EricJ

That's very similar to what I've been using lately, and they are awesome, but I've also used the one MikeOH linked from HF and they're nice as well. Even the usual cheapie $10 ones work well for me, though: https://www.amazon.com/-/es/gp/product/B019MK6DX6

+1 to just find a box of springs or something similar and replace it. This pretty much fits the description of "small standard parts". It just needs to be able to do the job. They're easy to inspect and replace.

Governor adjustment.

This is just going to drive more and more OPP home-brew replacements out of necessity. If people are going to keep older airplanes flying, there won't be any other choice.

I replaced mine a few years ago and it was half that. Capitalist owners doing capitalism at McFarlane. I'm told this is optimal for us. Unfortunately, they were also the OPP option, so maybe there's another cable fabricator somewhere?

Yeah, mine's still in the original factory config. That's a good diagram to show how the static tube drops down to the drain location, though.

You can see in this pic how the hard line from each static port goes over the top of the tail cone space and connects with the other static port, and then drops toward the drain at the back of the wing root. That drain at the back of the wing root is the lowest spot when the airplane is on the ground, so should be where the moisture collects.

When I first bought my airplane it seemed evident to me that the airspeed indicator was off, as in reading too fast. I only suspected this because of how it sounded and felt, and I was guessing it was reading about 10 kts fast, so I added 10 kts to all my approach speeds which worked pretty well. When my avionics got refreshed we sent the ASI out for overhaul, and they said it was reading 15 kts fast, so I was still flying approaches 5 kts too slow. That explained my no-float landings. I'm glad I didn't trust the instrument.

All the stories here seem to be anecdotal, so I wouldn't take anything too seriously. If unlocked, properly latched doors coming open was really an issue I think there'd be a lot more data after sixty years of fleet operation. The modification that Mooney made later in production was to allow the door to be opened from the inside, not to address doors coming open inadvertently, so I suspect it wasn't on the radar as a serious issue. I've had mine apart, and added an inside pull so that it could be opened from the inside, since mine didn't have that. Mine did come open once, but it was because it was only latched about halfway and I didn't catch it. Personally I don't think a properly maintained latch that is fully latched will come open. I've never seen mine come partially unlatched after a flight, and I've never heard of anyone else noticing that, either.

That's good to know.

It may have been a fiberglass belly, which would likely wear away faster than the aluminum skins. It's still all repairable, but these days who knows whether it'll fly again or just be a parts supply.

"Acceptable to the administrator" covers a lot of ground, and ACs, opinion letters, and other methods are often used to convey and clarify what that means. If fuel x becomes "acceptable to the administrator" to qualify as a particular "octane" or "grade" of aviation fuel, then there's nothing keeping us from using it and being completely compliant with the TCDS. The TCDS wording for fuel isn't very specific, and that is true across most TCDS for GA airplanes. Newer ones often tend to be even more vague than older ones, it seems. It seems to me it'd be pretty easy for the FAA to convey, through a number of means, that a particular fuel is compatible with the description in the TCDS. Maybe just an update of AC 91-33 would be sufficient. AC 91-33A says: The FAA does not regulate the distribution systems for either aviation gasoline or automotive gasoline. Nor does it regulate the specifications for either fuel. It does, however, approve the use of fuel to a given specification in an aircraft engine. So AC 91-33 says the FAA can approve the use of fuel to a given specification, which is really all that is needed.

Exactly. There are standards for what the shop head dimensions should be, and some simple go-no-go gauges to check. If you don't wind up with an out-of-spec shop head, it can be re-squeezed or re-bucked or re-set or re-worked or re-shot or re-smashed or whatever you want to call it. A rivet with a shop head that is already barely in tolerance of being over-worked (i.e., too wide) can't be reworked if it'll put it out of tolerance. I think this is why a lot of people don't even bother and just drill out a suspect rivet and replace it. It's not unusual to check existing repairs or even factory work and find rivets with bad or nearly-bad shop heads. You can't assume any rivet can be re-shot without checking it.

Mine popped open on takeoff roll once (which I aborted), but it was because it wasn't fully latched. With the interior pull cable for emergency exit it is now easy to check to be sure it is fully latched before engine start. I don't know how it could come open if it was properly latched, unless there's something wrong with the latch. A properly maintained door should not open if fully latched. A partial latch can work open.

Blind rivets are generally not allowed on a structural joint. That said, you do see them once in a while in places you don't expect, but it'll be in a spot where (presumably) factory engineering determined it was appropriate. e.g., many Mooney control surfaces are put together with blind rivets.

I agree, it's unlikely to be practical otherwise. I don't think it'd take an act of congress, just action by the administrator. Most TCDS don't specify much other than "100LL or 100/130 octane minimum grade aviation gasoline", and an opinion letter or administrator action stating that "this list of fuels meet these requirements" would likely be sufficient. If it were me pulling up to a pump and the label on the tank says something that could be easily understood to meet the required "octane minimum grade aviation gasoline", I don't know why I couldn't put it in the airplane. The usual STCs for stuff like mogas or whatever have been because they otherwise don't meet some part of the required description in the TCDS. Critical mass will be important. IMHO GAMI's current supply to CA with free STCs and IA sign off of 337s might be viewed as a desparate play for first-mover advantage in distribution. This sometimes happens when a company has a very tenuous position on surviving a market entry and needs to do something to stay in the game. We'll see how it plays out, but I think we have a long way to go before it becomes clear what the unleaded fuel supply will look like.

You are correct. Even the early J models did not have the factory inside release mechanism. There is the common mod of adding a pull to the inside so that it can be opened from inside, but that does not work if the door is locked. I leave mine unlocked for this reason. Adding an interior pull makes it easy to visually check whether the door is fully latched from inside the cabin, like during pre-start checklist or something like that.

And that's essentially the same as the J model door, so that's a potential reference as well.

Without the second bolt that he's talking about adding, if a strap goes in tension it can pull some length up off the bottom and allow the jack to tilt if the other side buckles under compression. When he adds the second bolt it'll be better from that perspective.

Yeah, it *looks* weak like it'd buckle under lateral load with compression on the bars, but if you used stiff stuff it's probably good. They may be heavier than if you used tube/conduit or something like the commercial jacks, but that's a tradeoff. Nicely done!

Looks like the bulb holder for the map light in the yoke.

That, too, for most compounds. Looking at race tires makes them harder. Usually just between season storage or managing contingency stock, which you have to take when you earn them. You sometimes wind up with big stacks of tires. A buddy used to use them for his holiday cards. lol...

That doesn't seem to be pragmatic to me, and isn't the "drop-in" characteristic that has been expected or promised. Nobody wants to see off airport landings because somebody tried to stretch a tank to make the next airport that has fuel approved for their airplane. I think there will be a lot happen before this gets sorted out, and I suspect it's not going to play out like many think.

It's grey, but it has a yellow wrapper/label. It's the same stuff that Z W linked above.

There's a section on ADs that describes whether other ADs are affected, and, unfortunately, 2024-21-02 says "(b) Affected ADs None". Edit: Petitioning for the 2024 AD as an AMOC for the 2017 AD might be a reasonable strategy.