I do hope you were right about suitable reamers in workshops. I would not be so sure that is the case widely. I am very specific about reamers that have to have uneven angle spacing between cutters so they don´t chatter . One brand is this set:
reamer set
Silvaire,
you are welcome to send your R 100 heads for overhaul – though this is almost “modern” stuff to me.
Vic
vic wrote:
No problem to show up with “overhauled” units with obvious minimal play but you will find out later about the quality of the job when wear sets in after few hours of use because the bearing finish and concentricity between bushes was very poor for lack of proper tooling. While these reamers are still available new at prices in excess of € 180.- each I would not expect to find many of these in aviation maintenance companies, so all sorts of bodges made instead.
I think you would be wrong here, mechanical aircraft workshops will have a large selection of reamers for this sort of work.
Silvaire wrote:
Aircraft maintenance ‘regulations’ (in any number of forms, created over decades) commonly end up being ambiguous, because when written they weren’t actually intended to be so strictly enforced or to eliminate the necessary judgement of individual certificated mechanics.
Unless they were written with airlines and rather big jets in mind in an environment that trusts organisations and paperwork, not judgement of individuals.
Vic, great stuff. You can do my R100 heads when they need it… 
I am not bashing anyone. Just writing what I find to be the case.
If some firm is able to replace the bushes then please post their name and a lot of people reading EuroGA will benefit.
Come on, please stop this maintenance facility bashing.
As A_and_C mentioned, these parts are readily available, a normal shop or mechanic wouldn’t have issue to propperly replace these.
Peter wrote:
With most light GA aircraft there is no CMM (component maintenance manual)
It a good thing there is no CMM for these kinds of parts. Some CAA’s see that as component maintenance, requiring another expensive C rating on a Part 145.
The parts are in the parts manual, so the work is just carried out according standard practices.
Peter wrote:
this is also a common position in the US e.g. the man who runs the Socata owners’ group takes this position absolutely: no CMM, no component repair
Peter, this interface with US practice is a tiny fraction of the whole, centered on a small number of aircraft manufactured overseas by a manufacturer who I think is itself lost in relation to legal and customary practice under FAA regs. I’d submit that it isn’t representative, particularly not for a Piper Arrow. 
I know a couple of people who have built virtually a whole aircraft starting with the data plate, some parts from multiple planes and not much else, and now operate it in FAA standard category as a certified plane. That’s not common either, but its the opposite end of the spectrum. In the middle lies normal maintenance practice.
All that said, this is one reason why I chose to own FAA certified aircraft manufactured a long time ago, no longer ‘supported’ by a today non-existent manufacturer. Life is simpler that way, all certified modern types and their makers are increasingly an impractical pain in the behind.
Silvaire is right. Unfortunately…
Obviously this is an advantage of the homebuilt regime, but for the wrong reasons.
Martin wrote:
Who said rules don’t get broken all the time? It’s just not something one advertises and one won’t encourage others to do so publicly, especially if it leaves such public traces. However, some people like to know into how much trouble they could get if they got caught and what the rules actually are.
The issue is not “breaking rules” in my view… and I don’t think they know at all what the “rules” actually are. That black/white perception in a grey world is part of the problem. Specific to this case, most certified aircraft have one maintenance manual (no CMMs), and older types don’t have any approved MM. If they do have one, it doesn’t cover every single maintenance operation at the component level. Despite that, there is no reasonable case that in 1967 or whenever, or now using the same documentation, it wasn’t or isn’t legal to overhaul your landing gear!
Aircraft maintenance ‘regulations’ (in any number of forms, created over decades) commonly end up being ambiguous, because when written they weren’t actually intended to be so strictly enforced or to eliminate the necessary judgement of individual certificated mechanics. The solution is for people (including aircraft mechanics!) to follow what they as individuals feel is the best and most productive interpretation of the rules, and be properly judged on that basis, not to freeze in place under fear of prosecution. Certainly in the case of aircraft maintenance the rules aren’t, and never should be so rigidly defined for private property being maintained by owners for their own use. It’s just not a productive way forward.
One other example of how operating with mindless blinders doesn’t work is when a US aircraft manufacturer’s ‘mandatory’ service bulletins are interpreted as mandatory under law , presumably because a certified aircraft manufacturer in Europe has legal authority to directly dictate maintenance procedures in real time. When applied to a US built aircraft, that is giving respect to the manufacturer beyond what the manufacturer itself expects, and it is inappropriate.
