Vref, the Gami injectors is a no brainer. You will save at least a half a gallon per hour without changing your leaning habits and your engine will run smoother. Usually at 10,000 I can get 60% power and true at 160 or better. My flight from a few days ago, was at 9000 MSL with a density altitude above 10,000 MSL, I set 12.5 GPH and was cruising at 166 Kts.
Vref wrote:
Maintenance cost are acceptable when in N reg don’t go EASA as you will be hit with the wing bolt and other components which require replacement…
Can you elaborate on that? I intend to remain EASA reg, as I have only EASA licences and ELA1/2 should take care of most maintenance hassles.
What do you Bonanza experts think about this ad? In terms of price and equipment, it falls quite neatly in the range we would consider.
Easa requires regural 5/10 yrs wing bolt inspections and replacements . This is not required or mandatory under the FAA.These inspections are quite expensive. Then you have the prop/engine stuff and even other components which require some inspections which I understand is not in every EASA country the same.
How much are those wing bolt checks/replacements?
I’m aware of the general (nationally differing) limits on prop/engines, in case you are not referring to something Bonanza-specific.
Vref, the Gami injectors is a no brainer.
NCY I know but I want to do it as precise as I can without a descent engine monitor wit FF function its a tedious exercise for the GAMI spread, I’ve been investing in tip tanks and some other stuff next is a G2 to replace the old GEM602 
step by step☺
Several thousand euros and a quite unnecessary exercise which even can bring more harm then good IMHO. Maybe some EASA Bo owners can provide some more tangeable figures
The biggest issue with EASA regs are THE MANDATORY replacements based on time limits. Flap actuators, gear motors, flap motors etc. On FAA, these, and many other parts can be run on condition, following in line with the owners planned maintenance programme. EASA, mandates replacement. Also many STC are simply not achievable on EASA. Get a decent I/A, and a lot of upgrade work can be achieved within budget, and to your own plan. Makes a huge difference.
Vref, that is what I see. I run at 9k, 11.2 fuel, and see about 160. That at 65%. I use the old, what colour is my exhaust dust, to check whether she is running too lean, or rich. My engine is super smooth, having said that all baffles, mounts, and exhausts were changed two years ago. Runs smoother than ever. I would not want to get rid of the V antennae. Looks way to cool with it on, granted at the price of a knot or two
biggest issue with EASA regs are THE MANDATORY replacements based on time limits. Flap actuators, gear motors, flap motors etc. On FAA, these, and many other parts can be run on condition, following in line with the owners planned maintenance programme. EASA, mandates replacement.
In reality, it’s not quite as black and white as you say. EASA does not mandate the compliance with MM items that are not airworthiness limitations. If anything, it’s the national CAAs which see it that way. But then a lot depends on the airplane’s individual maintemace program.
And then there is ELA2 looming. Interestingly, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of talk about this in UK. It’s a vera hot topic in Germany (in part due to the LBA-specific Cessna SID disaster, but not only).
With a digital fuel flow indicator, I simply set the power with the mixture control. I set it to read 12.5 gph. I have an engine analyzer, but don’t waste my time with it to set the LOP power as power is directly proportional to fuel flow when LOP. HP = 14.9 X GPH = 14.9 X 12.5 = 186 HP. 186/285 = 65%. The only time I use my JPI is for analyzing abnormal conditions.
NC, what was your investment in that set up,?
