OK, so we took a look at the left MLG connection, and it’s pretty much the same story – looks alright. I’ll take a close look at the rivets next time I’m there. Hope she doesn’t fall apart on me! haha Anyways, just took her for a couple of fast taxi’s (~45kt) and it was quite a chore to keep her straight. Could just be a case of VERY sensitive steering??
Also, I want to say that when full power is applied, most aircraft are expected to yaw to the left due to the torque. With our plane, I need to use quite a lot of LEFT rudder to keep her straight. What’s up with that?
Thanks again for all your suggestions!
SF
Apparently my post #54 was typed in invisible ink – so I’ll say it again: things have changed with respect to the PA38 undercarriage bolts over the years. The current IPC which I have in my possession, specifies NAS bolts and the SB1200 covers their installation (as linked from the IPC). ‘Aircraft inspection by forum posted photograph’ is not a sensible way forwards and some here ought to know better. 
Fast taxi at 45 kts? Brave stuff – that’s a transient speed passed through during take off or landing, and would normally be with little or no weight on the nose wheel (taking into account the operating/stall speeds of a PA38).
All I’d say is take into account what the wind is doing during your operations (ie what cross wind is there) and if that is right on the nose during all your ‘taxying’ issues then may I respectfully suggest that you get a PA38 knowledgeable (and current) engineer to check it out properly.
I agree with you, aerofurb; this guy needs to get a type-experienced engineer ASAP.
But I think it is fair enough and good to use EuroGA to get clued-up about maintenance issues.
I am sure your firm is completely reputable and competent but as you know not all of them are (any owner who has been round the block at all has enough verified horror stories to stop any passenger from flying with them) and the more knowledge an aircraft owner is armed with when going to a CAMO the better, in more ways than one…
The people who get the worst deal on maintenance are usually those who drop their plane off at their local CAMO, with the key and a pre-signed blank cheque on the seat.
All the old-timers get a lot more “involved”. Planes will never be like modern cars, which can be serviced adequately by any dealer.
There are some hugely experienced people here…
Aerofurb
I did miss your post # 54, my memory may be playing tricks but I can remember the saddle bolts being an NAS Allen socket type and the bolt through the leg being a standard AN type.
But as you say things have moved on since I last had to deal with a PA38.
I totally agree Peter, but my uber cautious nature means I worry if people are encouraged (depending how posts are interpreted) to do things that they are not capable of or legally allowed to do. Whilst some here are experienced, others aren’t and should not be led astray, in my humble opinion.
I also agree about people being ripped off my unscrupulous engineers that get us good guys a bad reputation and have always encouraged pilots/owners to come and have a look when their aircraft is in bits for maintenance. I know of one new owner of a TB who has just been charged £7k to have every single hose replaced with new on its Annual by a CAMO/145 company that didn’t know that particular aircraft. Ridiculous.
A and C has been involved with GA stuff longer than I have but I’m probably more recent on PA38s than he is (anyway, he also likes wood and that’s just weird… ).
Guess its time to feed my next main spar a drop of miracle grow.
I know of one new owner of a TB who has just been charged £7k to have every single hose replaced with new on its Annual by a CAMO/145 company that didn’t know that particular aircraft. Ridiculous.
We were told exactly the same on the pre-purchase inspection of our TB20 a couple of years ago. The service manual specifies a 12-year (IIRC) life on almost all hoses, and apparently a change in regs under EASA meant that any lifed parts are a mandatory replacement. The CAMO in question said they used to be able to sign off e.g. static hoses on condition, but had been hauled over the coals by a CAA inspector so were no longer able to exercise judgement on the matter.
There was an EASA NPA floating around at the time that would have restored the use of discretion to CAMOs, but it had not become law. I don’t know if that’s changed now. We replaced all the engine and hydraulic system hoses anyway during the first annual. What are the relevant regulations now? It sounds like they must have changed.
IAW the MM the fuel and oil hoses are not lifed if they are teflon. They are to be replaced at engine overhaul only. On a GT they normally would be teflon but on an older one possibly not, and rubber hoses do have a life – even sitting on the shelf.
More details in my TB20 writeup – search for “teflon”.
The heater hoses, I don’t know about.
When I did the 45kt taxi, I was aware that this is very close to the take-off/stall speed of my aircraft. But I was careful enough not to let it lift off, because the last thing I want to do is get her a few feet off the ground, stall, and then wreck the gear completely. And btw, I’m 18 y/o and I like to get involved with aircraft and learn how they tick – so it’s not just the old timers who do this. And you will all be glad to know that I am in contact with an Engineer at Highland Aviation in Inverness who seems to know about PA38’s, and so all these issues might get looked at by a pro sooner than later. Otherwise the annual is just around the corner in Feb, so either way she will get looked at in earnest soon. ;)
Aerofurb, when adding take-off power yesterday, there was a 15kt left xwind, so technically the nose should have been pulling to the left, right? If you also take into account the slipstream effect of a counter-clockwise rotating prop, it should also be pulling to the left. Beats me…
One thing to check for – perhaps not related to the weird taxi issue because the speed is too low there – is whether the aircraft is accurately rigged.
Most maintenance firms don’t know how to check for this.
All you need is one flap to be 1 degree more angled than the other and the whole thing will fly crooked, with a lot of aileron needed to counteract it. So people then start bending the aileron trim tabs, or better still the rudder trim tab… and they end up with a plane which is quite crooked and flies a few kt slower for the same fuel flow.
There is a procedure for checking it, which starts with checking the wings are screwed on straight. If an aircraft has done a forced landing and had to be carted out on a truck, wings off, it is quite possible that the wings are not quite straight and have a different angle of attack. Half a degree is all you need…
Or something could be bent…
I would not fly a plane which exhibits anything like this, especially if it may have been bent in some incident.
It’s not hard to do the basic checks. Jack it up, level it according to the POH procedure, and with an electronic level check all the angles.
Then level the aircraft and make sure the ball on the TC is precisely in the centre. Rotate the TC in the panel until it is. Note that the TC indication (not the ball) will always be “level” on the ground because it is spring-loaded to the level position 
That will be the starting point for in-flight checks.
