jetdriven

No, the battery minder is not gonna be adequate for the constant current recovery charge. You need a power supply that will put a steady 3.5 A into it and up to about 16.5V for 18 hours. These automatic chargers taper down the amps as the voltage comes up and then they stop and go to a float cycle. You purposely overcharge it for a reason. But however, on Amazon, there are several power supplies that you can use to constant current charge it with. I’ve also seen the recovery charge take these things from 50% up to 75 or even 90% capacity in the re-test. Maybe it just reforms the lead on the plates but it’s something that pretty much nobody does but it’s really important. we use this at the shop. https://a.co/d/3I3JzYY

It’s a recovery charge and like I said, read the manual and follow that.

You discharge it the C1 rate which for an RG35 is about 33A…..it should last for 80% of an hour. Then you charge it back up at 10% of the C1 rating for 18 hours, let it rest for a few hours, and then you can capacity test it again. It’s all in the Concorde RG series component maintenance manual

They installed that so you can start the airplane from a power cart without using the ships battery at all. It actually has its own separate contactor it powers, the aircraft directly off of the external power cart. But it is with the understanding that the battery is not depleted or it's defective or it's missing, just that you don't want to deplete it trying to start it in cold weather. Or if you want to do a bunch of avionics work and you don't want to run the battery down.

There's no procedure because you're not supposed to do it. You will possibly kill the alternator or the regulator or both trying to charge a dead battery with the airplane. Plus, it needs to have 80% capacity to be airworthy so it should be changed anyway. Also, the earth X has about half the capacity of the lead acid battery so, you only have about 20 or 30 minutes of reserve capacity instead of an hour.

If a spouse meets the open Pilot warranty, but they’re not named on the policy, and that spouse was operating the aircraft, then you have a unique situation here, they can pay the claim to make the insured whole, and then they can subrogate against the spouse, which means it comes right back out of the same bank account that they granted you for the claim. Which means that it’s effectively uninsured all over again.

So we didn’t save money, then. We got a sublimits policy for 300$ a year less than a smooth policy. The premium difference quoted earlier in the year was 600$ more for smooth limits. but they got to do the air race and both flew it. So we paid.

I would call and ask them that question. Maybe if you explained to them that she never flies it, but you don’t want to run into any trouble if you ever have a claim, see what they say. If she’s part owner of the plane, they may require her to be named on the policy, that’s kind of what happened to us. I’m curious what they have to say. Having a spouse who is a pilot is not a very common occurrence.

When you go to apply for insurance or add her to the policy, they’re gonna want to know how much time she has in make and model and then how are you gonna say that she got it? Or let’s say you just never want to add her to the policy and she never flies the airplane so then it’s kind of a moot point. But if you want her to somehow fly the airplane but not be named on the policy and she doesn’t meet the open Pilot warranty you’re putting yourself in a situation. Your situation , our situation and the OP’s situation are all three different things. But I do remember when we bought our plane there was a three-way partnership and they required all three pilots that were owners of the airplane to be named on the policy. Or specifically excluded. But either way we had to pay up.

Look, you do what you want. But my wife wanted to add a commercial instrument rated Pilot to our policy for the air race classic this year and they said she must be insured in it or they’re not gonna pay it. I suppose if she signed some affidavit that she was actually just not a flying pilot whatsoever and not required maybe that would’ve been fine, but they were both gonna switch out legs for this thing. And then we were like well she can fly with me a few times and get some experience and they said no she has to be named on the policy before she can touch the controls. So we added her to the policy and paid a pretty good sum because she had zero time in type. But between them signing up for the air race and social media posts, her partner buying an airline ticket to come out to practice with me, and everything else, it wouldn’t be too hard to figure out that she was flying the airplane and they could weasel out of paying it. Or how about this, they’ll just refuse to pay it and then you have to sue them to get them to do it. But they have lawyers on staff whobwork for them and you don’t so you got to hire one. And then the burden of proof is still on you, and then discovery rules come into play and then they’re gonna find out the emails were you guys coordinated the flights and discussed the insurance and everything else. And yes, absolutely if the flight aware history shows training style maneuvers is going to be brought up as well. I’m not sure if logbooks can be requested in discovery, but if it exists and you try to falsify it or destroy it again, you’re gonna lose your case because hiding or destroying evidence, it’s pretty consequential. Just ask Lycoming how well that works for them. But I think if they get a whiff of insurance fraud or that you’re lying to them, It can get bad pretty quick. Like I said, they have the money and they can just refuse to pay it. but I think telling somebody who doesn’t have any experience to get insurance to put their friend on the policy and pretend like they’re not flying it and they get a bunch of experience in the same airplane they asked about getting insured for is bad advice.

They could start by looking at the logbook of you and the other person and see if you’ve been giving them dual instruction in that plane and then that would probably be good cause for them to deny the claim that you guys are both flying in at the time of loss. Don’t forget there’s also Flightaware. They can go out and see training maneuvers that you’ve been flying with the person in previous times before the claim. Unless you plan on not logging anything until after you’re done with all of it, but then now you’re getting into falsification of records, which is an even bigger problem.

Except insurance companies require the person to be named on the policy before they’re actually allowed to touch the controls. It’s kind of a new thing but it’s been happening a lot.

remove the window panels, remove the retainers, and remove the windows. Clean up the sealant and glue some new ones in with CS3330. Dont use silicone, or any hardware store crap. We could probably do it here and send you back out early the next day.

You can pee in a bottle, but you can’t run a plane on air. They’ve tried.

I ran a wire from the battery solenoid to the baggage door light momentary switch and then it goes through Don's magic box and then it goes to the Whelen LED. And it gets about 22 minutes and then it turns off.

how were you measuring TAS

they werent able to repair a 1987 28V M20J regulator. This also fits the 252

There’s actually a Mooney factory drawing and a retrofit kit for this, but they refuse to sell the drawing because they can’t buy actuators to sell as part of the kit, and the drawing is part of the kit.

Those things are not mandatory and not required for airworthiness.

That antenna is 17 inches tall, which is 4 inches taller than the other antenna and it’s more circular in profile so it’s great for a 182 but not really for Mooney speeds. Plus, I’m not sure it has the offset BNC either and some places will just chop that leg off of stringer, but it’s not really what you should do.

The CI-196 antenna is the only thing you can buy right now except for the ci-122 for the belly, because the 196 has an offset BNC to clear the stringer. Yes, they’re expensive but that’s the way that is. Plus the drag on any one of these antennas is very minimal.

So that adhesive stuff you can try goo gone, I will start with that if that doesn’t work, you can turn it up to acetone or lacquer thinner, or xylene. None of that stuff will really harm fiberglass

We had a new first officer pre-flight a 1900 one time and they had 25,000 hours on it, and the tail number was always the number of the serial number, i.e., 231YV was serial number UE-231. But in this case that data plate and the tail number disagreed, she looked in the book and it had the serial number of the the same as the tail number, so they actually called the factory, and the wrong date was put on the Aircraft some 10 years before that and nobody had ever caught it.

I mean, here’s the thing, call around for the job you want done and see what people are willing to do it for, if you can’t find anybody to install something used or work on somebody else’s wiring, that kind of says it all. You’re free to open up your own avionics shop or do your own troubleshooting which it appears you did and you fixed it so you know it worked out for the best I think. But I spent hours trying to troubleshoot something, such as a wire that was crimped with the insulation under it and wasn’t making contact and we have to eat a lot of that. That stuff gets old.

The results are in. 14th of 50. https://www.airraceclassic.org/results/ A few observations. There were 9 legs. 18 hours of 1000 AGL and full throttle, 2700 RPM, and mostly full rich. Lots of moderate turbulence and 90+ degree heat. They placed 14th of 22 non-college teams. Leg 5 was a killer, a huge diversion around weather which resulted in a 21mph loss on that leg. This stuff built up right in front of them, had they taken off 5 minutes sooner, it wouldn't have yet been there. The top few teams on that leg had around an average of -3mph, so the net loss was 18mph, averaged to 2 MPH over the whole thing. "out of the flyby box" penalties amounted to 1.33 MPH. The allocated flyby boxes are 400-600' wide, beside the runway, and depend on the airport. There were some extensions past the runway for traffic or wider turns which added some time. One in particular was MBY which added 3 miles to the upwind leg before turning, slow traffic executing a VFR landing to the opposite end of the runway. So, had leg 5 gone nominally, no penalties, and some tighter turns on course, they would have placed 3rd. But no race is perfect. Too many variables, unpredictable weather, other pilots, etc. On the leg home, we stopped at Carhenge at Alliance NE, then flew 984NM non stop to TSO in Ohio for dinner, then home. Next week, Airventure Cup race, a different race entirely. Class plyon racing. Run what you brung.