Search results

Sorry for not being clear... I need a manual one.

I did a google on a Zenith 801 but it is an airplane, not a rivet gun :D

I have been using Avlab since 2005 and have found them excellent. They usually show the data within 10 days of me mailing it, which is about right for air mail from the UK. But the last sample took about 2 months. I put this down to some chimp re-classifying it as surface mail instead of air...

I am assembling some tools needed to do the Annual check (previously I had only tools for the 50hr check). One thing I need to get is a really good "pop rivet" (blind rivet) gun which works well and doesn't suffer from the rivet's mandrel getting stuck inside it. A few months ago I was...

305-2BL ELECTRIC HORIZON 504-0033-930 WITH A FRESH 8130-3 FORM This unit was removed fully working from a TB20 aircraft. It is in an excellent condition and has just been inspected by Castleberry Instruments in Texas, USA, who issued the new 8130-3 form. It will be shipped from the USA. You...

OK. Let me go off on another tangent. Let's say there is plenty of prior use of this adhesive (or whatever) either as a minor alternation or as a field approval. Then I get an STC for it. The intellectual property aspect of that STC is not just a little dubious, wouldn't you say? ;) And the...

[my emphasis] I find it hard to believe, because nothing (except a lot of time wasted) stops me from getting an AML STC for the adhesive, and if I get that then everybody sticking those numbers on will have to file a 337 because the STC exists? I absolutely do not believe that the FAA's...

Exactly; you can get an STC for a different type of self adhesive plastic for the tail number :) This is the big problem. Lots of US manufacturers have been getting STCs as a marketing exercise. So, just because Product X comes with an STC does not mean it is a Major Alteration. With a...

An IA, or a Part 145 Repair Station, AFAIK. Or the FAA ;)

Yes, because the STC is great for marketing. It means you can sell the product to installers who do not want, or cannot, read, and/or cannot (or don't want to) take any risk in determining whether the alternation is minor or major. With an STC, there is no comeback on the installer or the IA...

Surely, drilling holes in an unpressurised hull can be done under AC43-13? That is how radio/TCAS antennae are done, so a visor should be no different. Here in the UK, there are certain shops that insist on a DER package for any drilling - even fitting a mounting bracket for say a TAS box to...

Isn't another way of saying this that Rosen got the STC as a marketing stunt, to silence all the A&Ps out there who cannot be bothered to read Part 43 Appendix A and determine that changing a sun visor is not a Major Alteration ;)

Would such a MM cover every aspect of the aircraft? For example, my TB20 is "supported" with a MM which covers some aspects, and also Socata publish CMMs (component maintenance manuals) for certain things e.g. landing gear gas struts which, AIUI, would be illegal to service in the field without...

Do you mean that "It does not apply to any aircraft with manufacturers manuals for the particular part"? I think what you are saying is that re-skinning can "just be done", whereas doing something IAW 43-13 needs a 337 field approval sent off and approved before commencing the work - correct...

Why would 43-13 cover a re-skinning, but not e.g. the fabrication of a bulkhead?

Are there any absolutely prohibited owner produced parts? For example could you make your own crankshaft? Your own VHF radio?

Can one owner make an owner-produced part and then give it to another owner (free of charge) for installation by that owner?

So will WD-40 but not sure I'd want that in there :)

I have a Socata TB20 and ZEP45 is recommended for the aileron gimbal joints, which cannot be dismantled and thus need a penetrating lube of some sort. But there seems no way to buy ZEP45 for shipping to the UK. Amazon sell it for about $140 (for a 12-case which I don't need) but no shipping...

Some time ago I wrote up some notes on simplified engine management - here. I don't fly LOP. I've done careful tests and cannot see any benefit in MPG - for the same IAS. There sure is a benefit in MPG via flying a bit slower which is what you get when LOP because the engine is making less...