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.

It's eventually going to come to that. Meanwhile, if mine was to be declared unairworthy tomorrow, I'd likely source a used one (at around $7,000 it seems) and take my chances. Sucks, but it is what it is.

I think it’s possible (and been done) to put in a newer model Eaton actuator. I think the mod was around $10k. That’s a starting point. Not as much pma, DER, etc required to put on a newer approved part.

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.

Or via AC 23-27, e.g., with a DER or whatever. It's always possible, it just may be more expensive than just having one made. I'm thinking it might be more practical, more economical, and more servicable, to find an actuator assembly from another, newer, application and fit that. Finding something that fits reasonably well dimensionally and provides sufficient force is probably not outside a reasonable realm of possibility. If one is found that meets a TSO somewhere, even better. Flap actuators from larger airplanes are often very similar.

@NickG The lens is notorious for delaminating and some of the lenses are not too easy to peel off the shedding skin. The other issue that's been described is the indicator going out due to a blown pico fuse. Also the indication gets jumpy/scratchy from a worn potentiometer. This thread has some good info:

I've used the G100UL without any issues, Although this thread has now given me cause for concern. The STC was $570, but reimbursed by Airport promotion, so Free

The fact of the matter that an STC takes money to obtain and you can guarantee you're paying to use that STC whether it's rolled into the product you purchase or if you pay another vendor for the privilege to use it. The purchase of an STC upfront just means that more of that initial cost for development may be recouped a little faster. I think the choice here was likely very intentional and it's like poker watching how all the "players" wager and play their hands.

My shop does mine and I have a Surefly on the right side. But if I was sending out, I'd use Aircraft Magneto Service in Montana. https://www.aircraftmagnetoservice.net

It was one condition to allow IFR to small airfields without ATS (I was one of meetings when this come up). It's a sort from CYA from DGAC to avoid the problems of mixing VFR/IFR traffic while talking different languages in untowred airfields... For ATC airfields, it's an aberration to use anything other than English for IFR on radio, things are moving in the right direction (e.g. "military ATC" now have to speak English) For IFR to uncontrolled airfields it's "double edge sword" or "leave that dog sleep". Most countries in Europe already prohibit IFR procedures to uncontrolled airfields outside ATS hours altogether (without English speaking ATC or English speaking AFIS). Actually, France is now starting to move to this direction as well due to some obscure "safety and harmonisation" requirements... Some countries even prohibit VFR without someone on radio outside ATS hours (e.g. no ATC or no AG operator at Shoreham EGKA = no flying, no Flughlighter in Germany = no VFR flying, no AFIS in Speyer = no IFR flying, no RO in Belgium = no flying...)

The factory-style tie downs were in both wings when I bought my Mooney in 2007. I know I've taken them out briefly once or twice between annuals (maybe?). I've not seen my jack points in several years, but found a socket head cap screw works pretty well--the jack goes right into the hex hole.

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

Tipping your mechanic? If I offered Clarence a tip, he might be a little disappointed in me. His work is not "tip for great customer experience" work. It is "keep Ned alive" work. For me, every other aspect of his work is absolutely secondary to that and some of you already know what quality he puts into his work. He sets the price and I will never complain about it or try to negotiate - and he knows this. If he wants more money, all he has to do is set a different price. I like this arrangement and it is not about the money. When it gets too expensive for me, it is time to sell the Mooney.

I just had to do the math - 5,400,000 engine revolutions over 1,800 hours. Fewer revolutions means less heat and less wear, all other things being equal.

I see this on my M20J with a G3X/EIS. Usually it looks like the second plot varying a lot but not going below about 20 psi. Once or twice, I've had it look like your first plot dipping down below 14 psi. Sometimes it will be varying and then decide to get calm for a while and then start varying again. My factory rebuilt was installed in 2018 and has about 540 hours on it. Switching tanks, turning on the boost pump, changing altitude has no effect. @kortopates says he's seen this a lot with M20Js with Garmin EIS but not so much with JPI which he believes to have a better smoothing algorithm. I've checked the system for leaks, had the boost pump overhauled (it was beginning to make noise), replaced the o-rings in the gascolator. None had any effect. If I aim a heat gun at the fuel pump (engine off) it doesn't take much to cause the fuel pressure to rise. Pilots on vansairforce agree that this is common on IO-360s and that the engine driven pump heating the fuel is the source of vapor. I tried filling the hose to the pressure transducer with fuel but after a flight it is dry again, so I know the fuel is vaporizing in the lines.

Of Course and that would have helped the most but what was a contributing factor was having leaking brakes, very bad feeling when you apply the brakes and do not get the deceleration you are expecting.

Many people don't understand how standards work, and since many work a little differently than others, that's sometimes understandable. Some standards have certification and verification bodies that serve to assure that products meet the standard. Examples of this are WiFi and Bluetooth, which are really industry consortia or alliances that serve only to certify that products meet relevant standards, in the case of WiFi and Bluetooth the standards are IEEE 802.11 and 802.15. If a product pays for certification and testing by the relevant certification body indicates it meets the standard, then the product can display the WiFi or BT logo indicating compliance. Since the logos are trademarked there is an enforcement path against counterfeits. The WiFi Alliance owns the trademark on the WiFi logo, and the Bluetooth Special Interest Group owns the trademark for the BT logo. USB is similar but the USB Implementer's Forum does both functions of writing the standard and certifying testing to the standard. The IEC has adopted USB-C as its own standard, which also happens from time to time. I think they still rely on USB-IF for certification, though, since they own the trademarks. ASTM and things like MS standards are a little different in that there is no "marking" consortium that has enforcement powers via marking or other means. Most such standards specify test methods that verify compliance, and ASTM uses this method, i.e., specific tests are defined which indicate compliance (or not) to the relevant standard. Interested parties, like distributors, can ask suppliers for "certification" that a product has been tested and show compliance to the standard via the tests. Sometimes in these case it is up to the interested party whether self-certification by a vendor is adequate or third-party testing should be done, but in any case there should be a documentation trail showing that the tests were performed according to the standard and the results meet the criteria for compliance. For things like fuels, lubricants, MS hardware, etc., certification and verification is almost always done behind the scenes in the manufacturing or distribution stages where it is invisible to the consumer. Rest assured, though, if there is money and potential liability involved, there will be a thorough verification trail that has been insisted on by some player(s) in the supply chain and/or their insurers. The various government agencies involved, like the FAA, NTSB, DOT, FDA, etc., often take it seriously when there appears to be counterfeiting happening, so they're often the enforcement agencies for such standards. If these agencies are signficantly cut or understaffed, one consequence may be an increase in counterfeiting, which has happened before in history. I worked in standards for a good part of my career, specifically IEEE 802.11, 802.16, and 3GPP, and was involved in many others in ITU, Intelsat, etc. Compliance verification and enforcement are necessary pieces of any standard, or it is essentially useless as a standard. Standards like ASTM are usually enforced by whoever it is that requires them, e.g., a government agency that specifies a fuel must comply, then also enforces that compliance.

THAT is the truth!

I probably would if I knew him well enough to select a meaningful gift. It never hurts. This year I just gave him enough money for a new car. Not a very personalized gift, but still ...