Sabremech

It’s not the only route. I installed new fuel caps and flanges in the 66C I previously owned. My 337 with parts listed is on MS but I’ll look for it and post it here for your info in a day or two, David

@Jerry Pressley do you have any decent headliner plastic pieces from a C model? Thanks, David

Definitely post war. Nothing like that on the two P-51’s we had.

Did anyone else notice the 45% or 25,000 Mooney aircraft comment in George’s statements? Just a little bit off on the number of Mooney’s ever built.

Military structural repair manuals such as TM 55-405-4 are approved data and contain repairs on corrugated skin flight controls. I used a TM55 manual along with AC 43.13 for a repair to a Piper rudder years ago. It’s a fun conversation with the young FAA inspectors when they see the reference. David

I haven’t made much progress so far this Winter as I’ve been doing hangar shuffles to keep the airplanes I’m working on currently in the heated hangar. The 56 M20 is currently in a cold hangar and hopefully I’ll move it to some heat soon. David

To add to Ragedracer1977 comments, along with sending the engine manufacturers barrels of fuel, in an e-mail with GBraly he stated that they wanted six figure $’s to test the fuel in their engines and GAMI said no.

I don’t feel the need to get in a back and forth of who’s more experienced. Like I stated, you get to choose what you like or what you think is best for you. Thankfully, I get to do the same. I have ACF-50 in stock and use it as needed. My Mooney isn’t based on a carrier or getting a saltwater bath any time soon.

The FAA would contact GAMI and ask them if they wanted to release any of their data and all GAMI has to say is that they consider all of it proprietary and none of it will released. The STC protects GAMI from releasing any of their data. Been there, done that with an STC I hold.

Would it be beneficial to send a sample to a lab to analyze the components and more importantly the percentages of each? We’re not going to get the second part of that from GAMI. I’d be willing to chip in for the cost of that if it would get us beneficial information. David

I think ACF-50 is better and lasts longer but glad we all get our own choices.

I have to disagree that it’s better. I’m going to call it miserable because even 10 years after it was sprayed in my bird it was wicking out between the seams of the wing skins. What a pain in the butt cleaning that after every flight. Sure puts a damper on it if you plan to paint the airplane. Plan on more cost to ensure it is not on the paintable surface. I much prefer ACF-50 as it’s not as likely to wick for years. Pick wisely as there’s bound to be some kind of issue you didn’t plan on having in regards to maintaining your bird.

The 2005 SR22 in my hangar doesn’t have any of this wrinkling. If it’s the NACA scoop I think it is, it’s far out on the wing and also due to dihedral unlikely to see anything but vapors. Plus as others have stated, zero blue stains like a leak near the fuel tank. I have to lean towards bad prep or being affected by fuel vapors during painting based on the paint coverage of the vent and not being plugged off for paint. I also question the brown color you state that 100LL turns to. I’ve seen the brown on a small seep that was on the bottom of my Mooney. I didn’t equate that directly to the 100LL but to dirt that gets picked up by the close proximity to the gear and the ground clearance on a Mooney. Cleaning that did not leave any brown color but a very light shade of blue. David

Interesting Hammdo! Look at that baffling! Wonder who did that? Lol

The advantage of taking on a barn find, is typically all the parts are there. Why not bring a dormant airplane back to life?