Andy95W

Most people like the JPI 730 (basic), 830 (w/rpm&MP), or 930 (everything and legal replacement for all instruments). Another nice choice seems to be the Garmin 275 EIS, also legal replacement of all gauges.

I mostly agree with what Ross said, above. One additional piece of information is important, though- if the rear spar splice is not cracked, there is only one doubler to install. It is relatively straightforward. If that piece of metal IS damaged, the SB repair becomes much more involved and requires a second doubler be riveted in place inside the rear spar center splice box. That’s a big increase in work. Finally, a lot of people call it the “stub spar”, but it’s not. The Stub Spar is actually the rear attach point of the landing gear and runs under the rear seat back.

LASAR makes a kit (or sells the Mooney kit).

@takair should have a good answer.

@A64Pilot- I hope you, your wife, your airplane, and your home survived without damage. Please let us know when you can.

So what if an A&P somewhere determines that he can supervise a complete engine overhaul by Zoom? And the intention is to sell the airplane immediately afterwards? The FAA’s job is to codify exact standards to remove “wiggle room” for unscrupulous people. It makes you wonder what egregious example came up that prompted this Moss letter after decades of it not being an issue. Sure, an engine overhaul is an extreme example, but so is yours. Speaking for the guys at my FSDO, I doubt any of them would (off the record) have an issue with the elevator weight AD inspection. They just wouldn’t want to hear anyone say it out loud.

Discussion of the Moss letter begins on page 2 on September 25th, and continues for 2 more pages.

I love NY controllers, with their congested airspace I think they’re probably the best in the world. I’m okay with the tower controller yelling at the Mooney pilot (but not the BO jerk that piled on). About 25 years ago I was delivering an old Piper Apache to the Republic airport (FRG). It was IMC and they were doing ILSs. The Apache was not in very good shape, one of its problems was the glide slope receiver was inop. I let the approach controller know that we’d be flying the approach as a localizer-only, since our glideslope was inop. I didn’t want him to be concerned when we were below the glideslope descending to get to the MDA. His response: “I don’t care about your equipment problems. Cleared for the ILS, contact the tower.”

You’re still missing MikeOH’s point.

⬆️⬆️This, exactly. I really couldn’t care less about format. Things change, we adapt, we move on. No big deal. Do I wish they would’ve just left it alone? Sure, but I’m not losing sleep over it. Until somebody fixes the system like Hank said I’m not going to complain about something as innocuous as its format.

Doesn’t seem that bad to me. 35 years ago we didn’t have Class A, B, C, D etc airspace. We had TCAs, ARSAs, TRSAs, etc. When they decided to change it, everybody complained but it wasn’t that bad. We also didn’t have METARs and TAFs. We had SAs and FTs. When they decided to change it, everybody complained but it wasn’t that bad.

The only STC I’ve ever heard of was for a ski-tube that extends behind the hat rack. LASAR either has it or knows about it.

I suggest you add an additional option: - Don’t currently need, but would purchase as a spare if available.

I’m “bumping” this thread to see if anyone has done this mod, and what they thought about it. In a different thread, @Lfreebird posted a couple of pictures, hopefully he’ll chime in or I’ll DM him personally. Thanks!

How old is your fluid? A friend had a TKS Ovation that had similar symptoms. He bought TKS fluid by 55 gallon drums. He learned that as time went by, the fluid gained viscosity. Not noticeable except that it would turn on the high pressure light. Went he started buying the fluid by 1-gallon jug, the problem went away (for the most part.). It’s probably not the only cause, but definitely one of them.

No, honestly, no bias. I no longer make my living as a working A&P and I don’t think anyone else posting here does either, anymore. Before I got my A&P, I was an apprentice/mechanics helper at a shop in central Texas. My boss (and mentor) would give me jobs to do and come check on me every once in a while. If it was a complex job, he would check more often. If it was something I hadn’t done before, he did the work with me the first time. So again, the Moss letter hasn’t changed anything that was a common practice in the early/mid 90s. There are 2 sentences that Mike Busch seems to have issues with: — The certificated mechanic must be available, not just to answer questions, but to notice mistakes and take over if necessary. and In other words, mechanics must be able to physically intervene at every step of the process. — Again, this is no different than it was 30 years ago when I was an apprentice. And it is no different when I am overseeing a non-A&P owner’s work today. There are some jobs that can be inspected afterward, there are some that can’t. The supervising A&P should darn well be present full time during a job like oil pump impeller gear replacement, but only needs to spot check when the owner is regreasing the Mooney trim jack shaft in the tail. But again, this is no different from 30 years ago. Mike Busch also talks about repair stations and Boeing where there are very few A&Ps on staff. Comparing this to a general aviation shop or an owner assisted annual is comparing apples and oranges. Repair stations and manufacturers already have many layers of FAA oversight so this letter simply doesn’t apply to those scenarios. I’m not surprised that AOPA and others have also expressed concern. That is a regular reaction to any FAA action or clarification until they’ve had the opportunity to study it or see its implementation on a day-to-day basis. But for a good shop or an IA doing an owner assisted annual properly, the Moss letter really doesn’t change anything.

@Shadrach is our resident expert.

Like @EricJ said, the “first” part IS the Moss interpretation. The “second” part is simply the supporting rationale for why an in-person A&P is needed, and NOT a remote supervisor. Mike Busch’s reaction is an emotional knee-jerk to the “second” part that simply isn’t there. Again, it’s just the rationale for the in-person supervisor. I appreciate Mike Busch because he does a great job of providing good, common sense advice and information to owners and A&Ps. But he isn’t always correct.

Frankly, it seems like it clarifies/codifies the normal, common sense interpretations from before. If an FAA inspector stops by your hangar and you’re doing something that you’re authorized to do, ie., changing a tire, installing the cowling, etc., then he’ll probably just shoot the bull with you for a while and leave. If you’re doing something complex like installing a magneto, he’ll expect to see an A&P somewhere in the hangar with you, or he’s going to have to do something official about it. If you tell him your buddy the A&P will sign it off later, he’ll want to talk to him also. As I was told 30 years ago before I got my A&P: if a fed stops by, grab a broom and start sweeping. Tell the fed you’re cleaning the hangar for when your A&P gets there to do the work. But honestly, the FAA is so short staffed that nothing will really change. But if you are caught, they now have an official letter showing why what you did was wrong.

Honestly, I’m not sure if you’re referring to my post or Hank’s. Like I said, I’m glad he found a solution that works for him. I’m glad that there’s competition out there, and that folks are happy with their choices. For one thing, it keeps Apple from charging even more $$ for their products. I feel exactly the same about avionics. Avidyne, Trig, Aspen, and even Bendix/King keep Garmin honest and improving.

Only because it’s better Kool-Aid, at least to me. The operating systems just “fit” my brain better than Android/Microsoft. One of my happiest days was when I changed all of my electronics to Apple: iPhone, iPad, and MacBook. Everything just works. I no longer have to spend frustrating hours getting my devices to work correctly. To each their own, Hank. I’m glad you’ve found a solution that satisfies you. (Edited to remove cynical comments.)

@Gubni- I apologize if my couple of posts came across too sarcastic. I can imagine the spot you’re in. You’ve got an A&P who is willing to help and is probably a really good mechanic. You have to trust him and believe in his work, that is your half of a good mechanic/owner relationship. Mooneys aren’t magic or unique in their construction. A good A&P doesn’t need special skills to do good work on them. But Mooneys do have some systems that ARE unique, and the landing gear is one of those. (Flight control rigging is another.). Just because a guy is really good at Bonanza/Piper/TBM landing gear, doesn’t mean he knows Mooney landing gear. He really has to follow the maintenance manual. Many of those manuals are available for download right here on MooneySpace. Go up to “Browse” then “Downloads” and you’ll find the Service Manuals. Even if it’s not the exact one for your 231, it will at least give a starting place for gear rigging and show the proper way to check the preloads on the over-center links. I’m not sure where the 58” and 59” measurements came from. Maybe the height of the wingtips? One thing for your A&P to understand is that each Mooney really is hand-built, and the exact angle of each gear or height of each wingtip may differ from other Mooneys. That is very normal. What matters is the torque needed to flex the overcenter links to unlock the gear. Too tight and the pushrods will bend and eventually break the attachment fittings, leading to a gear collapse. Too loose and the gear links won’t stay over center and the gear will collapse. Both of these eventualities are well documented right here on MooneySpace. One nice thing about Mooney landing gear- it generally doesn’t change from one annual inspection to the next. So if your gear was good at the last inspection, and if nothing has been changed on the landing gear, then it is almost guaranteed to still be good. That is better than the mechanic making adjustments without having the correct gear rigging tools or the correct manuals. Good luck to you! You’ve got a really nice conversion- the best parts of the 231 with the engine of the 252, which is the engine the 231 needed all along.

Those numbers correspond to absolutely nothing in the service manual or any service bulletins on Mooney gear rigging. Good luck.

Mooney landing gear isn’t necessarily “vertical” when extended. What matters is that the pre-loads are correct by using the real Mooney gear rigging tools. If your mechanic doesn’t have the actual tool, please don’t let him go adjusting things just to make it “look right”. And if he does, then make sure he has enough insurance to pay for a new prop and engine tear down inspection when the gear collapses. Yes, this sounds extreme but it is accurate. Mooneys have been totaled by insurance companies because the mechanic didn’t have experience working on them and they thought they could rig the gear. If you have electric gear, it’s only one tool for the mains. If you have manual gear you will need both tools.

ATC might see it, but it also depends on how it was configured during the installation. Per the uAvionix manual, there is an anonymous mode when squawking 1200 but it has to be configured that way.