1980Mooney

Let’s not forget that the NTSB is still investigating why the wings sadly folded up on Bravo N9156Z in Minnesota in 2021. We may be facing an AD requiring inspection, testing and limits - just like the Piper Cherokee wing separation AD http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/08/mooney-m20m-257-tls-bravo-n9156z-fatal.html?m=1

Really? Why are we always reading on MS about all the sad stories where MSC’s failed to find catastrophic corrosion during PPI’s? And @M20Doc has kindly shared pictures of corroded aluminum Piper wings that sadly tend to separate. There is currently a massive Piper wing spar corrosion AD (5,400 Cherokee's) precipitated by a fatal Embry Riddle wing separation- venerable ER was not able to inspect and identify the problem. You fail to mention the steel frame corrosion that troubles many Mooney’s https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/new-piper-wing-spar-ad-affects-5400-aircraft/

Hmmmm - that’s not what they said. They said that they have tested the components to 24,000 hours which is TWICE the “Life Limit” at which time more testing will be prescribed. They clearly said it will last longer This safe “Life Limit” is a conservative number in which no testing -ZERO - is required.

12,000 hour life. 40 years - that is 300 hours/year. How many Mooney’s fly anywhere close to that?! I bet the average GA pilot struggles to fly 60 hours a year. Let’s ask @Parker_Woodruff Ok if it’s in a partnership, the plane will fly more - I get that. I bet that the average Mooney will need 100 years to hit 12,000 hours. A P58 Baron life is limited to 10,000 hours Seems like a non-issue.

Per GAMA reported deliveries, the last Bonanza sold was in Q4 2020. And the Beechcraft Division of Textron has been marketing the Bonanza hard. https://investor.textron.com/news/news-releases/press-release-details/2022/Textron-Aviation-Brings-New-Upgrades-to-Iconic-Piston-Product-Lineup/default.aspx https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2022/april/04/textron-announces-bonanza-gross-weight-increase https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/the-latest/2022/04/05/beechcraft-bonanza-and-baron-get-big-updates/ https://www.controller.com/blog/aircraft-news/2022/07/beechcraft-goes-back-in-time-at-eaa-airventure-2022-with-limited-edition-bonanza-g36 https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/textron-introduces-75th-anniversary-beech-g36/ I love the Avweb lead-in “Embracing a retro theme, Textron has announced a 75th anniversary version” And the Controller headline “Beechcraft Goes Back In Time At EAA AirVenture 2022 With Limited-Edition Bonanza G36” “Retro” and “Back in time” Bonanza has added “three new interior schemes and a new cockpit layout with a standalone autopilot controller.” and “a carbon monoxide detector integrated in the Garmin avionics system, USB ports at every seat, powered headset plugs in the cockpit”. And even with a “paper” GW increase that still leaves its UL short of the SR22 and SR22T, the Bonanza can’t seem to attract any buyers But in the 7 quarters of deliveries reported since then Cirrus has sold and delivered 785 SEP, (384 of those being SR22T costing about $1 million or more depending on options.) And for those who have $3 million to spend Cirrus also sold and delivered 139 SF50 Vision Jets in the same period.

If the dream is to create a new Mooney, that is better than Cirrus (retractable gear, more useful load, and faster) it is entirely plausible that they may need to invest $200 million (after all it has been stated many times did the Chinese pissed away approximately $200 million on the development of the M20T and ultra). Given the risk of trying to re-enter the slow growing market with a clear leader, I would think investors would run their numbers based on a 30% return over 10 years. If Mooney could sell 200/yr (2,000 total) then that means $316,000 would need to be added to every plane sold in order for the investors to recover their development investment. That would be on top of the variable costs of materials, engine, prop, avionics etc and labor, amortization of manufacturing facilities and equipment, and a return on those manufacturing investments and working capital. I suspect the price of a new base ovation would need to be way over $1 million. Yes, I’m sure they would sell a few but I don’t know how they could gain share.

That sounds reasonable…….

What exactly is “the emergency backup” system on a Mooney when the “single point” crankshaft or camshaft fails(breaks)? Oh that’s right - Mooney doesn’t have one. But Cirrus does- a CAPS/BRS parachute. So you are making the point that Mooney is an example of bad engineering. Many would agree.

Like wing failure, engine stoppage (for any of many single point failures- a single connecting rod or piston, a single fuel line break, single fuel line blockage, single crankshaft break, single camshaft break, etc), single propeller blade break/detachment,etc). Anyone that thinks that the few no-back spring induced gear-ups in 30-50 year old actuators represent poor engineering and an unacceptable risk are living in denial of the overall risk of flying. The incidence of engine stoppage and wing separation (other brands) is far higher despite the best efforts of engineers, manufacturers and mechanics.

However, in some failure modes the Piper manual emergency landing gear extension system doesn’t work properly- just like Mooney. No backup system is 100% perfect fail safe in all possible failure modes over decades of use, many thousands of cycles and maintenance by many different parties. https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/occurrence-briefs/2018/aviation/ab-2018-024

And based upon a KNR Shop Talk article it sounds that in some ways the GEC-Plessey was a better design than the Eaton (Vickers, Avionics Products) design. The Emergency Gear Extension coupler system consists of a steel key block, a bronze (Eaton) or steel (Plessey) slot for the block to engage and a spring to hold the halves together. The Plessey had steel to steel drive attaching the pull cable to the transmission where Eaton had bronze to steel. The bronze was subject to wear (probably a good reason to not test the Emergency Extension System very often!) The Plessey is also easier to rig. However it seems that Eaton had better design and quality control of the spring resulting in fewer failures than the Plessey (see Top Gun - Tom Rouch article on page 17 of Mooneyflyer August 2017. (see after KNR) 200107 Emergency Gear Extension Systems (knr-inc.com) "There are two types of landing gear actuators used in both twelve and twenty-four volt aircraft. The early actuators were manufactured by Avionics Products (Eaton Corp., El Segundo, CA). This system has an adjustable rod end requiring some rigging adjustment. This is the system with the bronze coupler slot, mentioned above. The later type of system is made by GEC (Plessey), UK Aerospace, Whippany, NJ, and is almost identical with the following exceptions: the jackscrew is a complete unit without the adjustable rod end. The rod end is built into the jackscrew itself and is much easier to rig the landing gear system. The other key difference is that the emergency drive system in the Plesley system uses a steel-to-steel drive to attach the pull cable to the transmission. The bronze-to-steel system is subject to excessive wear; the steel-to-steel system is much more durable. Each of these actuators has one service instruction against it. See Mooney Service Instructions, number M20-52B (Avionics) or M20-92 (Plessey). In conclusion, the Plessey system is more robust than the Avionics system because of the steel-to-steel coupler. " "Ask the Top Gun" Tom Rouch Page 17 Present Position (themooneyflyer.com) The No-Back Clutch Spring These newer models have a common problem with the no-back clutch spring, which is recommended to be changed every 1,000 hours of aircraft time. A no-back clutch spring is what keeps the gear up when retracted. It keeps the gear from unwinding after the gear up switch shuts off the power. I have dealt with planes that have a broken no-back clutch spring. Most of these had Plessey actuators, which were used in the late 90s. These use a slightly different spring from all other actuators. The Plesseys are now obsolete and their no-back clutch springs are not available. A later problem we have found on the Eaton actuators is chipping of the jack screw. While difficult, I have been able to buy a new jack screw. I don't know current prices, but I do know that a new actuator is well over $10,000. If the no-back clutch spring breaks while retracting the gear, the gear will not go down for landing. If it breaks during extension, the gear will go down, and probably hold the gear down. You probably won't know that the no-back clutch spring is broken until the next flight when the gear won't retract. The main defect in this gear system is that the emergency extension depends on an intact no-back clutch spring. Another problem with the newer actuators is the wear on the emergency extension cable. It is Teflon coated and the Teflon can tear and peel loose and that loose Teflon can actually jam the actuator. It actually happened during a practice emergency landing gear extension. The Emergency Clutch The other wear item is the emergency clutch, which is made out of soft brass. If the emergency cable is not rigged correctly, this may allow partial connection of the emergency clutch to the actuator drive gear, which causes the brass on the emergency clutch to wear off, and the clutch will not engage.

Of sorry - I misunderstood. I thought you were wondering if someone could come up with a fix for this actuator which was originally designed in ~1974-75 when it went into production for the first M20J built in September 1976. So you are wondering why this wasn't better designed back in ~1974-75?

Reality check - how big is this market? TINY and shrinking. Incredibly unlikely that any new units will ever be built again. No one is going to spend 2 cents re-engineering the Mooney gear extension system - Not Eaton and certainly not Mooney. If this becomes too big of a safety issue the more likely outcome will be an AD to lock the gear down permanantly......

The North America standard fitting on portable bottles is the CGA-540. The Outlet thread is .903″-14. Built in O2 systems typically have AN800-3 3/8 inch -24 Outlet threads (smaller and lighter). See Ovation O2 fill YouTube below. Many of the FBO's are only equipped to fill built in oxygen tanks on planes (.AN800-3 3/8 inch -24 fitting). They may have a CGA-540 combo adapter that connects to the AN800 - (see below). If they do fill CGA-540 portable tank fittings the prices are ridiculous. If you are a big user of O2 with portable bottles it might make sense to buy your own AN800 to CGA-540 adapter - that way any FBO with O2 can fill your bottle. I get my portable bottles filled at a Scuba Dive shop in Houston.

Not familiar with them but I am well south of the Dallas metroplex. The owner is Robert Vondersaar. He also runs an aircraft maintenance school in Plano. See the details at the end. https://aircraftmaintenanceschool.com They have good online local reviews (14) https://nicelocal.com/carrollton/business/ae_aircraft_engines/ and a few Google - all good (9) BBB shows that they are in business 8 yr and A+

From the ICA - General Aviation Modifications, Inc (gami.com) GAMI REPORT 06-6460002, Rev. C, September 1, 2022 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness Page 4 of 6 "The G100UL fuel typically weighs approximately 6.2 to 6.3 pounds per gallon which makes it approximately 3.5 to 5 percent higher in weight per gallon than 100LL fuel (6.0 pounds per gallon). G100UL has approximately 1 - 2% higher energy content on a per volume basis. Therefore, fuel system setups based upon weight per time may continue to use the adjustment values as listed for 100LL fuel. Fuel system adjustments that are based upon EGT values rich or lean of peak remain the same even though the peak EGT when running on G100UL may be different than the peak EGT when running on other fuels. Fuel system adjustments performed on a bench using naptha or similar less flammable fluid should continue using those adjustment values without change."

Just to confirm what @PT20J stated, this latest gear actuator failure in 2022 was a Plessey actuator - they call it a torsion spring (not a "no back spring although it performs/grips the same way) and that the GEC (Plessey) actuator is no longer available.

Hard to say. The report by the FAA in 2003 lacks detail. The Mooney M20R & M20S Parts Catalog shows the Eaton actuator first and the GEC (Plessey) as the alternate. FAA Accident and Incident Reporting System (AIDS) GENERAL INFORMATION Data Source ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT DATABASE Report Number 20031030030799I Local Date 30-OCT-03 City TOMS RIVER State NJ Airport Name ROBERT J. MILLER AIR PARK Event Type INCIDENT Mid Air Collision NOT A MIDAIR AIRCRAFT INFORMATION Aircraft Damage MINOR Aircraft Make MOONEY Aircraft Model M20S Aircraft Series NO SERIES EXISTS Airframe Hrs 960 Primary Flight Type PERSONAL Secondary Flight Type PLEASURE Type of Operation GENERAL OPERATING RULES Registration Nbr 2234X Total Aboard 2 Fatalities 0 Injuries 0 Aircraft Weight Class UNDER 12501 LBS Number of Engines 1 Environmental/Operations Info Primary Flight Conditions VISUAL FLIGHT RULES Secondary Flight Conditions WEATHER NOT A FACTOR Flight Plan Filed UNKNOWN Pilot In Command Pilot Certificates COMMERCIAL PILOT Pilot Rating AIRPLANE SINGLE, MULTI-ENGINE LAND Pilot Qualification QUALIFIED Flight Time Total Hours 1597 Total in Make/Model 689 Total in Last 90 days 64 Event Remarks (-23) LANDING GEAR WOULD NOT EXTEND. PILOT LANDED AIRCRAFT GEAR UP. AIRCRAFT RECEIVED MINOR DAMAGE TO THE BELLY PAN, BOTH NOSE GEAR DOORS, AND PROPELLER. THE AIRCRAFT WAS JACKED AND THE GEAR WAS TESTED IN NORMAL AND EMERGENCY SYSTEMS. GEAR WOULD NOT MOVE IN EITHER POSITION. DISCONNECTED GEAR LINKAGE FROM THE LANDING GEAR ACTUATOR AND THE GEAR FREELY MOVED TO THE DOWN POSITION. DISASSEMBLED THE LANDING GEAR ACTUATOR. FOUND THE TABS HAD BROKEN OFF THE NO BACK CLUTCH SPRING PREVENTING THE GEAR FROM MOVING IN EITHER NORMAL OR EMERGENCY POSITION. END REPORT

Good point. I mis-read the parts notes. 560254 -507 was originally made by GEC (Plessey) as 880037-507. Then Eaton made it. Confusing. I also had the parts notes highlighted wrong but fixed with edit.

NO. That plane is a 1992 M20J - Ser. 24-3261 - 24 volt actuator. Eaton made 3 different 24 volt actuators: 560254 - 503, -505 and -507

@StevenL757 Here is the latest No-back Spring "tang" failure documented by NTSB investigation. - November 2022 Report_ERA22LA319_105499_2_2_2023 11_04_56 PM.pdf Analysis After arrival to the destination airport near the conclusion of a cross-country flight the private pilot reported the landing gear circuit breaker (CB) tripped after he attempted to lower the landing gear electrically via the normal method. He reset the CB and again attempted to lower the landing gear via the normal method, but the same CB tripped. He overflew the airport then flew towards the coast where he reviewed the airplane’s Pilot’s Operating Handbook and attempted multiple times to manually lower the landing gear but was unsuccessful. He also contacted his mechanic to obtain assistance, but he was unable to lower the landing gear. At the suggestion of his mechanic, he diverted to a larger nearby airport where he performed a go-around on the first approach because the flight was too fast, then returned and landed gear-up. According to maintenance personnel associated with recovery of the airplane, lowering the landing gear required them to disconnect the push/pull tubes near the landing gear actuator for each landing gear. Further, the emergency cable activation lever would not move and was “jammed….” Following removal of the push/pull tubes near the actuator the emergency cable activation lever would only travel about 90%. Following removal of the actuator from the airplane, manual operation revealed the actuator turned freely in the retracted direction but would not turn in the gear extension direction. Disassembly inspection of the clutch drive assembly of the landing gear actuator revealed one “tang” of the torsion spring associated with gear extension was fractured. By system design the emergency extension system did not bypass the clutch and damaged spring; thus, a single point failure (torsion spring) precluded manual and normal extension of the landing gear. According to airframe manufacturer, the landing gear actuator and fractured torsion spring are no longer available or supported, but they do have a retrofit for the landing gear actuator. An airframe manufacturer service instruction specified replacement of the torsion spring in the drive clutch assembly of the landing gear actuator was last performed nearly 5 years and 427 hours earlier. The service instruction, due every 1,000 hours, was due again in about 573 Page 2 of 5 ERA22LA319 hours. The mechanic who performed the airplane’s last annual inspection nearly 8 months and 49 hours earlier reported that as part of that inspection he performed in part, normal and emergency extension checks of the landing gear and found no issues. He did not perform any maintenance to the landing gear except for lubrication. Probable Cause and Findings The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be: The failure of the torsion spring inside the drive clutch assembly of the landing gear actuator which prevented normal and manual extension of the landing gear. Findings Aircraft - Landing gear actuator - Failure Personnel issues - Use of equip/system - Pilot

Some use dry silicone, some tri-flow. See last thread - lots of detail. While you are under the panel don't forget to lube all the hinges and bearings on the linkages connected to the yoke control rod. - Tri-flow or LPS2 on the hinges/linkages/bearings.

From our friends at BeechTalk : "This airplane was hangared across from me at CZL. It has been in that hangar for the last 20 years. The owners were just getting back into flying after their dad’s passing (he owned it for many years) awhile back. The right seater was an instructor. There is talk that there were some mag issues. After a high power run up, the mags checked ok, after that run up, a takeoff was made. The airplane has never flown very much, but these two brothers were hoping to change that. Very sad to see it in a burnt mangled mess, but glad no one was seriously hurt."

In 1967 Mooney introduced a "twisted" wing on the M20F. It lasted one year. I can't find any pictures showing profile comparison but in a MS thread that points out that the 201 M20J wing tips will not fit on a 1967 wing:: "A very clever greybeard at our local Mooney agent, that is a sheet metal expert and does magic with rebuilding just about any wreck, explained and actually physically demonstrated to me why the wingtip could not work. It does not have anything to do with altering the flight characteristics of the airplane or the wing, or anything along those lines. The leading edge on the twisted wing and that of the new style wingtip just don't match. Holding the tip to the wing, it fits perfectly all the way from the back up to about 8 inches from the leading egde. From here on, the shape of the wing is different to that of the tip and the leading edges don't match. The wings' being substantially lower." and "The washout helps improve control as the wing stalls, beginning at the root. The ailerons are the last part of the wing to stall. It could be seen as beneficial if flying too slow and get into an accelerated stall turning base to final, but I think the real world benefit wasn't really there. Some argue it costs a couple ktas. It's the only thing on my 67F that I don't care for, (for aesthetics), but not a big deal"

between January 20, 2022 and March 22, 2022. SAP also shipped individual affected intake valves between January 20, 2022 and May 18, 2022. It seems that the it was limited to a very narrow period.