Barneyw

Hey Matthew Not a problem. I sense your frustration. It shouldn't be a fight and you should feel that you are being supported by competent people. If it's any consolation we have a similar problem here. Take care Cheers Barney

Thanks Hank Appreciate your reply. While I understand the differences in regulatory jurisdictions I was coming at this form a global perspective. We Mooney owners here in Oz will live or die by the decisions that come out of the US. I was just trying to provide a perspective. Cheers Barney PS I agree with the broader statement that "Aussie regs are not FAA regs ..." But we are in the process of homogenisation of the regs so the regs are looking more similar with every passing year.

Thanks Matthew I don't think I'm late at all quite the contrary. I wasn't trying to impose Australian rules or the way our engineers think but this is aviation with a common global interest despite differences in the regs. I was making a suggestion in a broader sense but it seems to me that the bedrock and birth place of aviation appears to be, on the surface, paralysed and dysfunctional. I felt that your reply was a bit of a shutdown for whatever reason. Have a great day Barney

Hi All I posted about this last year. Basically if Mooney aren't prepare to support owners in a meaningful way they should get out of the way including the Chinese interest. I know there are complexities involved which have already been noted. I have a similar problem with repair schemes for the "undercarriage link assembly" where a small welding repair is required and Mooney will not provide the metallurgical and hardness data of there parts. The AC 43.13 is not sufficient for this. Despite this I explained this to a well experience engineer here in Australia who simple said it's not a problem. The simple solution was to get the item hardness tested prior to welding, do the welding and heat treat to the same spec. He was prepared to sign off on a scheme that would see the part returned to service. It's not rocket science. My point here is, where there's a will there's a way, and surely with the combined aircraft engineering corporate knowledge in the US you must be able to find an economical solution to the problem. As an aside I don't buy the false equivalent argument that compares cars and aircraft to make a point about expectations. They are mutually exclusive industries. Maybe it's time to become disruptive and start taking matters into your own hands. Maybe it's time, and I am not sure this is possible, to take your aircraft out of the system that is holding you back. So I have some questions How easily can a certified aircraft be reclassified as experimental? If it's easy how hard would it be for a bunch of you guys to form an association or similar that regulates Mooney's outside of the certified regulatory system? How many people know good and experienced engineers and manufacturers that you would happily deal with to provided manufactured parts? I think you can see where I going with this because there is no point banging your head against a brick wall expecting something to change. I'm not sure if this is a viable solution but there needs to be change and direction otherwise these problems will only increase and we will be talking about the same ol' same ol' in five years time. Cheers Barneyw

Hi All Does anyone know if there were any modifications or new seats with better backrest adjusters. Are there seats out there with a more progressive adjuster rather than the cam style of adjustment I have that keeps slipping off to a more reclined position. Cheers Barney

I guess that's what I want to explore if the increase speed (VLo VLe) was coincidental with the actuator change and a paperwork exercise and if there is any structural difference between the F and the J given, as you alluded to, it all appears to be the same. Not sure where the thread took a turn and starting talking brakes but if there is anyone out there who could answer the questions that would be helpful. Cheers

I'd like to extend this conversation further to earlier aircraft in particular aircraft fitted with Johnson bars. Having now done a few gear cycles I can now understand the strain on, most likely, undersized motors - something that is not necessarily limited to the Mooney. What caught my eye was the speed change occurring with what I assume was a more powerful actuator. From what I read in the service bulletin a placard change is all that is required and you are good to go no change to the undercarriage etc. So my question is, is there any structural differences between the undercarriages, and I guess the wing mounting, of the "J" and in my case the "F" I recently purchased 2 x spindle assy, one off a J and the other unsure, but they are the same part numbers and would imagine if I were to dig a little deeper the whole assy would most likely be the same PNo. I think you can see where I am going with this so I would like to know if there is any information or experience on a VLe and VLo for the "F" because at the moment all I have is one speed and that's 105KIAS in a rather light on flight manual and POH. If the answer is in the negative can they please explain why. Cheers Barney

True but I am not asking for certification just a point of reference as a guide. Having said that I'm sure that the companies providing such a service are doing so at a high standard.

Thanks Scott I get the same comment about the engine all the time. I have the original logbooks and can pinpoint the date it was changed from an A1A to the C1D6. That was back in 1977 so that particular engine has been installed for the better part of 50 years. Other than the one line "Engine change carried out" and the recorded model and serial number I cannot answer the question about how it was approved, probably lost in time. Given what I have read about the A1A I'm happy that it was changed for a different model. In any event from what I can glean from your comments I would need to compare to like model for like model, however, I would have thought that I could just compare, hopefully exercising some common sense here, an IO-360 with other IO-360s irrespective of model as they are essentially the same engines. Surely, within reason, the core of the engine would wear similarly and for the purpose of comparison and serve as good reference. One last comment - the amount of different IO-360 (and O-360s) models out there, and I know they all serve different purposes and applications, seems to me to be a confusing mess. Before I close I am now curious about the engine and the possible STC/approval. I have had limited success at discovering approved STCs from official channels, and we do not do field approvals here in Australia, can someone please direct me to a site where I might be able to discover all the approved STCs for my aircraft or will it be a bit of a wild goose chase given the time that has passed. Cheers Barney

Hi All I just completed my first SOAP sample on an IO-360 C1D6. The engine is 518 SMOH, was bulk stripped at 417 hrs due to a leaking through stud and at that point the cam shaft "oil fed lobe" mod was incorporated. The engine is well past its calendar life and is currently running on condition. The report came back clean but as you can appreciate I have nothing to compare it to and even with the next report two points does not make a trend. I did read of one provider keeping a database of all engines and can provide a fleet average so you can compare and benchmark where your engine sits with other operator's engines. AOA out of Phoenix does not have such records. Furthermore, is there a chart that shows what the normal range should be. I have the Lycoming doc but it's quite blurry and that's from the Lycoming website. I'm curious how many of you participate in the SOAP? Does anyone have such a fleet wide record and a chart showing a normal range for the various metals or contaminates. Is anyone willing to share a few of their reports. Look forward to your replies Cheers Barney

Thanks

I think there is a good article at Pelican's Perch on this noting that the one hour mark is the critical point. Generally speaking the engine should fire up easily within a hour after shutdown. After an hour it's time to use the fuel pump to purge the fuel lines. But like everything hot engines, it's not always that simple. Lately I have been have good success with cranking the engine and if it fires all good and well but if it fires and then dies I will crank the engine and give it a momentary blip of fuel on the pump while cranking and that has worked every time. Takes a little coordination but quite doable. Cheers

Hi All Just wondering if someone can shed some light on the Link Assembly part numbers and the possibility of an interchange between models. The part number for the "F" is 520010 - 1. There is a Link Assembly for sale from a "K" and its part number 520010 - 001 Are these parts the same or does the 001 mean it is different, albeit slightly, or was this just a newly allocated part number? Thanks in advance Cheers Barney

I have a maintenance background albeit a military one but even then it was all about more speed and less haste, measure twice cut once and get the job done right the first time. This smacks of carelessness, pressure from above and lack of training. I presume in their haste to get the job finished and clear hangar space that all the snags you found were fixed on their dime not yours - something to do with false economies etc. Having said that I think their is a general malaise in the system on a global scale more kids interested in becoming influencers or Tour of Duty champions rather than getting a real job. I would imagine, just like here in Oz, the average age of an experienced mechanic is increasing at an alarming rate. Cheers

I didn't think air rage - GA style - was such a thing. Yes the Mooney may have made a bit of an error but the controller was totally unprofessional, the guy behind probably benefited from doing a rare go around but was obviously not concentrating on flying the aircraft making an angry comment and the clown who chimed in with the "they give licences to anyone" remark was totally unnecessary If this is the reaction from all involved when something minor like this happens it begs the question what will the reaction be like when something serious happens. ATC are there to serve and manage the airspace, I don't think "get off the runway" is standard phraseology. All in all the pathways for something more sinister to happen were being nudge closer and closer by the reaction of the pilots and controller ganging up on one person who should have known the rules but hey hands up those of you who have gone through your aviation life without a mistake or error - if you have your hand up then I would say you are being somewhat economic with the truth. Cheers Barneyw

Just thinking out aloud but has Mooney ever tried diversifying their operation into something else other than aviation. I can think of a few examples where the engineering skills were put to other uses other than aviation to keep the company afloat. As I said earlier it takes a requisite imagination and maybe a good old fashion SWOT analysis to be in and, moreover, stay in business. Cheers

Ok i'll try that personally but I was told that it wasn't available. I will give it a go. Thanks Cheers

No. It looks like that there may have been a bearing failure and the brake disc grounded away part of the vertical section of the spindle assy. From what the mechanic told me the tube wall thickness is 0.200 and the damage is close to 50% of the wall thickness. The damage would be akin to someone taking an angle grinder to a piece of tube and touch it and put a sizeable nick in it maybe around 1/2 - 3/4" wide and less than an inch long. My sense, and with limited welding experience, I feel that it can be as simple as building up the thickness again and then heat treating the spindle. Anyhow I'm hoping there is a repair scheme out there. Cheers

Schllc I have never suggested that Mooney should go out of business, quite the contrary I want Mooney and the owners to succeed. I just don't believe, right now, that the right people are in the job. LANCECASPER while I appreciate what you are saying I don't think it is reasonable to conflate the two industries one being highly regulated and specialised and one not so much made for the masses. I hear you about vintage aircraft but from what I can gather those vintage aircraft use a lot of common parts and in any event let's say for the sake of the argument all the pre "Js" were removed from the market - what then!? So I don't really buy that argument. Cubs are widely supported so much so everyone is copying them. I don't know how Beech, Piper and Cessna promote themselves but I would suggest they are in the business of still selling new aircraft whereas Mooney promote themselves as being the great supporters of the group. The point you made about LASAR is valid and I don't know all the ins and outs of anyone's financial position but that doesn't necessarily disqualify them. Just for the record The order for the bellcrank went in 8 weeks ago and I was told there was a 6 week lead time. Last I heard it wasn't arriving any time soon. In the end we resolved the issue and i am becoming quite acquainted with the salvage markets ...not ideal or desirable but workable nontheless. Anyhow I can sense that this argument will start gaining some circular motion. I think the owners deserve better. Cheers Barneyw

Thanks for the comprehensive explanation. It sounds dire and will be messy because no matter what happens everyone will want their pound of flesh. I don't like using buzz word terms like white knight rescue etc but I do feel from what I have read and heard thus far is not just a takeover that we need but an enthusiastic takeover by a proper aviation company who knows their stuff. I'm not sure whether it's reasonable for anyone in this outfit to expect to be made whole after all you reap what you sew. In other words Meijing must take some responsibility for what has happened and take the hit. I see this happen a lot here in Australia where foreign companies takeover struggling companies and it becomes a smashing together of ideas and cultures and ends in tears. Obviously Meijing didn't bring anything to the table other than cash but what would you expect from a company that has as its core:- real estate development, sales leasing, property management and commercial operations. I didn't see the word aviation mentioned once in that lot but it must have seemed like a good idea at the time. C'est la vie or should that be C'est la guerre. Cheers

Yes always possible just finding ones in good condition. The one thing that is killing freighting stuff from the US is the freight charge itself which be $4-500 just for a small box. People in the US are loathed to use USPS for international shipments for whatever reason. Cheers

Hi All I have some damage on both my main landing gear spindle assemblies (that's how they are identified in the PC) essentially the bit with the axle. The damage, most likely, has been there for some time and requires material build up rather than fixing a crack or break. My understanding is that these components are heat treated and our aircraft welders (all three of them) here in Oz are reluctant to do anything unless there is a recognised repair scheme or you pay many thousands of dollars for an engineering order. I am aware of the AC 43 which covers generic maintenance practices and repairs suitable for GA, however, I would appreciate if someone could provide some guidance on the following: 1. Is the AC 43 adequate? 2. Is there a specific Mooney repair scheme available? 3. Does someone have a "go to welder" with an approved repair method or scheme? 4. Has anyone done a repair to the MLG? If the information is readily available could someone please point to where I could acquire it. If someone has paid for a repair scheme ie research, testing and approval, I would be happy to throw some $$$ their way to gain access. My other option is obviously to get new parts from what has been recently discussed a near impossibility. Used items would be hit or miss with the term "in good condition" treated with some skepticism. Look forward to hear what people have to say. Cheers Barneyw

You say Meijing Group own 20% of Mooney. Presumably their $100+ million was secured by this 20% which begs the question 20% of what - the company, all of the IP, the type certificate, whatever - how was this 20% valued? So who owns the other 80%. I guess it all depends on how the terms were set up, that is to say what did their 20% comprise of. If it was all of the IP and the other 80%, which at some point was valued at over $400 million, then if Mooney won't support the owner group in a meaningful way then that part of the business, the 80%, is worth nothing and the IP and type certificate remains the valuable part of the organisation. What I don't quite understand is that if it was a loan then that would be a in the form of a security over something in the company and that might have been the total valuation based on a LVR or a specific part of the company. If they bought a share in the company in this case as you say 20% then that's not a controlling share and like any share can go up indefinitely or go to zero quick smart . From what you are saying you are speculating somewhat on the terms of the capital injection albeit a loan or a share. I get the feeling that the nice clean cut way to handle this is the sell the type certificate along with all the IP and facilities ie the whole lot to someone like a Univair, LASAR or any other suitor who has the requisite imagination to move things forward. I just don't think it continues on its present trajectory. Having said all that I know these things are not simple. Cheers Barneyw

Well the reaction seems to be varied. From my point of view I need parts when I need parts and it's not as if we have choice as Mooney require you to source parts from them and moreover, from authorised service centres. I would also add that it's not 7,000 aircraft it's about 11,000 worldwide (happy to be corrected on this) While I think it's a great thing that in the US you have the FOPP process no such luck where I live and most likely in other jurisdictions. My other concern is that you will just invite people to start doing their own thing which is not ideal. From a business point of view you are not going to make money if you don't have anything to sell. Mooney has the history, the engineering, the know how, and know your Mooney better than anyone - how do I know - it says so on their website. I was told today that the listings of Mooneys is increasing and when I started looking for aircraft to buy I seem to remember only seeing maybe two or so pages of aircraft. Now there are 5 pages of aircraft for sale as of today. I'm not sure whether that's an economic phenomenon or something more sinister? From my point of view I think there is a real issue that requires objective discussion centred around realistic outcomes for Mooney owners. Anyhow I'm hoping for some interesting comments Cheers

Hi All I would like to get a sense on what is going on with Mooney with respect to spares. 8 weeks ago I tried to order a rudder bell crank, a nose wheel trailing link bushing, flap actuator seals and a few other bits and bobs. I received exactly zero items although I did get a lot of excuses, we are finding it hard to get items manufactured, Covid, we will wait until we have enough orders, etc etc. This is frustrating to say the least and while that might be all true it seems like Mooney, the company, are either losing interest or do not have the right people in key positions. Now I might be wrong but after a grim phone call with Mooney some time ago I am convinced that all is not well at the joint. Furthermore, I'm still waiting for an email from one of the engineers ...so much for the sense of Mooney community as spun on the Mooney web site. Given you guys are living it with Mooney I would like to know what the general feeling is and I am happy to be corrected because I would like to be wrong about the way I feel at this very moment. Having said that I cannot leave this post without asking is it time for Mooney to sell its type certificates to someone like a LASAR or similar? Over to you. Cheers Barneyw PS I am aware of the salvage industry and have done ok so far getting some items but it's a slog to find the right part in an acceptable condition.