Pilot assist annual - Hawk paint & PFS

[Bob_Belville]

I've spent this week in my hangar stripping down my M20E for the annual inspection by @AGL Aviation. Lynn will inspect early next week and it will take me a couple of days to put everything back together before heading to KFMY to take in some Red Sox games. I want to share a few kudos that might be of interest to others here:

• Hawk Aircraft Painting did a great job painting the plane in 2018. (This is the first annual since picking up the plane.) Every nook and cranny that I got into had been properly prepped and painted. It is more than a pretty face.
• The PFS exhaust has 488 hours on it (installed June 2012). A pressure check is required (or recommended?) @ 500 hours so I removed the system and disassembled. The whole system looks new! I took a scotch pad to the heater shroud to remove baked on spilled oil. Looking spiffy. 
• No kudos to the dufus who changes the oil and oil filter and manages to spill some oil every time. (That would be me. )
• The Tempest fine wire spark plugs (same age as PFS) look fine. I suppose they'll last as long as the engine.
• Mooney built a very fine piece of machinery, even in the mid '60s when they were cranking out 750 planes a year. While the insides of Romeo Whiskey do not look as new as the outside, everything looks solid and very much "airworthy" and "worthy of future upgrades. 

 

[gsxrpilot]

What a great PIREP! I hope to be so fortunate someday to be caring for a bird as nice as yours. I believe I own the right Mooney. Alpha Delta is  just several years behind Romeo Whiskey.

[AGL Aviation]

I've spent this week in my hangar stripping down my M20E for the annual inspection by [mention=14357]AGL Aviation[/mention]. Lynn will inspect early next week and it will take me a couple of days to put everything back together before heading to KFMY to take in some Red Sox games. I want to share a few kudos that might be of interest to others here:

• Hawk Aircraft Painting did a great job painting the plane in 2018. (This is the first annual since picking up the plane.) Every nook and cranny that I got into had been properly prepped and painted. It is more than a pretty face.
• The PFS exhaust has 488 hours on it (installed June 2012). A pressure check is required (or recommended?) so I removed the system and disassembled. The whole system looks new! I took a scotch pad to the heater muffler to remove baked on spilled oil. Looking spiffy. 
• No kudos to the dufus who changes the oil and oil filter and manages to spill some oil every time. (That would be me. )
• The Tempest fine wire spark plugs (same age as PFS) look fine. I suppose they'll last as long as the engine.
• Mooney built a very fine piece of machinery, even in the mid '60s when they were cranking out 750 planes a year. While the insides of Romeo Whiskey do not look as new as the outside, everything looks solid and very much "airworthy" and "worthy of future upgrades. 

 

Bob... you know Lynn’s “gutter” trick... get him to whip you up one out of scraps in the back And I’ll bring your jacket and have Lynn put it in your hanger Monday


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Bob_Belville]

1 minute ago, AGL Aviation said:

Bob... you know Lynn’s “gutter” trick... get him to whip you up one out of scraps in the back And I’ll bring your jacket and have Lynn put it in your hanger Monday


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yeah, I've tried two different versions of Lynn's gutter. My propensity to spill exceeds Lynn's ingenuity. 

[AGL Aviation]

Yeah, I've tried two different versions of Lynn's gutter. My propensity to spill exceeds Lynn's ingenuity. 

Well then... alrighty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Bob_Belville]

27 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

We were also very pleased with the quality of our paint job by Hawk about a year prior to yours, Bob.  It still looks great.  We did have to replace our transponder, DME, and marker beacon antennas, though, during our first annual inspection thereafter due to paint stripper damage.  

We installed our PFS exhaust in 2007 along with the new roller tappet engine.  Every year it comes apart for inspection and lubrication of the slip joints with mouse milk.  Like yours it still looks like new.  I expect it to last as long as the engine does.  

Jim

Jim, I was aware of the issues you had with residual stripper - I think @jetdriven warned as well - so i am pleased there does not seem to be any unintended consequences in my case. The landing gear looks really great, the brakes and wheel bearings seem to be fine.

I take my PFS apart enough each year to inspect and apply the Loctite LB-8150 anti-seize that PFS provides to the slip joints. (I pick up a new "barrel" from Jim Shafer at AirVenture every year.) This is the first year I've taken the plenum box out of the plane and removed the heater shroud.

[DVA]

Yeah, I've tried two different versions of Lynn's gutter. My propensity to spill exceeds Lynn's ingenuity. 

A salty ol mechanic taught me to first slightly loosed the filter until you could just turn it by hand, then take a rubber mallet and #3 Phillips and poke a hole as close to the rear of the filter as possible pointing up. Then with the oil drain still open and the dipstick loose or out, place a flexible end (rubber) air attachment solidly in the hole and with about 50psi or so blow shop air in the hole for about a minute. Wrap a shop rag around the filter and screw off - nary a drop - been doing it now for decades.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kortopates]

A salty ol mechanic taught me to first slightly loosed the filter until you could just turn it by hand, then take a rubber mallet and #3 Phillips and poke a hole as close to the rear of the filter as possible pointing up. Then with the oil drain still open and the dipstick loose or out, place a flexible end (rubber) air attachment solidly in the hole and with about 50psi or so blow shop air in the hole for about a minute. Wrap a shop rag around the filter and screw off - nary a drop - been doing it now for decades.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Continental has been advising for years that practice has brought down an airplane and they strongly advise against it. It led to a peice of filter material getting into the oil system that plugged an oil galley - be careful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DVA]

Continental has been advising for years that practice has brought down an airplane and they strongly advise against it. It led to a peice of filter material getting into the oil system that plugged an oil galley - be careful.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have never heard of any advice from Continental or anyone suggesting that this practice “brought down an airplane” or has caused any issues whatsoever. That said, you scared the crap out me.

 

I can tell you that I see this technique used regularly all over the place. I’m always learning - even at 60 - and will change my mind on understanding how this can cause a catastrophic issue as you point out.

 

I retract my advise here based on your very specific counter argument that is clearly scary. Please do not do this!

 

However, I base my actions on facts. I have never seen any issue on any engine that this procedure was properly used on. The pressures used are within the lower limits of the engine’s oil pressure system when it’s operating. The direction of the air is flow is the same as the normal oil flow. If you punch the hole in the far rear you are away from directing pinpointed air on the filter element. Finally the very small oil passage channels in the middle section of the filter would likely not allow a large enough piece of material to escape that would clog any single oil gally that I know of that would kill an engine. 

 

But still your expertise and my respect for you have me concerned. 

 

I have just Googled every which way and found nothing. I searched all my Continental and Lycoming references (can’t say it was a complete investigation but it covered the major Service advisories) and found nothing. 43.13 is void of cautions, and I would think if Continental found a catastrophic procedure that should be avoided they would call it out in M-0 (which is silent on this). 

 

Can you source your facts, Paul? 

 

Thanks

Dave

 

[kortopates]

4 hours ago, DVA said:

I have never heard of any advice from Continental or anyone suggesting that this practice “brought down an airplane” or has caused any issues whatsoever. That said, you scared the crap out me.

 

I can tell you that I see this technique used regularly all over the place. I’m always learning - even at 60 - and will change my mind on understanding how this can cause a catastrophic issue as you point out.

 

I retract my advise here based on your very specific counter argument that is clearly scary. Please do not do this!

 

However, I base my actions on facts. I have never seen any issue on any engine that this procedure was properly used on. The pressures used are within the lower limits of the engine’s oil pressure system when it’s operating. The direction of the air is flow is the same as the normal oil flow. If you punch the hole in the far rear you are away from directing pinpointed air on the filter element. Finally the very small oil passage channels in the middle section of the filter would likely not allow a large enough piece of material to escape that would clog any single oil gally that I know of that would kill an engine. 

 

But still your expertise and my respect for you have me concerned. 

 

I have just Googled every which way and found nothing. I searched all my Continental and Lycoming references (can’t say it was a complete investigation but it covered the major Service advisories) and found nothing. 43.13 is void of cautions, and I would think if Continental found a catastrophic procedure that should be avoided they would call it out in M-0 (which is silent on this). 

 

Can you source your facts, Paul? 

 

Thanks

Dave

 

Dave,

The information was provided during Continentals week long  Aviation Technician Factory Training Course. The course is taught by very senior experts there that have a long history with the company and have seen a lot. One of the speakers was the TCM rep that did the engineering on the original 231 engine installation. It was a very worthwhile experience.  I don't know of any source for this that is published. They were adamant about not puncturing the oil filter with a screw driver because in their opinion that is what leads to the possibly they have seen. They went on to further explain, knowing sometimes tech's have a valid need to drain the filter before removal, that they developed the only safe approved tool to puncture and drain a filter with collaboration with Tempest whom makes and distributes this tool. You have probably seen this, you screw it in to make a very small shallow puncture and can then attach some tubing to drain the oil. Thus it prevents a tech from internally damaging the filters internal filter element.  I am sure what they're worried about is that once tech's thinks it's okay to pierce the filter by stabbing it with a screw driver that people won't always be as careful as you described and end up piercing the interior of filter by accident or ignorance. Once that happens TCM believes it can lead to piece of filter paper getting into the system where it can potentially clog a galley. But IMO, the screw driver would also have to pierce into the center metal that the paper filter attaches too in order to provide a path for the paper filter fragment to get into the engine. That would be really stabbing it directly into the center. But blowing compressed air in sounds exactly what it takes to get any ruptured filter pieces into the system after the screw diver has done the damage. I know you're method is being super careful to pierce at the edge but their point is its too hard to control and best to eliminate the chance by not taking a screw driver too it so for those that want to pierce the filter they advise to use the tempest tool.

Anyway sorry I can not offer a published source of this. But I'd suggest you call their technical support hotline for confirmation. I've always gotten very good responsive help that way. And if the support tech's can't  confirm I can then follow up with one of the instructors assuming I can still find their contact info. The story that he gave about the engine failure resulting from this popular practice really got my attention. Its too many years ago now to be sure, but I kind of recall him showing some photographic evidence of what they found post mortem.  With the impression it made on me though it never occurred to me to ask about a published reference. But M-0 says nothing about how to remove an oil filter. But they also don't provide any list on what not do either that I have noticed. 

[bradp]

I just use a ziploc bag and a little wad of paper towels to catch the few drips that escape the bag.  

[DVA]

Dave,

The information was provided during Continentals week long  Aviation Technician Factory Training Course. The course is taught by very senior experts there that have a long history with the company and have seen a lot. One of the speakers was the TCM rep that did the engineering on the original 231 engine installation. It was a very worthwhile experience.  I don't know of any source for this that is published. They were adamant about not puncturing the oil filter with a screw driver because in their opinion that is what leads to the possibly they have seen. They went on to further explain, knowing sometimes tech's have a valid need to drain the filter before removal, that they developed the only safe approved tool to puncture and drain a filter with collaboration with Tempest whom makes and distributes this tool. You have probably seen this, you screw it in to make a very small shallow puncture and can then attach some tubing to drain the oil. Thus it prevents a tech from internally damaging the filters internal filter element.  I am sure what they're worried about is that once tech's thinks it's okay to pierce the filter by stabbing it with a screw driver that people won't always be as careful as you described and end up piercing the interior of filter by accident or ignorance. Once that happens TCM believes it can lead to piece of filter paper getting into the system where it can potentially clog a galley. But IMO, the screw driver would also have to pierce into the center metal that the paper filter attaches too in order to provide a path for the paper filter fragment to get into the engine. That would be really stabbing it directly into the center. But blowing compressed air in sounds exactly what it takes to get any ruptured filter pieces into the system after the screw diver has done the damage. I know you're method is being super careful to pierce at the edge but their point is its too hard to control and best to eliminate the chance by not taking a screw driver too it so for those that want to pierce the filter they advise to use the tempest tool.

Anyway sorry I can not offer a published source of this. But I'd suggest you call their technical support hotline for confirmation. I've always gotten very good responsive help that way. And if the support tech's can't  confirm I can then follow up with one of the instructors assuming I can still find their contact info. The story that he gave about the engine failure resulting from this popular practice really got my attention. Its too many years ago now to be sure, but I kind of recall him showing some photographic evidence of what they found post mortem.  With the impression it made on me though it never occurred to me to ask about a published reference. But M-0 says nothing about how to remove an oil filter. But they also don't provide any list on what not do either that I have noticed. 

 

Paul, thanks for responding. I’ll offer one last thought here - which doesn’t apply only to this topic but to so many I see. It’s not directed at you personally.

 

It’s unfortunate that when the smartest groups of real experts get together and discuss advanced theory - of any topic - in front of others that are learners who look up to them, that many of the learners will take all they say as blind fact and propagate it as such.

 

This is analogous to LOP and that continued false narrative. Those same “Experts” have told us for years that airplanes “will fall out of the sky” for misuse of the red knob and many “learners” who are very good AP’s and / or owners otherwise just blindly believe it to be true and propagate it.

 

If I were in that seminar and heard someone use the words “brought down an airplane” I would be questioning them as to why I was part of the chosen few to get to hear this? I’d be asking why an airplane falls out of the sky with concrete evidence of the reason and there is NO AD or mandatory service advice? I’d be shocked to have heard this and more so appalled that nothing was being done about it!

 

Weren’t you?

 

I’m a learner. I’d want to know specifically what galley in the oil circuit got plugged? Why didn’t the screen catch this? How long was the engine running before the problem happened? What part of the engine failed catastrophically due to lack of oil? My last question would be “hey guys, who else knows about this besides us in this special seminar?”

 

I’d be worried then and I am now.

 

You seem to agree that this technique if carefully performed has some merit. I do as well. You may choose not to do it, but factually the technique isn’t flawed.

 

I maintain that if Continental as an entity viewed this as a problem that could be a liability issue in any way shape or form we see it in red ink. (They for sure have a history of overreaction.)

 

Now that you have explained the source and there is an apparent lack of any published data, my thesis is that some expert - one time - saw a tear down that had a piece of filter element stuck in some oil galley - which contributed to but did not cause the failure. They back traced it to a guy who punched a huge hole halfway through the filter with a tire iron and blew it out into the engine with 200 psi of dirty shop air. (Exaggeration for effect, hoping for a bit of levity.)

 

But I learned something even more important from this Paul. I am not going to offer any advice here any longer. Not because I don’t think that my advice is solid but more so because my advice is not complete. If I wanted to share this properly I should have written it up in the format of a procedure document, with specific steps and cautions as one would expect to see. It’s very real that someone here could actually try this and create a problem for themselves because they don’t understand the theory and construction of the oil filter well enough.

 

But until proven otherwise I also think the story you heard in the seminar was just as incomplete, likely exaggerated a bit and certainly not considered a problem by Continental as a company.

 

I will be taking your advice and contacting them this week to try to source the incident you wrote about. Because if this is true, we need this information available to the aviation public, not just those lucky enough to go to a special seminar.

 

Do you agree?

 

Thanks for the great opportunity to share thoughts.

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Danb]

Bobby I saw your bird ready for paint when we went to s-n-f last year, if the final job was as good as the prep looked you have an outstanding final product, see you soon

 

Dan

[kortopates]

On 3/10/2019 at 7:47 AM, DVA said:

 

Paul, thanks for responding. I’ll offer one last thought here - which doesn’t apply only to this topic but to so many I see. It’s not directed at you personally.

 

It’s unfortunate that when the smartest groups of real experts get together and discuss advanced theory - of any topic - in front of others that are learners who look up to them, that many of the learners will take all they say as blind fact and propagate it as such.

 

This is analogous to LOP and that continued false narrative. Those same “Experts” have told us for years that airplanes “will fall out of the sky” for misuse of the red knob and many “learners” who are very good AP’s and / or owners otherwise just blindly believe it to be true and propagate it.

 

If I were in that seminar and heard someone use the words “brought down an airplane” I would be questioning them as to why I was part of the chosen few to get to hear this? I’d be asking why an airplane falls out of the sky with concrete evidence of the reason and there is NO AD or mandatory service advice? I’d be shocked to have heard this and more so appalled that nothing was being done about it!

 

Weren’t you?

 

I’m a learner. I’d want to know specifically what galley in the oil circuit got plugged? Why didn’t the screen catch this? How long was the engine running before the problem happened? What part of the engine failed catastrophically due to lack of oil? My last question would be “hey guys, who else knows about this besides us in this special seminar?”

 

I’d be worried then and I am now.

 

You seem to agree that this technique if carefully performed has some merit. I do as well. You may choose not to do it, but factually the technique isn’t flawed.

 

I maintain that if Continental as an entity viewed this as a problem that could be a liability issue in any way shape or form we see it in red ink. (They for sure have a history of overreaction.)

 

Now that you have explained the source and there is an apparent lack of any published data, my thesis is that some expert - one time - saw a tear down that had a piece of filter element stuck in some oil galley - which contributed to but did not cause the failure. They back traced it to a guy who punched a huge hole halfway through the filter with a tire iron and blew it out into the engine with 200 psi of dirty shop air. (Exaggeration for effect, hoping for a bit of levity.)

 

But I learned something even more important from this Paul. I am not going to offer any advice here any longer. Not because I don’t think that my advice is solid but more so because my advice is not complete. If I wanted to share this properly I should have written it up in the format of a procedure document, with specific steps and cautions as one would expect to see. It’s very real that someone here could actually try this and create a problem for themselves because they don’t understand the theory and construction of the oil filter well enough.

 

But until proven otherwise I also think the story you heard in the seminar was just as incomplete, likely exaggerated a bit and certainly not considered a problem by Continental as a company.

 

I will be taking your advice and contacting them this week to try to source the incident you wrote about. Because if this is true, we need this information available to the aviation public, not just those lucky enough to go to a special seminar.

 

Do you agree?

 

Thanks for the great opportunity to share thoughts.

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dave,

I agree the oil filter anatomy tells us there are safe areas to pierce it such as near the hex nut providing its carefully done. Someone like yourself with lots of experience that is both knowledgeable of the potential issues and precise as you described does not have anything to be concerned about with regards of contaminating the engine. But my sense is that Continental really doesn't want people to use a screwdriver to pierce their oil filter simply because of the risk it presents and hence why worked to get the Tempest tool out to safely pierce one. Yet I also understand someone with lots of experience is going to be able to do it with a screw driver safely too. I also recognize the practice is pretty widespread, and I assume mostly with the permold series where the oil filter is mounted with the mount on the bottom which is as messy as they can get.

I don't though subscribe to the notion that Continental would necessarily put out a service letter/bulletin to say not to do so even though they may not approve of the method. Perhaps because they recognize it can be done safely. But I don't think they feel obligated to to point out practices they don't approve, instead they publish their approved procedures .  As an example,  I don't recall either OEM issuing something when we heard of the plane that went down due to using RTF on the FF transducer hose fittings with a piece of RTF ultimately getting into the fuel line and causing a fuel blockage. Instead they publish their approved list of sealants and what they apply too. Admittedly that was pretty stupid assembly error on someones part so perhaps a better example is that we have yet to see them publish guidance supporting what I believe to be more and more accepted practice in the industry to counter cylinder failures from improper replacement; which includes the practice of re-torquing the cylinder bolts while a cylinder is off to keep bearings in place. M-0 provides great guidance cylinder replacement during maintenance including the need to torque cylinder through bolts on both sides, but is silent about temporarily torquing the bolts with washers or a cut off cyl base while the cyl is off which can lead to trouble when one also has to rotate the engine to TDC to re-install each cyl and hence will be turning over the crank where a bearing could slip.  

Its really up to each reader/observer here to do what they want with the information they read here. But this didn't come from a seminar, like a IA renewal seminar speaker, which I would also treat as a representative of the company but their in house factory tech training class given once a month. I don't think there was any embellishing of the facts given that the evidence provided spoke for itself showing the filter fragment which led to a crankshaft bearing seizing. But as already noted and agreed too above, just piercing the filter alone isn't going to cause that, one has to damage the filter element as well. Yet I totally get their point that using their tempest tool rather than a screw diver is going to ensure the filter isn't accidentally damaged.  But I also don't think any knowledgeable tech being careful and precise has to worry about it - like you said above though they need the complete details and issues to be careful about.   

Don't let me discourage you from sharing on Mooneyspace though, its always a learning experience!

[Bob_Belville]

Back to the scheduled program... some might be interested in pics of the exhaust valves. (Lynn sent the pics to me from his phone using share so what I received is low res. Hopefully his original pics are higher res and I'll get those tomorrow.)

[Marauder]

Back to the scheduled program... some might be interested in pics of the exhaust valves. (Lynn sent the pics to me from his phone using share so what I received is low res. Hopefully his original pics are higher res and I'll get those tomorrow.)

His lens might be dirty.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Bob_Belville]

1 minute ago, Marauder said:

 

His lens might be dirty.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

Perhaps, but it certainly is low resolution, the files are all about 26 -27k, and are labeled thumbnail.

[Marauder]

Perhaps, but it certainly is low resolution, the files are all about 26 -27k, and are labeled thumbnail.

I use the CameraFi software on my Galaxy Tab-A. A lot depends on what camera he is using. It usually defaults to higher resolutions m




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Bob_Belville]

Just now, Marauder said:

 

I use the CameraFi software on my Galaxy Tab-A. A lot depends on what camera he is using. It usually defaults to higher resolutions m




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

It's a higher end boroscope bought from an AirVenture vender connected to his smart phone. It certainly is capable of higher res pics. It's possible that the default is set to the low res we're seeing but I think it's possible that the sharing software it to blame. I'll see tomorrow what the file size is as stored on his phone. We can retake the pics if the default needs to be changed. 

[Marauder]

It's a higher end boroscope bought from an AirVenture vender connected to his smart phone. It certainly is capable of higher res pics. It's possible that the default is set to the low res we're seeing but I think it's possible that the sharing software it to blame. I'll see tomorrow what the file size is as stored on his phone. We can retake the pics if the default needs to be changed. 

I have some photos on the site using CameraFi and the Amazon borescope I bought. I know the camera has an adjustable light and if it is set too low, you lose a lot of resolution and the picture becomes grainy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[67 m20F chump]

What was the compression on the cylinder in he 3rd photo?

[Bob_Belville]

2 hours ago, 67 m20F chump said:

What was the compression on the cylinder in he 3rd photo?

We're doing (cold) compression checks this morning. A year ago compressions were 79/80, 79/80, 78/80, 78/80 which was typical of every check since 2014 overhaul. Do You see something suspicious?

[67 m20F chump]

I am no expert on this.  From what little I know from continental cylinders when the exhaust valve stops rotating the face of the heat signs stops being circular.  Then you get a discoloration at the edge of the valve face followed by a large repair bill or valve failure.  Do a search on beechtalk for valve pics.  Again I’m no expert.  It could be a shadow I’m looking at.  Better resolution pics would be nice.  It’s my belief that this is more of a continental issue than lycoming.

 

Also I’m coming from continental engines to lycoming.  Why a cold compression check?  We always did hot checks on the continental so I’m wondering if that’s the difference.

Edited March 12, 2019 by 67 m20F chump

[kortopates]

36 minutes ago, 67 m20F chump said:

I am no expert on this.  From what little I know from continental cylinders when the exhaust valve stops rotating the face of the heat signs stops being circular.  Then you get a discoloration at the edge of the valve face followed by a large repair bill or valve failure.  Do a search on beechtalk for valve pics.  Again I’m no expert.  It could be a shadow I’m looking at.  Better resolution pics would be nice.  It’s my belief that this is more of a continental issue than lycoming.

 

Also I’m coming from continental engines to lycoming.  Why a cold compression check?  We always did hot checks on the continental so I’m wondering if that’s the difference.

Yep, I & 2 is exactly what you want to see but #3 isn't necessarily an issue. It isn't enough clear enough to see what's going on in 3 and 4. Although we'd prefer to see symmetrical red circular pattern, deposits may not be uniform in 3 and and when they're not you want to see green some green at the outer edge before confirming any burning. But if under closer visual examination (higher resolution photo's with better lighting) it appears that is a hot spot, then lapping the valve in situ can clean it up and save the valve before it really burns. But I wouldn't get worried about that based on these photo's - not yet anyway since you can't really tell what's going on with 3 & 4. 

Edited March 12, 2019 by kortopates

[Bob_Belville]

On 3/12/2019 at 6:47 AM, 67 m20F chump said:

What was the compression on the cylinder in the 3rd photo?

Compressions today (plane still on jacks so cyls cold) 78/80, 79/80, 78/80, 79/80 - same as year ago.  

FWIW, cleaned and rotated plugs and I always check resistance at annual. 8 plugs ranged from ~950 to 1400 Ω  with most about 1200 Ω. (5000Ω is bad. (Tempest Fine Wire with 500 hours on them.)