Sabremech

What you'll also encounter is a logbook entry that just states work accomplished per Work Order xxxx on file at this repair station. Good luck finding out what work was accomplished even if the repair station is still in business. This doesn't mean the airplane is bad. In complete logbooks and damage history are not an automatic deduction in the value of an airplane.

One thing to remember, not everything that is documented in our logbooks today was required 35-40 years ago.

Between faa.gov and Mooney's website, they are all there for free. I'd rather spend the money on avgas.

The S/B compliance was in the next 10 hours of flight time. I suspect the AD will be worded similarly.

It's more likely to reference S/B M20-313A compliance as meeting the requirements of the AD. No need to go back to your A&P for a sign off if already done with the S/B. As the owner, you can note this in your logbook. When and if the AD comes out, it will state this in the compliance section.

Tony, that induction boot is no small part in the power plant system. What if your owner produced induction boot collapses and causes the engine to quit, resulting in an off airport landing or even worse, someone's death? As an IA, I would not sign off on that being a minor repair. Will your insurance cover the claim if it's determined that this part didn't meet the TCDS?

This would be a hard sell to any mechanic or the FAA for that matter of being an owner produced part. This induction boot is a critical part to the powerplant and will require testing to prove it can meet or exceed the original manufacturers part. I'm in the process of FAA-PMAing two bolts for a continental engine that is no longer supported. There's a real possibility for 100 hours of test cell time and then disassembly to prove my bolts are equivalent to the original. I have to agree with Byron that this is not considered an owner produced part on the basis of it's function to the powerplant without the proper documentation and testing. Gee-Bee's parts look great and I hope you do get FAA-PMA on them.

Stepping out before the wrestling with pigs in mud begins! The pig always wins!!

I'll step into the fray, I personally like the sealed tanks. There's no guarantee that bladders won't leak as I've evidenced in the F86 I maintain. I'm accusomed to maintaining wet wing airplanes, so no problem for me. If you want bladders and they fit what you want, get them. From an technicians perspective, it's all airplane maint regardless of a wet wing or bladder. We're still going to smell like 100LL.

From another A&P, go with the Concorde. I have 13 airplanes I maintain and I'm working to get rid of all Gill batts. They don't last as long!

Double post

Thanks Byron. Service Instruction M20-114 to revise jacking procedure on all aircraft prior to L model. Time to put the tailstand away and bring back the engine hoist. It's definitely shaky using an engine hoist.

Answered by SI M20-114

Going through my Mooney manual it directs to hold the prop with a prop sling or hold the tail with a tiedown. There's another thread on this forum going bonkers over pushing or pulling the prop to move the airplane. I can't imagine if it's not recommended to push or pull your airplane at the base of the prop that it would be OK to use an engine hoist to hold the front of the airplane for jacking. I have a tail stand that I made that weighs a couple hundred pounds to hold the tail down. What does Mooney say about holding the tail down? I don't see anything in the manual that it is unacceptable.

I think you just wrote the best post so far PK. You do it your way and let the rest of us do it our way.

I found them on their site. They aren't available yet as they are in the process of getting them FAA-PMA'd. They list M20 B,C,D, and 201 that they are working on.

enginebaffles.com

Hi Jim, Good to hear your reasoning and I understand. One of the business's that I operate, is manufacturing aircraft parts for Corporate aircraft. I hold a PMA and QA system. I know what it takes to make parts the same every time and we choose to have every part inspected by a DAR even though we aren't required. If I let insurance and risk run my business, I wouldn't be in the aviation business. I refuse to let that stop me and will continue to produce the parts that are needed. I recently started a new company that deals with certified aircraft parts for orphaned aircraft. There's a market for it and a huge risk. I choose to take the risk because these parts are needed. If I have the drawing and I make my part or tooling to that, I'm not concerned about the what if. I know my part or tooling is correct and can prove it to an insurance company. You're right in informing people why you choose the way you do. My perspective is completely different as I work in corporate aviation full time, Warbird maint part time and have two aviation business's of my own. It boggles my mind to hear someone say the Mooney is a complicated airplane and only an MSC should work on it. The Mooney is a very simple airplane to work on compared to others I maintain. An airplane is an airplane, with some just requiring more tooling and time. Thanks for your insight.

Sorry to upset you Jwilkins. I don't have a problem with you getting your own tools and your choice to get them from an MSC. What I try to do, is help the person on this forum with resources and some of them aren't from an MSC. Contrary to some people, I don't make the assumption that because it has the MSC on their door that they are the best. I guess this isn't just a Mooney myth, but an aviation myth because I see the same thing from all the brands. I have a set of tools that I would be willing to loan out or can have a set made from my machine shop. Just let me know.

Byron, I can assure you, I won't be buying any $2000 fuel caps. The nice thing about being in the aircraft parts manufacturing business, is I have other options. So not only do I save on my labor, but I have the option of owner produced parts or going the full FAA-PMA route. I know and expect someday to have something expensive to buy and I'm prepared for that when it happens. That's part of aviation and isn't exclusive to Mooney's.

I'm always working on something on my Mooney to make it better. I've only had one issue where I turned around and landed back at home as something didn't seem right with the prop. I've had my airplane for a year and a half with little unscheduled maint. It's not an apples to apples comparison since I'm an A&P/IA so maint doesn't cause me grief or the cost.