• Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

101 Excellent

About Freemasm

  • Rank
    Full Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Orlando, FL
  • Model

Recent Profile Visitors

1,035 profile views
  1. To the top, for visibility.
  2. Feel free to reply as this will keep the topic near the top of the category and in the Recent Threads section. As mentioned, this thread is all about visibility. The real charity was begun by others.
  3. Forgive me if I step on anyone's toes. Some very good intentions were started by others but I believe they are not getting the visibility they should being buried deep in another thread; hence, this new one. Mooney Pilot Mark Brandemuelhl was in a crash of a new Mooney earlier this month. He suffered substantial life changing injuries. The details are too sad to repeat but can be found near the end of the thread, here: Also towards the end of the article, it mentions ways to donate such as PayPal to: or donation to Jenny via zelle Many have donated via these methods already. There is a new go-fund-me page at: which is a pretty easy way to donate. The go-fund-me site also makes it easy way to share the funding cause/info outside of the MooneySpace "family". I'm sure he and his family would appreciate it. FYI, I am not affiliated in any way and have no specific knowledge or details. Don't expect any responses. My only intentions are captured in the first few sentences.
  4. I swore off posting a while back; however, donation sent.
  5. @carusoam It's all good. Wasn't supposed to be a barb(s). I bang things out quickly in a stream of consciousness; one of my many problems. I mentioned "from what I recall" then admitted I hadn't done so correctly. Now it's going to bug the sh!t out of me until I can fully remember the details of what aircraft that applied to. I'm overdue for taking an MS break, anyway. I appreciate all of your good posts. Scott F
  6. OK. I said "from what I recall" which doesn't look like I could.I don't keep manuals in the office. I'll take my a$$whipping. In retrospect, I think I geeked up on this particular subject when helping someone rebuild a Saratoga wing a million years ago. Not the first time I remembered the specific application incorrectly. That said (and now that I hopefully still have some of you smart guys attention), did I get the overall theory and overall application correct? For skins that are heat treated after forming, don't they have to be replaced in kind (drastic measures like finding someone with proper heat treat cert, DERs, etc. aside)? This is a sincere request.
  7. Didn't make my point well. An unfortunate and common problem for me. Real A&P = not me. I'm an anal as F&*! engineer who tries to learn as much as I can from books, text, subject matter experts, people smarter than myself, etc. The related self-learning I did ~25 years back led me to understand the following: - Parts, like skins, are often heat treated after forming to relieve the internal stresses associated with the forming process. The resulting, relieved parts are stronger in the areas adjacent to the cold formed/stress hardened areas and non-formed areas relative to the parts that weren't relieved through HT. As mentioned, this is common so that lighter gauge sheets can be utilized in (semi or full) monocoque construction where the skin is a structural component. - If a part is stamped or identified in the PB as "Heat Treated After Forming", it must be similarly treated. A typical field repair doesn't meet this requirement; thus, you have to buy the skins from the OEM. As mentioned, I wish I had the PB available to see if I'm remembering that aforementioned part correctly. I have no problem being wrong. I should be used to it by now. I'd like to know if what I think I know to be correct is indeed so or what the correct info is. Much thx.
  8. Careful here. From what I recall, the parts book I've seen shows the skins being heat treated after forming. Not an uncommon approach since a lighter gauge can then be utilized. Wish I had the manuals available to know. Can any real A&Ps on the forum verify this? I guess what I'm saying to the thread originator is, utilize someone that knows Mooneys.
  9. Making some assumptions here. Your "switch" is probably a rocker breaker. There's lots of threads here on these. IIRC, the RBs trip internally from thermal overload. Temperature (being hot as f**k) will affect it's trip characteristic. It'd be interesting to know if this happens during daylight hours (Nav lights not needed but neither are panel lights); e.g. is it getting hot from external influences or internal voltage loss. It's very likely the breaker is old on on it's way out.. They're only rated for 10000 cold cycles. They tend to start feeling really sloppy before they're dead for good. checking current with an amp meter would go a long way here. If you can get us some clarification, there's a lot of help available from this forum. Best of luck.
  10. Maybe. Someone may have been moved there. Is there a two wire limit switch in the center? The ASSS device is basically just a diaphragm that actuates said micro limit switch. The actuation speed is set by screwing the microswitch in/out of the device body. As mentioned "increase the airspeed' artificially and listen for a "click" from the ASSS micro switch.
  11. Buy some tygon (or equivalent) hose on the way there; long enough to go from the pitot to inside the aircraft. You are now your own airspeed pressure source. If it is quiet enough, you can hear the switch close as “airspeed” increases. If you don’t have one, I’d buy a multimeter as well. Indispensable for this and future troubleshooting, IMO.
  12. Yes, follow the pitot line where in comes in from the wing to behind panel. If you have an ASSS, it will be the first component in the line. Usually adel clamped to the tubular steel structure behind the panel, pilot side.
  13. @mike_elliott, I respect your opinion but please consider something. The intent of the thread was to get OPs to consider the quick inspection to see of further action is required. That was obviously unclear. We don't always need exact data to draw conclusions. Stresses are very honest. The correct rod end part is stronger thus probably no longer a weak link. My suspicion for that would now fall on the pins that keep spring cans in the linkages together. I'd have to take it apart to really know. All of that said, the broken part has a service rating of 900lbs from what I could find for that product line. The limiting factor is certainly the relatively soft bearing lining (copper based alloy) vs. the steel body. The ultimate strength of the part is probably several times higher than the listed 900# rating. Ignoring all of that (because we can), 900#s is still a significant amount of force. If a gear is bound through improper rigging, it is already costing the OP money (component life) and decreasing his safety; neither of which will be obvious. Fly safe, Sir.
  14. I have an Airtex interior. It takes work but they can be made to look professionally installed. When it came to the seats, the costs delta was only a couple hundred dollars more to have them done in a somewhat local aircraft interior shop. This didn't include the costs of 100LL or not having the aircraft 10 days (only one weekend). There was some pain involved but ultimately, probably better than a kitted seat refurbishment; certainly more options, The style was crafted from a picture of some sports car seats. Best of luck. Please share your results
  15. Sorry for the bit of rehash here but it was held off at the request of the subject OP until he had some maintenance history was clarified. He previously experienced an unsafe gear event. It turned out as good as possible as the gear locked down and the landing was uneventful. It could have easily ended up with some bent metal or worse. One of the mains had a broken linkage/rod end element. I was fortunate enough to have access to a Metallurgical Lab staffed by industry recognized expects (mainly gas turbine) who came to the easy conclusion the part suffered a tension failure. Some will dispute or argue. That’s fine. That’s what MSers do but as I've previously stated, hardware never lies. Yes, there were other factors that allow other suspects to creep into the equation e.g. the broken rod was the subject of a SB. Some excerpts, photos, link to original post are included following the sermon. Still, the most likely cause is miss-rigging at the gear up position. There were no real operational clues as the over tension occurs during the actuator over-run so no over current/breaker opening. The OP did experience a “kerchunk” at the end of the up cycle but it was there since he took ownership so there were no second thoughts. Most OPs are aware of preload on over center lock. That’s only ~ half of the story. The down inspection criteria is easy if you have the appropriate Mooney tool. The up inspection, much less so. That would lead me to bet it doesn’t get done at the same interval/frequency as the down, over center check. If the gear is bound in any way, at a minimum, it will negatively impact actuator life. A quick look can potentially save OPs a lot of future money - If the linkage spring(s) is fully compressed (bottomed out at gear down) Or - If you can’t get some very slight movement of the gear in up position (much trickier, 0.03 – 0.13” between gear and bumper before actuator overrun) you are at some increased level of risk of a gear system failure from over stress. A real rigging inspection is in order regardless of interval. Dispute the findings if you wish. I won't get into any back and forth. I like saving money even when it’s not mine. Aircraft Inspections are like anything else; you don't always get what you paid for even if the intentions were good. If anyone gets any results from the quick check mentioned they’d like to share, please do so. Cheers Boys Background info in the form of some previous pix, findings, ramblings/conclusions (mine), and thread link follow The parts were inspected by an expert Fracture Analyst (PhD) using techniques and equipment specific to and universally accepted for such analysis. No details or background was forwarded to the examiner to prevent prejudice/bias. Name and/or Company will not be disclosed. The quick findings summary is: - Full overload, ductile failure (the component was “pulled apart”). No evidence of fatigue, stress corrosion cracks, etc. What’s not in question: - The failure mechanism (see above). Hardware never lies. - If properly rigged. The subject component can only experience axial forces (true tension and compression) as it is utilizes a bearing in each end of a long (column) linkage. - Fracture surface/mode is consistent above statement. - Some will point to the appearance of the threads being pulled. The threads did not fail. Remember that the design utilizes a jam nut so stresses beneath it are not the same as the free end not experiencing any torque pre-load. - The subject part was changed in subsequent applications. Other things for Considerations: - This assumes gear never actuated above Vlo and/or proper breaker protection, gear balancing springs are functional, etc; IMHO, this would be hard to justify as a cause or even a contributor. - The subject (main gear) actuator linkages are in compression when extending/extended position. They are in tension when retracting/retracted position. - When properly rigged, the compressive forces are limited via in-line springs. Proper rigging assures springs are not collapsed to solid height after actuator over-run; thus, resultant stresses cannot exceed the related spring force. - When properly rigged, tension forces are limited to aerodynamic load. (assumption = this aircraft and all Mooney landing gears have the same design basis).They utilize an over center down-lock, there is no up-lock. The gear is held in the up position via actuator force alone. Up rigging should account for actuator over-run; therefore, forces should not increase unless bound (over-run clearances not accounted for). Indirect evidence of miss-rigging: - The OP stated the gear would have a similar “clunk” when actuated up or down. See above statement(s). This is inconsistent with my experience or understanding of the design/related kinematics. - The OP states the up “clunk” was no longer evident after fractured part was replaced and field rigged for flight to home base.