danb35

Of course it is, as is any other piston aircraft engine--the lead isn't required in any of them, and the 100LL spec doesn't require any lead at all (it sets a maximum lead level, not a minimum--you could, in theory, have 100LL with no lead at all, but there's just no way to get the octane that high, and comply with all the other requirements, without at least some lead). The 100 octane is the requirement, the lead is just the only currently-legal way to get there.

IIRC, there are currently three 100-octane unleaded avgas varieties seeking certification. All claim to be drop-in replacements for 100LL (and even the idiotically-named "100VLL" which is still 100LL). If we're going to keep the fleet flying, we need a 100LL replacement--re-engining is just not a realistic solution. Lots of the fleet could fly on mogas, but the part that flies the most hours needs 100-octane gas.

I'm with Hank--I'm not current, but believe I'm reasonably proficient.

The small one is a M25988/1-010; the large one is M25988/1-338. More info, including other cross-references and sources, is at http://www.csobeech.com/o-Rings.html. It should be noted that, while these are mil-spec parts, they do not conform to the same mil-spec as called for in the parts catalog. Your A&P would need to agree that they're an acceptable replacement part.

I like diesel. I drive a diesel, and my next car will likely also be a diesel. But while diesel may be the answer for new production, it's not the answer for the existing fleet--at least, not unless and until you can swap in a diesel engine of comparable size, weight, and power output for a cost comparable to an overhaul of your existing engine. The few diesel swaps currently available about double that cost.

How far can this go, and what other paperwork would be required? I assume you couldn't just do a logbook entry that says "Removed engine. Installed IO-360-A1A engine S/N xxx IAW TCDS 2A3". If the common TCDS is the basis for approval, can I use that as a basis to install a TSIO-360-MB on my F? How about the 550s for the Ovation or the Acclaim? I'm pretty sure the answer is no to both of those, but how is the line determined?

I did it in my F, does that count? OK, it was only 7 flights instead of 10, but I think the point is made. I'll admit, though, that the prop did turn more than 1.5 revolutions before the engine started... I agree that it's unlikely to be a practical project, but the E is widely considered to be more desirable than the C, thus higher average prices. And why not? Twenty more HP in the same airframe with the same fuel burn is a winner any way you look at it.

...and there really isn't any question; the text of the AD is perfectly clear that it is a one-time AD. That's not to say that periodic inspection isn't a good idea, only that there's no AD that mandates it.

There is no AD requiring annual (or any other interval) inspection and replacement of fuel cap O-rings. There's a Mooney "mandatory" service bulletin that purports to require this, but it, like all other service bulletins, is optional for Part 91 operators in the US. There's also no reason that a set of flourosilicone O-rings should cost $100. I bought two sets for my OEM caps (might as well have a spare) for under half that amount.

If the airport's standard can only be met by one shop, it is de facto an exclusive arrangement. If they require a certain minimum size shop, and there's only one facility on the field of that size, that's an exclusive arrangement. Insurance? What business is it of the airport's whether a mechanic carries liability insurance? That's properly a matter between the mechanic and the aircraft owner. I, as an owner, do not owe it to A&Ps, as a group, to ensure that they are paid what they think they're worth. Nor do I have an obligation to ensure than an on-field shop stays in business. It may be in my own interest to pursue these goals, but that does not translate to a moral imperative. All of that said, I do use the shop on my home field most of the time, I make a point of paying his bills quickly and without arguing, and if anything I think the labor rate he charges is too low. Your use of the term "short-changing" bothers me, though--it suggests that the on-field shop is rightly entitled to my business, and by taking my business elsewhere I'm depriving them of their just due. I could not more strongly disagree with this position--no business concern has a right or entitlement to a customer base.

...and your question of "is it right" suggests that you find it morally questionable, at least, for me to have an off-field mechanic come to do work on my plane in my hangar. Why is this? I'm asking seriously, as I don't understand how it would be. Again, this is with the assumption that I'm not using the on-field shop's facilities--if I am, they have every right to expect compensation for their use.

Absolutely. The amount of the on-field shop's investment in their facilities is only relevant to me if I'm using those facilities--and if I am, I should pay them in one form or another. If I'm just renting a hangar there, though, I should be free to have the work done in my hangar by whomever I choose. A rule requiring any competing shop to have the same size facility as the existing shop is pure protectionism, and probably violates the FAA grant assurances if the airport receives any federal funding. Let me turn the question around: why should the existence of an on-field shop obligate me to have them do my work?

Some of the items on the list don't make sense, as do some of the items not on the list. Changing tires is probably one that doesn't belong on the list; another is replacing windows. Changing brake pads probably should be on the list, but isn't.

Actually, changing tires is approved preventative maintenance, so yes, the owner could do that work and sign it off himself. On the issue of the surcharge, if you will, I honestly don't quite get it. Sure, if the shop stocks these parts, they have some carrying costs, shelf space, money tied up in inventory, etc. If they order the parts for me, they don't have the inventory costs, but there's still their time in placing the order, whatever they're paying in shipping, etc. If I bring them a part, though, it costs nothing. OTOH, if the part I provided fails, that's on me, and I should expect to pay for them to replace or repair it. If a shop-supplied part fails, that should be on the shop, and I'd expect them to make it right at their expense. As I see it, a shop's labor rate should cover their work, such that they shouldn't need to make a profit on parts. Clearly, though, not all shops see things that way. Most auto shops, in my experience, have no interest in working with owner-provided parts; most A&Ps I've worked with have been fine with it.

This thread (just a few down) has more discussion of the subject: http://mooneyspace.com/topic/6113-weight-and-balance-app/

I know the baffle seals look kind of rough, but CHTs haven't been a problem. I have an engine monitor and regularly download data from it to confirm all's well.

Actually, there were a few (4, IIRC) '66 model year Fs.

Yes, it is, and I don't remove it for preflight. I saw the nest through the air inlets, though I didn't realize how big it was until I got the cowl off.

Based on what you posted from the JPI instructions, the EI and JPI will count tach time differently. The EI R-1 counts tach time in real time any time the engine speed is over 1300 RPM. So, an hour at 1400 RPM equals one hour of tach time, as does an hour at 2700 RPM, but an hour at 1200 RPM counts nothing. With the JPI, an hour at 2500 RPM counts an hour of tach time (if you've set it to read true at 2500 RPM), an hour at 1250 counts a half hour, etc.

Went out to the airport last Saturday to fly, as it was a nice day for it and the plane had just come out of annual. The flight was a little delayed, though--looking under the cowl, I found this: Cowl plugs are on order from Kennon, and should be here today.

On the cabin air inlet on the co-pilot's side, just aft of the engine cowling.

Replacing fuel drains is not on the preventative maintenance list, but I'm sure it gets done by the hangar fairies pretty frequently.

FAA inspectors do not have the authority to suspend or revoke certificates. If they believe the situation warrants it, they can recommend enforcement action, but they can't take that action themselves. If you're talking about enforcement actions, you've moved well beyond ramp checks. And, as your own story illustrates, you do in fact have recourse if such action is wrongly (or even justly) taken against you--first at the administrative level, then in the courts if necessary. And perhaps you can explain how the weather conditions affect your near vision, and thus your need for reading glasses? ETA: And yes, you do, in fact, have Constitutional protections when dealing with the FAA. However, they're not the same protections as apply in a criminal case--that would be because it isn't a criminal case.

Some early Mooneys had fuel drains that were riveted in, as Glen notes. SB M20-188A (http://www.mooney.com/images/pdfs/sb-pdf/m20_188.pdf) gives instructions on converting to screw-in valves.

Painting an airplane doesn't require an STC. Making it FIKI, however, does.