EricJ

I jacked up a C model with a 1" pipe, and the pipe flexed enough that we could barely get my wing jack in to lift it sufficiently to change the tire. A solid rod should work better. On the C model we couldn't get the tire quite off the ground with a pipe and a floor jack.

It's probably leaking into a space in the wing and evaporating off. Mine does that on one side and I know just how much to fill it to keep it from leaking down again. Sometimes if it leaks into the wing it'll run down to the wing root and you'll be able to smell it in the cabin. If you smell fuel in the cabin, that might be what's happening. You could open the inspection panel(s) under the wing just outside of the tank and see if there's evidence of a leak into the wing. You'll see the usual blue dye streak, maybe running down a rib or something.

If fuel has historically never stripped your paint, and a new fuel is represented as being essentially a drop-in for the old fuel, but it does strip your paint, I don't think the leaks are the issue. Tanks will develop leaks, whether they have bladders or wet wings or integral tanks or whatever, and if the new way of finding a leak is that that paint gets stripped off, I think that's a highly undesirable feature of the fuel.

It does sound like it could be the impulse coupling, especially if you got some backwards energy during start attempts. And, yes, the impulse coupling should be part of a normal 500-hour/IRAN or overhaul. It is considered part of the magneto.

That may be the drain for the boost pump, in which case it is telling you that it needs attention. e.g., a seal is starting to fail.

Glad to hear it. His was one of the voices I missed of people who have stopped posting here.

You can make a little dipstick out of a piece of paper or cardboard.

Looks nice! FWIW, the spacers are typically just pieces of brass or steel tube stock cut to length. Many J models have the same for hinge bushings in the cowl flaps. I just keep some small pieces of stock around and cut off pieces as needed for bushings and spacers.

+1 that that's the hydraulic fluid reservoir for the brakes. Congrats on the new battery!

Yup, narrow in the time domain is wide in the frequency domain and vice-versa (generally). So an impulse (whack) provides a broad-spectrum excitation. That's kind of what I was thinking about how it works, too, or it just gets the vestibular fluid moving enough to saturate the sensors so that when it settles down you're kind of reset or something.

I think over time they often just get replaced with washers. That's how mine is. So, essentially, in the pic at least one washer could be between the ball and the bracket to provide better spacing.

It's a very tough ask, because even if you do manage to make the sharp turn and make it up through the drain groove, you still have to find your way around the crank, counterbalance weights, and pushrods to get up to where the camshaft is. Then you have to maneuver around to see the various cam lobes. It's not really very practical, imho.

As with most things like this there are a variety of opinions, but I can give my take on it. FAR 43.9 requires "maintenance" to be recorded in the aircraft records, and the definition of "maintenance" in FAR 1 includes inspections. So a 43.9 maintenance record entry for an "inspection" may just include a statement of items that were inspected on that date, and nothing more than that. How much disassembly was performed is not really a required detail, and many people lean toward making maintenance entries as short and terse as possible. If the "inspection" isn't a 100-hour or annual inspection done by an IA, or some other inspection required under Part 91, then there's no requirement for a discrepancy list or statement of airworthiness. Generally, 43.11 is only taken to apply records of 100-hour or annual inspections or other required inspections, although the wording says "any inspection performed in accordance with Part 91". Pedants may take that to mean more than it is generally taken to mean, which is why some people advise that a pre-buy not be described as an inspection. Maybe it's an "investigation" or a "look" or something, but "inspection" is fairly broadly defined elsewhere, so this is one of those areas that can become a conversational minefield. In 43.11(a)4 where it says "insert type", the options for "type" are generally "100-hour" or "annual". For the most part many pre-buy inspections are done without considering them maintenance or inspections and the only record is whatever report is given to whoever is paying for it. YMMV, consult carefully with whoever is doing the work as well as whoever is managing the records for the aircraft. The owner of the aircraft is responsible for maintaining the records, so their input in this area is important as well. Even when an inspection is an official 100-hour or annual inspection with a list of discrepancies, there is no requirement that that list is or becomes part of the aircraft records. The only requirement, per 43.11, is that the inspector "must give the owner or lessee a signed and dated list of those discrepancies." The list can be, and often is, completely separate from the usual aircraft records. It is then the owner's responsibility to manage compliance, per the discrepancy list, to have the aircraft returned to service. Many IAs cover their own liability interests by keeping a copy of the list, and some insist on entering the list in the aircraft record with the 43.11 inspection statement. If an owner has a preference on how the list is handled, that should be sorted out with the IA ahead of time. Individual mechanics and IAs will have their own opinions and practices in these areas, so it's always good to ask questions first to manage expectations.

Just to add a little bit, a mechanic does not have the authority to ground an airplane. A mechanic can't even determine whether an aircraft is airworthy or not, although a pilot can. It is, however, not unusual for a mechanic to point out something and state that it is unairworthy and shouldn't be flown, but it is still up to the pilot to ultimately determine airworthiness. If that weren't true any mechanic about to miss a boat payment could just arbitrarily ground the next airplane that comes along and hold it hostage. Obviously it's prudent for a pilot to take advice about an "unairworthy" item under serious consideration, but a mechanic's opinion is not authoritative regarding airworthiness. There are some scenarios that are exceptions, like an IA doing an annual inspection, or if a mechanic finds a serious issue in the course of a repair and is unable (or unwilling) to complete the repair and return the aircraft to service.

Glad to hear you've got a good path to getting what you want. The only way to know for certain that you're getting a new crankshaft is to buy a new engine. A factory "rebuild" should have a crank that conforms to the same limits as a new crank, but it still may be a used crank. An overhaul only needs to meet servicable limits, which allow more wear than "rebuild" limits. A "factory overhaul" will only be gauranteed to meet servicable limits, not new, but shouldn't get a zero-time logbook. Only "new" or "rebuilt" engines get zero-time logbooks, so a crank in an actual zero-time engine should meet new tolerance limits when first installed. I'd think it'd be unusual for a crank to not meet servicable limits at first overhaul after a "new" or "rebuilt" installation, but it may be possible. In any case, I hope the story goes smoothly from here. It sounds like Penn Yann treated you right, though. That's good to hear.