cujet

Well, Did you fix it? I mentioned to Alan to tell you to lube it. Did you try that?

Just a quick note, aircraft in Florida, over 2000 pounds max gross take off weight are not subject to sales tax on parts and maintenance services. Like the folks above, I prefer the skytec starter.

Correct, one must have at least a private pilot rating, and must perform the work himself. Thanks for pointing that out.

Congrats!!!!! Just a quick note: I suggest to every aircraft owner, to know as much as possible about their aircraft. Including the ability to perform preventative maintenance. Oil changes and so on. Most pilots are not mechanics. And I would never suggest that a non mechanically inclined pilot perform preventative MX. However, it is legal and appropriate for a "capable" owner/pilot to perform certain tasks. I strongly encourage this. You may be surprised to know that you, as a pilot/owner are now qualified to repair/recover/replace the interior in your aircraft, including the R+R of the seats. (you must use appropriate materials that conform to the type design) You can also change tires/repack wheel bearing/, oil, landing lights and LL wiring, side windows, clean and gap sparkplugs, remove and install engine cowls, replace any hose (except hydraulic hoses) , prefabricated fuel lines, R+R non structural fasteners and much more. http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/PIC-archive/Aircraft-Ownership/Preventive-Maintenance I am Director of Maintenance of a high end Corporate Flight Department. Unfortunately, I must admit that I see too many A+P mechanics screwing up. And, sometimes, you can do a better job yourself. A member here has struggled with (more than one) his local A+P/IA's quality. From leaving panels loose, hoses loose, and jobs improperly done. I light of that, I suggest that you trust yourself to review the work done by others. And, if capable, do what you can yourself.

Matt, I operate a small fleet of Lycoming powered aircraft. The cylinder corrosion/pitting you see is actually quite normal here in South Florida (It's often very humid here) . Your pictures are obviously quite magnified, so the pitting looks worse than it is. Next time you have the plugs out, simply look inside with your eyes and compare what you see with the borescope pics. I think you what you observe visually will be quite minor in nature. You can use a tiny light on a stick, placed down the spark plug hole to get a good view. Or even the borescope light. At 5 hours/quart, your pitting is nowhere near causing a operational problem. In rough numbers, Lycoming allows about 3/4 quart per hour for a 200HP engine. Once you reach 4 quarts in 5 hours, it's high time to fix the problem. http://www.lycoming.com/Portals/0/techpublications/serviceinstructions/SI%201427C%20%2812-29-2010%29/Lycoming%20Reciprocating%20engine%20Break-In%20and%20Oil%20Consumption.pdf I've had success with CamGuard completely preventing cylinder bore corrosion. I really had trouble with our infrequently flown Extra 300L's engines and bore corrosion. However since using CamGuard, I've not seen any bore corrosion at all. If you look carefully in this bore, you will see what I mean. There are some small scores and some small pits. I overhauled the cylinder, honed it and placed it back in service.

My first guess would be a faulty radio. I've never seen a situation where the database or other software/firmware results in loss of approach information.

When light, I can back the RPM down to below 2000, manifold pressure to below 20 and lean to 5.5GPH. At this point, I'm going 110-125MPH. In no wind conditions, it makes for some very efficient flying. However, flying from F45 to LAL (for sun n fun) took me over 2 hours in a headwind, including the LAL approach which clearly adds some time. I may not have saved any fuel at all getting there when compared to operating at 25/25, 10GPH and 1 hour of flight time. All I accomplished is an extra hour on my engine, prop and airframe. Those costs can be quantified. For example: (note, my example is simply one possibility, your results will vary) Prop, $6/hr total cost (includes purchase price, overhauls, mx and lifespan) Engine, $25/hr total cost (includes the $15 per hour overhaul costs and mx over it's lifespan) Airframe, $20/hr total cost (includes depreciation, repairs, and so on) That's roughly $50/hr operational costs, not including fuel. Or put another way, that extra hour of operational expense could have purchased 12.5 gallons of 100LL at 2IS at $3.99/gal. So, additional time on your components may not be saving you as much as you think in the long run. In my case, it cost me $50 to save 6 gallons of fuel. By the way, I am local to you.

I'm not a big fan of LOP operations on underpowered aircraft. The speed loss and additional mechanical expense don't make much sense to me. I could, for example, add nearly an hour to my typical 700 mile trip by using reduced power/LOP to save fuel. My time and engine/prop/airframe expense do count against the fuel savings. It's not my goal to build hours. My time is precious, I'd like to arrive prior to lunch! As a professional A+P mechanic, I cannot provide any mechanical reason for avoiding proper LOP operations with healthy equipment. It's simply that my 200HP engine, operated at 100-125HP, is not enough to make me happy.

Or get a ferry tank installation and fly your airplane elsewhere. As a young man, I used motorcycles as my transportation and went from April thru Sept waiting on a shop to "warranty" my new bike, so I clearly understand. It's incredibly frustrating. Today, I don't believe anything anyone says. I'd take my airplane out of the shop and hire someone else.

Just a quick note, I recently tested 3 new Whelen Parmetheus Plus PAR36 bulbs. A 28V taxi, 28V landing and 14V landing. I also have an older (non plus) PAR36 Parmetheus 14V landing light. The 28V bulbs draw 0.66A The 14V bulbs draw 1.32A The Taxi light is not great. Plus version or not. It's spread is so wide, and throw so short, it's about useless, unless you need a very wide flood light. The older 14V Parmetheus is acceptably bright. But does dim if voltage drops below 13. It's not as bright as a 100W standard GE4509. However, since the LED color temperature is better, the illumination is not quite a spot beam, it is more pleasing to fly behind than a GE4509. The "Plus" versions are considerably brighter and regardless of 14V or 28V, all equally bright. They are "just right", do not overheat (a problem with some other brands) and they compare more than favorably to the standard GE landing lights in output and illumination.

A friend starts his high compression Lycoming IO540 in his homebuilt, with a 3 pound "Ballistic" brand Li battery. Works perfectly! (but remember, I'm in South Florida, where cold temps never happen) The Ballistic battery has fantastic starting current. But, it does not have the AH capacity to run avionics for a long period of time, so he has a backup battery for his Dynon avionics system. The 16 cell Ballistic shown below replaced a 25 pound, 24AH sealed lead acid battery. Ok, so far, so good, the Li battery actually cranks the big engine better. Problem is, the Ballistic only has 9 AH total capacity. Or roughly 1/3 the capacity to run avionics in the event of an alternator failure. To complicate matters, the 24AH lead acid battery is actually under-rated, so that it does not fail capacity checks at the 1 year and 2 year mark. Put another way, the 24AH lead acid battery is actually closer to 30AH on the 20 hour rate test, when new. The Ballistic battery is not "sandbagged" in the same way, so it's 9AH capacity is about right. An honest comparison would be 3ea, 3.5 pound, 16 cell, Ballistic Li batteries (10.5 pounds total) against a Concorde RG 25XC, 23.5 pound, 24AH sealed lead acid. I In the case of a Mooney, a match would require 4ea, 16 cell Li batteries at 14 pounds, vs a Concorde 33AH, 29 pound battery. As mentioned above, the Li batteries struggle in cold weather. Often decreasing in cranking capacity to near nothing. In our fleet, we have NiCd aircraft batteries, Lead Acid batteries and my friends Li battery. The best overall performance comes from the NiCd batteries. They have excellent starting capacity, are rugged when properly maintained and can be discharged completely without loss of battery life. The downside is the cost.

The problem with the self adhesive Velcro is not the strength of the bond, it's the utter inability to handle heat over time. Aircraft find themselves outside in the sun. After a few episodes, the self adhesive Velcro becomes a gooey mess and that strong bond fails completely. Once that happens, the glue stays gooey and, yes, useless. If you want a long lasting job, don't use self adhesive Velcro. Quite simply, use liberal amounts of carefully applied 1357.

There are many who use these with great results. The extended tip is said to increase HP by one or two also. One slight advantage to extended tip plugs is the ability to more reliably light off a low pressure mix. Such as when chopping power at high altitudes or on final with power pulled back. What this means is fewer misfires under such conditions and therefore fewer fouled plugs. In addition, the Lycoming TCDS lists "TEXTRON Lycoming Service Instruction No. 1042" as the source for approved spark plugs. The 37BY is on the list for a number of applications.

I've worked corporate jet interiors for well over 20 years. It's one of my specialties. Please don't glue your carpet down. And, please use 3M 1357 glue instead of 1300L to hold the Velcro in place. There are valid reasons for this. I purchase one roll each, of 2 inch, NON SELF STICK, Velcro (actual brand name, not imitation) hook and loop. I cut the Velcro to size, and avoid affixing it over access panels and seams. Saves much trouble later on. I apply 3M 1357 glue on the velcro, and on surface it attaches to. Such as carpet or floor board. I tape off the area where the Velcro will attach, keeps the glue line neat. I also cut the corners off of the Velcro, as this keeps it from peeling up. 1357 is a contact adhesive, so it's much easier to work with than 1300L. You simply brush on a liberal coat to the Velcro, and Surface, let it dry a few minutes (time depends on temperature) and press it into place. No mess, and it's the strongest bond possible. If you need a less strong bond, such as with cloth and foam applied to a panel, simply brush lightly or spray. Works the same way, as a contact adhesive and works very well. 1357 is impervious to heat, so it's perfect for gluing leather to a glareshield. This carpet is held in place with just 3 strips of Velcro. One in front, one under the scuff pad, and one in the rear. Works perfectly and very easy to remove the carpet for cleaning.

Also, there is a great iPhone app called IO360. It contains all engine settings for power or economy at all possible altitudes, temperatures and RPM settings. I use it to confirm that I have it right. I'm not a fan of flying slow to save a few dollars of gas and waste a hundred dollars of my time. While accumulating unnecessary engine/prop hours. I do prefer to go as fast as practical, without running overly rich and wasting fuel. For me this means 7500 feet, 65% and 11 gallons per hour or higher w lower fuel flows. Such as 9500, 9.5/10GPH. In my case, I could save 3 gallons fuel on a 4 hour trip, by going slower. Adding nearly an hour to my trip and my engine. I don't see the sense in that.

Nearly all the above posts mirror the same response. Without ever seeing the aircraft I might add... Few people can fully articulate why they will offer such advice. Or even offer a single valid reason why an old, unairworthy aircraft should not be purchased. So, I'll offer a professional's opinion: All mechanical things deteriorate and aircraft are no exception. Except,,, your life depends on the quality of many structural and dynamic components. I purchased such an aircraft, with the intention of rebuilding, overhauling and repairing every aspect of the bird. The overhaul took me 2 years. My reasoning was that I'd know the condition of each and every part. Somewhere North of 2000 man hours later, I was flying. At my current level of income, those hours could have purchased a really, really nice, powerful, newer, very capable aircraft. What I found was that nothing on the plane was in acceptable shape and I mean NOTHING. Even the smallest aluminum part was either corroded or worn out. Every bushing and bearing needed replacement. Every bolt was corroded, every clamp/fitting/bit of hardware/tubing/clevis/oring/seal/baffle/hose/actuator/connector/breaker/wire, you name it, was cracked, worn out, damaged, brittle, dry rotted and in need of replacement. Sure, I ended up with an airworthy airplane that I fully trust (and that was my intention) . The cost was staggering, my labor was free, and, it still needs a paint job... 2000 hours labor @ $90/hr = $180,000. And the airplane is still worth $40,000. Sure, I could have ignored the cosmetics. But, as you may have guessed, that's not where the majority of the time went. Don't do it unless you specifically want such a project, can afford the enormous expense, have the time, and expertise. AND, you are fully willing to deal with some major setbacks, such as a corroded wing spar (needs a new wing) or other unexpected major component replacement. Check out my simple website detailing my project: www.cujet.com

I'm a fan of the old Prestolite alternators. However, you must be aware that even those use "aviation" spec parts. The brushes are high silver content brushes (for high altitude longevity) , and the diode pack is different. So, while they are repairable, they do not use conventional automotive parts. Properly assembled, a Prestolite will provide good service. Improperly assembled, they can be a constant source of heartburn. I prefer the mom-n-pop overhaul shops that can do a good job on a Prestolite.

Good info above. lean slowly, follow the GAMI procedure, look at the downloads. My IO-360 with Gami Injectors has roughly a 0.3 GPH spread between the first and last cylinder to peak. I run 25 degrees timing and lean stumble comes well past 100 degrees LOP. I'm sure I could "tweak" it so they all peak at very nearly the same time. But, it runs smooth and strong, so no real need. Also note that 20 degrees timing may result in rougher, or at least less pleasant, LOP operations. As lean mixtures burn more slowly. The 38 degree timing advance of electronic ign works wonders during LOP operations at high altitude or low manifold pressures (they are one and the same)

The Lycoming angle valve 200HP engines never, ever made 200HP @ 2700 RPM. The very best examples made 193-195HP, at 25 degrees timing, on a cool day, corrected for STP (standard temp and pressure) The reason for this was simply the certification rules of the time allowed for some HP discrepancy. Lycoming took advantage of this. In fact, many Lycoming 360 angle valve engines at 20 degrees produce 187-189 HP in real world testing. And, that's with an open throttle body inlet, and equal length dyno header. As installed in many aircraft, it's even lower. Just an FYI, the IO390 makes 210HP, 15 more than the 360 in "fighting form".

Very little. It's about 1% down on RPM and well less than 1% down on power. Even so, I prefer to achieve full rated RPM when possible.

Many aircraft will not reach full RPM while static. Yet, will easily reach 2700RPM at some point on the take off roll or in flight. This is generally normal. Also the prop has a low pitch stop. Preventing the blades from going to a flat pitch. Adjusting this stop to achieve 2700RPM static is sometimes not a good idea. "IF" the prop gov fails, the prop blades will rest on the stop. A low pitch stop improperly adjusted will result in an aircraft that might not fly at 2700RPM. The failure of a prop gov to produce sufficient oil pressure will result in high engine RPM in flight. The pilot then pulls back the throttle to reduce RPM to 2700. Airspeed then bleeds off. At some point, generally around 80Kts, the prop is producing enough thrust at 2700 to keep you aloft. Adjusting the low pitch stop for higher static RPM simply reduces in-flight thrust with a failed gov. Most pilots are fully unaware of what happens when a prop gov fails. Some pilots try to maintain airspeeds too high, and simply fly the aircraft into the ground! Properly adjusted, a prop will produce barely enough thrust to maintain straight and level flight, at max gross, at a fairly low airspeed, max RPM.

I renewed my "fleet" radio station license. Yikes, that was expensive for 5 aircraft... I don't recall it being expensive last time.

I live nearby LAL and fly in every year. Place a large sign in the windshield that says "GAP" (general aviation parking) . They will eventually marshal you to park in the grass area probably near the VOR. You can leave your airplane there all week. Airplane camping is in a different area. Vintage aircraft (manufactured prior to 1970 I think) also park elsewhere. (yes, there are mooney's that park there) But, one thing you cannot forget, your rope and tie downs (for sandy soil) !!!! The golf cart guys will show up to take your money. (they will also sell you the tie downs you forgot)(if they have any left) I've never purchased a VIP ticket. I don't see the need. Plenty of viewing area for the airshows and no other advantage that I can think of. The one caution I will add is to understand the "Lake Parker" arrival. It's easy once you've done it, but it still confuses so many people. Please print out the notam, have it with you, and understand every aspect of the arrival procedures (prior to arrival) . Every year, there are some pilots who really mess this up, the problem is, it puts the rest of us at huge risk. Altitude, airspeed and position are very important, as is listening and not talking. Upon departure, I stay low, really low. Most pilots like to show off the climb performance of their plane. This puts each and every departure aircraft in the same general location. At some point, these dummies head off in the differing directions they need to go. Cutting right in front of you and the 5 people next to you. Last year, I remained low, and watched a corporate jet ignore the tower's heading instructions and blaze right through the middle of a gaggle of slower aircraft. It was absolute mayhem. I was 1000 feet below them, thank god.

http://www.aviationpros.com/article/10388599/cylinder-differential-compression-testing-subject-to-interpretation Note: There are 2 common aircraft differential pressure orifice sizes. (this is not a master orifice, which is a calibration and testing tool) 1) 0.040 inch orifice, 0.250 inch length, 60 degree approach angle for cylinders with bores smaller than 5 inches 2) 0.060 inch orifice, 0.250 inch length, 60 degree approach angle for cylinders with bores larger than 5 inches. This means the IO-360 6 cylinder Continental should probably use the smaller orifice when testing. As a larger one will give too high a reading.

As pilots, we are required to know the systems on the aircraft we fly. Prior to departure after ignition modification, one should "brief" or "consider" what to do in case of problem. Including the possibility of switching to the known good magneto if something happens. I can only guess at what actually happened, and what your setup was, and what is actually wrong. However, it might have been a good idea to switch to to the remaining magneto, which was known to be good. We train for failed ignition with some regularity. But, as a reminder to us all, the switch is there so we can shut one off if necessary, for any number of reasons. Edit: Even a conventional magneto with failed internals, such as a broken rotor, can cause some really weird problems, and can even cause a perfectly good engine to stop running (one good mag, one bad) ! Yet, when the bad one is switched off, all is well.