Sabremech

I've heard all the good Camguard does, but have yet to see any proof with my own eyes it does what is claimed. I want to see the proof, I don't want to hear about it from marketing or even Mike B for that matter. Show us, prove that it does what's claimed. The warranty thing only bothers me in the fact that some back room deal is being done to sell a product that will have questionable value during a warranty period. I suspect that when the time comes for my engine overhaul, that I'll do it myself if I still have the airplane when that day comes. David

It's one thing to use an additive to solve sticking valve issues etc where the results are felt and seen. It's another thing to require something that the results can't be verified by the consumer. How many of us are going to have an engine from overhaul through TBO where we can verify the claims of this additive? David

So if the warranty is only 2 years and a few hundred hours, what's the benefit? This isn't when you'd have issues related to corrosion etc. I need some real world personal experience with this product to become an advocate for it. I'm a skeptic in any and all marketing until I've experienced results good or bad first hand. I doubt that I have my Lycoming long enough to get it overhauled and use this product until TBO and then see for myself if there was any reduced wear or corrosion. David

I wouldn't have a problem with this as long as Continental pays for all the Camguard I would need. Two companies getting together and making an agreement that ups my operating costs (mandatory if I want the warranty coverage) with less than 100% proof of it's claimed benefit just doesn't sit well with me. David

I've used Polygone with very good success. I didn't mean to imply that it was "cheap" in how it performs it's intended function. Just that it costs less to purchase. Choose what you think is the best and let us know how it works. David

Hi Jon, Another product you might look at for stripping sealant is Polygone by RPM Technologies. I think you'll find the cost subsatantially less and you don't have to buy a case. I've used it before and it works fairly well. My issue is that I did a tank repair in the winter and the hangar was cooler than what is recommended for using the product. David

On my 66 C model, I used my engine hoist and changed the uppers together, left them loose and lifted up on the engine and replaced the lower mounts. I then torqued them. All without disconnecting any of the cables, etc. David

Personally the Sonalert is not loud enough. I can barely hear it and if you're busy with the radio in the pattern it can be missed. I'll be looking to replace mine again soon with something louder and distinctive. David

Here's mine from a year ago. Just a little wear from 7600 Hours and countless landings. David

Hi Isaacpr7, For a project like this, you'll most likely need to hire a DER (Designated Engineering Representative) who can help you determine if you want to proceed with this project and what his costs would be. Personally, this is a project I wouldn't pursue because there are already parts available (STC's) and I know It would cost more than buying an existing STC. It would be an education for you and definitely lighten your wallet as well as trying your patience. David

Byron described it well. Nothing for me to add. David

Hi Isaacpr7, I think the chance of getting a field approval 337 is slim to none since there is at least one STC available for this. No FAA inspector is going to want to put their name on this field approval without a whole lot of data which will probably cost you more than buying the STC. The best advice I can give is to either buy the STC or keep the panels you have and use the money to buy avgas. Thanks, David

You can produce the exact part that is on your aircraft by having the drawings or reverse engineering and it must be equivalent or better than the original. It can't be different in the form you would like in a one piece belly panel. What you want to do is an alteration which will require a 337 Field approval or an STC. I currently manufacture owner produced parts, FAA/PMA parts and hold an STC while currently working on 2 more STC projects. I'm familiar with the processes. David

You could make the original panels as an owner produced part, but going to a one piece belly will require you to buy one that is STC'd or do a field approval with your FSDO. Since they are available as an STC, I doubt any FSDO will do a field approval. David

It was located up near the brake reservoir, pilots side, on my 66 C. I replaced it and moved it down lower by the nose wheel well behind the gear handle in hopes I would hear it better. I would check the switch with a meter before buying a new horn. Might as well replace only what's failed. David

I understand your point. I don't write a book with my entries and keep it detailed and short. If the AD is an inspection and simple, I will sign it off as complied with AD XXXX-XX-XX as nothing else is needed to be known other than the AD is complied with. If it is a recurring AD, I note the next due in my signoff. If parts were changed, they are written in my parts changed portion of my logbook entry. For me, all I want to know, has the AD been complied with and is it terminated or recurrent. The key is that any recurrent AD is noted and the next due date or time is in my entry. David

So what would you prefer the AD sign off to state besides complied with/ accomplished AD XXXX-XX-XX? Will any more detail convince us that it was actually done? Some things have to be trusted when they are signed off previously unless an obvious red flag appears during your inspection. David

If I was in the market for another airplane, it's a project that I would tackle. I don't fear it being outside of my skill level but I couldn't recommend it to a inexperienced buyer. David

7600.

Did mine last year as it was worn more than yours is. I also did the up lock so that the gear handle was tight in both positions. David

Huh? Maybe I'm being critical, but an annual inspection is not an AD. David

Since I take care of a very limited number of small airplanes, (2) I do not subscribe to any AD software programs. It's quite expensive and is possible for errors in that service too. The lower number of AD's on the Mooney airframe is nice, but the engine, prop and accessories are no less a chore to remain on top of. David

Great topic. I'm of the opinion that there should be no recurring AD's. Fix the problem right and be done with it. I could certainly be doing something more productive with my time than searching through logbooks looking for compliance times and dates. If I'm doing the airplane inspection for my first time, then I'm stuck verifying compliance in the logbooks with the thought in my mind that is it really done or not? The liabilty does not end with the annual running out. As long as your name and number are in the books, you're liable. David

Hi Byron, there's going to be some compromise here. I don't see trying to copy the Lo Presti for ultimate performance and price myself out of being able to sell any product. Would I like to see some performance gain? Absolutely. What or if that happens won't be seen until I put my airplane in R&D and test fly it. I'm not looking at doing a fiberglass cowling mod if I can help it. My goal is for it to be aluminum and rivet on at factory seams for a nice finish and no exotic resins for flammability requirements or that nagging cracking like I'm having with the ARI enclosure. For me, it's about updating the look of my airplane first and if I get a performance gain, awesome. It's fun so far figuring out little issues with each step. Thanks, David

I'm currently not planning on moving the oil cooler. The main reason will be to keep the STC as simple as possible. The second reason will be cost as I'm well aware of the value of the older Mooney's and this can't be a $10-15k mod. Thanks, David