Sabremech

That tube is there to provide air to cool the magneto. I’d recommend re-installing it. David

I installed the LASAR down lock in my C when I owned it and it was difficult to get in the down lock. I did quite a bit of looking and inspecting and that’s when I found the Johnson bar bent slightly. I confirmed it with D Maxwell and how it can get bent. One of the easiest things you can do is put a straight edge, ruler, against the bar as close to the bottom of it as you can. If you see any daylight between the straight edge and the bar, it’s bent. I do not believe that the LASAR down lock block is an issue in regards to the handle being difficult to engage.

The Johnson bar is bent by someone accidentally kicking the handle out of the uplock in flight and it slamming forward into the instrument panel and down lock. This isn’t a new issue but something few people think about.

You beat me to it! Been there on the one I use to own.

It appears you just want to continue this so you can be right. Sorry, but you’re not. You replaced the wing on your 140. Once again, the why doesn’t matter. You also did a repair for normal wear and tear, not damage.

You’re talking something that could define damage history if it wasn’t repaired correctly. If it was repaired with new or serviceable parts just like original and doesn’t require a 337, then it’s maintenance.

Was the wing on your 140 a serviceable part with no 337 repairs? If so, it was a part replacement and who cares why it was done? Sure, it’s nice to know but is not damage in that it would effect the value of the aircraft. It’s nothing more than history. Could you imagine how thick a logbook would be if we were required to put “why” we did the maintenance we did? It would be nothing more than great bathroom reading like the FAR’s.

If it’s damage that required a “repair” via a 337, then that’s damage history as it should be. If it’s a part that’s replaced because it was worn out or damaged and did not require a 337, that’s just routine maintenance and does not constitute damage history. If you can repair a gear up with all new parts and not require a repair with a 337, then that’s routine maintenance and not damage history. I’ve seen people on MS argue that running their airplane into a hangar and requiring an aileron, flap or elevator to be changed is damage history because the airplane was damaged and I hole heartedly disagree. Again, that is routine maintenance and no different than changing any other part that you document in your logbook. Where in FAR 43.9 does it state that I am required to put “why” the maintenance was performed?

If a flight control is changed with a new or replacement part, is there really damage history? The answer is no. It’s a parts change regardless of the reason. Now if it requires a repair using Mooney engineering or AC43.13 and documented on a 337, that can be considered damage history.

Since when is an elevator swap a major repair? If it’s the same part number, it’s just a parts change. If it’s the same part number and not a life limited part, S/N of aircraft it came off of is nice, but not necessary.

No, not really. The FAA is like a freight train. They have one track and zero flexibility, even when they’ve found they’re going the wrong direction. It’s full steam ahead.

An investigation was launched because an MSC complained, not because it was warranted.

Can anyone provide the definition of quality control in regards to owner produced parts? The FAA is yet to provide the definition in all of the regulations, AC’s or legal opinions that they’ve sent me.

The owners have complied with at least one of the OPP requirements.

These parts were made IAW the FAA OPP rules as they are currently written.

You’re killing me Doc!

Hi Chuck, I replied to your message. I have sets of them available. Thanks, David

Pretty straight forward with the right parts. Going off what you originally posted was going to be interesting. Sounds good though now.

I wonder what the logbook entry for this maintenance is going to look like?

I think the J’s should now be moved to vintage. It’s about time to include all the 4 cylinder Monney’s into Vintage.

I’d hold on to them as I may be able to help you get the degree marks and get them aligned. David

I don’t see any degree marks on these. Is it just the pictures or are there no marks? Thanks.

The IO-360 I’ve worked on and did my mods to pretty much never see above 375 on CHT’s when it’s hot out. I attribute that to the IO cylinders being bigger and more cooling fin area along with the better burn of fuel injection versus carb. The O-360’s that I modded seem to do better with the tighter baffles along with the same air inlet area as the J model cowling has. That’s what I’m doing with my cowl for the C & G. It will have the same air inlet area as the J. Still trying to decide the best and most cost effective baffling for the C & G. The IO baffling is the same as the J and I have a complete set to make patterns off of. I’m going to do some research on the Husky that I have access to as it’s a 180 horse and pretty much identical to our C & G engine wise. We don’t see that hot of temps in it as seen in the carbed Mooney. Thanks, David

Hi Don, I’m pretty certain I won’t use Vans baffling going forward. I could only really use the back and aft two cylinder portions of their kit and had to build the rest to fit the Mooney cowling. The Vans parts are too short for the front two cylinders. They did help me get patterns made to do the other couple of modded airplanes. Cowling project is back to making progress. I’ll have two different cowlings as a result of the issue I had with the prototype. I now have a full forward fuselage along with an engine to fit parts in my shop. That was a big set back when I sold my C to Don!! David

Let me dig back through my photos and see if I took any of that area specifically. I didn’t end up using the cover plate as I had a whole new lower cowl skin I riveted on after removing the aluminum skin. Thanks, David