Shadrach

No M3s but many…many 3 series over the years. To include my current beater which is a quasi grey market 09 E91 sport wagon. As I recall, we do both have an affection for the Abarth.

There was no deformed piston according to the report Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any evidence of preimpact mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation, and the engine achieved full and continuous power during a test run. I I can’t speak to what his pilot was doing. Very little of it follows logic. He clearly was challenged by a number of factors. What an odd accident.

Yikes. That is outrageous. I am beginning to see a trend in shared tastes. I wonder how many on the board married blondes…

What kind of systems?

Great! I have a soft spot for the design. My wing leveler and vacuum step have been essentially maintenance free for 57 years. The boots are still supple and leak free. Just a TC overhaul from time to time and new vacuum tubing behind the panel every 5-6 years.

You would think that would be the case? However, there are some long established gems in that area. I live on the East coast now but have ordered dealer only parts from Porsche Marin for shipment to Maryland because they were more competitive than my local dealer just 30 miles away...even with shipping. There is also a tire shop called Cains in San Rafael that did the best custom alignment and Road Force balance I've ever had. They exceeded expectations in all areas except pricing. Just like in aviation, it's good to know the lay of the local service provider landscape. Going in blind can burn you badly...

It will happen. Can I get right of first refusal on those antiquated Brittain systems?

Yea, that's pretty common knowledge. I was just wondering how many static system blockages occur in the real world. The only failure I've had was during taxi back to my hangar after an IFR cert where the tech left both fuselage static ports covered. ASI did not come off the peg during taxi.

Judging from the font differences, I’d bet that was added the end of the production line as an option or at a later date after delivery.

Corrosion is cruel and it really does not care if the airframe was made 20 years ago or 50 years ago. Mooney did upgrade the coatings for the steel cage in later years. I stripped and resealed most of ours in two part zinc epoxy. Probably good for another 50 years.

Dealers are for warranty work only in my opinion. I will give a hat tip to Porsche of Marin (formerly Sonnen Porsche). They are one of the best dealerships in the country. Competitive parts pricing and honest and transparent on labor. Definitely not inexpensive. Comes with the territory. Porsche is one of the most profitable auto brands in the world. Quite a turn around from the 90s when they nearly folded.

I posted an image of the Lycoming TCDS showing a minimum grade of 100/130. None of my comments had anything to do with what was legal/approved to run in various applications. My comments centered on the odd trend for 100LL to foul plugs in an engine approved if not designed for running 100/130 which has a much higher lead content.

quite a bit of drift here. The discussion about what was not about what was legal to run in the engine. The discussion centered around what the engine was designed to run on and why they’re fouling plugs at 100LL. At no point did I question the legality of using the long since discontinued 91/96.

I’m certain that my business is nowhere near as successful as yours. Perhaps because I have my hands in so many things. People who know me would tell you that I am too hands on with many aspects of my personal life. Likely to my detriment. I’m spread pretty thin but I am trying to be better. I think your labor cost numbers for a skilled mechanic are are a little on the high side given shop rates nationally range from $95 to $130. (It’s criminal that auto shop rates are higher). A pretty detailed airframe inspection can be done in a few days. I think most shops would be pleased if an A&P could generate $1250 a day for inspection work. And I know that a one man operation would be thrilled. At 235 work days a year that’d be ~300k gross. I don’t know any IAs that are making that and many would be pleased to do half of that. I think we should do away with prebuys as we know them and just focus on detailed corrosion inspections.

This statement is hilarious in its obvious distance from physical work. Good for you! You’ve made it when you think that two days worth of work wouldn’t reveal anything significant about an airframe or that two days worth of work isn’t worth $2500. Shockingly there are professionals who think such a pittance is reasonable compensation for a few days of turning screws, wrenches and using a flashlight and a mirror.

I don't really care what the aircraft manufacturer says regarding this particular subject. The engine has its own TCDS independent of the airframes applications. Yes, the aircraft manufacturer can include revised data in their TCDS. However, according to the Lycoming TCDS, the minimum grade for all 8.5:1 O360s was 100/130.

I knew it was there and I linked it to the text "experts are everywhere memo" in my post. I included the Lycoming link as a bit of a jab at Lycoming's efforts to disappear a document that was not only needlessly antagonistic but also embarrassing in terms of the conclusions drawn. John Deakin's rebuttal on APS's website is a good read and worth a look for a piece by piece breakdown. Interesting Deakin column from 26 years ago about fuel management touches on a number of old wives tails including shock cooling and showcases his skepticism on the subject even then.

I cannot find any regulatory requirement under 91.205. File under nice to have but not needed. I wonder how many pilots on this board have ever needed an alternate static source.

Right, practically speaking is upper deck pressure not a proxy for airflow?

I would say that the vast majority of mechanics know very little about engine operations. I don’t know the percentage of operations knowledgeable mechanics but I’d bet it barely cracks double digits… and almost all of those are likely operators in addition to being mechanics

No need to yell…

No. It means that wherever the red knob is set, the servo will attempt to, more or less, maintain the the set F/A ratio. As an example if you’re at 18,000 feet set at 16.5gph and 26”, and the turbo plumbing fails rendering the engine without boost, the fuel system is not going to continue flowing at 16.5. It will reduce fuel flow based on the now much lower metered airflow.

Who are the idiots to which you are referring? This site is full of individuals with differing opinions. I’ve come across a lot of statements with which I staunchly disagree, but I’ve encountered very few idiots here. It’s not a term I use lightly. The vast majority of the forum members base their opinions on publications they’ve read, the data in the publication used to support the statements made and the ability to reproduce similar outcomes in the field. Trust in an institution is built or destroyed incrementally over time. Lycoming has not always put their best foot forward. I’m old enough to remember Lycoming’s “experts are everywhere memo” that used to be located at the address below on Lycoming’s website (the link below is long since dead): https://www.lycoming.com/support/troubleshooting/resources/SSP700A.pdf It did not name names, but was an obvious direct shot at GAMI, APS and other heretics in the industry. I was actually embarrassed for the author as I read it. Given that it was likely written by an engineer at Lycoming, I rationalized what I was reading by imagining that the legal department held a gun to his head while he was typing. It was indeed idiotic to anyone with an understanding of how mixture works. I think it’s important to take a manufacture’s recommendations seriously. I also understand that in a small, highly regulated and highly litigious market there is very little incentive to course correct on past statements. Given how slow the manufactures are to move, there has been sort of a small cottage industry of companies that have helped take GA into more modern and data driven operations. Lycoming facetiously called them “experts”. Those small companies and their executives have dramatically changed how much information and understanding the general pilot population has about combustion science and applied power plant operations, among other accomplishments. What is mostly mainstream now was controversial at Lycoming in the early aughts which is why the memo was released. At some point Lycoming realized how bad it had aged as it was removed. The Part number SSP700A is no longer available on the website. George Brawly having a sense of humor posed for the attached pic in front of a Lycoming trade show booth. I’ve updated it just for you. Back to shock cooling or sudden cooling or whatever you want to call it. Perhaps it is real, but no one with the ability to do so has been able to generate data to support its detrimental effects. The “Idiots” that have stated that shock cooling is or probably is a myth include but are not limited to: George Braly John Deakin (RIP) Walter Atkinson (RIP) Rick Durden Mike Busch and many others…

I’m not a turbo operator (at least not in the air). My assumption was the that the fuel servo would adjust for changes in MP and hold roughly the same air fue ratio based on the mass of the airflow entering the servo. That’s certainly how the RSA system on Lycomings work. They won’t hold an exact F/A mixture across a broad range of airflow, but I cat imagine it being so far off as to not support combustion

I would think the servo would compensate for the reduced manifold pressure.