Sabremech

1 hour ago, PilotCoyote said:

Also beware that not all main gear  rigging tools are equal- the newer ones on the market aren’t the same as the original tool- the square socket for the torque wrench has been rotated 45 degrees. The torque wrench needs to be attached so that it is in line with the tool…not at 90 degrees, not at 45 degrees, per the Mooney manual drawing.

If you get a newer tool with the square hole rotated 45 degrees, go buy a  1/2” to 3/8” adapter with a 45 degree offset to correct this (not easy to find)- otherwise, you’ll be setting the pre-loads wrong.

Surely this will invite discussion. I had the opportunity to use both tools side-by-side and if the torque wrench is not in line with the tool, the torque readings change considerably= wrong pre-loads.

 

I have new tools available and am working provide the adapter for each of my tools until the next run and I rotate the square socket.

Thanks,
David

2 hours ago, outermarker said:

If anyone has a main gear disc replacement tool for sale, I would like to talk with you as I am sure others would also. All experience in the process is also appreciated. Can discs be purchased direct from LORD?

For the main gear, you can fill it up with fuel and / or have someone sit on the wing to compress them. Pretty easy that way. Nose takes the tool to get them compressed enough to re-install. I don’t think you can buy them directly from Lord, but doesn’t hurt to look and see if it’s an option now.

David

David

2 hours ago, Browncbr1 said:

Hey David, are you making those cheek panels just for visual inspection purposes or are you going to be able to pull bottom spark plugs also?  
 

I’m the head on photo, is that just an optical illusion that makes the hump over the #1 cylinder look bigger than the other side? Or do you need to do that because #1 is farther forward?
 

looking great!

The cheek panels are mainly for inspection but I’ll also have the option for louvers  in that panel for say the turbo charged airplanes for additional air flow. 
I hope that it’s an optical illusion! It’s also not sitting all the way together and not tight to to firewall flange.

Thanks,

David

Fitting continues. I feel as I have the front area solid now and am close to sending it back for the mold repair. Some final bodywork on my part and I’ll take it back for another set to be made. Baffling and induction systems to be worked on after I drop the cowling off. 
David

10 hours ago, hammdo said:

@Sabremech

David, are you going to use the Van's BAF-360 for baffles? Those are damn nice!

-Don

 

Hi Don,

I’m not sure yet. I do have to make some of the baffling and can’t use all of the kit so I need to weigh out the cost versus me just making them all. 
Thanks,

David

Engine mount and engine installed. Lower cowling clamped in place to study the fitting.

David

I finished getting my new Mooney ( fuselage) up on its new gear today. Engine installation coming and then on to baffling and new cowling fitment for the mold repair.

David

6 minutes ago, Browncbr1 said:

@Sabremech

Good morning. I’ve been holding out on information so as to not seem to keep promising amid more delays. It’s looking up and I recently purchased a forward fuselage section so I can build up baffling sets along with fit cowlings as much as possible in my shop. Progress.

Thanks,

David

1 hour ago, ShuRugal said:

This has devolved into the weirdest pissing contest I've seen around here.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 

So you believe it’s ok to recommend deviating from maintenance manuals on a public forum? That’s the heart of the matter. Not a pissi*g contest at all. 

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

Evidently you don't.  But then you agreed with @N201MKTurbo when he said the same thing, so it's hard to say.

Give it a rest. How long have you been an A&P? Afraid to put that out in public! 

14 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Ah, so part of the problem is that you've misunderstood the conversation.   That explains it.

Nope, I understand quite well what you’re professing here and to the OP!

How long have you been an A&P? Still waiting! 

39 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I will agree that they can reduce error. To do it with a digital level you need to do math. When you do math you can make mistakes. And yes, if you were doing it in a production environment, travel boards would be quicker to use.

But on the flip side, if you know what you are doing, and don't have travel boards, you can do it all with a digital level. Except setting the rudder stops. you need a digital compass for that.

Yep, agreed. What I found most disturbing was the advice to an owner who’s not an A&P and didn’t know what travel boards are to deviate from the maintenance manual on a public forum. 
Thanks,

42 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I'm pretty sure if there were digital levels in the 60s there would be no travel boards.

I’ll have to disagree once again. They are both quite useful. The travel boards reduce the risk for error. It’s interesting to note that travel boards are still widely used in the corporate aviation. I’ve had to rent them a few times over the years. Also quite nice to have them available for the Mooney as it made re-rigging stab trim a breeze. 

10 hours ago, EricJ said:

Evidently you've missed the Big Point, which is that most maintainers and shops don't have access to, and cannot get, travel boards.    When they're not available, which is the case for many/most, other methods are used.   If you think all of the paint shops and other maintainers that do rigging and inspect rigging all have travel boards, you are mistaken.

For those who have them for all of the appropriate models of aircraft serviced, and you are apparently so blessed, then by all means use them as you see fit.   But for the many who do not have access, evidently many affected shops feel it is not practical to ground an airplane because of the lack of a tool when other methods that have been in common use for decades will do the job.

If you want the phone number for the A&P school that I went to so that you can call and educate them, just ask.   They have a close relationship with the FAA and host the local IA seminars, which we were required to attend when I went there.   You might be surprised what the FSDO people actually find practical when you hear it directly from them.

Big point missed? Nope! Do post up how many years you’ve been an A&P! 

7 hours ago, EricJ said:

The post you were referring to at the time stated it was with reference to flaps.

If it's improperly rigged with boards there'll be scrutiny, too, and rightly so.    If it's properly rigged using alternative common practice methods how would that cause an issue?
 

Why do you advocate on a public forum for someone to not follow the maintenance manual procedures? You might use the PM feature for that kind of advice. The FAA along with Mooney monitor these boards and anything you post here may be used for an investigation. I do see from the FAA database you do hold that certificate. How long have you been an A&P? 
 

Good luck with pointing the FAA to your approved A&P school. I suspect with that attitude they’ll request you return for remedial training. 

On 4/3/2022 at 8:05 PM, EricJ said:

He's saying it's an issue on the flaps.   The M20J manual says to align the flaps with the ailerons.

For the stab put the digital level on the top and the bottom and split the difference for the reference.

Who’s saying it’s an issue with the flaps? The OP doesn’t know what causing the problem. 

17 hours ago, EricJ said:

Sure when they're available, but usually they're not.   Even the efforts here to duplicate them haven't been very successful in providing options for all models.

Just like when a material specified is no longer available (and AC43.13 doesn't give much guidance on that), when a tool isn't available you may need to do something else.   If you understand geometry and trig and how to make measurements, it's definitely possible to do it without the boards, and lots of shops commonly do and have done for a long time.

In my case I learned the other methods in A&P school, where out of a fleet of more than a dozen different types of airplanes we had boards for one.   So we were taught how to do it with other methods on a bunch of different airplanes.   The one airplane we had boards for was a Grumman Yankee, so I took the time to try three different methods: boards, protractor, and digital level, on that airplane.   The digital level was the most accurate and repeatable.   The boards were actually kinda sloppy in comparison in my opinion, and subject to a lot of positioning errors.  I found I could make the boards say what I wanted within a particular range.

So if I ever get any grief about it I'll point the FAA to my approved A&P school after showing how the other (commonly practiced) measurements can provide a more accurate solution than boards might.   I can probably leverage my 30+ years of engineering experience there, too, for drawings and measurement and tolerance assessment.   It's kinda like how MMO isn't approved to be used anywhere near an airplane, but maintainers have been using it for decades.   This is how "common practice" often gets cited, even by the FAA.   If an airplane crashed that got a cylinder rehabbed with MMO or was running it in their oil or fuel, I doubt the FAA would consider that a cause, since it's been done safely for decades.   Likewise rigging without boards when they're not available. 

If there’s a fatal accident and it can be directly or indirectly attributed to improper rigging, you have no leg to stand on as the AP who did it without the correct tooling. Do it as you see fit, but it’s not IAW the maintenance manual procedure. I’ll stick with what I’ve learned and practiced as an AP/IA for the last 30+ years. It’s worked well for me and my customers and I don’t lose sleep as to whether I did my best. 
 

47 minutes ago, EricJ said:

The maintenance manual also says repairs to M20J cowls must be done with materials that don't exist any more.   There are plenty of similar examples where deviation from the SM is common due to practicality or necessity.   I doubt there are many maintainers who never deviate from the SM.

When shops don't have, and can't get, travel boards, there are methods that are demonstrably the same, or even more accurate than the travel boards (in my experience).   Likewise it isn't practical for most shops to purchase travel boards for every airplane that comes into their shop.

There's nothing magical about travel boards.   They're great when you have them, but when they're not available it doesn't mean airplanes can't be rigged any more.

For cowling repairs you have AC43-13 to reference. 
What will you tell the FAA inspector when rig boards are available and you deviated from the maintenance manual? 
You can talk all around how you can come up with other methods but it won’t get you very far with them. 
 

10 hours ago, EricJ said:

He's saying it's an issue on the flaps.   The M20J manual says to align the flaps with the ailerons.

For the stab put the digital level on the top and the bottom and split the difference for the reference.

Hate to disagree with you, but that method is unacceptable to the owner of the aircraft I just worked on. Yes, you might get close, but it is not IAW the maintenance manual. Try to explain that to the investigators after the smoking hole has been created. You have no leg to stand on. 
 

2 hours ago, EricJ said:

The rigging board is basically a customized protractor, cut to make it a bit more convenient to use.   A protractor just measures the angle between two surfaces.   Finding zero is fairly straightforward, and then work from there.   The procedures in the SM give the angles to measure, so the boards aren't strictly necessary, just a means to measure the angles.

The boards can be a lot more convenient to use, particularly on the rudder where you can't use a digital level (maybe a compass?), but measuring angles can definitely be done without the boards.   A digital level makes it easy to measure horizontal angle differences, or to use something other than level as the zero reference.   

The only time I've had access to boards was on a Grumman Yankee, and I didn't think in that case it was any easier than using other methods, and not any more accurate, either.   The rudder is a potential exception, because the only other option there is a protractor, which can be done but is just more annoying.

Many shops, including paint shops, that do a lot of rigging don't have boards and manage to get by.

For the stabilizer, you can’t use the top of the horizontal stab with a digital angle finder as it’s not zero. If you look at a rig board, the aluminum angle that is bolted to it is at an angle and not the same as the top of the stab. I’ve used digital angle finders on flaps, ailerons and elevators to check the throw of each, but the stabilizer is different to determine zero like M20Doc states. Since I have access to the rig board, it made sense along with made it easy setting the stab trim per  the maintenance manual.

David

2 hours ago, EricJ said:

Try just lowering the flaps and see if it goes away.   If it does, you may be able to fix it by adjusting the up position on one of the flaps. 

Travel boards aren't necessary for rigging, it's just how some people like to do it.   You can do it with protractors and digital levels as well.

I just fixed the stabilizer trim rigging on a J model that had a new autopilot and electric trim installed. Not sure how I would have done it and be assured it was right without the rig board. Not saying it couldn’t be done, just not sure how and how long to be assured it’s in book specs. 
David

I always hated the first new one! Took way longer than anticipated. 
David

Here’s one that I get requests for to start this database! 
David

N2652Wfa1.pdf

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

You might consider donating your old spring to @Sabremech for reverse engineering since he has PMA and experience in getting STCs. It wouldn't hurt to have two sources.

I’d be happy to have it and start working it for the future.

Thank you,

E-mail sabremech@gmail.com

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

That confirms that Mooney's finances are so dire that they are living from "hand to mouth".  They can't spare any cash to pay Eaton for springs that will be tied up in inventory (working capital) for even a short period of time.   They are ordering and then immediately reselling as soon as they arrive in Kerrville.  They probably don't (can't?) pay Eaton until they receive the cash from the MSC's.  The crazy thing is that these are in such high demand that they will fly off the shelves.

It sounds like the current business model is to only build parts when they have firm orders in hand.  That means one at a time with lots of startup costs and expense or waiting for a batch of orders.  That means high cost and/or slow delivery and lots of downtime for Mooney owners unfortunate enough to need a factory part. 

Sad

Maybe it’s time for them to reach out to some vendors like myself that hold PMA and make a licensing agreement for us to work together and support the fleet? I do have some capital that I can use to hold onto products and keep them in stock unlike Mooney if that’s the case. 
David

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I went to an FAA seminar a few years ago. It was about getting a PMA. It didn't sound that hard. Reverse engineering is allowed. Getting this done isn't outside the realm of a normal human.

Last time we were talking about this I found a company that makes small lots of clutch springs for the aerospace industry. 

You would have to set up a company to hold the PMA and do all the FAA quality stuff, then get the spring company to make them for you.

If I was retired like I'm supposed to be I would give it a shot. But I was submarined by the new biotech startup. 

It’s not too terrible getting a PMA. As a matter of fact, I’ll help someone to get their PMA by sharing my quality manual to cut down the time it takes you to make one. I just had my PMA audit for the umpteenth time and I don’t know if I’ll do anymore PMA’s. I just don’t know if the paperwork required is worth it. So if anyone wants to dive into the world of PMA parts, let me know and I’ll help you get started. 
sabremech at gmail.

Thanks,

David