toto

There are many many threads on MS discussing the no-back spring. Basically, there’s a very small number of confirmed failures that resulted in gear-up landings, and the failures are mostly attributed to manufacturing defects in the springs themselves. The original bad batch was installed as original equipment from the factory, and at least one aircraft has had a failure in a replacement spring. The collective wisdom here I think is that your NBS is very unlikely to fail, and it’s probably low on the list of reasons Mooneys land gear-up. Don Maxwell has been paraphrased here a number of times saying that they can tell at annual if a spring is chattering during gear swing tests and that you’ll know well before it fails. And anecdotally, they seem to fail more often on retraction than extension (so you’re stuck with gear down, not with gear up).

I thought that they were just buying a minimum quantity of the same old part through Mooney Intl? They aren't actually manufacturing these.

I honestly think they've overshot on this one. There are many out there, myself included, who were very much on the fence about whether the infant mortality unknowns of a replacement spring were better than the unknowns of an otherwise healthy spring with a lot of hours on it. And that was when the spring was selling for an eye-watering $1000 per unit. But at $3000 per unit, those of us who were already on the fence probably have our decision made easier.

Cross link to the other thread https://mooneyspace.com/topic/49784-lasar-taking-deposits-on-no-back-spring-kits/

Cross link to the LASAR post .. https://mooneyspace.com/topic/49787-no-back-clutch-spring-m20-282-0001-eaton-kit-update-good-news/

Whoa

I think that's exactly what they did with the Missile MooneyMissileConversion.pdf

Yeah, I tried to self-correct before suffering the indignity of a reply

ETA: What I just asked makes zero sense, since LASAR is a MSC. Just ignore me

This has been much speculated on MS, but the running theory is that there was some minor beef-up of the landing gear to support the extra weight, and that beef-up happened from a specific serial number forward.

Actually, it’s interesting how these things are related. Almost anywhere I go, I have people who walk up and go “I heard those things are really fast.” So the visual appeal is inextricably linked to its performance

Best of both. I bought a Mooney because I had a lot of good experience with four-cylinder Lycomings, and no one does more with a four-cylinder Lycoming than Mooney.

This is similar to the Ultra seat design Photo from General Aviation News at https://generalaviationnews.com/2016/02/11/mooney-rolls-out-redesigned-acclaim/

I'm going to claim victory on the "flight deck" thing

Could be more Autonomi retrofit options. Very limited at the moment … and I think you’d need auto throttles and auto braking. But still..

There’s absolutely no way to get an extra 1.2” diagonal in my panel - unless they were to lose the bezel completely. I honestly don’t think you could fit a 12” display without a lot of surgery.

I’ve always used Bob Kromer’s advice for running my J, and his recommendation is 2500rpm. I always just set it and forget it

Hmm, “on deck” seems intentional .. some kind of airline product?

Maybe it’s orange? Chrome cylinders?

Following Mike Patey’s turbine Lancair conversion on YouTube, I learned that people can/will buy a timed-out engine from a charter aircraft (his came from a King Air) and just maintain it on condition. I think he paid a small fraction of what it would have cost for a PT-6 that wasn’t timed out for Part 135 purposes. The engine ended up exploding on him and he had to buy a new one, so you know - not a great deal in the end, but gave me a picture of how this kind of thing is possible without spending a fortune to source an engine.

The key is having no obstructions. Landing on a hard surface is fine - you just want to lengthen your time to a complete stop. It looks like the pilot here found a spot with at least a couple hundred feet to go from 60 to 0, which is an abrupt landing we can walk away from.

The Silver Centurion or whatever it’s called always made a bit more sense to me than the Bonanza. You take a P210 and put a turbine on it - at least you can get to the flight levels where there’s some advantage to the TP. The JetProp Malibu conversion that evolved into the Meridian/M* series is obviously good evidence that this can be successful with a pressurized single engine piston.

Interesting, okay so it did happen …. but wasn’t a great business.

Wasn’t there a period of time when Superior was going to make brand-new Lycoming engines under license?

I've heard very good things about GATTS, if you're interested in traveling to the midwestern US for this https://www.gatts.org/pilot-training-courses/7-day-ifr-instrument-training.html