KSMooniac

Flame tubes fail and block the exit area. Should be a frequent inspection, and on preflight you might want to tap the exhaust tube with a stick or similar and listen for rattles.

You might just add a little cubby hole for pen, batteries, whatever. You certainly don't need any extra instrumentation there. Are you 100% sure the compass will work in that location? There is a lot of steel in that area and I would not imagine a compass will calibrate very well. (I'm going through trying to calibrate my 20 year old vertical card compass in your current location but gave up and ordered a SIRS replacement.) I also question the density of your layout and whether or not you have enough structural integrity for the panel. I have a similar dream with Dynon and Avidyne but plan to retain my EDM-900 and only use a single PFD. I'll be looking forward to see how yours works!

That has been my observation with a 530W/430W and STEC-30 setup. I don't even try to get it to fly a VOR or Localizer any more and use GPSS 99% of the time unless I'm getting vectors and then use HDG mode. I always request GPS approaches if I need to do one for real, and if I need to do an ILS I'll typically set one GNS to the ILS and leave the other on GPS. The STEC will follow the GPS very well but I'll keep my needles centered on the Localizer/Glideslope CDI with the other GNS box.

It is so useless on a J that Mooney eventually removed it from later production models and issued a Service Bulletin or Service Instruction to show how to remove it from existing airplanes. I did that before getting my plane repainted since the hole in the cowl needs to be filled/patched. The best part is getting rid of that very expensive (and maybe currently unobtainable) seal behind the cowl that is subject to lots of movement due to engine vibration and cowl movement. It can be torn and/or worn and allow unfiltered air into the intake all the time instead of just when the ram air valve is opened.

I've written here in the past quite a bit about my MT experience so please try search up some of my posts. You might need google with site: mooneyspace.com though. Short answer... I've had NO chipping from rocks/debris. The stainless leading edge on mine has never been damaged or replaced. /knocking on wood. I had early paint failures but they were fixed under warranty albeit with hassle on my part. MT blades can be infinite life, absent prop strike damage.

The only prop option for a J that is a smaller diameter is the MT 3 blade composite. I've had one since 2010 and like it for many reasons, especially versus the OEM McCaulley C212 that came on my '77. I think the later C214 is a better performer and likely would not have upgraded from it, at least back then. All of the 3 blade metal STC options are the same diameter as the C212 or C214, so you only gain weight and vibration and not ground clearance. Moving the CG aft in a J with a lighter prop is a good thing, too. Moving forward with a 3 blade metal prop is not a good thing.

Why would you want a metal 3 blade prop on a J? They're heavier, slower, vibrate more, cost more, and have no extra ground clearance. Sent from my motorola edge plus 2023 using Tapatalk

I have a little bit... I won my first blind sealed bid for a salvage J that was not repairable from a landing accident. I traveled to the storage location to evaluate it myself, and discovered the crank was severely bent on an otherwise seemingly nice 220 SMOH engine, so that devalued the salvage a good bit. I discovered some extras that were not listed in the ad copy like removable rear bucket seats and the turbo normalizer kit, that had extra value for me. I made a spreadsheet of what I didn't need and thought I could sell, and assigned value to the components/upgrades I wanted to keep to improve my plane, or stock my spares stash. I tallied all that up and bid appropriately and won! I paid to have it delivered to me, and after a few years of disassembly and selling things on the side, I actually made all my money back and a bit more, plus had upgrades and spares for my J. (My labor was $0/hour though!) I don't believe sales prices are ever disclosed... insurance companies obviously want to keep that secret as well as the salvage businesses that compete against each otehr. Over the next couple of years, I bid on 2-3 more and even traveled to look at one, but did not get them. I bid lower since they would have been nice to have but not as great of deal as my first one, but others got them of course. You're generally bidding against salvage operators that need to make money on them, so if you're doing one for your own use you can likely outbid them. I think most of the salvage folks will value what is easily sellable within some short period of time and bid based on that, and everything else is gravy but those parts must be inventoried, listed, and stored and that has expense. Some like Wentworth have taken to stripping an otherwise fixable airframe of avionics and maybe even an engine, and then listing the empty airframe on ebay... I hate that practice. If you're wanting a fixer-upper to fly again, you'll have to consider getting it transported to you in such a way that it doesn't cause additional damage, or fixing enough on-site to get a ferry permit. Both of those options are more effort/expense vs. bring a hulk of an airframe somewhere that won't fly again. If you're trying to turn a salvage fixer-upper into a flipper for profit, I suspect in most cases you'll need to get it for nearly free to make that pencil-out. If you want to do it as a way to use sweat-equity to get into your own plane and enjoy it for years, then it might be worthwhile if you have the skills and the time.

ElectroAir has STC approval for two electronic ignitions, but I'm not sure if Surefly does. Part of the EA STC requirement is a backup power source of some flavor, and I'm sure the Bravo dual electric system would satisfy that. I recently installed a dual EA system on my J, and had to add a backup battery for one ignition (per their STC). Sent from my motorola edge plus 2023 using Tapatalk

Sorry, didn't see a poll viewing thru Tapatalk. Voted now

I'll start with 1 AMU for a 40:1 set. Sent from my motorola edge plus 2023 using Tapatalk

I agree, and I'm sure I would find the motivation if my fantastic J were grounded for lack of these gears. The difference between our machines and your belt sander gears is the end use... If you get asked what they're for, you better have a plausible answer/application that is something far different than "airplane" or you're likely to get ushered out the door. My first job in the industry was an internship at Cirrus Design, back before there were SR-20s (or -22s). My work neighbor had to source flap actuators for a POC aircraft and routinely got hung-up on when making inquiries to various industrial supply companies/manufacturers. Even when trying to purchase off-the-shelf. He later tried to buy some "toilet seat actuators" but I don't think that ultimately helped.

It's even more insidious... Vector is not "at" any of these airports. They're a third party extortion scheme.

There is a meme of a defeated looking guy sitting in his driveway next to a car on jacks, partially disassembled, with the caption something along the lines of "that look when you're 8 hours into a 30 minute job"

If Mooney is making parts for others now, their customer would likely be the primary liability target. I presume Mooney's certified QA/QC system (part of their Production Certificate) shows compliance with all engineering and manufacturing requirements levied by their customer, so presumably the liability would lie with their customer. (I'm assuming they're making parts for aircraft here.) Mooney would only be liable if they delivered defective parts, lied on paperwork/inspections/etc. versus a "faulty design" that is usually alleged by ambulance chasers.

I reached out to him directly last week and offered to drop in so that he could inspect my fuel tanks with a borescope since he put out that request recently. I think this offer is an expanded idea. If you've never been to GAMI, it is worth the effort! Especially to see their engine test cell. We're going to talk again after the holidays and see if there is a convenient window for at least me to visit... I'm only ~75 minutes away.

I think the biggest problem with Mooney or Dukes/Aero Fluid Products or an MSC that might sell any replacement gears is that it will reset the liability clock for the vendor, and the math will NOT work out at nearly any sane or insane sales price to us for a set of gears. Right now, most of our Mooney fleet is >>18 years old and thus off the books in terms of liability exposure, but the moment any new part gets installed, then the liability shifts to that vendor. It really sucks, but that is likely the reality with our litigious society. I wonder if Mooney even has drawings or other engineering data for the gears in the first place. I expect they bought actuators to a specification that they fit in a physical volume, travel XX inches, consume XX amount of power, etc. and it was up to the actuator manufacturers to design a product to meet those requirements. I think it would be very unusual for an airframe manufacturer to be doing detailed design of gears like that. Similarly, accessory gears in a Lycoming are designed by Lycoming, and we would not expect Mooney to provide a replacement cam gear, would we? Having said all that, Mooney could be proactive to design/fab/sell a replacement set of gears like they did in the past (likely just bought from the actuator vendors) but obviously they have no interest in doing that and putting a lot more planes on their liability exposure when they have no money to buy insurance or defend a future lawsuit that might arise from selling <$100k worth of gears. I know Maxwell was noodling around with a hydraulic actuator in the last year or so... that is an intriguing idea but then we would have to add a hydraulic system to the plane too. If MAPA or similar were still a functioning entity, then perhaps they could sponsor a design/STC contest like the American Bonanza Society has for replacement ruddervators.

Mogas was shown not to work in Mooneys long ago, I believe, when all of those STC's were worked. Sent from my motorola edge plus 2023 using Tapatalk

I disagree, Igor. We're currently designing 0.005" gaps for fay sealant on the civilian and defense programs I've worked in the last many years (bigger vehicles than our Mooneys!). None of these are sheet metal, though, which would be more forgiving but less precise. I doubt 0.01" of thickness variation would matter much on a wing profile at our scale, though. I do wish Mooney had applied fay sealant and wet-installed the rivets, plus fillet sealing and brush coating sealant over all of that.

regarding cup/bottle holders... My current solution to hold my 30 oz Yeti tumbler is the Brightline neoprene bottle sleeve/holder. It attaches to their flight bag, and works great for me, presuming I put the bag somewhere I can reach in the back, and is blocked from falling over. I too have been dreaming of a nifty 3d printed solution but haven't worked on it yet... There aren't a lot of easy areas in a Mooney, unfortunately.

Underneath a Piper on the ramp!

A question for the owners of the Mooneys with suddenly failing tanks and paint... do you know if/when the tanks were last re-sealed, or are they original? Any known repairs in the logs, or visible with some inspection? I don't have a dog in the fight (yet) but anticipate we will all be switching fuels before we're done flying, unless you plan to hang it up in the next year or two. We (Mooney universe) need to figure out what is happening before there is a massive fleet-wide issue. To those concerned that all of the data and cheerleading for G100UL is coming from GAMI, that is half-true. Don't forget that G100UL got CERTIFIED by the FAA, so they were/are a party to all of the testing that was required throughout the process. That data is not public, however, but let's not pretend that GAMI is simply pushing it out into the world with no independent verification. It was a very long and arduous process, and far more extensive than what 100LL went through before it came on the market. That universe of testing included tanks, bladders, wet wings, metals, composites, etc. to show that it would not harm the airframes, or more importantly perhaps, dislodge particles that could foul the fuel system and lead to a loss of power. I believe GAMI (and the FAA) looked at as many common sealants and bladder materials, both new and old, to prove no harm. Perhaps George will shed more light eventually with the details. He has been extremely forthcoming and transparent at OSH and on Beechtalk over the years so I don't believe anything is being purposely hidden. The 12? year process with FAA should have covered all of the bases. However, what cannot be 100% covered is every combination of repairs that deviate from manuals and material specs, and that is what I would like to uncover with these early failures.... We all know that Mooney wings eventually leak, and any number of A&Ps (or owners) over the years have tried to patch or repair and might have done so with who-knows-what materials. I've seen enough pics and heard stories from Maxwell and others when they end up having to fix someone else's handiwork. There is a non-zero chance that some incompatible repair material has been applied over failing OEM sealant, and G100UL might attack it to the point it accelerates a failure and maybe even turns into a witches-brew of chemicals that also attack paint on the way to the ground. Let's dig deeper and get the data on these cases before we call this a complete failure. (It is possible we're uncovering a real issue.... I know the FAA certified Mobil 1 oil a few decades ago and that destroyed a lot of engines. But I doubt this issue will be even remotely close to that one. Hopefully)

I made a new panel and put the ELT switch and a USB charger in there.

I support this idea... move the modern one over the cabin aft, and replace the whip with a bent whip on the belly. Moving the drag-producing elements further aft helps with efficiency. I think I get better performance at altitude from my bent whip on the belly, too. Nice work on the "mask"! When that factory scheme debuted several years back I wasn't a huge fan, but in your case I think you really improved what you had with just a little sweat equity.

Maybe in acquisition costs, but certainly not operating costs. My sense from a couple decades of forum consumption now is that a solid annual inspection on those birds can hit 5 figures fairly regularly. But if the mission calls for something like that, it is what it is. Cardinal RG's are beautiful IMO. And I have no doubt the Tornado Alley TN system really makes one into a great plane. But I agree just about any M20K will likely be faster at the same altitude and fuel burn. It might be close as I expect the TN- Lycoming IO-360 with high compression pistons is more efficient in terms of BSFC, but the Mooney airframe is more efficient aerodynamically. At the end of the day, if you really want a Cardinal then go buy one! Just demo an M20K before you do.