the peak. The peak power pulse of combustion occurs further down the cylinder because it’s burning slower.

But you also introduce 3 different failure points in the 3-step process. If you pull the key out you do Al that with one step

But you pull the switches up to put the placard on the dash then that turns the switches on. And actually, they should be locking bat toggle switches. The idea they put some cheap plastic switches on such an important piece of hardware, don’t think it’s all that great of an idea. And then they put the starter button with no shroud or guard on it and it actually sticks out beyond the flat surface of the switch. Again, it’s very easy to touch this panel and either hit the starter or turn off one or both magneto’s while you’re flying. Eventually, it’s going to happen, someone’s going to be flying at night and do one of those two things. We have two clients with these switch panels and although they look cool, they’re not as good.

That’s a lot of extra steps to have the convenience of having 3 switches vs a key

The higher the temperature, the more potential for corrosion, and the more water the air in the engine can hold. Just plug it in a few hours before you go fly otherwise, leave it cold.

Since the early 1990s, yes those things spall, and I agree with you that engines built built before that time are less susceptible to lifter spalling but in this case that is more than offset by the fact that the engine hasn't been apart in about 45 I'm years, that carries the to its own set of risks. In either case id be prepared to eat it as soon as buying, but you could run it and hope.

I don’t think Mike Bush’s corollary really applies to Lycoming 4 cylinders and lifter spalling anymore in todays reality. This board is riddled with stories of folks buying a plane and planning on running it past TBO to get later blown up with a $40,000 or $50,000 engine shop bill because the cam started eating itself. We did two last year in our shop, it happened to me when we bought our plane 14 years ago. There’s no signs of this letting up. And on the other end, a freshly overhauled engine is going to go for a premium as long as it was done by a rated shop because of the incredible cost and waiting time. If it takes 6 to 9 months to get an engine done, that’s another $7000 or $8000 worth of utilization that you’re spending right out of your pocket that you don’t get to use your airplane. We just bought a Cherokee 180 from a friend of a friend, and the first thing it’s getting is an engine. The one on it was done in 1992 and although it runs great, between lender problems and general buyer hesitance, it’s only flying one time, to our hanger to have it removed. Yes it is getting DLC lifters.

How is changing a switch of one part number for another part number a major change in type design? And also aren’t we allowed to substitute parts and materials for vintage aircraft? (all mooneys are vintage aircraft) I mean they have to be equal or better right but I can’t see how any of this is major.

There’s got to be some reason why the Bonanza proficiency clinics and the Mooney safety foundation clinics don’t do them.

That’s a whole problem going up to Vermont for example, a mooney really isn’t the kind of plane to be flying up there if you’re gonna do it IFR and the temperature is below freezing. You start getting ice there’s literally nowhere to go for 100 miles. One person on this board tried, with near- disastrous results.

Somebody cut the fuel gauge arms to be between 7/8” and 2” shorter on our plane whatever they installed the bladders I guess to get the fuel gauge just to read accurately on full or empty. The floor of the bladder is about 3/4 of an inch or maybe 1 inch above the bottom of the actual original tank.

We fly that way a bunch going up to Vermont, and if you just go about 15 or 20 miles East of there you're over the Hudson River Valley, and there's tons of airports and the terrain is far lower. It's even not much that further out of the way.

They have two versions, a 1 Rpm and a 2 Rpm version. If you buy the 2 Rpm version it’s going to be 1300 bucks, and then when you find out that the airflow pushes the cowl flaps open in cruise then you get to buy the 1 Rpm version and pay another 1300 bucks because the first one is not returnable.