Shadrach

No apologies. I would’ve done the same. Imagine if you threaded in your new tiedowns only to find that you compromised your long range tanks.

So this whole thing was a goat rope based on the previous owner’s ignorance? I feel silly for entertaining the premise that an STC would be approved in such a way.

If indeed the tie down boss is located in part of an extended wet wing compartment, then the above recommendation is likely the only way to ensure a good seal. I wonder if the bolt could be shortened enough to avoid breaching the tank while still retaining adequate thread engagement to secure the aircraft.

I believe we operate in a range that is considerably lower than the max flow of the pump. Do recall that the narrator said that a single high-pressure pump could feed both engines of an Aztec at max power.

I don’t recall any fall off in pressure. IIRC, it’s reliably constant from taxi to cruise.

Stumped on 4 and 12 across.

That’s helpful!

I’m working on it now. PDFs are a bit wonky on my iPad.

Sue, did anyone complete your cross word?

Are the 201 gauges not wet? On my F, swapping these over under at the firewall will do exactly what you suggest. Oddly the threads are the same size but the fittings take different size wrenches. You can see that I faintly “sharpied” the fire wall to avoid a potential mix up.

Perhaps you should call Monroe for a consultation. https://www.monroyaero.com

We may have done that once by accident…

Mine has no transducer. It’s simply a fuel line ported off the servo with a restrictor and a pressure snubber that’s plumbed direct to the gauge. would be easy to disconnect the line at the fire wall and see how much pressure the boost pump generates

Look forward to learning how this shakes out.

Did it have any tie down rings?

It feels like a stick in the mud compared to many other makes. It’s not designed for yanking and banking but once you’re used to it, it feels fine. While heavy, there is no wasted movement, very precise.

The answer must be yes. To what degree is anyones guess. Do you have the factory removable tie down rings? Will be easy to compare your existing tie down to the LASAR tie downs. You’ll know right away if a helicoil is in your future.

I recall the 150F I flew in training taking some nose down trim as flaps were deployed (opposite of a Mooney), especially with the flaps at 40°.

As stated above, trim to neutral on approach. Full flaps require more nose up trim. If CG is in he forward part of the envelope (light on fuel and nothing in the back seats or baggage) you can run right up against the nose up trim limit. That only happens with weight in the front seats and minimum fuel. You won’t even notice it in another 20hours.

Not in my case. The LASAR bolts would slide right into the tie down boss without gripping. We drilled the old threads out and threaded in a helicoil insert that reduced the thread size to match the LASAR hardwear.

Close. They need to be drilled and helicoiled for smaller threads

So apparently there were others after me. Now that I think about it (this was 15 years ago), the LASAR bolts were too small. We had to drill out the old threads and install helicoils sized to the LASAR Jack point/tie down bolts. The only difference is that at the time they had not come across the issue and now they are recommending the solution we used as a workaround. Not that we pioneered it. It is the logical solution. I remember disliking the possibility of steel fragments floating around in an aluminum wing. We used grease to hold the shavings and vacuumed the area thoroughly.

My 67F was threaded for tie downs. I upgraded to the LASAR jack points. I needed to cut new threads to make them work. This perplexed Paul Lowen who said he’d never encountered that issue.

I am not familiar with the extended wet wing tanks. What document suggests that the tie down enters the expanded tank? I’m pretty sure the tie down/Jack point bracket is on the back side of the spar. What kind of tie downs does it currently use?

If you’re confident in the gauge is reading, I would be investigating a potential restriction somewhere. Given that neither pump will develop normal pressure, it’s conceivable that there is a restriction somewhere. We have another J owner here thats pushing 30PSI (after a boost pump failure) most of these engines run around 26psi +/- a pound. I’m on the higher end and the Aeromotors boost pump takes me right to redline (old stock Dukes added ~.5psi). 19gph is an excellent full rich number and 15psi is within specs but only just. Have you compared the pressure on one tank and then the other? I’m not trying open a can of worms, but unexplained anomalies make me uncomfortable. Especially when there is a statistically significant sample available.