201Steve

I get N-S over the top about 50% of the time going in and out of PDK or RYY

Yall need to breathe

I bought mine in 2018 never turned it off, the battery just died and the last time it was calibrated 2 years ago, it was in spec. I just sent it off last week for a recal. $50 plus shipping about $75 total. half the price of a new one. I almost wish I’d have just started over with a new one lasted 6 years pretty good.

I did not. Thanks

Now THAT would be hard to follow. It’s the same conversation 5 times. Some guy has paint problems, George Braly says no you don’t, some other guy does some garage tests who also finds paint problems, one of the airports selling it mysteriously stopped selling it, some Mooney pilots want to go see George in Oklahoma, nothing is resolved, that’s about it.

A quick search yields quite a bunch of companies looking to replicate parts under PMA. Here is one such example. https://www.aec-inc.com/solve-your-part-problem.html

@Matthew P maybe present your demand findings to a few PMA mfgs to gauge the interest. Maybe there are ones that would be more aligned with this kind of part?

@1967 427 great point. Like the exhaust system, any bit of the gear pair used could be a repair.

If you didn’t get a brasher warning, they knew what they did.

When is the last time somebody died bc of a gear not coming down in a SEP retract?. Pure speculation but I would go out on a limb to say it’s so rare that it would take a lot of effort to find a single example. Seems like a risk a failing company could reasonably take to increase its’ revenue and therefore its value to the buyer they are actively looking for and who wouldn’t have the faintest clue about the potential “liability” of a landing gear part. It’s not exactly a company worth suing.

Imagine spending a decade trying to push something through the FAA and then single handedly force it into the market, against all odds, against Pafi, against big oil. If you know the story just a little bit, what he’s overcome, the guy is a certified bad a$$ that is for certain, having gone through all the thorn bushes that he has. When you have that much heart and soul into seeing it through, it would be realllllll tough to do anything, say anything, that might torpedo the whole initiative if you can manage to minimize the ill effects.

Wow, that’s a pretty damning find and has severely altered my perception of @George Braly who I have thus far been a vocal advocate for. Reading the previous responses to the OP’s concerns, there isn’t even a remote sense of skepticism for the product, concern for correction, or doubt about the proper mixture of the batch. Just a flat out denial and after a garage experiment that took a guy 4 days, it’s nearly impossible to believe this hasn’t been observed over the last decade of lab testing at GAMI. It seems a bias tunnel vision to see through the arduous process of certification is obviously occurring. I hope there is an isolated issue to point to, but I don’t feel confident there is one smoking gun.

Well, if the premier Mooney troubleshooting and complaint website (Mooneyspace) has never reported one, I’d say it’s extremely rare. At least I’ve never seen such a report, or seen any associated thread in the archives after copious reading on the hardware. maybe we could invite @Dmax @Pmaxwell to chime in on the subject? Commentary on why Mooney won’t release any data or allow other MFG to produce the dukes gear set? Or an update on the hydraulic actuator?

I talked to LASAR about this a couple weeks ago when it was announced they’d be supplying no back springs. They said Mooney ( @Jonny ) was refusing to cooperate when it comes to the dukes gear set. No idea why.

Mechanical gauge or electric transducer?