Shadrach

Just one man’s opinion. After switching to a solid state VR (Zeftronics) I could see little upside to converting from a generator to alternator. The charging system is positive by 1100 rpm (+/- 100rpm depending on temp). I’d save 6lbs but I don’t really need it.

Whoa…let’s not start writing off cylinders just yet. Maybe verify that case pressure is an issue.

I don’t think that one make/model of engine is inherently oil tight over another. The quality and age of the assembly are bigger factors. Seals can deform and deteriorate over time. Properly joined case halves can last nearly a lifetime.

Yep, MEK will take it right off.

Is that original paint? Is it possible that the stripper from a previous paint job was not fully removed.

Offering a critique of Clearance’s maintenance opinions is well above my pay grade. I don’t think he was diagnosing your specific engine so much as offering a known cause of recurring leaks. Does your engine exhibit any other symptoms of excessive case pressure? SB M89-9 covers how to test crankcase pressure with a manometer or an old airspeed indicator. The maximum acceptable reading for your engine at full power is 4.00” H2O or 90MPH indicated. Several of my pushrod seals are weeping as well, but their sub optimal condition be can verified visibly. They’ll be replaced at annual in October.

Removing rocker box covers, arms and push rods is not that time intensive. As in maybe half an hour or so to remove from all four cylinders. Dicking around trying to get a split seal oriented, seated properly and glued is not worth it.

I am all for oversight. What we have in this case is a document that articulates why these parts are not FAA PMA. It does not articulate why they do not qualify as OPP. The document implies that these units were made before they were sold, but is careful not state that directly. I have every reason to believe that these parts were made to order. If the FAA has proof to the contrary, they should make that clear.

Thanks for posting this experience. Good to know there is some practical interpretation being espoused but consistency between regions has never been the organization’s strong suit. I am confident that any investigation into the quality of the parts themselves would find little to fault, and while we all certainly met the one of the “one of five” it could strongly be argued that we met more.

Does your C have this placard?

How is it hard on the engine? Genuinely curious?

Even in that case, a strong case could be made that QC was performed by the owner prior to install. The regs are actually pretty reasonably written, but you can never account for the bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy types. In my case, in addition to discussions prior to pre paying as well as updates and images of the progress, we also put micrometer to metal when the new parts arrived. We compared them to the specs and drawings used for fabrication as well as the removed OE parts. We verified the interface between the J-bar and the new sockets prior to installation. I also consulted with my IA prior to committing to having the parts fabricated (which was months before they were completed and received). My IA and I were both very impressed with the quality of the end product. It was superior to the OE pieces in fit and finish and conformed precisely to the OE part. The accompanying documents and CAD drawings were complete and professionally rendered. IA confirmed airworthiness and the the installation was flawless. This is very likely a case where a business that was unable to adequately serve demand is now improperly attempting to use the FAA to punish those who used the OPP process to keep their aircraft safe and airworthy. It's a misuse of resources and the letter issued by the FAA should have never been worded as it was. It's an embarrassment.

Some regions are infinitely more reasonable than others. Some folks just love reading regulations in the most impractical and burdensome way possible. “This all would have been perfectly fine if you all had just submitted 40 different drawings to the fabricator.” Or “It would have been fine for you all to share drawings as long as you went to 40 different fabricators.” It’s really difficult to wtite regulations well, there will always be unintended consequences. Interpretation will almost always be necessary. What’s fascinating to me is that the focus is not at all on the parts’ physical airworthiness but the subjective analysis of what constitutes sufficient owner participation prior to fabrication.

Do you really believe that this is how things transpired? It’s not and suggesting it is does not serve anyone…

My kids would pick that little partition up and clobber each other with it. A case of Kirkland paper towels is not adequate to keep them separate.

None of the F’s are eligible for 2900lb gross weight increase. The difference between an F and the E is 5” extra knee/foot room for the rear seat passengers and 5” extra in the baggage compartment. All F models (2740lb) have 165 LB gross weight increase over the E model (2575lb). So max gross is 2740lbs just like most of Js. I flight plan at 150kts. Sometimes I do better, sometimes I do worse (high summertime DAs). The F model’s ideal mission is as an economical mid-range family airplane. Mine will take 800lbs of people and stuff 500 nautical miles in a bit over 3hrs and burn less gas than most SUVs. It’s not the fastest, nor the most comfortable, nor the best load hauler. What it is, is a pretty practical compromise of all of those attributes. I’ve also found it to be a robust airframe that handles turf and short strips reasonably well. it’s good enough to make a man get religious about his airplane… I’m sure it would feel pretty doggy at 2900 pounds in the summertime. I think it’d be fine in the winter.

It is but Mooney ULs of 1100+ are relegated to just a few Eagles and Encores. However, the early Fs do quite well. Mine has UL of 1060lbs which means 676lbs in the cabin with full fuel (64gals). If I were eligible for the late model 200hp mid body 2900lb GW increase, I'd be at 1220lbs useful. In terms of range/payload flexibility, I can take more weight a longer distance, than several of the C182s on the field...I just don't say it in the pilot lounge for fear of disrupting the delicate aviation bullshit time/space continuum... It's for the same reason that I hesitate to say that my buddy's Comanche 250 had nothing on my F in terms of payload/range flexibility and less max range. Never let real numbers ruin someone's religious beliefs about an airplane. It's a losing proposition.

My F has a rectangular carpet piece that covers the front of the spar below the rear seat (directly behind the rear pax calves. That piece looks a bit too narrow unless those flops belong to Shaq. I doubt the thickness is actually tapered by design. More likely it was subjected to under uneven pressure/wear while in storage or in service.

That’s likely true. It’s also true that the whole kerfuffle may have started through an anonymous channel. At the end of the day, I don’t think anyone really cares that much. I think most of us just want it to go away and retain our ability to collaborate as owners to produce hard to obtain parts for our personal aircraft that are of the highest quality possible. In my professional life I encounter loads of inefficient entities that can barely get out of their own way. If half of my vendors were as competent, communicative, organized and motivated as the folks that I worked with to fabricate my down locks, my life would be infinitely easier.

I don’t think anyone knows for a fact beyond the FAA. So why would anyone make accusations they can’t prove on-line?

There are only two going concerns capable of manufacturing down block. So….probably one of them.

I understood at the outset. He wishes not to discuss. I understand why. It’s likely that no one knows for sure who called the FAA but can speculate with a high level of confidence…that’s not the same thing as knowing and it’s not smart to speculate on social media about a matter that is ongoing.

A friend of mine had a 250 for about 6 years. I liked it a lot. The speed was near enough to my F as makes no difference. Fuel burn was in the vicinity of 2.5-3gph more than a 200hp Mooney in typical cruise. This particular bird was not a great load hauler but not bad. I think it had about a little over 1100lbs, so about ~60lbs more useful than my F model but carried less fuel. Nice flying plane. Owner insisted that is was not a good short field bird and that maintaining nose high, mains first, full stall landings was a challenge because it ran out of pitch authority before the wing would stall. He suggested this was exacerbated by the position of the nose gear. I never got to land it so I can't say if it was personal technique or an airframe trait. He usually flew with lead shot in the baggage compartment. Mx is not bad. Gear bungees every few years. There is an AD on the steel hub Hartzell props but I expect most have been upgraded. The difference in roominess between the PA24 and a midbody is not that big of a deal unless you've a physique like Charlie Brown. It's still a low wing single with the typically graceful ingress and egress. It feels roomier though. I don't love the looks. The squared off, roomy, upper cabin area looks from the outside like a 1950s flat top. Seeing them on the ramp I imagine if they had names they'd be called Chet or Biff. They look better in the air.

We had a beautiful 180 on the field. I literally flew circles around him at 3500' but I have 20hp on him.

Tell us about the system you removed. Does it have a heading bug or is it just a leveler? Hope your new AP treats you well. A lot of folks bulk at the old Brittain stuff because it looks so antiquated. To those who know and understand the system, it is incredibly reliable as well as easy and inexpensive to maintain.