Leaderboard

Years ago I bought this really high end Italian oscillating belt sander. It worked really well for a few years and then the oscillating part stopped working. I took the machine apart and found this helical worm gear made of bronze. I hunted for the company only to find out they had gone out of business years ago and if I couldn’t get the gear the machine was scrap. Well, a new machine of this size and quality was over 20k so I started looking… I ended up finding a shop in Columbia (the country) that would to produce the part for $75. I ordered three of them and zip tied them into the machine near the gears… I’ve used one more set of them and apparently this was a part designed to wear to spare the more expensive parts. sorry for the tangent but my ocd required me to complete the story… point being, I’m not going to retire any machine I own for some part that I know I can figure out a way to replace. I understand there are some things on the plane like a turbo housing, or a crank that are far too complex and critical to produce yourself, but the FAA treats too many things as critical, that just are not so on our little planes. Good machinists all pride themselves on being able to do complicated things, and they are extremely knowledgeable about metal and its properties, those gears are not that hard to manufacture, and I’m willing to bet if you knocked on enough machine shop doors you would find somebody willing to make them.

Speaking on behalf of every American GA pilot , we are not accustomed to it in the US and are enthusiastic about not becoming accustomed to it.

I read an interesting little anecdote in a shop the other day… ”every 20 minute job is one broken nut away from a three day nightmare”.

I had that in Milan TMA as well, the fun part is everyone gets same radar code from ATC, how the heck, they know "who is who?" and "who talks Italian or English?" In France, I was told by ATC that they assign different transponder codes for aircraft speaking French (Helimed, Military, French VFR/IFR) than those talking English (English VFR/IFR), even when everyone has ModeS

Understood, but if it is abandoned, then the FAA could release the Manufacturer data, or whomever purchased the Type Certificate for the M20 series, might produce parts for the aircraft. The problem is, as you are aware, there are NO gearsets to get in the event one has the old 20:1 gearsets or an improperly maintained 40:1 gearset. there are only (3) alternatives: 1. Convert to Manual J-bar 2. Take chances buying a used actuator not knowing the condition of the gears 3. Get with Maxwell in regards to a conversion.....seeing how 2 of the 3 are $10K or more, makes the alternatives less than appealing....I know (1) individual that has a new set of the original gears still in the package, he was nice enough to lend them to me to get them measured and scanned, I'm just waiting for him to sell his Mooney in hopes that he'll sell them to me. I would think 115-120 sets would have been enough for Mooney, the minimum required to make a run is less than that, but apparently not. I'm still waiting to hear back from the company that acquired Dukes (Aero Fluid Products) to see if they still provide the gears sets, I did find the manufacturer of the gears (Avon Gears) they wouldn't tell me who their customers are that they make that same gear set for, assume Mooney and Cessna, I asked them to provide my information to their customers and their response back was that they don't deal with individuals and aren't interested in providing parts... I've heard that the same gears are used by cessna, but no one has provided me any information on what the part numbers or actuators are.

I don't know why @redbaron1982 and @ragedracer1977 are giving George such a bad time. But, I respectfully believe that you are full of it. The FAA has statutory responsibility for determining airworthiness. One way it does this by approving type certificates written by the manufacturer and supplemental type certificates created by other parties. The type certificates for engines and airplanes, approved by the FAA, define the acceptable fuel. Using an STC to add an acceptable fuel is not novel: it was done for Petersen auto gas and some aircraft require an STC to utilize Swift 94UL. I wasn't party to the discussions between GAMI and the FAA so I don't know the details, but to say that the FAA has not approved G100UL because of some supposed semantics relating to the STC process is just silly.

In my M20J, TOGA (the GFC 500 STC actually calls for the button to be labelled GO AROUND) commands a 7 degree pitch up which works out to about 95 KIAS at sea level. Vx is 66 KIAS and Vy is 86 KIAS. I need 12 degrees to get Vx and about 10 degrees for Vy. I select TOGA and HDG with the runway heading bugged before takeoff. If I flew without the FD, I would take off and pitch to 7 deg and that's what I like the FD to command. But, I like it in HDG so I can just turn the bug to the first heading without changing modes. And, yes I wait until above 800 ft to engage the AP.

Just wanted to provide an update as I received a reply from the FAA regarding the FOIA request I made to get the metallurgy report for the landing gear actuator gears. The FAA stated that the type holder will not provide the information and that the FAA has no means of requiring them to do so, nor does the FAA have a means of requiring the type hold to provide replacement parts in order comply with ADs or SBs, even if the type holder has the capability to produce the parts, which they do. The FAA also stated that the landing gear actuator gears are considered Category Type 1 parts (Critical) and therefore, are not eligible to be produced under the Vintage Aircraft Replacement and Modification Article (VARMA) program, otherwise known as Owner Produced Parts (OPP) and therefore we are dead in the water. So, UNLESS the Mooney CEO follows through, we are screwed and I'm not very hopeful as he hasn't responded to my last inquiry as to where they are at with the effort to license the parts out in order to get them manufactured. Makes you wonder as to the actual financials of Mooney, (if they can't front $20K to have gearsets made, knowing they will get their monies back, plus markup, or license the part out knowing that they will still make money without the initial investment risk,) whether the individuals making the decisions ever took a business 101 course....they say they are in a money crunch, yet have means to make something more than they are currently, yet they don't. Oh well, sorry guys, I tried....will be interesting to see how my aircraft will be affected come annual in February, all I know is that Mooney has the ability to rectify our situations but actively chooses NOT to do anything about it.

If they start putting liens on airplanes they are inviting litigation. For the relatively small amount of money involved I doubt they would risk it.

The are a number of OTS actuators that would probably work. The trick is having the manual extension ability if the power to the motor or the motor fails.

We are not dead in the water. Someone could make them under PMA.

Rest Assured: Million Dollar Mark is On It! Of course, any discussion of this issue with former Administrator Michael Whitaker is not going to produce much. -dan

This morning I saw an article on AvWeb saying that the FBO in Tupelo, MS, has received a shipment of G100UL. That's about 1 Mooney hour from my home field and the first outside California. I'm G100UL curious, but the left tank in my J leaks when over about 15 gallons and in that condition I'm unwilling to think about putting it in until this potential compatibility issue is resolved. I don't want to be an experiment... BTW I've contacted the company that resealed the tanks in 2018 about getting it patched, but haven't had a chance to get the aircraft to them.

That's pretty cool, and shows how much work is going on and has been going on globally. We'll get 100UL, I don't see a need to rush. The CA issue is politically solvable, but whether it will be or not remains to be seen.

I've found out, when contacting the 17 MSCs that they aren't interested in discussing the issues with me because they have all heard it before when dealing directly with Mooney leadership, Mooney knows the issues yet REFUSES to do anything about it....might be better for Mooney to just go defunct, get someone to take over the Type Certificate hoping that they have the wear withal to address the issues. I just wish I knew the Chinese Company that is licensed to manufacture Mooney in China, I'd reach out to them....

.. and in Italy they pretty often use Italian (at least on Milano Radar and Genova Radar) ..

It seems that Mooney has entered into arrangements with the owner of LASAR to get Eaton no back springs made. I know that at least one MSC offered to front the money to get this done but was turned down. It seems Mooney was concerned about another company fronting the money. But the LASAR deal does’t require LASAR to front the money as they are collecting deposits to apparently cover the manufacturing cost and then selling them with a markup. This is a win for LASAR, Mooney and owners because it gets parts made, albeit expensively. So, perhaps it might be fruitful to contact Brett Stokes and see if he is interested in a similar arrangement for the gears.

My answer is not listed: I still plan to try G100UL. But I'd like to learn more first. Look, my paint isn't awful, but it isn't great either. I presently have a small seep at two rivets and one access panel, within limits. Will probably correct at next annual. If I had a problem I'd finish the tank of fuel, sand/scuff, prime, and rattle can that thing and not lose sleep over it. So much other touch up has been done with a rattle can and came out fine. BUT, what I don't want is a situation where G1000UL compromises the tank sealant. A much bigger job.

In 1989 we flew 2 AH-64’s, 2 OH-58’s and 2 Lynx’s from Germany to Dax France for their helicopter school’s airshow, we met up with a French Gazelle at the border to escort us, which was a good thing because all ATC calls were in French, sure you could usually make a call in English and they would respond in English, but all other calls were in French. It’s amazing how much info you get from hearing the other calls. That was an eventful trip, took way longer than we expected, refueling wasn’t center point refuel, but open port like we do our Mooney’s, and we had to reposition each aircraft one at a time to the pump to refuel. Ended up getting dark and we landed at some little grass strip, seemed the whole town turned out and cooked us Supper at the pilot lounge. Two Chinooks also went in another flight, I can’t imagine how their refueling went. On edit it was probably 93 or 94 I was still at Ft Hood in 89

One gets used to it for public airports (private airports are much more relaxed about opening hours) I recall while ago I was flying VFR from Poznan (Poland) to Stapleford (private airfield in UK) at night: one Dutch ATC along the way told me he never heard a single piston aircraft in frequency at night in his entire career (he was curious why we are doing it? ) For someone coming from US or used to fly in US, it comes as shock when airfield close at 5pm after fireman or controllers go home: unlike US where you have private pilots, Bizjets, Part135, helimeds, police...all flying untowred in middle of the night with PCL/LPV and load of arrangements with FBO or School I also complain about restaurant opening hours and service: in US one can eat lunch at 2am while being served with smile. Here in France, one is more likely to starve on Sundays if they land after 2pm in some remote village: the landing is the easy part, finding food is tricky

True, but not always. Several times I've had to request clearance or other information in English. One time I flew to Reims (IFR) and didn't do my homework enough to see that radio calls are only in French from 1200-1330 LT. I was so very lucky to land at 1155!

I think the leaks and stain should be separate questions.

I'm not questioning if the STC route is correct or not, I have no idea which other routes exists either. What I'm saying is that only a small percentage of piston engines airplanes can legally use G100UL. If a state or the federal government bans 100LL with the current state of things they would be forcing the whole fleet to pay Mr George for the STC and then on top of that grant monopoly over the fuel supply. It's hard for me to see how that could be ok. I think the STC shouldn't be required or it should be free, and also wait for at least two alternatives (G100UL and Swift?) before baning 100LL.

Different fuel systems, though. The Lycomings don't have a fuel return line.

You can laugh but I suspect I am not the only one that feels that way. None of your present poll choices apply to this situation.

As I wrote originally, there were also spacers all the way around and other miscellaneous parts. Yes, the shop may mark up parts from wholesale, and that is ok w/ me within a subjective “reasonableness” range. I remember well a rather, um, animated conversation with Joe Frisolone when he was DOM at East Coast Aviation at KBED. I ordered a new or rebuilt engine from AirPower and expected him to receive it, uncrate it, and install it for the cost of labor. This was before I bought my first business. 20-some years later, I have a keener understanding of the challenges associated with operating a business and strive to be a good customer. -dan

So no - that is wrong. - Actually the price is stable @IvanP $2,178 in Aug. 2024 was only for shock discs. @exM20K Oct. 2024 parts price of $3,300 included shock discs and spacer assemblies, which if they came from Mooney, were expensive. Aircraft Spruce has them ( Lord Landing Gear Shock Disk J-11968-14) in stock for $178 each. $178 x 11 = $1,958 (ship free on large orders) https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/lgpages/lord-m20-mooney.php?clickkey=4860169

Thank you ... and I found an overhauled one for a reasonable price.

I don’t think they’d disagree. In fact, their own announcements on this state they approved an STC, not a fuel. This is 100% black and white. Either the FAA approved G100UL as drop in fuel available to use in all aircraft immediately or they approved a modification which allows aircraft to use a fuel that otherwise would not be legally allowed. We know it’s the second. I hope the opposition has knowledgeable attorneys. I’m never a fan of the government, or companies using the government, forcing the market into a certain product. See sawstop for example. Very reminiscent of the current situation. A company with a wallet to fill trying to use the government to fill it faster.

Let's try this again... As G100UL becomes more available in California, it would be nice if some of the early adopters would share their experiences both good and bad. 1) Increased fuel density of G100UL --> if you fly LOP what has this translated into difference of fuel flow for you? 2) Cold Starts --> initial tests suggest that this shouldn't be an issue, but boiling point is higher and evap rate longer; is there an environmental temp where this becomes an issue? 3) changes/improvements seen on oil analysis? borescope? savvy data? 4) paint staining or damage? do you follow fueling hygiene/ceramic coat/age of paint? if issues, age of paint and pictures of before and after. 5) fuel tank leak --> if you have issues it would be helpful to mention what is worst leak before, hx of patches, age of sealant/last full reseal, and what sealant used if you know. 6) fuel prices for G100UL compared to surrounding prices 7) any unexpected benefits or detriments? changes in how you run the engine? I think it would be helpful to shed light on alternative fuel use (of whatever type) as we move forward to learn how best to prepare our aircraft to adopt smoothly without issues. Ideally it would be nice to keep politics, wild speculation, and exaggerated commentary to a minimum. For people moving to unleaded fuel, it would be good to get a picture of the fuel filler area, sumps and any fuel seeps/under wing paint damage prior to adoption so that we can be as objective as possible. Even if your commentary is "transition was smooth, fuel works great, no issues after 200 hrs. of use" that would be helpful. Would be helpful to add your Model/year/engine just as basic details. If you don't use an alternative fuel / G100UL, then it would be helpful for you to avoid/minimize commentary on the thread to keep this for field reports of use. Would like to keep this constructive and informative with FIELD REPORTS of use and avoid speculation please.

I'm from Argentina too (I assume you're!), that's a fantastic trip! Looking forward to a PIREP! A friend recently flew from Houston to Sanfer in a Cessna 210T, but he went down through the Pacific coast, which is not a good option for us with NA engines.

I agree, and I'm sure I would find the motivation if my fantastic J were grounded for lack of these gears. The difference between our machines and your belt sander gears is the end use... If you get asked what they're for, you better have a plausible answer/application that is something far different than "airplane" or you're likely to get ushered out the door. My first job in the industry was an internship at Cirrus Design, back before there were SR-20s (or -22s). My work neighbor had to source flap actuators for a POC aircraft and routinely got hung-up on when making inquiries to various industrial supply companies/manufacturers. Even when trying to purchase off-the-shelf. He later tried to buy some "toilet seat actuators" but I don't think that ultimately helped.

Depends on who you talk to, and probably the circumstances around a specific part, but there are various ACs that give guidance in that area. For example, AC 23-27 p7c(4) sez a previous field approval can be used as the basis for field approval on a particular aircraft, and any missing data may be filled in by a DER. Other guidance describes using a DER to develop data for an installation. A TSO helps, since the part is already known to conform to data that may be relevant, or potentialy even sufficient. So it only takes one case of a field approval to provide approved data for subsequent installations. The data would not have to be generated every time. VARMA can even use data from previous field approvals, so that's another avenue. Yup. There's always a way. Go to a fly-in or airshow with a lot of vintage airplanes and many of them are examples of people just finding ways to get it done. Sometimes it just takes established "common practice" however it got there. My fave example is how MMO has been commonly used to cure many ills in engines on certificated airplanes for many decades (since before WWII!), despite it not being ever approved anywhere for any of them, but it is cited as "common practice" and sometimes "best practice" since it's been done effectively for so long by so many people.

That's my expectation as well. It may take a bit. I don't see a reason to rush. The gears are turning faster now than they have in the past, but I'm happy to wait until we have solution(s) that are proven to be safe.

There is a meme of a defeated looking guy sitting in his driveway next to a car on jacks, partially disassembled, with the caption something along the lines of "that look when you're 8 hours into a 30 minute job"

I feel it’s a rip off scheme especially if i do not use their service. At KDTO for example there are 2 FBO and there used to be free transit parking in front of the tower. It’s a bone of contention when i want to pickup someone that comes to the airport and does not use their facility in anyway shape or form for them to come out and expect a fee from me. It’s the equivalent of going to a restaurant and self parking in the parking lot but i still have to pay a valet person?!?! No if i didn’t use their valet then I don’t pay. The FBO doesn’t own that tarmac the tax payers do and for a FBO company to come in and then claim that part as theirs to charge a fee is wrong. Now if they build a new complex and new concrete in front of their business and you park there sure. But it would be like me setting up a toll fee in front of my property on the road that goes in front of my house when the tax payers paid for the road already. It’s not mine to charge for nor is it the FBO’s to charge for either.

It could just be the lens getting darker. Mine was delaminated and pretty dark (1990 Bravo). I was able to get replacement from LASAR few months ago for my Bravo - part No. 880058-001 for about $100 (probably the same indicator part for Ovation, but check the IPC for your plane). The change made a difference in visibility of teh indicator on my plane. I did both the flap/trim and rudder trim lense replacement. Took about 15 min. 4 screws on the panel and the lens can be replaced from the front - no need to disconnect and remove the boxes from behind the panel to do this. Replacing the LED elements would be a different story, but probably not too difficult either.

I reached out to him directly last week and offered to drop in so that he could inspect my fuel tanks with a borescope since he put out that request recently. I think this offer is an expanded idea. If you've never been to GAMI, it is worth the effort! Especially to see their engine test cell. We're going to talk again after the holidays and see if there is a convenient window for at least me to visit... I'm only ~75 minutes away.

I think the biggest problem with Mooney or Dukes/Aero Fluid Products or an MSC that might sell any replacement gears is that it will reset the liability clock for the vendor, and the math will NOT work out at nearly any sane or insane sales price to us for a set of gears. Right now, most of our Mooney fleet is >>18 years old and thus off the books in terms of liability exposure, but the moment any new part gets installed, then the liability shifts to that vendor. It really sucks, but that is likely the reality with our litigious society. I wonder if Mooney even has drawings or other engineering data for the gears in the first place. I expect they bought actuators to a specification that they fit in a physical volume, travel XX inches, consume XX amount of power, etc. and it was up to the actuator manufacturers to design a product to meet those requirements. I think it would be very unusual for an airframe manufacturer to be doing detailed design of gears like that. Similarly, accessory gears in a Lycoming are designed by Lycoming, and we would not expect Mooney to provide a replacement cam gear, would we? Having said all that, Mooney could be proactive to design/fab/sell a replacement set of gears like they did in the past (likely just bought from the actuator vendors) but obviously they have no interest in doing that and putting a lot more planes on their liability exposure when they have no money to buy insurance or defend a future lawsuit that might arise from selling <$100k worth of gears. I know Maxwell was noodling around with a hydraulic actuator in the last year or so... that is an intriguing idea but then we would have to add a hydraulic system to the plane too. If MAPA or similar were still a functioning entity, then perhaps they could sponsor a design/STC contest like the American Bonanza Society has for replacement ruddervators.

Maybe @Parker_Woodruff can shed some light on this. @Oscar Avalle lives / lived in Central America, he may have some relevant experience, too. Enjoy your trip, it sounds fantastic!

your ap/ia should be qualified to install, if they can install/time a mag they can install the surefly. most difficult part is running the power wire to the battery

You need "I will not use G100UL until forced to"

Most of legal and regulatory stuff are distinctions without differences...

I'm quite sure that these statements are false. The correct statement would be "100% of all airplanes that use spark ignition piston engines can be modified through an STC to use G100UL". Technically only a small amount of airplanes are approved to use G100UL, only those with the STC.

Mogas was shown not to work in Mooneys long ago, I believe, when all of those STC's were worked. Sent from my motorola edge plus 2023 using Tapatalk

Parts: $3300 Labor: 8 hours October 2024 at a large shop in Chicagoland. parts included spacer assemblies all around. -dan

Low flow in the Mississippi River seen this evening. An upstream moving tow dodging many exposed river training works under a cold sky.

THAT is the truth!

It is very hard to find this info. I spent a whole night searching for it. Google is worthless anymore.