A64Pilot

At the factory I worked at we broke side windows and door windows pretty regularly, so I went on a crusade to cut down on wastage, There are special bits made specifically to drill plastic, helped a little, maybe, we tried dulling bits and grinding our own cutting edge on bits etc. Nothing worked as well as a uni-bit, you know AKA Christmas tree bit. ‘I have a theory as to why, drill a hole in thin sheet metal with a normal bit, see how it distorts the hole, puts a twist in it? That’s what’s busting the plastic. ‘Drill a hole in thin metal with a uni bit, the hole isn’t distorted, there is no “twist” in a uni-bit to distort the hole. So buy a unit bit and be done with it.

I wish my Century worked, when you remove it, remember me.

Actually a multi question, looking at a tail strobe -x which weighs 5 oz. That's enough I feel sure to require adding weight to the nose of my rudder, because flutter is probably the only thing that scares me worse than fire in IMC. So I need a copy of the maintenance manual, where can I get one? The manual will give me the max weight of the trailing edge of the rudder measured at a certain point from the hinge line I’m sure, but how does one go about adding weight? Is weight added to existing weight or do you purchase a heavier weight? If so what is the source of supply? Manual will I’m sure answer most of that.

So far as removing something if control oscillations occur, maybe, if your lucky. The Test pilot is a friend of mine, it’s was a test to VD, velocity dive speed. The elevator got into flutter, an oscillation. The accident was recreated in a wind tunnel, from the onset to total destruction of the empennage was less than 1 sec. .7 if I remember correctly. The aircraft had been tested to VD I believe 7 times, successfully with no problems, what was different this time was the test pilot had run the trim to full down so that he didn’t have to hold excessive force on the controls, the test was a 1” “pulse” of the elevator, as soon as the pulse was accomplished the tail came apart, Ralph got out. He said his feet were in the corn when the chute opened, the flutter Engineer that was in the aircraft, didn’t. There is more this story of course, https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/2731

At the Army Test Activity, we had a specially equipped CH-47 helicopter with a large retractable spray boom like a crop duster, it was used for ice testing. ‘I can’t find it, but there is a picture of a C-17 tucked uo in trail with that CH-47 being covered in artificial ice. We even had a specially equipped King Air with all kinds of instrumentation and the Chinook could pump air into the water it was spraying and create all kinds of different forms of ice that you will fly into naturally. So once in a while you may see a CH-47 with a very different aircraft flying on its tail. The time I saw it, it was February in the Upper Peninsula of Wisconsin, we were based out of an old abandoned Air Force base. I found a clip of it, the Chinook has three APU’s two to run the spray system https://www.waff.com/2019/05/10/redstone-test-center-training-upcoming-icing-test/

Formation flying, take off and landings are three different things. ‘For example a Mooney can fly formation with my C-140, but landings and takeoffs would be problematic. These two can fly together, but landings and takeoffs would be more difficult.

Reading the FAA definition of owner produced part, I’d say that by supplying that information meets the requirement of an owner produced part, so my opinion concurs with yours and I believe pretty much follows the definition exactly. ‘For those that are interested, this AC covers aircraft parts, for owner produced scroll down to (n) https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC 20-62E.pdf

I sold our cruising boat, to the first person that really looked. ‘I was I’m pretty sure I was the first person that showed up to look at the Mooney I bought. Priced right , things sell, and now is the time to sell. Money is cheap now so things are selling. ‘Selling the boat, I used a Broker and thst was likely a mistake as it cost me $10,000 and they really didn’t do anything,I showed the boat, did the sea trial and went through all the electronics that the Broker didn’t understand. ‘Guy I bought the Mooney from did not use a Broker and sold it fast anyway, take that money your going to pay the Broker and reduce the price of the airplane by that amount,it will sell fast and for the same money in your pocket. So far as use tax, investigate setting up a Montana LLC and having it purchase the aircraft. A large number of the owners of the super expensive bus RV owners do it, and I see no reason why it’s not just as legal and legit for an airplane. However Fl for instance you have to own the aircraft for 6 months before it’s brought into aft or use tax is owed,I think. https://www.49dollarmontanaregisteredagent.com/vehicle-llc Guy I bought my airplane from had it in an LLC and offered to sell me the LLC for the purchase price of the airplane, but it was a Ga LLC and I didn’t have a Ga address so I didn’t. But if you buy the LLC apparently no sales tax is due. Note, I’m not a Lawyer so before you put any confidence in some nut on the internet that you have never even met, maybe verify with a real Lawyer.

Sorry to hear that, I’d hoped you would get lucky,but most don’t. Metal running around in the oil causes damage. At least you have something to fly, I’ve got a 140 myself, engine is mid life hours wise but it’s been almost 40 years since overhaul so I need to overhaul it. I’ll probably get to that next Winter after I get the Mooney where I want it.

You may be taking that partially out of context. ‘Yes to overhaul, you must follow all procedures etc in the overhaul manual, but you do NOT have to comply with an SB, if that SB is incorporated into the manual then it becomes regulatory, but left in an SB it does not. ‘I don’t know why Lycoming hasn’t incorporated their SB into the overhaul manual. but if you read the SB it very plainly states that it must be followed whenever any repair or even just a disassembly to inspect is done, but being an SB eve through they use the word mandatory in the US it’s not required, many other countries a Mandatory SB is actually mandatory. Because I know enough to look, if that SB wasn’t complied with, I wouldn’t buy that airplane, who knows what other money saving corners were cut. ‘If you read the SB, you’ll see that it’s a list of parts that any good knowledgeable mechanic is replacing anyway based on experience. I take it further and send the cases off to divco to inspected for cracks and repaired as necessary and the crank off to be disassembled, inspected for cracks and hopefully just polished but turned if necessary. ‘It’s only a couple of grand more to overhaul once you have the engine torn down, it’s not another $10,000, but it’s been a few years since I’ve done it. ‘To not spend that money and reset the overhaul clock on an engine half way to overhaul isn’t a wise decision, in my opinion. Now if it were only 100 or so hours since overhaul, then maybe not, but then also everything only has 100 hours on it, so do you really need to replace exhaust valves and rings with 100 hours on them? But 1,000 isn’t 100. Hiwever a repair must also comply with any repair manual if one exists, and many do, so it’s not correct to say that a repair doesn’t have to comply, if a manual exists, it does.

There is, but it can easy chew up aluminum and remove Alclad etc. The problem with using anything to “blast” paint from aluminum is that the paint is actually harder than the aluminum it’s on. ‘Chemical stripping of course has issues too, it’s corrosive and gets into places you don’t want it and once there it’s tough to impossible to remove. ‘I think I’d try to pressure wash any loose pieces off myself and then hand strip what can be stripped and then prime and paint it. It certainly won’t be perfect but it would protect and look better

How does one go about purchasing a set?

STC parts are sourced from a PMA, but the PMA holder may not have actually made the part, they may have simply gone to the parts house and bought it. So no, the STC isn’t used to approve the part, the PMA does. ‘It’s not the manufacturer or the manufacturing process that approves a part, where I worked we bought many parts off the shelf, the engine control cables came from a boat manufacturer and the brake master cylinder from NAPA for instance as were a great many “COTS” parts (Commercial Off The Shelf), what made them “approved” was that they were processed through our Quality Control system. So a PMA manufacturer can buy say an alternator from the actual manufacturer, do a visual inspection and a little paperwork and Volia it’s an FAA approved part, without testing or anything special done at all. All manufacturers do this of course, airplanes are insanely expensive now, imagine if every single piece part had to be custom manufactured where there was no economy of scale. The Millenium cylinder is an excellent example. So something complex and critical as a engine cylinder can be installed without involving an IA and paperwork, but a Sun Visor can’t?

Being under the wing I don’t see UV being a real issue, If you think it is sew yourself some sunbrella covers like the campers do

I tried sending an email to the AOL account listed. it’s undeliverable .

So what I’m saying is in my opinion and as the guy who ultimately is responsible in determining whether it’s a minor or major, I say make you own visors if y9u don’t want to pay $500 and install them as a minor with a logbook entry if your rated to do so, and if not talk to your A&P and ask him or her to.

This is the FAA definition of a Major Alteration, someone please tell me how Sun Visors or clocks fit this? Major alteration means an alteration not listed in the aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller specifications - (1) That might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or (2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations. Minor alteration means an alteration other than a major alteration.

Yes an STC is what it says it is a Supplement to the Type Certificate of the airplane, in other words it’s changing the Type Certificate, so of course that makes it a major, which is documented with a 337 as majors whether repairs or alterations are documented. It’s tough to make the case that sun visors or a clock change the type certificate, however it’s not tough at all to make the case that adding weight to a flight control system is a major alteration, yet it’s not ‘The argument I’ve heard used was that these mounts use ordinary means of attachment, if tools were used, then it’s a modification. So clamp a camera onto the strut of my Cessna? Do so and the FSDO will have apoplectic fit, I can assure you, but no tools were used. It’s a flimsy case, the FAA ought in my opinion deny these silly STC’s, they always claim they are overworked, well off load the silly STC’s and concentrate on the real ones, like big tires, engine changes, different props, the list is endless. Your example of thicker windows is a good one, they are stiffer and it could be argued that being stiffer changes the load path and being heavier changes the stress on the mounting etc. Much easier to argue thicker windshields are a major than a sun visor or a replacement clock. Yay Chicago, they made a good call, in my opinion See what I think is going on is that by having an STC, it makes it more difficult for others to knock off Rosen visors, so they can charge outrageous prices and others won’t come in with as good or a better product for half the price. ‘But that gets into an area that I’m not well versed in, if you have PMA, then you can manufacture say Cessna or Mooney parts, assumption is that you can’t manufacture someone’s STC though

Wahoo, Do this, call and check on an insurence quote for a zero time Private Pilot in a Mooney, I’d bet many won’t even quote you.

If he’s at the level he says he is, he shouldn’t be in a complex aircraft, no one should right away. We had a C-210 at the plant, Boss wanted his Son to learn to fly, was determined he learn in the 210, well he did learn to fly and got signed off in the 210, I guess he wasn’t stupid because he pretty much never flew it, and I rode with him once or twice and it’s a good thing too, it was a matter of time before he killed maybe several people or a gear up landing as a min. We took off from Dawson Ga headed to Albany about 10 miles away, kid got infatuated trying to program the GPS even though you could easily see the destination, after a few minutes of 2850 RPM, I couldn’t stand it anymore and reduced power and RPM from the 5 min limit.

Go buy a lottery ticket, do it now

The FAA of course has a definition of what constitutes a major alteration, and in my opinion, you just can’t make sun visors fit that definition, anymore than you can the clock. ‘It really does boil down to the installers opinion as to whether or not an item requires a 337 or not, unless of course it’s plainly covered by the FAA definition. ‘What I cannot understand and have asked a couple of inspectors to explain how me clamping a several pound device to my flight control system isn’t a major, but changing brands of electric clock is? I’m speaking of a Garmin 696 clamped to the yoke tube.

I guess maybe at this point I should bring up that I’m an A&P myself since 1990 , IA for most of it, lost my IA last year when I was “locked down” in the Bahamas and couldn’t renew, will retake the **** test this year and get it back. I do understand the process. But I guess let’s lay it out shall we? If your splitting the cases you have to inspect all of the parts anyway and only a fool wouldn’t replace bearings, which I feel certain will require to be replaced as they will have metal in them. Assume hopefully the crank is good, maybe you got lucky, but from the number of hours flown making metal, I’d budget for a crank, hope for the best, plan for the worst. So crank goes off for magnaflux and hopefully just polishing, cases go off to Divco, new cam and lifters, comply with the Lycoming SB, inspect cylinder assemblies and its overhauled. So what would you do different in an IRAN? By the way without looking it up an overhaul is defined as disassembly, cleaning, inspection and reassembly. Nothing is required to be replaced if it’s serviceable, which brings in the Lycoming SB, which does list parts that are required to be replaced. Unless things have changed the FAA does NOT require the parts listed by Lycoming to be changed, SB’s in the US are not mandatory, even if mandatory is in their name. ‘Often SB’s get included into AD’s which are of course mandatory, but I’m not aware of any AD that incorporated Lycoming’s SB I believe this is Lycoming’s SB,and it’s a logical replacement of parts in my opinion, but even though it’s logical, it’s not required by anything I know of in the US anyway, some other countries do require mandatory SB’s to be complied with https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/Mandatory Parts Replacement at Overhaul and During Repair or Maintenance.pdf

Well, then what’s their opinion? Have you asked? I just hope the crank isn’t damaged.

When you play these comparison games, you have to use book numbers for each aircraft, you can’t use book on one and real on another, you get skewed results. So useful load by the book is optimistic, as is cruise speed. However I can tell you that the actual useful on a V35 isn’t as high as you would suspect especially if you account for CG. Most any aircraft it’s prudent to ensure you stay within CG up to zero fuel weight. When I was shopping for an aircraft I looked at everything from an RV6 to a V35, although I’d prefer an S truth be told. What you get with a Bo that you don’t in a Mooney is a back seat that adults can fit into and be comfortable, a Bo can be a real four person airplane with min baggage due to CG, but I don’t see a Mooney as a real four adult airplane, be a great airplane for a couple with small kids though. Mooney back seat and my Maule’s back seat look to be very close to each other. Money wise a late 60’s Bo is the same as an early model J Mooney Oh, on edit, a Bo with 285 HP or 300 HP will seriously out climb my J model, climb is of course a way to measure excess HP, and with only 200 to start with there just isn’t a whole lot of excess HP in a J model. We are fast due to low drag, not big motors, J models anyway Last Sunday a bunch of us went out to eat breakfast, the V35 left first followed by a 182 and then me, the V35 and 182 out climbed me, I caught and passed the 182 and kept up with the V35. But if the mission was to go camping at a rough strip, the 182 would be the choice, you can even put 29’ tires on the mains and an 8.50 on the nose with an STC and go play on the gravel bars with the Super Cubs and Maule’s But what made me decide against a V35 was how they ride in any kind of turbulence, and that tail wagging is not just the V tails either, the straight tails are just as bad or worse, there simply just isn’t enough tail back there, my guess is due to CG they can’t put enough tail on one. That and maybe due to age, but the Bonanza’s are beginning to get some serious structural AD’s too, wing spars etc. ‘I came very close to being sick in the backseat of an A36 years ago flying from Arkansas to Georgia Second edit, I came very close to buying an Aero Commander 200D (Meyers) but the deal fell through, now that airplane has a narrow CG range and with full fuel is really a two person airplane, with two of us and full fuel I would have had to have 100 lbs of ballast in the baggage compt to stay within CG, but they really are quite fast and carry the 4130 roll cage to an extreme