1980Mooney

There was a post here on the “Final” outcome of the uncontainable 40:1 Dukes actuator gears. It’s gone.

I think so. Some are larger than others, i.e. Desser Monster Retreads

Read the Goodyear or Michelin Aviation Tire Catalogs. Within a tire size such as 6.00 -6 or 5.00 - 5, the 6 ply and 4 ply have the same diameter and width. That way they fit properly within the wheel well. Retreads change the outside sizing. Data-Section-2022.pdf Aviation-Databook-2022.pdf https://dgaddcosprod.blob.core.windows.net/multisite-ds/clhaa3pb0002h01o7g7y69vf6/attachments/cli4jqcwj07dc01mogaxc24lx-csm-revf-june2021.pdf aviation-tire-care-2024.pdf

"The future of aviation for the tech savvy crowd is experimental and for the ones that don't have the knowhow, agree, they'll have to be wealthy. " The current generation is a "tech savvy crowd" - just different tech. They seem to be more adept at remapping an engine ECU than rewiring a car. "The rest of us like being involved in the upgrade."...that should be "Some of Us" like being involved in the upgrade. I think most of us would rather be involved in actually flying the plane rather than intricacies of redesigning, rewiring, rebuilding and re-schematicing our planes. After all - there are only so many hours in the day. "Apollo used to provide excellent 'full stack' drawings." .... ancient history - Garmin bought theme to strip the superior technology, eliminate a competitor and shut them down. "Mooneys have CPC connectors all over the place and it's not difficult to remove a wire back to the CPC and pop the pin and wire out.". Yes but not every avionics shop that has worked on our planes over the last 20-60 years has bothered to do that. They are not always going to dig out all the old bundles, rewire and rebundle. A lot is chop in place. The old Mooney Factory wires were numbered - the new wiring added for modifications over time I find is generally just all white. Sorting it all out can be a nightmare.

This whole discussion is fricking nuts. Every one of our pre-G1000 20-60 year old Mooney's that have undergone any kind of panel upgrade is bespoke - It is unlikely any 2 Mooney's have exactly the same choice, brands, combination. location/placement of instruments/autopilot 14 vs 28 volt system, harness/wiring & placement, C/B & fusing, switching, etc. And today a Mooney owner can easily spend $80,000 + on a panel upgrade. So after all that, an owner can look forward to redrawing their own electrical schematics?? Who the hell has the time, interest, knowhow, patience to do that? Many (most?) owners can't easily even follow an electrical schematic. It is no wonder that aircraft ownership is not growing. Kids today do not grow up building Heathkits, taking electronic, drafting, shop classes in jr. high anymore. Owning an old plane is not just time intensive - it is knowhow intensive. Especially if you are spending time scrounging or making parts and fixing all the time. This just does not appeal to most of the current generation. Cirrus has got it right - the future of General Aviation is for millionaires.

@N201MKTurbo is right that you should have a few spares. And I would buy one longer and one shorter. - a -2 and a -4. These planes are hand made. The actual thickness of the composite might have varied or paint built up, etc.

I count eleven (11) M20J POH in the Downloads Section depending on your year.

FYI - if you have not been paying attention to the latest by Private Equity. In 2022, Parker Hannifin sold the entire Cleveland aircraft wheel and brake business to Kaman Aviation Corp. In April of 2024, Kaman Corp was acquired by Arcline Investment Mgnt (which completed the acquisition of Hartzell at the end of 2023.) Using the Cleveland 600 X 6 Main Wheel Model No. 40-97A Assembly (Includes brake disc, bearings, wheel rims, etc) as an example (found on most Cessna 172, 177 and 182 and therefore probably the most common in General Aviation) In the June 1, 2023 Aircraft Spruce Cat. - $1,159 In the Current Aircraft Spruce Online Cat. - $1,723 THAT IS A 49% PRICE INCREASE FOR NO APPARENT JUSTIFIABLE REASON

My J was in a partnership back in the 90’s. One of the partners, attempting to be helpful, filled the brake fluid reservoir. Unfortunately, he filled it with DOT automotive brake fluid. It turned the fluid in the system to gel and one of the brakes failed when landing. Luckily they didn’t wreck the plane but overhauling the entire brake system was expensive and the partners were upset.

Good luck with that one... Some local laws may prohibit, restrict or provide specific rules for drone flights over you house but the FAA does not restrict it. You can file a claim with the city and take "civil legal action" against the owner of the drone (if you even know) if you think they are violating a local law but you can't legally shoot it down. Can I shoot down a drone? It is illegal to shoot a drone out of the sky, even when the drone is flying over private property. There are several reasons why shooting a drone is illegal: Shooting an aircraft is a federal crime Firing a weapon may be considered criminal mischief State and local laws may include additional restrictions for firing weapons Homeowners do not “own” the airspace above their properties Claiming self-defense is not a viable option The drone operator may sue the shooter in civil court Under Title 18 US Code 32, the destruction of aircraft is a federal crime. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) classifies all types of drones as “aircraft.” Even recreational flyers are required to follow FAA regulations for flying in uncontrolled airspace. Along with being charged with a federal crime, an individual who shoots down a drone may be charged with one or more state or local crimes. For example, many jurisdictions consider firing a weapon in public a form of criminal mischief. In some areas, the individual may also be charged with endangering the public or property crimes. FAA Confirms Shooting A Drone Is A Federal Crime. So When Will U.S. Prosecute? Can I Fly a Drone Over Private Property? The Last Thing You Should Do If A Drone Is Invading Your Home's Privacy

Pretty simple. Because the aircraft's pollutants and its noise (and sometimes the aircraft) do not stay above 300 ft. Some concentration of lead emissions, a known multisystem human toxin, make their way to the area in and around the airport. Now the court has to get into the facts. This particular aircraft in the cited flight was flying Base to Final and got pretty low - well below pattern altitude of 1,000 ft.

Yeah - unfortunately as pilot/owners we always think that here is just one "target" out there trying to interfere with our lifestyle. Maybe because there is only one "target" sticking his head up that day. We forget that we are the "1/10 of 1%" out there. Let's just hope they don't start hiring someone to shoot at us. Student pilot finds bullet holes in wing, fuel tank after landing plane at Massachusetts airport – KIRO 7 News Seattle

Yes, the federal government seized ownership without providing any compensation or consideration for the historic owners of the airspace. However, the federal government didn’t get a free pass. In exchange, the federal government became responsible for regulating activities in that airspace that may have a deleterious affect upon the health safety, and the welfare for those on the ground. That same federal government has acknowledged that lead is a known hazard to human health.

I have said it before, but Bill Cutter, who founded Cutter Aviation, originally made his money by building airports in or near Albuquerque city limits and then selling them to residential developers as the city grew. He was "there first" because he knew the land was not worth much at the time, but he could make money by flipping the airport as the land value grew. Yet we as plane owners want to fight this obvious fact of urban development. And yes I used to target practice outdoors within the city limits of Albuquerque in the early '60s. We used arroyos. New homes moved closer and closer to our favorite shooting spots. Of course careless shooters ruined it for everyone with stray shots hitting peoples' homes or cars.

I think everyone has missed the bigger issue here. This is the classic problem of city sprawl and encroachment upon an airport. KAWO was built during WWII as a reliever airport for Seattle to the south and for military training. It was located about a mile southwest of the city of Arlington, WA built on unused or farm land at the time. Even by the mind 60's there was not much near the airport. There was growth in the 70's and beyond. But the urban growth around the airport has really taken off on the last few years. The largest Amazon Fulfilment Center in the State of Washington was built literally across the street from the airport. It was opened last year and employs 2,500 drawing a lot of people to the area. The 5 story apartment building where the plaintiff lives was built in the last couple years at the same time as the new Amazon center development. Even the Google satellite and "Street Level" pics are behind don't show the explosive growth. I bet every scrap of land around the airport will be built up in the next few more years for both residential and commercial. The land upon which the airport sits will become more and more valuable for commercial development and less valuable as an airport. The runway patterns, which were once over nothing but farmland, pasture and forest are increasingly over congested area. If it isn't this lawsuit it will be something else. What might happen? The City might displace the thresholds to keep the patterns closer within the airport perimeter. Of course that will reduce the usefulness of the airport. All the newcomers are also voters. I could be wrong but I bet few of the newcomers are interested in aviation as a hobby. Support and funding for the airport may decline. 1966 Mapquest Satellite - 2023

Your specific engine and appropriate crankshaft, conrod, bearing,etc part numbers are listed on the next to last line on page 6 below: https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=40464099&FileExtension=.PDF&FileName=Service Bulletin - SB00-3A-Master.PDF Cont crankshaft set - part no . 649898 https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/continentalnewcrankshaft_07-08865.php https://www.airpowerinc.com/649898?srsltid=AfmBOorlxr3hcT9PckYJD6iSw8P5lq-kp4a9Ovm5S3IR5XkNx614uWFH https://www.aviationpartsinc.com/product/tcm-crankshaft-damper-asm-649898/

I suspect if you do that then your Continental Warranty (18 months) will also immediately be void. When you add up the cost of extra shipping, Extra labor to pull and reinstall all cylinders (even on a crated engine), the cost of the new cylinders (seriously doubt that you will break even - even in this market waiting for cylinders - you offer no warranty on the cylinders that you are "reselling" even though they are new). Then you have the risk that the "new" new cylinders were installed correctly. And you said earlier you wanted a Superior camshaft - that would mean splitting the case - even more cost and issues. If you have any infant mortality issues with your overhaul both Continental and Superior will just shrug their shoulders and say it is your and the other company's problem. And then you have the extended down time of shipping to a second shop for a "Top OH" on the Rebuild from Cont. This sounds completely nuts. If the custom build specs on overhaul are most important to you (ignition, cylinder, cam, etc), then why don't you just bite the bullet and continue with Penn Yan? Yes it will cost more than a Rebuild Cont from AirPower, but you will be spending way more money (and importantly way more time) if you go this second route.

I am looking at AirPower Inc right now. They are quoting a TSIO-520-NBR (Factory Rebuild) full price without Core at $92,699.00. If you have a Core then they give up to $22,000 Credit for a net price of $70,699.00. However a Core may be reduced in value due to condition. I looked up crankshaft prices and I think your engine uses a 649898 Continental CRANKSHAFT. Those sell new for about $10,200 online. The fact that your engine is in pieces now and not running with a worn out crank may render it worthless for a Core trade in. Once Penn Yan tore it down you are more than half pregnant. If you contemplate a Factory engine with Core trade then you pretty much need a binary decision up front. Even then you may not have gotten full Core value. Core Condition Core returns must be active, assembled, complete, running, and repairable condition with genuine OEM crankcase and crankshaft. Engines that are incomplete or which are found to be inoperable may be returned to the customer, freight collect, and no credit will be issued. Cores must be returned with a valid data plate. All engine cores must include the logbook. No core can be returned that has been disassembled in any respect or that has any parts removed or replaced other than “in-service” parts replacement without prior written approval. Continental Aerospace Technologies (CAT) Specific Requirements Returned cores must be sent directly to CAT and be identified with Distributor’s Name (Air Power), Returned Good Authorization (RGA) number, engine core invoice number, and must include the logbook entry for the aircraft from which the engine is removed. In the case of an engine core returned to CAT that is determined to be missing parts, CAT may at its sole discretion accept the engine core and reduce the applicable engine core credit by the list price in effect for any missing part(s) at the time of engine core receipt. Any core returned to CAT that is worn or damaged beyond economical repair shall be subject to reduced engine core credit or rejection.

Are you comparing the price of a field overhaul with the price of a Factory New engine?

Help us understand the situation. Did your A&P pull your engine and ship it to Penn Yan? And did Penn Yan spilt the cases/tear down to find this? If so - now will they have to reassemble? And then you have to ship it somewhere else? If so I assume you will have to pay Penn Yan and more shipping. Will you actually save anything by going with another shop?

As you highlight, you have a 305 Rocket conversion from Rocket Engineering with a TSIO-520-NB. Rocket always preferred to use Factory Rebuild Continentals unless the owner demanded a New engine (same with the IO-550-A conversions in the J). Check you engine logs - I bet your current engine was a Factory Rebuild. Look for an "R" at the end the Serial number. Generally about the only used part on a Continental Factory Rebuild is the case. And many feel a used case free of cracks is more likely to be trouble free. A Factory Rebuild is a much better option financially. Back in June @PT20J said when discussing a Cont. TSIO-360 "Hardly ever makes sense to buy a new engine. What's the lead time and cost on a factory rebuilt engine?" Read this: Aircraft Maintenance: Know your engine overhaul options - AOPA They say "I spoke with the team at Continental Aerospace Technologies to understand the company’s approach to factory-rebuilt engines and was surprised to learn how few used parts actually go into a Continental factory-rebuilt engine in practice. "

The Century 41 Autopilot was a common factory installation on both J's and K's at the end of the '70's and the early '80's. I have a Century 41 on a beginning of year 1980 M20J. Our planes came off the assembly line a few months apart. Back in Nov. 2023 you commented on MS that you had a Century 41 autopilot so that matches up with your recollection. If you currently have a 52D177, then you have the vacuum operated 2 Cue Flight Director. Contrary to Century Instruments (Wichita) assertion, the 52D177 is an approved Attitude Indicator to drive your Century 41. The 52D67 is an unlighted basic Attitude Indicator. You need to talk to your avionics shop before ditching your Flight Director. It should be a perfect unit to drive the Century 41. Having a Flight Director is not the cause of your problems. I think it is due to the quality of the ones that have been sold to you. Yes the basic AI 52D267 will work but you will lose your FD cues. From the Century 41 Installation Manual.

It surprises me that they sell for the same or less than a similar aged M20J. Only 55 J’s were converted to Missile 300’s by Rocket Engineering. And some have already bitten the dust (N52840, N5670M and N3515H to name a few that have been totaled fatalities). There are 3 Missile’s for sale on Controller right now. That’s about 6% of the Missile fleet currently idle and for sale which is 4 times higher than the overall active Mooney fleet. It just proves the adage that don’t expect modifications to add value to your plane and don’t expect to get your money back. I paid Rocket Engineering $65,000 for the Missile 300 mod back in 2000. Only do a major modification if you plan to keep your plane forever. I would be dollars ahead and it would be easier to sell if I kept it as a plain M20J. However I have enjoyed the performance and the accompanying “spending 50% more on fuel”! I will fly it until I can’t and then I won’t care.

Looks like a nice plane. 473 SMOH. That is a big plus in this market. New Garmin G500 Autopilot - I bet it replaced a Century that was biting the dust. Nice interior. If you look at history, it has only 2 owners since 1999.

In 2023 DeltaHawk was "targeting" $110,000 (Excluding Installation Labor Cost) for a Cessna 172 conversion to a DHK-180. I suspect that ship sailed long ago and prices will be higher. CessnaPilotsMagazine-DeltaHawk-Nov2023.pdf "Webb promised me that we can expect STCs for the Cessna 172 and other Cessna models at some point. They are working with all of the OEM manufacturers with the goal of having DeltaHawk engines installed in new aircraft" I have seen no STC's approved for conversions of any type and no examples of any plane flying with a DHK engine. DH signaled that they wanted to work with aircraft manufacturers initially for installation in new aircraft and will begin to address GA conversions later. Co-Developing STC for PA-44 Seminole - DeltaHawk Engines Also they intend to design, manufacture and sell a complete conversion - no sales of engines alone. With limited engineering that will be a slow process and naturally will focus on the largest fleets first. The latest engine redesign obviously is slowing it down too. "But we don’t supply just an engine, DeltaHawk will provide complete Engine Propulsion Packages, which includes much more than just an engine. We are developing model-specific packages for popular Certified aircraft, complete with required Supplemental Type Certificate (STC). All packages will be engineered, manufactured, and tested to the highest standards. Flight testing by DeltaHawk’s Professional Test Pilots assures the highest level of performance and safety. These packages will include the engine and mount, plus heat exchangers, pumps, filters, cowl, and necessary hardware, all factory tested as a complete package and ready for installation plus, of course, the required certification paperwork and approvals. If we don’t have a package announced for your aircraft, make sure you vote."