1980Mooney

@charlesual Also @Fritz1 posted this - "the dukes actuator is known to be undersized for the job".

Dukes? no idea of value. - what is the condition- Used on eBay, Overhauled, Yellow tagged? On eBay people are asking $6,000 for used Eatons of unknown condition. The Eaton is superior to the Dukes. It was installed right up to the end - of course since mid-80s it was 28v. Yes Eaton actuators can handle inner gear doors.

If you look closely at the motor on your installed landing gear actuator, it looks like it was manufactured in 1978, This appears to be an early version of the Avionics Products Company actuator, Serial number 817. That actuator is superior to the Dukes, as @PT20J highlighted. Mooney dropped the Dukes and started using the Avionics Products Company actuator as standard in 1977 starting on the M20J with serial number 24-0378. Avioncis Products Company, via corporate sales and dispositions, eventually became the Eaton actuatror. (see below). However, you also have a Vickers label on it without any model number or serial numbers and a "Clutch Spring Replacement" label (that is the "No Back Spring"). I think that you have a unit that was overhauled by Vickers. And since Eaton bought Vickers in 1999 and combined it with its Avionics Products Company (Division of Consilidated Controls) after that date, this was likely overhauled after 1999. I would bet that this was installed in your plane in 2000 or after. Avionics Products Company (Denville, NJ) was owned by Consolidated Controls Corporation (CONDEC) Avionics Products Company sold actuators to Mooney labeled under the name Avionics Products Company (Denville, NJ) Some are just labeled CONDEC - Consolidated Controls Corp. Consolidated Controls Corporation (CONDEC) was purchased by Chicago industrialist Farley in 1984. The acquisition went badly for Farley and Farley sold CONDEC to Eaton in May 1986. So in 1986 Eaton inherited Avionics Products Company actuators - they changed the labeling at some point to Eaton. I have seen some labeled with Eaton Valve and Actuator Div. (El Segundo, CA) In 1984, Libbey-Owens-Ford (L-O-F) acquired Vickers Inc., a leading maker of hydraulic and electrohydraulic systems, from the Sperry Corporation. (no relation to the Vickers PLC (UK). L-O-F combined Vickers with Aeroquip, which they had purchased in 1968 and renames it Aeroquip-Vickers In 1999 Eaton acquires Aeroquip-Vickers The Vickers Aerospace Actuators and Controls Div.is located in Grand Rapids, Michigan. There are Mooney actuators labeled with only the Vickers name (Vickers Aerospace Actuators and Controls Div.- Grand Rapids, Michigan) It is not clear if Vickers made any actuators before the Eaton takeover. More likely Eaton consolidated all Mooney landing gear actuator manufacturing in the Vickers division. However, the actuators labeled with "Vickers" do no say that they are a division of Eaton.

Duh....Hasn't that always been the story of aviation in the growth of the SouthWest? Growing up in Albuquerque I thought airports just temporarily parked on undervalued land and they would leave as soon as people showed up. Bill Cutter, who started Cutter Aviation in 1922, had 2 airports before moving to the Sunport. I can think of 2 other airports plus Coronado Airport that existed. By the early 60's all had been sold, vacated and turned into housing development subdivisions. By the 90's even Coronado Airport was purchased by the Sandia Pueblo and turned into a Casino. In your North East Phoenix neck of the woods it looks like 5-6 airports have already succombed to urban sprawl and housing development. Why would it be any different now? http://www.airfields-freeman.com/az/Airfields_AZ_Phoenix_NE.htm#casablanca

Lots of garbage to dig through on the FB "Airplane and Coffee group" site - never found the video but saw a comment "They dragged it to the FBO on its own gear, not sure what happened?" So it sounds like a gear up landing. - the gear came down after it was lifted.... As we know many times the "lifting" does more damage than the landing...

Since KDWH - David Wayne Hooks is towered, the control tower would have reported that to the FAA. You are probably right on both counts but that is par for Hooks Tower. I always thought Hooks was a Contract Tower based upon typical performance but am surprised to see that they are a FAA Tower. It must be because of proximity to KIAH Bush. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/fct_list https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/FCT_Map.pdf I would be curious to know how/where you got access to the hangar surveillance at KDWH (your profile indicates you may have viewed it in Kerrville) . Is there a video feed on some airport or FBO site? If you could "hear the crash" as opposed to a gear-up landing sliding in long grass, it must have been of substantial force - a stall in ground effect or tearing the gear off?. Please share if able.

This is the same sad old story that those who lord over this site don't want to hear or talk about. It drives up insurance rates and just continues to make Mooney's almost uninsurable for new pilots. New purchase - not purchased earlier in the year as @Yetti suggested Registered May 28, 2024 in purchase from owner in Prescott AZ Plane relocated from Prescott AZ to David Wayne Hooks in Houston on May 10-11 https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a0b1bc&lat=32.042&lon=-105.643&zoom=6.9&showTrace=2024-05-11&trackLabels&timestamp=1713648404 Appears to be a new Pilot. Registration is to an LLC. The name listed as the LLC Principal appears in FAA Airmen as a new Private Pilot - SEL dated 7/5/2023. Lots of what appear to be training flights between Hooks and other airports starting May 12 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N144BY/history/80 New pilots are enthusiastic. Enthusiasm sometimes clouds judgement. Yesterday N144BY flew what appears to be Touch and Go's at Hooks (don't see any other T&G's at Hooks before this - may have been first time pilot tried it) Yesterday was not a great day to fly. - something called a Tropical Storm in South Texas was moving in. KDWH was just on the edge of the weather. At 20:10 there was no wind and ceilings BKN 41 - maybe when he arrived at the airport. But it changed rapidly KDWH 192100Z AUTO 05009G17KT 10SM SCT043 SCT050 BKN060 30/24 A2989 KDWH 192055Z AUTO 05009G14KT 10SM SCT041 BKN050 BKN070 30/24 A2989 KDWH 192053Z AUTO 05014G25KT 10SM SCT041 BKN055 BKN070 29/24 A2989 RMK AO2 RAE02 SLP120 P0000 60009 T02940244 58019 KDWH 192050Z AUTO 05011G19KT 10SM FEW036 BKN043 BKN055 29/24 A2989 KDWH 192045Z AUTO 05010G18KT 10SM FEW036 SCT043 BKN055 30/25 A2989 KDWH 192040Z AUTO 04006KT 10SM FEW036 SCT043 BKN055 30/26 A2990 KDWH 192035Z AUTO 04006KT 10SM FEW036 SCT043 BKN055 29/25 A2990 KDWH 192030Z AUTO 05007KT 10SM SCT039 BKN060 BKN080 29/26 A2991 KDWH 192025Z AUTO 05003KT 10SM SCT041 BKN060 BKN080 29/26 A2991 KDWH 192020Z AUTO 04003KT 10SM SCT041 BKN055 29/26 A2991 KDWH 192015Z AUTO 06003KT 9SM BKN041 BKN055 29/26 A2991 KDWH 192010Z AUTO 00000KT 10SM BKN041 28/26 A2991 If you listen to LiveATC for Hooks while he was in the pattern you will hear the tower warning that winds were pretty steady at about 10 kn from the east gusting to over 20 kt. The runway is 35L. It looks like winds were gusting to 25 kn as he turned base. If you look at Flightaware it appears that the crosswind was blowing N144BY through the centerline of 35L. The picture makes it appear that the gear are up - no big ruts plowed into the grass but I suppose that they could be sheared off out of sight.

This discussion went off the rails with @N201MKTurbo's comment about a disconnected aileron rising to "the stop". OK that was too extreme, but his theory is otherwise basically correct. (BTW - per the Service Manual - Down stop limit is 8 degrees and Up stop limit is 12.5-17 degrees for Serial No. 0001 through 1037 and 12.5-14.5 degrees after.) Back to the OP's @0TreeLemur's question about slop and dead spots. As @N201MKTurbo pointed out there are 2 separate sources of bearing slop/ excess clearance which affect the feel/handling differently. If there is slop/looseness in the hinge on the yoke or the heim linkages attached to the yoke under the panel (4, 10, 8, 12,14) anywhere up to where the L&R aileron control rods (15) are connected together at (16), then you will get slop/looseness in the yoke (dead spots) while the ailerons are completely stable and not moving. If there is slop/looseness in the bellcrank joint/hinge and heim lingages (push/pull tubes and bellcranks) outboard on the wings connected to the ailerons (17, 19, 28, 30), then the slop will be taken up due to the lift on the ailerons in stable flight As pointed out in the post on the prior page "Ailerons high in trail" from 2018, several Mooney owners (presumably with a lot of slop in the outboard heim linkages) report seeing the ailerons rise as much as 1 inch above the flap in flight. Assuming the chord on the aileron is about 12 inches that is about 5 degree upward deflection. Obviously they are still attached and they still have upward lift holding them up so it remains to be seen what the maximum deflection would be. Also none of the posters with "high trailing ailerons" said that they experienced any "dead zones" I think this is because even when with an 1 inch (5 degree) upward deflection due to "slop" there was still lift (we can review all the theory and analysis but the real world "acid test" is that there is still material lift on the ailerons.) As a result one aileron will always have the slop pulled out tight as you deflect the ailerons in opposite directions (one aileron control tube is pushing while the other is pulling. I think this covers up any feeling of a dead zone in the opposite aileron as the push-pull tube reverses direction All the heim and other bearings remain pulled tight in one wing while the bearings in the other wing are momentarily not touching either side of the bearing. Once the "momentarily loose" push/pull tube moves so that the linkages touch the other side of the bearing, then the slack has been taken up in that direction. I think that this is also a matter of degree - minor slop in the outboard heims will never be felt. Major looseness at some point might be noticeable. About 10 years ago I replaced one of the linkages (29) to the aileron hinge due to looseness. The heim bearings were welded on so I had to get it from a Mooney MSC. I can't remember the price I recall that I thought it outrageous back then. I bet it is more so now. This diagram is typical of most Mooney's but not exactly the same as your J:

Here is a 2018 topic on ailerons floating up above the flaps during level flight. Some had ailerons rising in flight as much as 1 inch above the flaps on both sides in level flight. As @jetdriven explained (and like @N201MKTurbo said): "So you have 16.75lb per sq ft of wing loading. Those ailerons are 3-4 sqft. So they have 50-67 lb of force lifting them upwards in flight. Either start replacing stuff to get the slop out, or rig them lower so they fly level in cruise. Check the ailerons with rigging boards, while holding both up with 20-50lb of force, to be sure the flaps aren't 2 degrees down instead of the ailerons looking high." The Service Manual says to adjust the ailerons 0 to -2 degrees down while on the ground (droop below the flaps when fully retracted). For the same reason as stated above, any clearance/slop in the heim bearings or turnbuckles will be taken up in aileron rise during flight due to lift on the ailerons.

Agreed that the price range of a new Lycoming or Continental keeps growing or to paraphrase @aviatoreb's comments they keep giving us reasons to set bigger and bigger piles of money on fire.... Also another thing not mentioned in the cost of a retrofit - if you want a heater in your plane you will have to add a coolant fed heat exchanger and fan system inside the cabin or potentially mount it in the engine compartment and tie into the existing SCAT ventilation/heater tubing. These costs all add up. The things I don't get with Deltahawk: I have never seen any "real world" performance data published from the certified engine in the Cirrus SR-20 mule. (if have missed it someone please post). Lab dyno fuel consumption/HP provided for two (2) data points is interesting and one indicator - but real performance in the SR-20 is another. After all they have been flying the prototype for 10 years - in 2014 it went to Oshkosh in an earlier version. If they have been perfecting the certified DH-180 in a Cirrus SR-20 testbed for 10 years why isn't Cirrus an early adopter? (or why hasn't Deltahawk teamed up with Cirrus to roll it out to them first?) After all Cirrus is building GA aircraft in material numbers. Instead they announced at the time of certification that they teamed up with Bearhawk in homebuilt Is Cirrus cool to Deltahawk because China State Aviation (AVIC) owns both Cirrus Aircraft (through its CAIGA subsidiary) and Continental Aerospace (through its AECC subsidiary) which markets its own diesel engine via the acquisition of Thielert? - and see this as competition which they don't want to assist? In the Cessna Pilots Association December 2023 article on Deltahawk, Dennis Webb, Deltahawk's Director of Marketing and Certification, tells the author " Webb promised me that we can expect STCs for the Cessna 172 and other Cessna models at some point." WTF? - there are only about 40,000+ Cessna 172 still flying. Instead they want to piddle around with Blackhwak Aircraft and sell onesies and twosies? It doesn't sound like a priority. If there is no urgency regarding providing STC's for Cessna (another 20,000+ 182's for the 235 HP variant, another 4,000+ Cardinals, etc, etc..), I seriously doubt you will see a Mooney STC very soon.

There is no reason to replace the Plessey gear actuator in 350 hours when it reaches 1,000 hours. It is not an AD. 1,000 flying hours may not have a good relationship to actuator cycles. - consider a family flyer vs one used for rental or training. That said, if you buy a plane with a Plessey and it does fail for any reason you are looking at a high cost for the actuator. The labor to swap it out does not sound too bad. Per Tom Raush at Top Gun from the same Mooney Flyer "Since 1977, Mooney has used a linear jack screw actuator, which is a much more reliable system. While there are several manufacturers, all are interchangeable. Later models are 24 volt, but the motor is easy to change so you can put a newer actuator in an older model, just by changing the motor. " As @PT20J says that only buy it if you have a way to replace the Plessey. That means there needs to be a substantial discount in the purchase price, or like @KSMooniac have a spare in hand.

This is from 2017 but Tom Raush at Top Gun talks about how they rebuild the Dukes. He also indicates that the 40/1 gears are available but the disengage unit is a high wear item which they have to scrounge from salvage. See page 18 in the attached Mooney Flyer " The early Mooneys have Dukes and ITT actuators. These are a real problem today, since we can't get parts, except for the updated gear kits (40:1). Most commonly, the disengage unit that allows the manual extension crank to engage, happens to be a high wear item, and we have no parts available. We have had to retrofit newer gear actuators to older models because of lack of parts and have almost used everything in the salvage yards." 2017-AugTMF.pdf (themooneyflyer.com) Don Maxwell's site makes it sound like they rebuild the Dukes and ITT actuators. His post shows the wear patterns on the gears that precede failure. AD 75-23-04: SB M20-190 | Mysite (donmaxwell.com) As @Yetti said, if it is the electric motor issue that should be reparable.

ITT Actuators Mooney SB M20-189A allowed for the substitution of the ITT actuator to replace the Dukes actuator. The ITT actuator is almost a carbon copy of a Dukes actuator. Don Maxwell believes it is not as good. Both actuators have the same gears and that the ITT actuator is not addressed in the AD or SB M20-190. He inspects the ITT just as a Dukes, and have found several near failures that have never been inspected. AD 75-23-04: SB M20-190 | Mysite (donmaxwell.com)

Schematics can be found in Volume 2 of the M20J Service Manual. The Service Manual is in the Downloads Section. Your serial number is on the second page in File 2. That particular page is not great but still readable.

Bryan_Johnson-Airports_Reversionary_Rights.pdf (govoffice.com)

Clarence got pissed off with some of the people here last August and quit MooneySpace. He deleted his account and everything he could such as attachments. His posts remain as “Guest”. Your post to him is basically sending a message to the Dead letter office…

You have neglected to add luggage in these trip scenarios. In the case of pilot, 2 pax and 2 dogs I bet that you will have 45 lbs of luggage/dog food/ supplies - in reality probably more. You are at 705 lbs without luggage. Luggage takes you to about 750 lbs. Also Bravo’s burn 16-18 gph. That’s about 100 lbs per hour. Depending on the UL of the ones that you find for sale, you might only have a 2 hour range - less in IMC. Las Vegas to Conroe would be a lot of stops with a tight/full plane. But if it’s once a year to a shorter destination it could be workable.

And this is so that your policy is at the front of the line to pay for replacement of the hangar and any adjacent damaged planes in the event a fire starts in your leased hangar space for any reason. The city has insurance of course, but they only want to start paying after your insurance is completely exhausted. https://www.wric.com/news/northern-virginia/fire-at-leesburg-airport-causes-7-million-in-damage-cause-unknown/ https://www.pressenterprise.com/2023/11/06/corona-airport-fire-damages-5-airplanes-1-hangar/

Absolutely – any city that has a city manager or lawyer with half a brain requires proof of insurance. Some, but not all, cities want their name added to the insurance policy.

Ooh.. the other “plastic plane”! Thanks for confirming that “aluminum is dead” as far as Air Force initial training goes.

I have a hard time believing that compression of the nose gear donuts have much effect. I have a J with a Missile modification. It has an extra 200 lbs up front (and hanging out farther forward) on the same exact nose gear truss geometry and donuts as yours. Point being - my donuts/discs are always more compressed. Just dial in a lot more nose up trim.

Speculation is right. The competition included the SIAI-Marchetti SF.260 (even lighter than the T3-A at 1,660 lbs. Empty weight), the Mooney M20T Predator and the Slingsby T3-A. I don't recall why the SF.260 wasn't picked but it was clear that the Mooney was unqualified due to its handling deficiencies/issues as well as heavy. Perhaps the Air Force should have cancelled the competition and stuck with the C-172 (T-41 Mescalero) although they flew the T3-A much more aggressively. Like most things in General Aviation, Cirrus came to dominate. The Air Force picked the SR-20 (T-53A Kadet II) as their basic trainer. All Air Force pilots in the last nearly 25 years learn to fly in a Cirrus. "The T-53s (Cirrus SR-20) represent the backbone of the Academy's Powered Flight training program in which over 500 cadets participate annually."

Here is another current topic on repairing ABS interior plus pictures.

Also in true RestoMod fashion, I see that Maxwell also replaced the original 260 hp Lycoming engine with a 300 hp Lycoming AEIO-540 - so that it can keep up with other Mooney's.... Mooney’s Almost-Warbird Returns to the Texas Skies - Plane & Pilot Magazine (planeandpilotmag.com)