Shadrach

A high strength silicone coupler would be most ideal. As for reinforcing the standard duct, I think any fuel tank sealant that meets AMS-S-8802 is the best option. There is nothing I can think of that is off the shelf locally that compares in terms of adhesion, flexibility and durability.

I wonder if it’s not a combination of things. As a flat lander (I live at 524msl) who occasionally travels to high altitude destinations and spends several days above 8000’ doing strenuous activity with no acclimation, its hard for me to get my head around someone feeling “off” over 4 or 5 hours sitting at >8k. Do you feel off after sitting in an airline cabin pressured to 9 K? I suspect that most GA pilots are moderately dehydrated after an extended flight. None of us want to deal with peeing in the plane, so we avoid hydrating in flight.

Like a smokeless ashtray. I’m a child of the 70s and 80s…I’ve seen it more than I care to admit. I’d bet that every bird on this board built prior to 1980 has had the pilot window opened in flight for a smoke.

I opened my storm window as well when I closed my door in flight. I don’t dispute that it helps, as certainly seems to drop the pressure in the cabin. The thing is, anyone that has removed their interior has likely seen the large cabin outflow vents on each side of the cabin below the rear seat backs. The vents are ~3cm x 8cm rectangular openings that are covered externally by louvered plates. I would think would be adequate to prevent a pressure differential. Perhaps someone has some additional insight as to why opening a third vent (side window) makes a difference.

I find that a lot of IO360s surge a bit at idle when warm. I think this is common and caused by a sticky sniffle valve.

Clean it before replacing it. It’s fairly easy to access.

535d x drive. Likely same power plant as your 335d if it’s a later model with the N57. Ill shot you a DM with my thoughts after my first drive.

Agreed. But the compromise is not always performance vs safety. Sometimes it’s performance vs money or safety vs money. Or even performance and safety vs regulatory structure…

Indeed. My diesel sedan is in the shop getting a tune right now should have to back Tuesday. When I dropped it off it had 413lb ft of torque flat bereeen 1500 and 3000rpm and 255hp. When I pick it up it will have 545lb ft across the same range and 335hp. Better fuel economy as well if I can keep my foot out of it.

I suppose they wanted to avoid the extra 100lbs on the nose, and enjoyed the superior fuel specifics of the high compression (11:1 IIRC) ported a polished Lycoming. or maybe they just wanted to soup up a Lycoming for the sake of doing it. I’m sure you’ve met the type.

I know of at least one experimental IO360 pushing 250hp. High compression pistons, ported heads, dual ignition advance, tuned exhaust.

Absolutely true for the Cessna at the White House. However, I think the gyrocopter that made it to Capitol Hill was undetected until it landed.

Agree it is our duty to gather all necessary information to conduct the flight safely and legally. My point was that violating a VIP TFR is far less egregious from a safety standpoint than landing on a NOTAM’d closed runway with a big white X painted over the numbers and favoring one side of the runway to avoid hitting maintenance personnel with your twin Cessna. Yet the penance was the same. except for that if you violate a VIP TFR, your record can never be expunged. Deliberately land on a closed runway with people on it? That can be expunged in five years Its good to be connected… I say this as someone who is grateful for everything that Jim Inhofe has done for GA. Of all of the things he’s done, I wish I could say setting a good example was among them.

I don’t know if it’s reasonable. If you’re a sitting member of the US senate, you can land on a closed runway (NOTAM’d) with maintenance personnel present and have the same penance. I for one have grown weary of the swaths of airspace restrictions for whichever solipsistic, narcissistic “public servant” has ventured outside of DC. The only thing these TFRs have successfully accomplished is enforcement action against boneheaded pilots. Stop a Cessna from landing on the Whitehouse lawn? Nope. Keep a Gyrocopter from landing on Capital hill? Nope. I suppose they are useful in giving military aircraft some low speed, intercept, practice. Which is good given that their radar apparently doesn’t pick low up speed GA aircraft.

Does your E have split seat backs? I thought they started in 1965 and then went away around 1970 before being reintroduced in the 201.

@N201MKTurbo touches on some of what I was getting at. I know that Surefly states the unit is capable of delivering up to 38° of advance, but I’ve not seen the timing maps. There are certainly advantages to having dual ignition. The large bore of most aero engines obviously benefits from two points of ignition propagation. I have had to climb on a single mag and the degradation in performance is noticeable, whether it’s significant is in the eye of the beholder. Single point of ignition is better than none… To Rich’s point, you can advance timing further on a single point of ignition to match the same optimal pressure point of a dual advanced ignition system, but then you have pressure building further before TDC, which means less energy delivered at the optimum crank angle and more energy delivered during the compression stroke. Not ideal for efficiency. All of his may seem like angels dancing on the head of a pin in the real world. I have no dog in the fight, but I have not seen any data on the real world performance increases with the single variable timing mag. Seat of the pants reports vary from ho hum to I think I’m getting a few fractions of a gallon per hour in fuel savings all other things being equal. I (apparently incorrectly) attributed the lack of significant performance increase to the possibility that the effects of the advanced ignition event were not being fully realized because of the single point of propagation across such a large combustion chamber (relatively speaking). This was reinforced by my reading Nigel Speedy’s article on ignition advance, as he seems to see significant performance gains running dual advance over stock fixed mags. Gains that far exceed any claims I’ve seen of those running a single point of advance. Given my lack of understanding of combustion science and my lack of solid performance data on the Surefly installation, perhaps you might expand a bit on the performance gains that you’ve seen.

I think CHT really is the ultimate measure of of how well a power setting is suited to conditions, but one must do some “normalizing” adjustments in their observations. I’ll take a cruise cht of 365° to be a pretty reasonable in August. 365° on a February day with an OAT 10° not so much.

Ugg...I really need to vacuum my cabin floor...

Worm Gear Overhaul? Are you saying the enclosed jackscrew in the tail has been ovehauled? If you have a "hard" spot in one place through out the trims travel, the jackscrew would be my first check. There is enough play in the trim shafts and joints running to the tail for you to determine which side of a shaft the resistance is on. You will likely need a helper, but should be able to tell pretty quickly if the bind is in the tail or in under the cockpit floor.

So you are of the opinion that having a dual, optimally timed ignition event on each cylinder has no benefit over a single optimally timed and a single fixed ignition event? It seems to me if there is no benefit to having two, the benefits of having one must be marginal. I am speaking from a cruise performance standpoint, putting ease of starting and extended maintenance intervals aside.

Closing the door from the right seat is not ideal on the ground with the airplane shut down. Very little leverage with your left arm crossed over your chest and your elbow bent. I’m not surprised you weren’t able to get it closed in the air. If it ever happens again, the best course of action is to have the right seater do the flying and the left seater reach across and pull the door closed.

I’m not a fan either. I think it just muddies the water. I’ve also found that if one leans too fast, one can trick the system into identifying the wrong cylinder. The richest and leanest cylinder of a power plant should be consistent on every flight unless something physically changes. If this weren’t the case, GAMI would not be able to tune a fuel system for consistent air/fuel delivery to each cylinder. A pilot endeavoring to understand their power plant should know which cylinder is leanest and which is richest. This should only need to be done once. It should be done carefully and methodically. From that point forward the pilot knows which cylinder to reference for leaning, depending on whether or not he wishes to run ROP or LOP. Why would you need to use a lean fine function if you know which cylinder is which? What I have written below is well understood by most of the pilots on this board, but it bears mentioning for the few that may not yet fully understand engine management using EGT. My intent is to be helpful, not pedantic… If a pilot wishes to run lean of peak EGT, using the richest cylinder (last to peak) as a reference is the only way to ensure all other cylinders are as lean or leaner than the cylinder being used to set power. Conversely, if a pilot wishes to run rich of peak EGT, using the leanest cylinder (first to peak) as a reference is the only way to ensure that all other cylinders are richer than the cylinder being used to set power. If a pilot is operating a turbocharged power plant, knowing how peak EGT on the leanest and richest cylinder correlate to peak TIT is necessary to setting power precisely using TIT. TIT is simply a collective reading of all the heat energy in the exhaust at the turbine inlet. It may be that peak TIT is a reasonable proxy for peak EGT on all cylinders if the fuel/air ratios are well matched. But that is not guaranteed, if it were, there would be no need for tuned injectors. The goal is to ensure that all cylinders are set within the desired mixture range while also ensuring TIT is significant margin from redline to ensure maximum turbo service life. Compromises must sometimes be made regarding power, temperature and fuel flow to ensure longevity of the engines components. A well conforming power plant with minimal FF delta between EGT peaks will require the least amount of compromise. It’s worth considering that the manufactures are not nearly this detailed when determining POH power recommendations. The factory power settings are guided by performance simplicity and minimizing warranty claims. Anyone who wishes to extract more performance and longer service life from their power plant will likely need to dig a little deeper than the POH.

He sure sounded calm and confident in the radio transmissions. Did not sound bothered in the least. I thought maybe a base to final stall but the impact does not look like it followed a stalling turn at low altitude.

I am ashamed to say that in 25 years of Mooney flying I have had two baggage door "pops"...which is to say the Schmuck in the left seat did not ensure the door was latched. Both times were caused by pilot distraction during preflight/loading by passengers. It's why I try to load and preflight the plane without passengers present. In both door "pops" the door started flying long before the plane. No problem to stop and taxi back, just embarrassing. If unsure about the latch, one can always open the passenger door before departure and take a look...I can say from experience that it's a good idea to remove a ball cap before doing so...

Climb to a safe altitude and practice closing the door at safe but low indicated airspeed (Something 1.4xVs). I once inadvertently closed the tail of the passenger seatbelt in the door. I heard a slapping sound to my right on climb out. When I moved the pax seat aft to investigate, I could see the seat belt tail caught in the rear part of door. I leveled at something like 3,500' and trimmed for 80MIAS. When the plane was stable, I reached over and unlatched the door, retrieved and stowed the seatbelt. I then latched the door and continued to my climb. It was easier to close than expected. Given all of the stories that I have read here about it being "impossible", I was pretty aggressive with my pull. That was overkill. A firm pull was all that was really necessary. I think the whole thing took less than 30 seconds from the time I let go of the yoke to resuming my climb. Not a big deal.