mooniac15u

Supporter
  • Content Count

    1,669
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

mooniac15u last won the day on December 2 2017

mooniac15u had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

727 Excellent

1 Follower

About mooniac15u

  • Rank
    Burro

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    KOSU - Columbus, OH
  • Reg #
    N1008L
  • Model
    M20J

Recent Profile Visitors

2,002 profile views
  1. Tell this guy: Do you think he ran off and hired a DER without the FSDO telling him he had to?
  2. When it comes to your particular implementation I have no doubt that you did the work properly. Your attention to detail is well documented here.
  3. If you submit a 337 it becomes a part of the permanent record on file with the FAA. When purchasing an aircraft you can (and should) get a copy of the all the 337s from the FAA.
  4. This is a public internet forum and this mod has been mentioned several times in the past. Topics like this deserve some discussion so that anyone else considering this mod is aware of possible implications. I have no illusions that anyone who has already made up their mind will consider any new information or viewpoints that might be presented. This is the internet.
  5. I have never insisted that everything is a minor mod. That is a strawman that has nothing to do with this particular issue. With the extra hole any other pilot flying that plane could reasonably make the assumption that they can put the seat in that hole and be within the the CG range described in the POH or the TCDS when calculating the W&B for the plane. Filing a 337 would at least create a document trail for future owners rather than hoping that they find it buried in a logbook entry. Realistically I would hope that notations were made in the POH about the change. Anything that allows a pilot to create a more aft CG without their knowledge is a significant change. Call it a major mod or call it a minor mod but the impact of this change is potentially greater than most of what the FAA would think of as a minor mod.
  6. FWIW, I generally agree that there are a lot of unnecessary 337s filed for minor modifications. In this case it impacts the W&B by changing the range of stations for the seat. It also involves drilling holes in seat rails which are structural. I don't understand why everyone is so reluctant to call this a major mod.
  7. So, you will do this as a minor mod for your customers?
  8. Every one of those links includes a discussion of the need for a DER and a 337 to complete that mod. Sounds like a major modification to me.
  9. IIf you aren't concerned that this might be viewed as a major mod by the FAA then why the reluctance to discuss it publicly? Changing a plane so that it no longer conforms to the TCDS seems like a good time to file a 337.
  10. Another carefully worded statement. The photo already reveals a non-standard seat position. Did you file a 337 for the mod?
  11. That's a carefully worded statement. Was that hole present when the plane left the factory?
  12. I took the Hartzell deal sometime around 2008. I had them do the work at the Hartzell facility in Piqua, Ohio. The hub was half price and the total was about $4500 for the overhaul (including the hub).
  13. Hartzell saw enough cracked hubs to change the design and issue a service bulletin in 1998. The FAA didn't issue the AD until 2006. But sure, it's probably BS. Because internet.
  14. I agree. The loss of those sensors makes it look like a grounding issue. The engine ground strap is a likely culprit since it was affecting engine sensors and the alternator.