Sabremech

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

You care why it was done because often a ground loop especially with wing contact hard enough to damage the wing can result in door post cracks, door post cracks are not readily apparent but are a whole lot of work to fix, much harder than changing wings. The cracks seem to occur right where the wing strut attaches to the door post.

Also ground loops can cause cracks in the landing gear boxes, which are difficult to inspect and are a real bear to remove to repair by welding. 

Either is probably a 100 hour labor repair.

You care if a Mooney has geared up because among other things you want to ensure the Lycoming prop strike SB was complied with, I believe the AD only requires the gear and bolt to be replaced and that can be done without engine removal.

I want the SB complied with.

‘Don’t quote me on that though because it’s been years since I dealt with a prop strike. (knock wood)

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. 

23 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I see “damage history” being significant damage that has occurred to an aircraft, like a wing being destroyed is damage history in my opinion.

An aileron destroyed in a parking accident is damage, not major damage, but it’s damage.

But replacing a wing doesn’t require a 337, nor does an aileron replacement.

By saying that damage is only when there is a 337, means major repair history to me or of course major alteration, but doesn’t necessarily mean damage. Many times a structural repair from normal wear and rear requires a 337.

We differ in opinion is all, I think as a wing had to be replaced on my 140, it has damage history.

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.

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

So parts destroyed during impact with something or a gear up aren’t damage history?

Often a part can be replaced instead of repaired, so no 337 as there was no major repair. You gear up, I can replace flaps, belly skins maybe some stringers, antennas whatever, replace the prop, remove the engine for tear down, all with no 337.

Before stickies Logbooks could be more trusted more than now in my opinion although it’s a recent opinion, when people first started the sticky thing it was because people like me have terrible handwriting and sometimes it was difficult to read, but a typewriter or now computer is perfectly legible so I thought great, the typed stickers looked more professional I thought than chicken scratch too. I always put the sticker in the book and I thought everyone did and it was required, probably from my Military time, things are mostly the same, but with some significant nuances.

It was on this site that I learned that some had been told to not let that mechanic put that sticker in the book, require that it be handed to you separate, and that was legal as well.

Well if people are doing that it of course means that at least some logbooks don’t contain the full and complete history of the aircraft.

I’ve always told people that in a purchase inspection that what’s not in the book was more important than what is, to look for repairs etc that aren’t in the book, like a row of oversized rivets etc.

But now as it’s so easy to lose that loose sticker that was prepared to record the repairs made from whatever damage they are even less reliable it seems.

All this is just meant to show that’s it’s possible to have had a flight control replaced that the entry never made it into the logbook.

It’s always been that way though, my little C-140 has light hail damage on one elevator, without any entry in the book about it ever having been replaced. It does have an entry where one wing was replaced. Almost certainly from a ground loop. 

So she was ground looped and tore up one wing and likely an elevator, but no 337, so no damage history?

 

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? 

13 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

It’s not and it’s not uncommon at all for flight control swaps due to damage to not make it in the logbook.

That’s is the obvious intention of one well known mechanic advising owners to get anything like that put on a sticker and not in the logbook, After some time the sticker is lost, Voila no damage history. 

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.

On 2/1/2023 at 7:37 PM, sailon said:

If the elevator was "swapped," the SN of the airplane the elevator came from should be in the log book.  An IA or owner should know if a major repair such as an elevator swap occurred and render the AD applicable by SN.  Never install a critical part without the source aircraft SN in the logbook.  

 

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.

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

But it was suspicious enough to have them continue.

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. 

3 hours ago, Pinecone said:

My point has been, from the original posting, it APPEARED that the parts did not meet the test of OPP.  Based on that, an investigation was warranted.

Further information indicates that the may have meet the test of OPP, but since the FAA has not mandated the removal, it is up in the air.

 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. 
 

40 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

This is the issue I see.  The drawing was supplied to the owner by the maker of the part.  Not the other way around.

They may be perfectly within the requirements, but it looks like there may be an issue, so FAA investigates.  

Explaining exactly how you meet the requirements should clear things up.

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

4 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

But that they did so was not clear.

That is why there is an investigation.

If they provide the info that shows they met the requirements, then the FAA should be happy.

As the situation was stated, it did not meet the requirements.

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

1 hour ago, M20Doc said:

An A&P is the equivalent of an apprentice in Canada.  

You’re killing me Doc! 

5 hours ago, Chucks65MooneyM20C said:

Hello, Looking at to buy, rent, or borrow landing gear rigging tools, If you have some, please give me a shout. 

Thanks 

Chuck

Hi Chuck,

I replied to your message. I have sets of them available.

Thanks,

David

3 hours ago, jghyde said:

I honestly don’t know what model Mooney that accordion came from. It was found in storage at Ranger Aviation in San Angelo. They used to be an MSC I think. The guy told me he thought it was for a newer Mooney like a J model. But Js are fuel injected.

The final verdict is the accordion was the exact part.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

7 hours ago, M20Doc said:

J model doesn’t have an intake coupling.

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

43 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

Welcome to Mooneyspace.

How is a M20K (261) a Vintage (Pre-J) model? It should be under Modern Mooneys.

 

You're not going to find a new part to replace that. Someone will have to repair it, if that's what it needs, or fabricate it (owner produced part).

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. 

15 minutes ago, AvcenterMarina said:

Verified that are no marks. We thought we had two sets of each. The set beloning to our satellite location that did have the degree marks has been sold already, these are no longer available for sale due to this! Apologies everyone!

 

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

12 hours ago, AvcenterMarina said:

I found two wood travel boards in our surplus inventory. We have the following; 

Elevator Travel Board for Mooney M20-K, PN: 030004-503

Rudder Travel Board for Mooney M20A, B, C, D, E, F, G, J, K & M22, PN: 030005-100

I'm not 100% positive on the part numbers, but based on what is listed on the Mooney Special Tools page on the Australian Mooney Pilots Assoc. Website, that appears to be what they are.

Let me know if any of y'all might be interested & make us an offer! We have no use for them here at our shop

Photos attached!

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

On 12/6/2022 at 11:49 AM, hammdo said:

I bought his plane and they are wonderful!  David is working on a version 2 of the cowling but I'm not 100% sure he'll use the Van's Baffles again.

-Don

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

1 hour ago, ukrsindicat@yahoo.com said:

Thank you. I did read your post about it and was going to ask you a question about it. So far I didn't notice any potential striking of cooler against the mount. Do you have any photos of your install so i can visualize the problem?

How did your chin cover plate install go? Unrelated: I wish they still make the second taxi light STC replacement of cooler.

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

One other thing you might check before cutting through your baffle and adding their doubler is to check the clearance of the oil cooler to the engine mount. I did one and found the cooler was too close to the engine mount for my comfort. Had to do some more modifying it to get clearance. 
I can’t really fault them for kit fit as each one of these birds was hand built and none are the same. 
David

4 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

But, it isn’t a copy of the Mooney part, it is a copy of the LASAR PMA part.

Incorrect.

17 minutes ago, EricJ said:

It's up to the owner to assure proper participation in the OPP process, not the fabricator, but McFarlane seems to know the process and facilitates it reasonably well.   They work from a drawing that needs the critical dimensions filled in, so you can either provide the design data by filling in the parameters in the drawing, or sending them a part to duplicate, and McFarlane fills them in and has you verify it.   Either fits the requirement to provide design data as described by the FAA and detailed in the Byrne (FAA legal opinion) memorandum on OPP.   Verifying the design data can also be seen as providing supervision, which is another one of the possible requirements.

If you check the dimensions when you receive the article to verify that they are correct, that is also a supervision step to facilitate qualification as an OPP part.
 

I had to laugh when I read this. No offense to you and your thought process as I agree with it. As things are currently being applied, McFarlane should be receiving a letter as well. I’ll leave it at that for now. 

2 hours ago, EricJ said:

I hope they still give the option to do OPP.    I got two control cables from them as OPP and one as a PMA part number, and the PMA one didn't fit nearly as well as the other two.   My preference would be to get them via the OPP process.    I suspect that'd continue since it's the same process that the experimental folks use.

What part of the OPP rules is McFarlane complying with? I know plenty of vintage Mooney owners who’ve called them up and ordered a cable and then installed it via OPP. What did the owner do to comply with the rules of OPP in this case? They didn’t! Are the rules being applied the same to everyone? The answer is no. 

26 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

n. Owner/Operator Produced Part. Parts that were produced by an owner/operator for installation on their own aircraft (i.e., by a certificated air carrier). An owner/operator is considered a producer of a part, if the owner participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of the part. Participating in the design of the part can include supervising the manufacture of the part or providing the manufacturer with the following: the design data, the materials with which to make the part, the fabrication processes, assembly methods, or the quality control (QC) procedures.
 

this is from the AC on approving parts. Since everyone who got one of these parts participated in providing design data and QC at a minimum, I can’t see how they don’t meet the standard.  
 

Now, it’s possible the company offered these for sale to others who didn’t participate at a later date, and that’s where the problem lies.

 

No others outside of the group were produced or sold.