jwilkins

I've had both, and liked both. My C with the Johnson bar had a very specific airspeed window where it was happy to let the gear up and down. There never was much force required if I had the airspeed right. It was bullet proof, didn't depend on electrics, gears, or no-back springs. The next two planes had electric. I haven't had any problems or any expenses related to the electric gear. I REALLY like having the floor clear. I think it's a toss-up. If I ever had a chance of getting my wife to take lessons I'd lean towards the electric. For me, I like the engineering of the manual gear and prefer the manual just because I think it is elegent engineeering and excellent implementation. My Johnson bar plane was a '62 C. I have been told, but have no personal experience, that the later planes may have actually required some physical effrot to extend and retract the Johnson bar. On the '62 with the right airspeed it was essentially effortless. Every time I used the Johnson bar I appreciated the engineering skills and thought process of Al Mooney. When I use the electric switch on the other planes the gear goes up or down. Jim

Quote: Vref mmmhmm ....it looks like I will check the load first (with a temp-fuse) on the light dim-circuit before inserting a Bussman fuse..

Let's shift this discussion just a little: The steel tubing can rust (which is a form of corrosion). The aluminum can corrode. Both are accelerated by introducing moisture and electrolytes (salt or pollutants) In theory Galvanic Corrosion could occur where steel and aluminum are in direct contact with an electrolyte. Electrolysis effects (long distance voltage potential from displaced areas of contact) are probably not a significant risk. Steel was most likely choosen as the best material available that met the engineering and product requirements for tensile strength, weight, cost, and ability to manufacture and repair. All of this dscussion is really important if it gets owners to think about corrosion inspections and periodic treatment. Bruce Jaeger (former owner of Wilmar) has photos of Mooneys that are scrap due to unchecked corrosion. It's REALLY important that we pay attention to this potential for corrosion; SB208 and periodic corrosion treatments. Jim

Quote: Vref Ok, thanks for the input it looks Bussman is the only manufacturer of this type of fuse? I am looking for a European OEM supplier but I guess I will have to order from the US rgds Luc

Larry on the Red Board gave me a link to this distributor: http://www.masterdistributors.com/products/gmw-5 They have Bussmann fuses in stock at less than $5. I did not check shipping / handling charges but they have parts in stock and say you can give them your UPS number for shipping. There are other manufacturers of this spec fuse, but the Bussmann seems like the best direct-replacement. It is the same manufacturer as originally installed, same performance specifications, but in the commercial spec not Mil Std spec. At $5 each for the Bussmann commercial GMW-5 I am not even going to bother with evaluating the other manufacturers samples I ordered. I'll give them to our engineer to add to his stockpile of bits and pieces. Jim

Quote: astelmaszek "For all I care, MAC needs to go fully Tango Uniform, release their drawings and part numbers into public domain (or you can just look them up on brazilian FAA as they release all type certificate data) and let other parties, actually interested in making money get in the business."

Quote: DaV8or So, these were good repairs. If no one can tell the difference, the aircraft painters did their job well.

I'm not sure where the idea that steel was choosen for 'cost reasons' came from. The early Mooneys were engineered for strength and safety within the constraints of being able to manufacturer them. The very early tube fuselages had the tubes filled with oil to prevent rusting. I used to assist at a shop and got to see a lot of aircraft in for annulas and repairs. I have seen in person and photographs of rust on tubes and none of these few examples were obviously galvanic. If you had an aluminum and steel assembly submerged in an electrolytic solution (like salt water) the galvanic action would appear at the mating surfaces. The rust I've seen was in areas that got wet from leaking windows and stayed wet or moist. I saw a spar that was corroded from passengers spilling coke, but the corrosion was not near the fuselage tubes. Some aircraft that spent time near the coast showed corrosion but not necessarily between steel and aluminum; just where the spar was exposed to moist salty air. Mice peeeing in tail cones leaves very obvious surface corrosion. As was pointed out, when these planes were new, there was no '50 year' corrosion or rust data. Steel tubes were choosen because they were strong, resilient, and the welds a can be as strong as the base structure. Aluminum tubes fracture easier thna steel and wodul not absorb as much impact as the steel. Bonanzas have had Magnesium skins fall off because they deteriorated where the factory layout guys used a pencil to layout the skin. The graphite reacted with the magnesium and, in a couple cases. ate through the skin to the paint. There was absolutely no data available to predict this, and teh fact that a corrosion issue later developed certinaly does no tmean the design decision touse Mg skins was made for 'cost reasons'. I think in 50 years we will very possibly see major issues with the composite aircraft being manufacturered now. Engineers do the best job they can with the materials and information available at the time. Designs also must be manufacturable and meet cost production targets. If you read more of the history about Mooney, Piper, Beech, and Cessnas early days you'll have a better feeling for how the engineering decisions were made. Most of the time it was NOT 'cost reasons'. I believe the contemporary development of composite aircraft may have been driven by cost and produciton constraints more than the original M/P/B/C aircraft but that is just an impression based on articles about how efficient these aircraft are to make compared to our conventional ones. As a manufacturing person and an engineer I take exception to the statement that steel fuselage tubes were a 'cost' decision. I think it was an engineering decison which,like the Bonanza magnesium skins, had some long term effects whcih were not predicted at the time. Even if the rusting over 50 years had been predicted I'm not sure what would have been done differently. Has everyone here had their plane corrosion treated? Do all the TKS planes have the tanks removed every year to check for corrosion? As owners we don't always do everything we coudl tomitigate oem of these issues, either. Steel fuselage tubes are a good choice. I'd much rather fly inside a steel fuselage structure than a plastic composite. Exotic material such as Ti and Al alloys may or may not have other unintended consequences. I'll leave that up to the engineers. Jim

Quote: N9453VIs there any drawback (other than possibly paying more later) for accepting an insurance settlement, but not getting the work done right away? 1. You might check with Falcon to make sure accepting a claim without getting the work done is an option. The value of the aircraft is being reduced by some amount; they may want to make a hull value adjustment if you take the money without getting the work done, or they just may not want to do it. You are reducing the value of the aircraft and (probbaly) still asking them to carry the same hull value insurance. 2. If Don Maxwell has someone who re-skins control surfaces for him, you can be assured that they will be done correctly. Asking for a flight acceptance is a good idea, but Maxwell would not be using someone to reskin controls if there was any question. 3. The old Mooney Modworks used to advertise paintless dent repairs for hail damage. Don't know how well it worked, but they were very proud of it. So apparently they wanted people to belive that it was possible. These guys http://www.dentmagix.com also claim to work on aircraft. Jim

Update: I have not received all the samples yet but if you need fuses NOW and can't wait, here is an alternate: The 504-GWM-5 125V 5A I got from Mauser Electronics are a commercial equivalent to the Mil Std part number. They look like and fit as well as the mil Std and the product specifications are the same except for not being Mil Std specification. Mauser p/n 504-GWM-5 Cooper Bussmann BK / GWM-5 About $10 each instead of $20 and they had some in stock. I am still hoping that one of the lower cost alternates can be used, but these are a drop-in replacement at half price. I'll report back when I get the rest of the alternatives. Jim

Quote: rangermb Has anyone tried one of these. It temporarily replaces the dipstick to put heat into the engine? I use an external heater now, but don't really want to glue a pad heater to the case.

I used to fly into Middlebury in my '62 C to visit VEMAS (a contract manufacturer) years ago. It's a great area. The Wayberry Inn in Middlebury is where they filmed the outside scenes for the (Bob) Newhart show. Nice town; great area. The trees on approach look higher than I remembered. Maybe the trees grew, or I was braver then. Jim

I'll post a message when we get and check the samples but it appears that the best bet because of pin diameter will be the commercial version of the FM01. Still stupidly expensive for a fuse, but about half the cost of the Mil Spec version with the same electrical and physical specs. Once we pick a part number I'll check on quantity breaks to see if it's worth a combined purchase.

These are a .028 in diameter by 0.25 in height cylinder with two legs or pins coming off the bottom. The Mil Standard spec is MIL-F-23419/01 .270" X .25" Pin Type Fuse. They are installed in a socket and the cover screws down over the fuse to protect, retain , and in some cases splash proof it. I'll publish some close up photos as soon as I get my samples. They are a bit fragile so I don't want to pull one out of the panel just to take a photo. I think I can get a direct replacement commercial spec but it's still expensive. There are also pin type cartridge fuses available from Little fuse at a very reasonable price, but the diameter is slightly smaller (not an issue) the length is .040 inch longer (may be an issue) and the leads (pins) do not have the right spacing so we would need to run them through the dog-leg component prep machine to space them out. I could not find a drawing that shows the lead diameter on the Mil Spec FM01 so this may not work anyway. The pin or leg diameters must match to get good connections in the socket. One of the things I ordered wa a pack of ten Bussman FM01 1.5 amp fuses to have samples of the correct physical dimension Bussman fuse (although only 1.5 amp rating). Here's the photos of these: If anyone has a need for 1.5 AMP fuses (for example if you are ONLY running the clock on that circuit) let me know. I'll have lots of spares in the 1.5 A rating. Jim

1. Will one of the insurance professionals here chime in with the way Aviation Insurance companies and brokers work? it's not the same as non-aviation insurance. I've been through the discussions many times when I was involved with buying aviation insurance for a flying club back in NY. I don't want to try to explain this from memory, and things might have changed over the years. There is, or was, a system of establishing agency so that multiple brokers would not shop the same companies on behalf of one customer. There are not many companies that work direct with individuals and I never saw a cost savings from them anyway. They have to pay the broker or pay employess. Either way there is a cost. I personally would trust a broker to help me with a claim more than an employee, but I guess that depends on the individuals involved. Never have had an aviation claim, so no personal experience here. 2. I've quoted AOPA many times and they never had the lowest quote for me. Once they were wildly not competitive, sometimes about the same. I've been working with Cliff at Falcon for a couple years now and find the prices competitive, and the advice on different aspects of coverage to be very useful. When I have questions about coverage options and exactly what the implications are of various additional insured clauses for hanger keepers and instructors I always get quick clear answers. When I switched planes to the K Cliff told me that the insurance company that insured my F really did not like turbo planes. I accepted a quote he put together for me with an alternate company and told him we'd go ahead with it. The next day he had another proposal at a lower cost. 3. I've heard the same story about insurance rates being about bottomed out now. We'll see what happens.

I just ordered over $130 worth of sample fuses from different suppliers and manufacturers to determine a good substitution for these Mil Std grade fuses. There are several possibiities, all of which are under $10 and some much less. Yes, I know I could have just ordered the fuses I need for much less (Even at $20 each which is the current price) but $20 for a fuse seems silly. I'll post an answer in a couple weeks when I've gone through the samples. Meanwhile, if you were going to buy spares you might hold off. Jim

I have a 1980 231 and I love the airplane. It also has the wastegate, intercooler, and GAMIs. Since you are about halfway between Lasar and Maxwell why not call both of them and talk about the plane and the pre-buy? I believe you are really fortunate to be within traveling distance of these two shops; both Paul and Don are two of the most experienced Mooney experts in the country. The original -GB engine has probably been upgraded to the -LB by now, but worth checking. I had some missing POH supplements which I replaced. The intercooler supplement is probably the most important as you DO NOT want to operate your engine with the intercooler according to the factory (non-intercooled) manual settings. A full engine OH can be, I have been told, a $40K project. You'll want to spend some time on the engine history and condition. Check for recent compliance with the service bulletin for tube corrosion. My plane still had the old style insulation which Jimmy Garrison (All American) had replaced before I even looked at the plane. The 500 hour magneto inspection is not an AD but apparently most of the good shops pretty much insist on doing it just to be safe. If you get serious go to the FAA website and buy the CD with the aircraft records. You will have the entire registration history as well as copies of all 337's actually filed with the FAA. Either Lasar or Maxwell will know exactly what to check, but these things you can look up in the logbooks yourself, too. Have you joined MAPA? www.mooneypilots.com There are some good articles on line (some 231 info may be a tad out of date, but still good to review) and you will want to go to one of the MAPA Safety Foundation seminars after you buy the plane. I'd be happy to reply in forum or by PM if you have any questiosn for another 1980 K owner. Mooneyland has a lot of info on the website and Zef apparently has a lot of experience with Mooneys. I understand he could manage a prebuy for you. However, since you have already found the plane to look at, I'd probably go to Maxwell for the prebuy. If you can't use Lasar or Maxwell for your pre buy you might consider having someone manage the process for you. I've been accused of being too pro-MSC but for a pre-buy in Texas I can't see any reason to go anywhere other than Maxwell. Jim

David, 1. Last year a former MSC owner told me that in today's environment it is more important to know "the guy" working on your plane than to automatically use a MSC. Sometimes "the guy" really is or is employed by a MSC, but there are some very competent Mooney mechanics at non-MSC shops. Repeat so there is no misunderstanding what I am saying: I believe there are very good Mooney competent mechanics at non-MSC shops and also at MSC shops. I find that the best way to deal with this is to try out a shop (MSC or not) on a series of smaller jobs, keep reading sites like Mooney Space to get educated, ask lots of questions, and pay close attention to what you see and hear at the shop. A few years ago I bought a plane that had been maintained almost exclusively at a MSC. My Mooney savvy independent mechanic found several things they had decided to overlook, including a drill bit broken off inside a broken main gear grease fitting. No one can tell me the mechanic did not know he did that. On the other hand I have heard many stories about Don Maxwell trouble shooting issues that other shops (MSC and not) could not figure out. It's "the guy" that matters; not the MSC certification. Take automobiles: I try to do most of the work myself. For things I can't or don't want to tackle I go to an independent local mechanic. I go to the dealer for warrantee work and when the local shop tells me that they don't have the tools (like making spare keys for my blasted VW that requires a VW specific programmer not available at locksmiths!). Most of the dealers I have used are staffed with young mechanics. Most have training but little experience. However the dealer has tools and equipment the local shops probably don't. I think it is the same with the AP/ IA independent shops. For our older airplanes we sometimes need the experience that "the guy" has built up working on thousands of Mooneys over decades of service. SOMETIMES the only place to find these guys is at a MSC. My local shop will tell me if they haven't dealt with a particular issue before. I'll research it on this site and talk to people I know. If we have a possible solution I'll discuss it with the shop before they do anything. Last year when my previous F had a nose wheel shimmy Bruce Jaeger at a MAPA SF class said to check the shimmy dampener. The local shop had never before needed to shim one, but, with the information from Bruce, checked, agreed, shimmed, and fixed the issue very quickly at a reasonable cost. I did not need a MSC. I needed the expertise we can share together in person and on Mooney Space. I sure would hate to have to go to a 'new' shop for any major work without a previous relationship unless it was Maxwell or a shop that had an unqualified recommendation from one of our Mooney experts. I also like to go to the shop regularly throughout the year rather than to build up a long squawk list for the annual. Unless some of the work can be combined to be more efficient I like to get things done as they come up. It spreads the cost out some, and allows me to get to know the fellows at the shop better and for them to get used to the airplane. If they have had an opportunity to do routine maintenance they will be a little more comfortable with both me and the plane compared to seeing it once a year. Plus if I need a favor in getting something done right away they might be more accommodating if they know me. 2. My comments about tools were in response to buying tools with unknown traceability from an unknown source on EBay. If those were YOUR tools on EBay and I knew you built them in a qualified shop using factory drawings and not reverse engineered in a garage, even I would be comfortable buying them. I might still ask for your statement that they were built in accordance to the Mooney drawings and checked for conformance, but I would be comfortable buying them as you can demonstrate competence and traceability. As you said, all this comes down to risk management. I think we need to let people new to Mooneys and new aircraft owners know that there are good reasons to support qualified shops that follow the expensive procedures which make our parts and tools so bloody expensive. It's still their decision but we need to talk about, for example, why your shop expenses and costs are higher than the local shop doing automotive maintenance. So often we hear comments that indicate people thing prices are high because the aviation community charges too much compared to commercial and industrial. We need to let people know that the prices are higher because the COSTS are higher, and, often, it is the right decision to suck it up and pay the higher prices rather than go off-spec for parts and tools. The reasons include managing the risks involved if something goes wrong, too. You are in a fantastic position with your FAA shop to help educate people about costs involved with the processes and procedures you follow to ensure your parts are correctly manufactured and certified. I don't think many owners, me included, know much about that side of the business. I've posted this link before, but here is an article about an owner supplied part that failed, resulting in a gear collapse and prop strike on a Cherokee 140. This guy saved a few hundred dollars having a part fabricated locally, but ended up with a gear collapse which his insurance company probably won't cover and a possible FAA violation for both him and his mechanic. http://150cessna.tripod.com/parts.html I'll get off the soap box and pass this baby to someone else now. Jim

Close to the hub only; never further out on the blade. Only myself or a known trusted person. And I still watch them. I am the one flying the plane who ultimately pays the price (and the bills). Jim

Sabremech I wasn't upset at all; I just wanted to clarify why I choose to buy parts with a provenance. I am a partner in a machine shop and still CHOOSE to buy parts with tracebility back to a factory approved source. It's a choice and I still cringe when I see the factory invoices. The factory parts may not be any better at all, and may measure exactly the same, but it's my decision to keep my tracebility as clean as possible. Just for a really out in left field low probability what-if: Let's say I provide my shop with tools I made myself, or I even do the preload test myself. The gear collapses resulting in a prop strike and I now have a $40,000 to $50,000 invoice to present to my insurance company for new skins, prop, and engine tear down. I don't want to be holding my breath in case they subrogate to try to collect from the shop, whose insurance company tells them that I supplied the tools. When we make suggestions to others, (especially new plane owners who look at factory prices for the first time) to make parts or tools without tracebility there is some risk involved. I just think we should provide the rest of the story so that when we tell someone how easy and inexpensive it is to make or buy non-factory parts that they also understand that there is some small risk involved in those decisions. I don't like the cost of factory parts and tools, but there are at least two reasons why I buy them: 1. I want those sources to survive this economy and be around when I need them for something that is not possible for me to do myself, and 2. I don't want to do something which the FAA or an insurance company could point to as improper. I apologize I sounded upset; I really am not. I am stating my reasons for deciding to buy the "$800 hammer". I don't like it , but make a decision to do it. In real life I am one of the thriftiest guys you will ever meet, but made a decision to follow a tracebility process on almost all aircraft parts just as we do in our shop for FDA and UL products. Again, I am sorry if I came across as upset or preaching. Everyone needs to make thier own decisions. I just wanted to be the lone voice in the wilderness explaining why ANYONE would be stupid enough to buy a landing light cover for $150 that I could build for $20 and a weekend pleasantly spent making a mold taken from the original and forming the plastic in an oven. And if I did, I would probably use PC instead of Acrylic PMMA; back to my urge to make 'improvements'. Sorry again if I was abrupt. Didn't mean to be. Years ago there were gear and control rigging tools around that the owners would loan out to other Mooney owners. I think that is a fantastic way to get more utilization out of these expensive jigs. I'd love to borrow a set of control surface rigging boards to check my plane. Jim

Quote: Sabremech The ones I bought from Ebay worked just as advertised and my gear fell right in the limits of the manual. ... Just saying that because it came from an MSC doesn't automatically make it better.

In time it will probably become cost effective. It's not the Wi Fi that is a challenge; it is the link between the WiFi system on the aircraft and the internet data that is difficult. The actual WiFi connection is apparently not difficult or expensive, my SkyRadar receiver has a WiFI output to the iPad. I think the difficulty is in getting the data into the system. SkyRadar has the ADS-B in system so the information broadcast by ADS-B is captured by the receiver than made available by WiFI. My plane came with a Motorola Sat Talk II interface that would allow Satellite Phone voice and data in the air. If you have the data available then a box like the SkyRadar could be developed to produce a WiFi output. I just had the Sat Talk removed as I didn't want to mess around with a Sat Phone in the plane. The Sky Radar gives me free ADS-b weather and any talking I need to do can wait until I'm on the ground. I'll bet the guys at Sky Radar / Radenna know exactly what would be required to make this all work.

I heard the EvacU8 units were recalled; the one you provided a link for should work, and, for about the same price, there is a 60 minute version. There are so many possible emergencies that we could not practically prepare for all of them, but I may buy one of these. I wonder if there is a difference in smoke accumulation between a pressurized (sealed) cabin and our cabins for which we can shut off the air vents and open the pilot's window... This may be a good addition to my Halon fire extinguiser, 403 PLB, handheld Nav Com, and pulse oximeter. I may never use this stuff but it is nice ot know it is available.

I bought a set from Dan at Lasar ((800) 954-5619). The Ebay sets are probably fine but this is such an important item I wanted to have a set from a MSC. The required low range torque wrench I did buy from Ebay and had it calibrated at a lab. Overkill maybe , but the mechanic I was working with at the time had his own shop-built tools. The torque wrenches at many shops do not have enough sensitivity at the specified torque range.