1980Mooney

Too bad you are not a lawyer. This is a godsend for lawyers...like Christmas and your birthday rolled into one. Seriously. This moves many decisions/rulings out of the Executive agencies and into the Judicial agencies. More expensive lawsuits at the Federal level requiring more expensive lawyers. More Govt spending at the Federal level on trials and court cases, more spending on judicial staff. And at the FAA more lawyers and more spending on legal cases. Next they will need larger budgets, more fees and higher taxes to pay for all this! I bet the cost of pilot legal protection plans goes up now. And since the hurdles and costs of enforcement actions will likely now be higher, I also bet the fines set by the FAA escalate. I could be completely wrong but I do know that legal costs for pilot/owners won't be going down as a result of this ruling. BTW - I wonder how the Supreme Court sets aside clear conflicts of interest when they make rulings that create more employment and wealth for all their fellow Judge and former coworker attorney buddies.....

The irony in all this is that the only reason that we have the freedom to fly at all in this country, to fly over private property, to go almost anywhere we want at any time we want is because of the large reach of the Federal Government. Until about 100 years ago, the Ad Coelum Maxim had prevailed for thousands of years regarding land ownership. If you owned the land, you owned everything from "Heaven to Hell". The 1926 Air Commerce Act took away the airspace rights of land owners. It determined a right of freedom of navigation superior to the right of the owner of the subjacent land to use the airspace. And how were the land owners compensated for this?...NADA To add insult to injury, land owners wind up paying taxes in one form or another that in part funds the framework of aviation through their airspace. Some would call that theft or government over-reach....but not pilot/plane owners. Now the Govt could have limited flight to victor flyways and compensated the landowners for the loss of airspace rights (like building a freeway) but no. So in order to allow this free-for-all flying right over private property, there had to be rules and government oversight....hence bureaucracy. We seem to want it both ways. Government over-reach of land owners is fine if it allows us to fly over private property 24/7 but we belly ache about Government "over-reach", bureaucracy and rules related to our freedom to fly. We chafe at cities limiting flight noise. We are irate if a city, county or private airport owner repurposes an airport into something better serves and has higher value to its owner or tax paying citizens. We as GA pilot/owners are not paying our way either. There is no way the meager fuel taxes that we pay fund our share of aviation. City, county and state taxpayers fund the losses of the thousands of airports that are negative cash flowing. Federal funds from taxpayers pay for much of the infrastructure installation or improvement via grants. And commercial aviation knows that GA is not paying for ATC. I suspect, as government spending deficits continue, the subject of GA ATC User Fees and higher airport fees will come up again in the near future. Other countries are less generous to GA pilot/owners than for us here in the US. We have more freedoms and lower costs. There has to be a balance yet we never seem to find one that everyone can be happy with.

Ok took a quick look at the logs. Apparently the Ferry Permit was not issued after they blew up the battery box. The logs say the Rocket was trucked from Florida to Texas to Don Maxwell’s shop for repairs. That is definitely a plus. It was probably better than new after Maxwell finished.

Maybe they’re just greedy and think they can get more in an auction in this environment. I find it curious that they advertise the 2008 gear-up, which apparently was never reported yet they failed to mention the 2014 debacle which one can easily find on ASN. Has anyone seen the logs? I don’t see any mention of availability of the logs in the bid documents.

N231MN April, 1983, when it was only 8 months since factory new, had a gear-up - "NDICATES PILOT INADVERTENTLY RETRACTED THE LANDING GEAR ON LANDING ROLLOUT. NO MECHANICAL MALFUNCTION." 2008 Prop Strike noted in advertisement - Not reported to FAA. The plane was owned in Ohio at the time. As @toto noted, August, 2014 - Pilot drained both batteries (1982 M20K - Rocket conversion is a 12volt system with 2 batteries in parallel in the rear of the tailcone.) Pilot/owner asked FBO to fast charge the batteries. FBO only had 28 volt charger. Pilot confirmed to FBO that the Mooney was 24 volt. Additionally, in the Docket the pilot states that the FBO asked him to sign a waiver before charging the batteries which he did. The batteries blew up. You can see that the battery box lid and perhaps batteries blew upwards hard enough to break the main empennage bulkhead and deform the skin. The airframe had 3,162 hours at the time of the accident. At the end of At the end of November, 2014, 3 1/2 months after the accident, the owner requested a Ferry Permit. Investigation showed that that someone had worked on the damage and installed unapproved batteries. No log entries were made of the accident or the unapproved repairs. AN AIRCRAFT REQUESTED A FERRY PERMIT FOR MAINTENANCE AFTER EXPERIENCING A BATTERY FIRE/EXPLOSION. THE AIRCRAFT HAS SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO THE FUSELAGE FRAME FORWARD OF THE BATTERY COMPARTMENT, THE CABIN AIR TUBE IS DISCONNECTED AS WELL AS CRUSHED. FIRE DAMAGE CAUSED MULTIPLE LINES, CABLES & HOSES TO MELT AND DETERIORATE THEREFORE, NEEDING EVALUATION FOR THEIR SERVICEABILITY AND INTEGRITY. FINALLY IT APPEARS AN ALTERNATE BATTERY WAS INSTALLED WITHOUT PROPER DOCUMENTATION, AS THE LOG BOOKS DO NOT CONTAIN BOTH THE RECENT FIRE DAMAGE THAT OCCURRED AND BATTERY INSTALLATION AND THERE IS EVIDENCE OF EXTERIOR EMPENNAGE DAMAGE ON BOTH SIDES, FORWARD OF THE AIR SCOOP. In February, 2017, the accident pilot/owner (had owned N231MN from April, 2011 to February 2017) sold the plane to an owner in Branson, MO. In May, 2021 it was sold to an owner in Battlefield, MO. In September, 2022 it was sold to an owner in Utah. This appears to be the ad at the time. It had 3,400 hours on the airframe. https://tailwindplanes.com/airplane?listingid=20555&companyid=2413 I agree with @kortopates that if repaired correctly and well, it is fine. Note that the plane was not scrapped and repaired. The doctor that owned it had it repaired and continue to fly it until 2017. This could be a very good plane. I am surprised that there are no bids.

Download the parts catalog below - it covers your plane. Look at pages 186-188 One of the problems is that there isn't a "RH front, cylinder 2". The only way Cylinder 2 can be on the Right side is by looking at it standing in front of the plane looking towards the propeller. Cylinder 2 is on the Pilots Left side when viewed from the cockpit. However, your picture shows the alternator in the background of the cylinder with the exhaust stack removed, so I think you mean RH Front Cylinder 1. The stack for Cylinder 1 also has the more gentle curve which seems to match your stack. The stack for Cylinder 2 has a tighter radius. I think that you are looking for 630053-511. If you can't get it welded as @N201MKTurbo suggests, or if it is too corroded then it is easy to come by either salvage or new. I may be misunderstanding your description but I am sure you can work it out from here. Good luck.

All great suggestions (other than taking him to a bar given his proclivity to abuse alcohol - maybe take him to Starbucks....). But I am confused. Are you the same person that said on page 2: "I'm a CFI and unless I'm being paid to do so, I find it really hard to criticize other people's behaviors unless it's very clearly dangerous." And "I've got a friend whose actions as a pilot make me cringe so much because they are risky, but as far as I know, they are legal.... He loves flying that way, but... Ugh. " You said above "If you don't want to take a risk to save someone's life, that's your decision to make. I am willing to take some personal risk to try to save someone's life. I am inclined to take action to make the world better." It sounds like you are suggesting what you and others ideally should do.....but even you find it hard to do. It doesn't sound like you confronted your friend that conducts risky, but legal, flying actions. I am not criticizing you but just pointing out what appears to be the reality of this difficult situation.

It's not that I believe different. And yes hindsight is perfect 20-20 and yes someone should have stopped him, reported him, etc. from killing himself. Luckily he didn't crash into others. I assume that over 4 years that his family did talk to him. From the Docket and Final, they said that they knew that "he sought medical attention" so they thought he was addressing it. He just didn't tell the FAA or the airlines. As for the morning of the crash, the Docket interviews and Final state "Family members and a friend stated that the pilot had gone to the airport the day of the accident to work on the airplane’s magnetos and did not take his flying gear or indicate that he would fly that day". So if the pilot in the next hangar called the accident pilot's family and said that he seems "impaired", they would likely say "Yes we know - he is just working on the plane today." and maybe "We will come by later". In the meantime, the next door hangar pilot sees the RV fire up and shoot out the ramp between hangars. I have been to Galveston where his hangar was many times and had a friend based there. Even if you called the Tower or FBO, they likely would not come very fast to the hangars if at all. If they did, most likely the accident pilot would probably say, "I am just working on my plane". And they would leave at that point. If the hangar pilot called a second time, they probably would not come. So what would you have done? If you wanted to take a calculated risk, you could park your car/truck in front of his hangar on the assumption that he would not call the police, Tower or FBO since you believed him to be highly impaired. Of course he might damage your vehicle. And if he wasn't impaired, he might make a complaint against you and then there might be charges against you or the FBO/Airport might kick you out of our hangar lease. There is no easy answer. And getting personally involved carries risk.

I understand that you are searching for/soliciting preemptive actions that will enhance safer piloting outcomes. But instead of using your "extreme made-up example", why not use the real example of the pilot/owner of N69HF, an RV-6 that fatally crash in Galveston a few years ago. The owner was an ATP (I think he flew for SW). He had been working on his plane and then took off from the ramp between hangars, buzzed Galveston for about 1 1/2 hours and crashed. He was drunk and on sedating antihistamines. The Factual noted that: Family members and a friend of the pilot told investigators the pilot had been experiencing episodes of unusual behavior for about 4 years, for which the pilot had sought medical evaluation; however, no medical records and no record of treatment or condition were located during the investigation. He reported no issues on his routine First Class Medicals during those 4 yours. One witness talked to the pilot while he was working on the airplane and described him as “distracted,” and the pilot avoided talking to him. The witness further stated that the pilot acted “very distant,” and he thought the pilot may have been impaired. http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2022/09/loss-of-control-in-flight-vans-rv-6.html Clearly the structured oversight by the commercial airlines and the FAA of a "pro pilot" failed. Surely his fellow pilots at the airline noticed something over 4 years. So what was the GA community supposed to do in this case? GA is basically self regulating within set guidelines. Should have his family members and his friend turned him in to the FAA knowing it would be ending his commercial career and likely making them bitter enemies?

You don't mention your age. That seems reasonable to me. I am paying a couple hundred less than your quote. I have a Missile conversion (a "mid body Ovation"). I have similar coverage, $1 mil. liability, no passenger sublimit, but $40K less hull value. As @Jerry 5TJ says "lots of variables". I am IFR but fewer hours and hours in type. On the other hand I have stayed with the same insurer for over 20 years with no claims. I am entering my 7th decade and suspect that I will start seeing increases.

This discussion is getting a little bit crazy. If you do anything, even well meaning, to impede someone’s flight (stay let the air out of the tires, wheel, lock, control, surface lock, chain around the propeller, create an obstacle on the ground, etc.) and it in any way leads to an accident then you become liable. This is a simple reason why nobody wants to get involved.

@BlueSky247 It all sounds promising. What is the likelihood that you might move to another city in the near future? My plane has been located at 3 airports over 25 years. Have you paid for an approved hangar design and gotten a construction quote before signing? As @Z W highlighted there may be some surprises in store with recent increased pricing of labor and materials. Are you financing? If so, it could be advantageous to get an assignable loan. That way if you need to sell the remainder of your 30 year lease and building, the buyer can assume the remainder of the mortgage simplifying the sale.

You suggested looking at less tangible, harder to assess things that precede a flight like pilot attitude, mental awareness and "Resignation", (you attached a link - see summary below.) But assessment of those things is rather "soft" with no hard and fast measurements. First, when a pilot makes light of a serious situation, how do you determine if that pilot is just a lighthearted person trying to put the best possible spin on a bad outcome? ... Or a pilot that is not sufficiently serious about risks, planning, procedures and mitigation? It's a bit like art or beauty. It looks different to different people. I have to admit that I was surprised that this accident pilot was joking to the FAA/NTSB in writing about his 2020 crash landing .(posted in the NTSB CAROL Docket). "The wheel went bouncing off the runway, which I saw. If it wasn't such a catastrophe, it would have been kind of funny." If I, by my own admission, had just forgotten my landing gear, and then when warned, stalled my plane into the runway because I lacked the skill (to add power, stay in ground effect, and reject the landing, going around), resulting in breaking off the nose gear and taking out multiple runway signs, I would be seriously upset. It would be sickening to see my nose wheel "bouncing off the runway", prop grinding into the runway, skidding into runway signs. I could not see anything funny about it, especially knowing that the plane was totaled and to be sold for scrap parts. If I were the accident's pilots age at the time (69), if it were me both forgetting gear and stalling the plane, my flying days would be over. My family would be upset, not trust and refuse to fly with me ever again, my insurance agent would be upset, the FAA would be upset and I would be upset. I would find no humor in any of it. Discussing it would be painful. Some might say he is just being honest and that doesn't indicate anything. So on what grounds would anyone do anything preemptively other than encourage him "to get back in the saddle", buy another plane and fly again? Second, I cannot see how anything good comes out of a confrontation/discussion by a peer pilot, uninvited, pointing out unsolicited discrepancies in another pilot's flying habits, attitude or style. It would likely be a short discussion with a friendly or more likely not so friendly, response to "get out of my hangar", "keep your opinions to yourself", "you don't know what you are talking about" or "it's none of your business". It needs to come from someone in aviation with authority like the FAA or AME or maybe your insurance company/agent or someone with clear stature in piloting skill like a CFI/CFII. Hazardous Attitudes Hazardous attitudes are attitudes that negatively affect the quality of your decisions. Recognizing them is the first step in neutralizing them. There are 5 attitudes: Anti-authority: Those who do not like anyone telling them what to do. Impulsivity: Those who feel the need to do something, anything, immediately. Invulnerability: Those who believe that accidents happen to others. Macho: Those who are trying to prove that they are better than anyone else. “Watch this! Resignation: Those who do not see themselves making a difference. Here's a list of antidotes to the 5 hazardous attitudes discussed in the previous chapter. Anti-authority: Follow the rules. They are usually right. Impulsivity: Not so fast. Think first. Invulnerability: It could happen to me. Macho: Taking chances is foolish. Resignation: "I’m not helpless. ?I can make a difference. Operational Pitfalls Operational pitfalls can be categorized under the following: Peer Pressure: “Come on, don’t be a chicken, you can totally do that.” Mind Set: Inability to cope with changes and fixating on the original goal. Operating without visual line of sight (VLOS): Losing VLOS in order to complete the mission without having to move. Getting behind the aircraft: a constant state of surprise at what happens next. Loss of situational awareness: not knowing where you are or what/who is around you. Operating past the battery/fuel warning: Ignoring low battery/fuel warnings and forcing the aircraft to land in an emergency. Operate above maximum authorized altitude: ignoring LAANC altitudes or flying higher than 400 feet AGL. Neglect for planning, inspections and checklists: relying on short or long -term memory or over-trusting the equipment. Stress & Stress Management Stress is the body’s response to demand. The effects of stress are cumulative and can lead to an intolerable burden. There are two types of stress: acute and chronic. Relaxation, physical fitness and time management help manage the accumulation of stress. Stress Management While Flying It is important to know and respect your own personal limits. These will change based on the aircraft flown. It's also important to avoid distracting situations. Be sure to have a visual observer or crew member deal with people who may approach the pilot. Remain calm during emergencies. Rely on your training, utilize all available resources. Hazard and Risk Hazard is the real or perceived condition, event, or circumstance that a pilot encounters. Risk: the assigned value to the potential impact of a hazard. Dealing with risk involves three steps, which are discussed in more detail in these videos. Risk Assessment Risk Mitigation Risk Management

Strange. During the investigation of the February 2020 crash he had a medical: Medical Certification: Class 3 With Waivers/Limitations Last FAA Medical Exam: 06/06/2018

N231VM (1982 MOONEY AIRCRAFT CORP. M20K owned by BOETTCHER RICHARD) Aircraft Registration - FlightAware Boettcher had owned the original 1980 M20K, 25-0426 since 2006 25-0426 crashed February 14, 2020 1982 M20K, 25-0716 appears on M231VM registration on June 19, 2024 although he owned it since December 2020. N57241 (1983 MOONEY AIRCRAFT CORP. M20K owned by BAS PART SALES LLC) Aircraft Registration - FlightAware Boettcher registered November 15, 2021 so purchased some time before. BAS picture above shows they received the wreckage February 11, 2022. N1172W (1982 MOONEY AIRCRAFT CORP. M20K owned by BOETTCHER RICHARD) Aircraft Registration - FlightAware Boettcher registered December 6, 2022 so purchased some time before. Registration indicates he moved to Ridgefield, WA on or before September 4, 2023 Changed N number to N231VM - some time after September 2023 and before this month.

Interesting comments that he made to FAA/NTSB in March 2020 NTSB CAROL Docket: He reported that "he wasn't himself" and "not thinking" "Things were happening too fast. I think I pulled back pressure on the yoke and with the plane in landing configuration, I think I stalleded the airplane and dropped the airplane onto the runway, The mains were fully deployed, however, I think that I put too much stress on the nose gear, and it broke off at the axle. The wheel went bouncing off the runway, which I saw. If it wasn't such a catastrophe, it would have been kind of funny." Comments he made to press on Monday: "I tried to restart the engine and it wouldn't restart, tried to switch tanks ... " "I don't know if it's a miracle or just good piloting techniques," Boettcher said. "I don't know what but I did the right thing." "I feel like I want to go home and go to bed and forget about it all," he said with a slight laugh. These crashes don't seem to phase him. I bet he buys another M20K.....

If you look at the specs of N1172W which he bought in September 2023 and renumbered it N231VM, it has a GTX 330-ES. That has ADSB-out in 1090 MHz Extended Squitter (1090ES) which makes sense since it is a turbo that can operate above 18,000 ft. https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/192905111/n1172w-1982-mooney-m20k-231 Something is screwed up with his ADSB registration. His flight on Firday June 14 shows up 2 ways on FligthAware. One is with ADSB signitures but registered as N131VM. The other is without any ADSB and is registered as N231VM. https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N231VM https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N131VM

It appears that three (3) Mooney M20K's owned by this pilot have been destroyed in the last 4 years. Two of the crashes are documented in the Aviation Safety Network Database. The N number's are the same and they are both M20K's but the planes are different model years with different serial numbers. The third M20K was purchased between the 2 crashes. There is no record of anything happening to it; however it wound up at BAS with bent wings. It is currently being sold for parts. In February 2020 he crash-landed N231VM - it was a 1980 M20K ser. no. 25-0426 Loss of control Accident Mooney M20K N231VM, (flightsafety.org) Kathryn's Report: Landing Gear Collapse: Mooney M20K, N231VM; accident occurred February 14, 2020 at Minden-Tahoe Airport (KMEV), Douglas County, Nevada (kathrynsreport.com) Pilot, then 69 years old, admitted that he didn't use his checklist. On Final at about 20 ft above the runway threshold, a plane holding for take off announced on the frequency "gear not down". He pulled the gear switch, claimed he added power, and raised the nose. The plane slammed into the runway and broke the nose gear off (it may not have been fully extended), hit several runway signs - possibly he stalled it. The plane was scrapped. Parts can be found on Arizona Air Salvage. https://azairsalvage.com/product-tag/m20/ In December 2022 he purchased N1172W and renumbered it N231VM. It is a 1982 M20K ser. no. 25-0716. He crashed it on Monday. https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/192905111/n1172w-1982-mooney-m20k-231 N1172W (1982 MOONEY AIRCRAFT CORP. M20K owned by BOETTCHER RICHARD) Aircraft Registration - FlightAware Incident Mooney M20K 231 N231VM, (flightsafety.org) In November 2021, after the crash of N231VM and before the purchase of N1172 (the new N231VM), he purchased N57241, a 1984 M20K ser. no. 25-0797. There is no record of an accident, but it wound up scrapped at BAS with bent wings. It is currently being sold in parts. https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/205957049/n57241-1984-mooney-m20k-231se https://www.flightaware.com/resources/registration/N57241 Mooney M20K Fuselage with airworthiness, bill of sale, data tag and log books (baspartsales.com) First M20K Second M20K at 3,440 hours https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/205957049/n57241-1984-mooney-m20k-231se Same plane at 3,445 hours Third M20K Before N-number change. After

You mean like DeltaHawk?

Do you understand why Skip @PT20J advised to avoid a Plessey actuator? Plessey is no longer supported and the "no back spring" for the Plessey actuator is not available If you have a Plessey fail, the only option is to replace it with an Eaton The last prices that I saw for a yellow tagged used Eaton actuator that has been repaired by Lasar was about $11,000 (and that is just the unit - shipping, tax, installation,... more) I would budget about $15,000 when it is all said and done If you fall in love with a plane with a Plessey - ask for a $15,000 price reduction. When you look at M20J's you will find Duke's actuators - installed on M20J in 1977 through serial no. 24-0377 ITT actuators (that are basically copies of Duke's) that may have replaced a Dukes Eaton style actuators with the names Avionics Products Company, CONDEC, Vickers or Eaton (all the same design and built in the same place - company just sold many times ultimately to Eaton) Plessey or (GEC) Plessey - installed starting in the early 90's

You probably saw this in the Safety & Accident Forum. It is a 1974 M20F with electric gear. It probably has the same Dukes actuator as your plane. They were also flying with the gear down to get to a mechanic who could fix it.

It seems like an extreme solution to something that does not currently exhibit any problems (you don't mention whether it is a Dukes or Eaton). It's kind of like removing a functioning vintage auto-pilot from your plane and hand flying because you fear it might malfunction one day. Granted that you save some weight, but it is no silver bullet solution. There are a lot of J-bar gear ups/gear collapses. - probably more than you think. Most of these early 2024 reported incidents below are gear-ups/gear collapse. You have to dig into each one to see - and on some of the E, F's you have to search to see if there is history of electric gear being installed. I think about 5-6 incidents during Feb-March are J-bar gear-ups/gear collapse. You can't always identify the cause (pilot vs. mechanical). https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:12:::NO:12::

@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.