Shadrach

Perhaps I’ve missed it but I don’t see anything in the MM regarding measurements for the closed position. I only see measurements for the open position. At fully open, the spec for the E from 1966 on is 1.65”.

Those are the supply and return lines for the oil cooler. They should not interfere with the cowl flap. They should run under a heat shield on the bottom left hand side of the cowl and snake up to the accessory case through the motor mount. IIRC, there is a pair of Adel clamps under the heat shield to secure them. Your A&P can dress, clamp and/or reroute them if needed.

I believe the guru in question was our very own Paul @kortopates I could be misremembering though.

You’ve gotten a lot of good advice here. To summarize: 1) Make sure the actuator arm has full travel. If misadjusted or improperly installed, it can bind against the firewall. 2) each flap can be individually adjusted by rotating the threaded rod ends that attach to the actuator and the flap. I have been told that fully closing the cowl flaps will actually cost a few mph due to the added pressure in the cowl.

There is no reason other than weight savings. 25 pounds of weight loss represents as much as a 3% increase in UL for some of the more portly birds. For me it represents a substantial step towards configuring my plane to meet or exceed the factory marketed UL of 1100lbs.

I believe it is (+/- a percentage of original spec). That is likely why the EarthX is STC’d rather than PMA’d. I’m sure it could be STC’d for the long bodies with the addition of Charlie weights, but there would be no market for it.

You need to rebadged that golf cart with “Superleggera” nomenclature… You clearly have a deeper knowledge than many of us regarding batteries. Have you analyzed the specs? It seems to me that 29Ah vs. 15.6Ah is a pretty straight forward comparison. Is it possible that original batteries spec’d in the TCDS were much lower capacity? For instance a Gil G35 is a 23Ah battery. EarthX ETX 900 Concord RG-35A Specifications Voltage 12 Volt Capacity 29 Ah Weight 29.5 lb / 13.4 kg IPP 23° C 1000 -18° C 675 -30° C 475 IPR 23° C 800 -18° C 575 -30° C 350 Heated No Engine Starting Yes Cold Cranking Amps 390

It’s an interesting question. After researching the subject a bit, it appears that any company can apply for PMA under 21.303 and receive installation eligibility provided the component is identical to (or better than) the component it replaces. Most of our aircraft are flying with parts (by STC or PMA eligibility) that not specifically listed in the TCDS.

I’m confused by this statement. Which older models don’t conform to the TC?

Even if they were to get approval, I don’t think the long body airframe will tolerate 50lb loss at the battery station. Given that weight loss the only real advantage, I don’t see an STC for long bodies in the future. It would put me far enough forward CG that I can envision many scenarios where I would want more nose up trim.

I’m in the same situation. My Concord RG-35 finally failed a load test this year (76%) after 10 years in service. I was close to pulling the trigger on the earthX but after a back and forth with my A&P we elected to stick with Concord. The EarthX is 24lbs lighter which would take our UL to over 1080lbs.However, the lower capacity and lack of pireps inspired us to leave well enough alone. I look forward to some early adopters testing it in the field and reporting back.

I don’t mind extended solo trips. I rarely subject passengers to more that 3hr legs. For trips over 500nm, I like to consolidate fuel.

To be fair, almost any Mooney is well with in CG limits if placarded weight limitations are followed. I can fault him for not recognizing the miscalculation earlier, but experience suggests that in almost any Mooney, out of CG loading is nearly impossible without doing something obviously stupid.

That’s way aft. That can’t be right.

Wow, the was barely a two person aircraft as delivered. The classic plus package must have been pretty extensive.

I’ve been told that IO360s run fine on 93 octane car gas. Perhaps with slightly elevated CHTs. It’s a vapor pressure issue, not a detonation margin issue. I am not speaking from personal experience though. Information came from a forum member that has since become inactive. I did know a guy with an early C210 that would fill one tank with autogas and the other with 100LL. He would only burn auto gas in cruise. most NA aviation engines don’t need 100 octane

Yup. Most mid bodies are 45-47”

I’m trying to find W&B from another K model to make a comparison but have not had much luck. Also, that revision does not tell much much of a story without previous data.

Sure reads like you have something wrong to me. can you post the weight and balance data?

Yup. What’s different is that all of these fuels were certified using ASTM D910. It is my understanding that none of the new variants can be certified to that standard..

https://generalaviationnews.com/2015/02/24/the-difference-between-100ll-and-100130ll/#:~:text=And here is where a,engines ARE qualified on 100LL. And here is where a lot of confusion comes in: 100LL is actually 100/130 low lead avgas as defined by ASTM D-910. Yes, 100LL does meet the 130 rich rating and all other properties of 100/130, except for a limit of 2.0 grams per gallon TEL and a different dye color. So almost all radial engines ARE qualified on 100LL.

100LL predates most of our engines. They were certified with 100LL to ASTM D910 specs. The new fuels work in our engines but do conform ASTM standards. There is no currently no blanket authority to authorize it’s use. Therein lies the problem with blanket approval of a new fuel. They cannot just amend all of the TCDS’s.

FAA does not have the authority. I believe it would take an act of congress. I find it appalling that there was no federal framework initiated to deal with approving a “drop in” replacement. It comes as no surprise that providing a solution to the problem proved to be less convoluted than approving the solution. An STC is a lousy solution unless there fed is going to mandate a single formula.

New pickups are no longer inexpensive. And old ones don’t ever fully depreciate. A 15 year old F250 with over 100,000 miles can push $20k

New DFI engines run under very high pressures (4000psi). Some of them will need to be bled after draining. Modern Diesel engines run with pressures >30,000psi. Most of those systems will also need to be drained and bled.