1980Mooney

The one person in the world that has what you desperately need, literally the ONE PERSON IN THE WORLD, and you still belittle and insult him - again, as usual, continually... What did he do to you?....insult your plane?, kick your dog?, sleep with your wife?

This may help. There were several manufacturers of electric https://www.knr-inc.com/25-shoptalk/30-200107-emergency-gear-extension-systems

Another way to to describe it is it keeps the gear up once retracted. From MooneyFlyer: page 17 https://themooneyflyer.com/issues/2017-AugTMF.pdf ”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.”

Not surprising since they are still trying to peddle what is left of the company on the business broker of last recourse - BizQuest - the "Craigslist" of business sale sites. Legendary Aircraft Manufacturer | For Sale in Kerrville, Texas | BizQuest.com I think the items on the top of Jonny Pollack's priority list is his real full-time job at Elliott Management.

And expensive. Only Mooney sells that. I had to replace one about 8 years ago due to corrosion. And even more if breaks…the gear will collapse.

Same here. 23 years with the copilot belt around on side of the yoke. No problems. No way to forget. Keep it simple.

Also affecting it is the flow through the cylinder head, how the burn front propagates, hot spots in the cylinder head, spots of higher pressure in the head due to air/fuel mass flow momentum, how and where detonation (knock) starts, how the detonation shock wave propagates etc. It is a dynamic process in which not everything happens uniformly - like watching a creek or river, the water does not flow evenly - eddy currents appear. And although it is a vapor, there is still a momentum influence as the air/fuel mixture flow is started and stopped violently with each valve closing and opening - this creates additional dynamics of pressure and temperature that may not be instantaneously uniform. Safe operating ranges/conditions and the point of detonation knock are not all predicable without testing.

Interestingly here is a parallel current discussion on pre-J Mooney's landing gear. The gear is basically the same.

I agree with @PT20J and @EricJ but I WOULD NOT FLY THE PLANE. THERE IS NO NORMAL WAY THAT THE RETRACTION TUBE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONTACT THE MAIN GEAR ASSEMBLY. Something is seriously wrong. I would fear a main gear collapse which would be incredibly expensive. The geometric arc of the swing of the main landing gear assembly (2 below in yellow diamond) and the movement of the retraction tube truss holding the retraction tube (16 below in green box) is defined, fixed and should remain stable and repeatable through its operation and life. @1964-M20E is right - It does not vary with shock disk load or compression and has nothing to do with the shock dics. (see the first video below - no way should it contact). I would jack it up and conduct a retraction test carefully looking at the reason for contact.( Like in second video.) I am not an A&P but have worked on my plane a lot over 23 years. The main gear assembly (2 in yellow diamond) is a solid fixture. You are contacting at the point of the red circle. Compression of the shock disks has nothing to do with the geometry of the main gear assembly. The only way it could contact is if The main gear assembly (2 yellow diamond) is bent or flexing because of a broken weld or corrosion. The main gear assembly brackets (4, 6 and on the other end purple pentagon) are broken, loose or excessively worn allowing the main gear assembly to shift. The retraction truss (green box) is cracked or broken and flexing towards the landing gear as pressure is applied in the retracted position. The bushing in the hinge of the retraction truss is missing (on bolt 19 in blue star - part number 914020-143) allowing it to twist and flex toward the landing gear as pressure is applied in the retracted position. The bolt holding the retraction truss or threaded backer (19 in green box) is loose, cracked, or bent allowing it to flex toward the landing gear as pressure is applied in the retracted position. Do you have a parts manual and also a service manual? Also look at these 2 Mooney gear retraction videos. The first one clearly shows your gear retraction geometry. Also this video shows it but not as clearly. Mooney M20J 201 Gear Swing and Emergency Retraction Test - YouTube

Both blades appear to be equally bent in a radial direction which seems to indicate it was making power and turning.

It is absolutely the reason. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-737-max-report-calls-for-overhaul-of-canadas-process-for-approving/ Technically and politically it gave credibility to all the the Canadian interests that have long said Canada should be more independent and rely less on the US in general and FAA in particular. It was an easy political win for those with nationalist sentiment. Yes it probably probably increases the workload at TC (and it increases regulation, cost, manpower, needed budget and delays)

It is one thing to attract manufacturers/suppliers to a growing market. It is another to attract them to a declining/flat market. And just where is the competition? - most airports have one supplier - there is no option of pulling up to multiple pumps or having multiple trucks compete for your business. Look at the declining sales: Who wants to make an investment just to compete for declining sales? Before you think those look like big numbers, that is only about 9,000 gallons per day per state. That is about half the size of the average backyard in ground swimming pool. You can fill that with a garden hose over the course of a day. Volumes are so small that it will probably still have to be trucked around the country. A large tank truck holds 11,600 gallons - that would only be 37 truck loads per day. Automotive gasoline sales by contrast are about 900 times more than aviation gasoline sales. Said another way, in one day the amount of automotive gasoline sold is 2.5 times the amount of aviation gasoline sold in an entire year. We don't know the formulation of G100UL but the low volumes might not support more than one manufacturer in order to create some economies of scale. I think we are going to be in for sticker shock.

A few years ago an Aspen 1000 or 2000 was a natural recommendation. However a lot has changed. The Garmin offering has become broader and more capable as has Dynon Certified. Based on the majority of comments in this topic and elsewhere in MS as well as on Beechtalk and Pilots of America most seem to be recommending full Garmin (especially if a new autopilot is part of the install) and Dynon. Aspen was advanced for its time but in the ensuing 15 years has only added a faster processor and brighter screen. Here is a topic by a K owner discussing the same issue that you raise. He has Aspen and Century 41 AP. Everyone seems to be holding off on upgrading, adding a new or another Aspen - the Garmin GFC500 autopilot won't work with it. Replacement Autopilot - Modern Mooney Discussion - Mooneyspace.com - A community for Mooney aircraft owners and enthusiasts I think Garmin and Dynon will put Aspen out of business other than repair of existing units.

After cleaning the rollers you need to lubricate the bearing. I clean the roller with alcohol. I use LPS2 to lube the bearing.

He was banned several times for his political posts…the one about “Little Timmy”, etc. He changed his name several times “Mynameisnobody”, Missile=Awesome, Missileflyer”, .. He is still in Cedar Rapids, Iowa flying N989TG, a Missile conversion of a J. He may be lurking around here under another alias.

Thanks for the clarification. That certainly isn't a good endorsement of the reliability of the O2D2 pulse delivery system. It sounds like you had come to trust it also but it failed you. That could creep up as a real killer if it happened to a pilot in hard IFR in the flight levels if the pilot did not have a working oximeter. I would hope you report this equipment failure so that it can show up in the NTSB "squawk box" reports in Aviation Safety, etc. and warn other pilots that it is potentially not reliable. Your clarification that the ADS-B FIS-B was actively broadcasting the runway closure NOTAM on the GTN750 puts that question to rest.

You have it slightly wrong. The Sultan of Brunei owns Piper. Cirrus is owned by a national Chinese company (China Aviation Industry General Aircraft(CAIGA) which is a division of the state-owned Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC). And let’s not forget popular Diamond Aircraft which is also owned by a Chinese company - Wenfang. Oh – and Continental aerospace technologies (formerly TCM Continental) is owned by the Chinese state (AVIC). Superior aircraft parts also Chinese owned. Thielert aviation engines was also purchased by the Chinese and has been re-branded as the continental jet-a diesel Regardless your point is valid…. Actually more valid.

When there is only one practical market solution I believe that is effectively a monopoly. When there is a monopoly then there is no incentive for anyone in the supply chain to manage costs down - not GAMI, not Swift not airports with single served FBO's. In fact there is nothing stopping GAMI and Swift from taking a bigger cut.

But the IO360A series used in J models is not approved for Swift 94UL. Nor are the Continental’s in the K, R or S. Certainly not the Acclaim. I think they believe G100UL will be widely available soon. I think GAMI and Swift already said to expect it to cost at least $1 more than 100LL. I’d wager that piston Aviation fuel will be averaging around $7 a gallon nationwide by 2023–24.

It is a right angle fitting on the Missile. The pipe is not bent. The pipe is straight coming out of the fitting. It has about a 10 degree bend about half way

While you are doing the oil change look closely at the engine mount especially near the high temperature heat shields. Look at the Adel clamp bushings for deterioration. The engine mount was custom built and powder coated by Rocket. The tubes are 3 different sizes/thicknesses and oil filled. The wall thicknesses are around 0.050 inch or less. A 10% loss of metal renders the plane non-airworthy. That is only .005 inches or less of corrosion depending on the tube. Rocket is still supporting and repairing the mounts. Mine needed 3 tubes repaired. they have to repowder coat it. Repair cost was $2,960 plus $400 shipping each way for a total of $3,760. It took Rocket 3 months including shipping. The shop cost to remove and reinstall the prop, engine and mount was much much more. I had a fight with the A&P on the hours billed. Of course they will say that they have never seen or worked on a Missile before (and yes it is totally different from an ovation which has 4 isolation mounts vs 6 for the Missile) Add in 6 new Barry mounts too. You will be looking at the annual from hell.

@Rspencer612 Yes this looks like it should work. The STC requires BJ107R. I think the difference is the longer rigid tube. I think the rigid tube gives you leverage to pop it on so you don’t have to stick your hand in there "The second improvement is the compactness of the probe. It is actually shorter than the BJ 107B making it easier to install. Valve this attaches to has 5/8-18 threads and fits the drain holes of most Teledyne Continental engines **Suitable for PA28R-201, PA28R-201T and others having close clearance issues between the AVI valve and engine mount tubes. 09M-PRB90 REPLACES FOLLOWING PNS Piper PN 481-359 Beechcraft PN 107-B Auto Valve Inc. AVI-BJ-107B

Negative. I can assure you that it has to be a right angle turn to clear the heat exchanger.

Back in April you started a Missile CG and GW topic. I posted the STC's for the Missile there. When the A&P's change my oil they don't always need my drain line adapter. They must have some universal device. Did yours get lost since the last oil change?

It is manufactured by Auto-Valve, Inc. per Rocket Engineering STC. This is not an off the shelf item. You should have the documentation for the Missile conversion from Rocket which includes at least 4 STC's - more depending if they installed JPI or standby vacuum. You should have STC SE00223SE.pdf Products - Auto-Valve, Inc. | Dayton, OH (autovalve.com)