DaV8or Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 They're available again! I got the call from LASAR and mine's on the way. $315.
Immelman Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 Quote: DaV8or They're available again! I got the call from LASAR and mine's on the way. $315.
Antoni Deighton Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 Sorry, newbie question. What is an induction coupling? (Future Mooneynowner looking to learn)
N601RX Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 A rubber boot that goes between the carb or fuel servo and the cowling
aviatoreb Posted March 6, 2012 Report Posted March 6, 2012 Guy without a PMA it isnt going to be legal to install on a Mooney, is it? I agree it looks like a vastly better made product. However, the Mooney version will allow for more movement between engine and cowling. Those Lycoming 4-bangers can sure shake when starting up and shutting down.
jetdriven Posted March 6, 2012 Report Posted March 6, 2012 sorry, aviatoreb, that above post was me. you can delete it, I will repost here: Guy without a PMA it isnt going to be legal to install on a Mooney, is it? I agree it looks like a vastly better made product. However, the Mooney version will allow for more movement between engine and cowling. Those Lycoming 4-bangers can sure shake when starting up and shutting down.
Shadrach Posted March 6, 2012 Report Posted March 6, 2012 Byron, I think the pics he posted were a Beechcraft part. I suspect he is looking to make a Mooney type duct out of the same (read superior) material as the after market Beech ducts he sells... While it's true that the 6s are far smoother than the 4s. The crucial reason for duct flexibility is start up and shut down. That's when an engine bucks the most. They're all "shakers" to some degree during start up and shutdown and that's why the travel is needed.
tony Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 Quote: jetdriven sorry, aviatoreb, that above post was me. you can delete it, I will repost here: Guy without a PMA it isnt going to be legal to install on a Mooney, is it? I agree it looks like a vastly better made product. However, the Mooney version will allow for more movement between engine and cowling. Those Lycoming 4-bangers can sure shake when starting up and shutting down.
jetdriven Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 An owner-produced part must conform to the factory drawings or some other approved data. Thanks, Ross. I missed that photo was a Beech duct Wow, I have to agree with Guy, that factory duct looks pretty flimsy. What it is, rubberized cotton?
tony Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 Quote: jetdriven An owner-produced part must conform to the factory drawings or some other approved data.
jetdriven Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 I think your FAR has changed. That part you quoted me is not the same anymore. here is the current 21.303: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=ab331b230df673a54e705d92268ec3b2;rgn=div8;view=text;node=14%3A1.0.1.3.9.11.11.2;idno=14;cc=ecfr I hear you, I hear you. however, you cannot just go bolt something onto a type cetificated aircraft because you feel it looks good. We just had a thread where someone considered a rear cigarette lighter port a "major alteration". Heck, my IA wouldnt install one without an STC. Here is something from an FAA rep. A part must qualify as "owner produced" and it must conform to its type design. from: http://aircraftrebuilder.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=182:the-faas-bill-obrien-on-owner-produced-parts&catid=27:parts&Itemid=29 Question 1: Does the owner have to manufacturer the part himself in order to meet the intent of the rule? Answer 1: No, the owner does not have to make the part himself. However to be considered a producer of the part he must have participated in controlling the design, manufacturer, or quality of the part such as: 1. provide the manufacturer with the design or performance data from which to make the part, or 2. provide the manufacturer with the materials to make the part or, 3. provide the manufacturer with fabrication processes or assembly methods to make the part or, 4. provide the quality control procedures to make the part or’ 5. personally supervised the manufacturer of the part. OK, so you have a silicone rubber inlet boot from Guy. Looks slick and much more durable. Did you satisfy one of the previous 5 steps? So where is the data that it conforms to its type design? Materials? Measurements? NDT data? Here is what the CFR says about PMA parts, which is effectively what you are doing as an owner: from: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=be9151ff993079b9ffd63e9c706923b1&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.9.11.11.2&idno=14 ( Each applicant for a PMA must make all inspections and tests necessary to determine— (1) Compliance with the applicable airworthiness requirements; (2) That materials conform to the specifications in the design; (3) That the article conforms to its approved design; and (4) That the manufacturing processes, construction, and assembly conform to those specified in the design. some more clarifying info: The only catch is that, to be legal, an owner-produced part must be airworthy. To be airworthy, it must conform to the aircraft's type design. Therefore, if you decide to fabricate a battery box for your Skyhawk, you must duplicate the original battery box as closely as possible, using the same dimensions, materials and construction methods used in the original. You'll usually need help in fabricating an owner-produced part, and the most likely person to ask to help you is your A&P. That's because the owner-produced part won't do you much good unless your A&P is satisfied that it is airworthy and is willing to install it and approve your aircraft for return to service. The best way to ensure you A&P is satisfied that the part is airworthy is to get him involved in its production. In fact, your mechanic can legally manufacture the owner-produced part for you provided you supervise his work! from: http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/savvy_aviator_54_is_repair_a_lost_art_197316-1.html It sucks, but you have to conform to the rules to install owner-produced parts. We did pedal extensions with the factory drawings. We sent the 4130N plate steel to the machine shop, and then did QC on the parts after they were returned. How does that sound?
N601RX Posted March 8, 2012 Report Posted March 8, 2012 Quote: jetdriven An owner-produced part must conform to the factory drawings or some other approved data. Thanks, Ross. I missed that photo was a Beech duct Wow, I have to agree with Guy, that factory duct looks pretty flimsy. What it is, rubberized cotton?
jetdriven Posted March 8, 2012 Report Posted March 8, 2012 I think in the case of the upgraded instrument panels, they are non structural and still must be performed in accordance with AC 43.13 which is approved data. That's your justification.
N601RX Posted March 8, 2012 Report Posted March 8, 2012 Quote: jetdriven I think in the case of the upgraded instrument panels, they are non structural and still must be performed in accordance with AC 43.13 which is approved data. That's your justification.
DaV8or Posted March 8, 2012 Author Report Posted March 8, 2012 Way to go Gee Bee! It's folks like you who will keep Mooneys flying long after the factory quits. Sadly, I just bought the factory Aeroduct part (for $356 incl. shipping! Ouch!) and won't need yours for a while. Wish you were done a month ago. Oh well.
Sabremech Posted March 8, 2012 Report Posted March 8, 2012 This would be a hard sell to any mechanic or the FAA for that matter of being an owner produced part. This induction boot is a critical part to the powerplant and will require testing to prove it can meet or exceed the original manufacturers part. I'm in the process of FAA-PMAing two bolts for a continental engine that is no longer supported. There's a real possibility for 100 hours of test cell time and then disassembly to prove my bolts are equivalent to the original. I have to agree with Byron that this is not considered an owner produced part on the basis of it's function to the powerplant without the proper documentation and testing. Gee-Bee's parts look great and I hope you do get FAA-PMA on them.
jetdriven Posted March 8, 2012 Report Posted March 8, 2012 Given the definition of Major alteration by the FAA is this: Major alteration. An alteration not listed in the aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller specifications— (1) That might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or (2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations. and you say that no approved data nor factory drawings (specifications) are needed for a minor repair or alteration, then why not instal an AutoZone alternator, some seats from a Honda Accord, or the Aveo Engineering rocker switches? Those are all minor alterations as such, but somehing tells me not legal either. I am on you and Guy's side here. Tedhnology has improved vastly since these parts were first certified. Its clear the induction boot is a POS. So is the Dukes electric fuel pump, the vacuum pumps, the reman Ford starters and alternators, the 1200$ autopilot servos that fail in 100 hours, mechanical "iron gyros", . All of them. But "owner produced" also means being able to justify the item if challenged. Protect yourself. Quote: N601RX It only has to conform to factory drawings or approved data if it is part of a major repair or major alteration. If it is something that can be signed off as a minor repair or minor alteration then factory drawings or approved data are not necessary. Look at all the upgraded panels in the pre 201 planes. None of these are made to factory drawings or approved data. If you and your A&P decide that using silicon instead of the origingal material is minor, then your ok.
tony Posted March 10, 2012 Report Posted March 10, 2012 Quote: jetdriven I think your FAR has changed. That part you quoted me is not the same anymore. here is the current 21.303: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=ab331b230df673a54e705d92268ec3b2;rgn=div8;view=text;node=14%3A1.0.1.3.9.11.11.2;idno=14;cc=ecfr Your right, it did change. Thanks for pointing that out. It now can be found in part 21.9 (5) This string got off topic. I apologize for that. Byron, I just don’t agree with your interpretation of the FARs. I do know that if my IA did to me what your IA does to you, I'd find a new one. Putting a convenience outlet in the luggage area for your skyradar is getting pretty common; it's a minor alteration and just requires a log book entry. Replacing or maybe I should same repairing (that’s a whole other discussion) a duct that brings air to the engine should again, in my opinion, be a minor repair. So if I want to make a an owner produced part, and I can convince my IA that’s its airworthy, then I my interpretation of the FARs is that I can use it. I think I'm going to spec out a purple one....
Sabremech Posted March 10, 2012 Report Posted March 10, 2012 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?
jetdriven Posted March 10, 2012 Report Posted March 10, 2012 Tony, I agree. I thinkn the rear cig lighter is a minor alteration. My IA is really good to me, but occasionally he will not do something. But overall we have worked togther on many things and our plane is better than ever. I will have to work with someone else on this one. Regarding the induction boot, I would consider it a minor alteration as well. But if the boot tears, collapses, or transfers enough vibration to crack the airbox or fuel servo there will be trouble. Silicone is quite a bit more stiff than rubber and will transmit more torque or vibration as well. Perhaps copying the OEM design in silicone? The OEM style has soem deep pleats and looks like it allows tons of movement. So, if it were me, I would do the brave thing. Copy someone else's installation! regarding owner-produced parts, you must satisfy one of the 5 conditions below to claim that. Can you? Question 1: Does the owner have to manufacturer the part himself in order to meet the intent of the rule? Answer 1: No, the owner does not have to make the part himself. However to be considered a producer of the part he must have participated in controlling the design, manufacturer, or quality of the part such as: 1. provide the manufacturer with the design or performance data from which to make the part, or 2. provide the manufacturer with the materials to make the part or, 3. provide the manufacturer with fabrication processes or assembly methods to make the part or, 4. provide the quality control procedures to make the part or’ 5. personally supervised the manufacturer of the part.
SkyPilot Posted March 10, 2012 Report Posted March 10, 2012 Quote: GEE-BEE here is the Mooney , mfg by Aeroduct
Recommended Posts