cliffy

Forgot to add questions to ask: Who has done the last 3 annuals? Mooney service center? When were the gear rubber discs put in? How long ago? When were the rubber hoses for the engine compartment replaced? Oil cooler lines, oil pressure guage line, prop control oil line! this is an important item!, brake line hoses, etc. How much has it flown since the overhaul? How much in the last year or two? Where has it been sitting, what airport (by the ocean for corrosion)? How complete are the available log books and what do they say? With all the mods and accident history this is where you must consider a pre buy at a service center! Reading these log books will not be a job for an amateur or relying on someone connected with the airplane (broker, current maint shop, owner, etc.)This is where the rubber meets the road for this airplane, log book history. It can make or break you if you don't do it correctly. Again Good Luck I hope you have found a good one as you will really enjoy it if you have.

Looks like a nice airplane. You can't have all that stuff installed for the price for what you can buy a comparable C model airframe for and do the work. With the missing logs that should cause a reduction in value. You have no idea what the airframe went through before then, flood, severe damage, etc. Make sure you get the FAAs file on 337s and such before you buy to compare to what log books are there. The FAAs records may go back futher than the current log books. I would also very seriously consider paying for a pre-buy at a for real Mooney service center considering the log book issue. You will be money ahead for doing that. It will come back to you when you decide to sell the airplane (having had a clean bill of health by a service center considering the log book issue)and if something does show up you have reason to negotiate or drop out if you want. One thing you can check when you see the airplane is go to the elevator and see if the tip of the elevator can be wiggled up and down or fore and aft, or if it makes any noise when you do this. If it moves at all it means the tail bushings are worn and need replacing. Easy for you check even if you are not a mechanic. If the pre-buy goes well make sure with a test flight everything works as it should, especially the auto pilot, radios and all electronics. Does the auto pilot couple to the radios in all modes as it should, etc. Leave nothing to chance or guess. It must all work correctly, period. Every control.switch and lever, period! Make a list as you go so that you make sure you test everything. Trust no one (except the service center), verify everything. Good luck, you may have found a good one.

You might find a leather belt at Wally World that could be cut to fit $10?

Now this could turn out to be a great project. Very interesting and long over due for our Mooneys. No reason why it can't work and work well. Good luck to you!

UPDATE UPDATE Just talked by phone with Chris from Navstrobelighting- He says- NO, they are not legal yet on certified aircraft. He has filed all the papers to make them compliant but no word back from the FAA yet NO they are NOT "Standard Parts" as described in the AC as there are no Standard Part Designs Approved for LED Lights YET. FAA say they are 2 to 3 years away from that. He says that he uses "standard parts" in his adds in a very "liberal" sense? It's up to who ever installs them to make sure they are acceptable. SO, for those who have them installed, you need to make sure they are acceptable to your local FAA FSDO office or else remove them and install the original bulbs. You don't want a violation if seen by our "friends". I hope this clears up any confusion.

philplane Your last paragraph is exactly as my discussion went with the Feds today. Regardless of what the claims are, they are not "Standard Parts" unless documentation can be provided to the contrary. The lights might meet the requirements of the AC in light performance but they are not exact DUPLICATES of a national standard for construction so that anyone competent could reproduce them (as required by the AC). As you state, there are no national standards for LED light bulbs there for they are not standard parts by definition. The AC goes on to further state that if a product complies by "performance" alone THEN FAA approval must be sought. I am still waiting for Chris to explain how they comply as a standard part. I really do hope he can.

amigone? Not quite sure what you are getting at with your post Clarify please

Letter sent to Chris also asking for clarification

Frankly I like them too, but, they can't be "Standard Parts" by definition without supporting documentation. I have tried to contact Chris and have not received any call back from my message yet. I will keep trying. I have contacted 2 FAA FSDOs and both have said that they feel they are not legal to use on certified aircraft. Even night, VFR on home-builts is suspect with them at this time. They feel without any supporting evidence that the lights comply, they are not legal yet. The claim that they do is not enough. They have contacted the FAAs Resource man in this field for his take as they say there might be some obscure or arcane letter to support the standard part claim that they do not know about. If any of you who have installed them have any paper work from the company other than the claim that they meet the criteria, would you be kind enough to post it or email to me so I can continue the search. Was there any markings on the parts themselves that say FAA_TSO or any other markings? Does the paper work that comes with the kit have anything?

Here's the rub- If you, as an owner, replace the bulbs YOU are required to sign off the work in the a/c log book. If an A&P does the work HE is required to be certain that the part he is installing is LEGAL to be installed and then sign off the log book. The link to the company has NO contact information available. No address, no phone number, no nothing! The only thing I have found is that the company "says" it complies and can be installed. NOT good enough for me. Now, as to- "Given all the other semi-legal stuff the rest of you guys have done" PLEASE don't even go there. If the Feds ever have an occasion to look at you, you don't want to be semi-legal.

I would still like to see the 337 and the FAA response when 1 copy is sent in. Standard parts do not need a 337 to install. I have tried to find any contact information for Navstrobes. No address, no phone number, no nothing can I find. Can anyone provide such contact information? I will contact the company and get their side of the story and then I will contact the FAA to get their side of the story. No more guessing and conjecture From what I see, it is only 1 person in the company and selling these lights by what is said on the website. Lets get to the bottom of this. Someone find me a contact and I'll do the calling and report back.

yup wrong terminals!

Standard parts MUST conform to an industry or US design standard (AN bolts for instance). LEDS (unless approved) do not conform to an industry design standard- they are unique in their design even though they do the same function. Below is a cut from AC 21-29C on how to determine unauthorized or bogus parts. The full AC link is shown at the bottom. (8) Produced as standard parts that conform to established industry or U.S. specifications (refer to definition in subparagraph 3l, Standard Part). NOTE: Standard parts are not required to be produced under FAA approval; therefore, it is incumbent upon the installer (and the producer) to determine that the part conforms. The part must be identified as part of the approved type design or found to be acceptable for installation under part 43. Refer to the AC 20-62 for additional guidance on this matter. http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2021-29C%20CHG%202.pdf

Are you installing the sender in the correct orientation with the tank and the float hanging down in the "empty" tank position? Just a thought :-)

The zero point for the stabilizer/elevator is in relation to the zero point for the thrust line. The skin lap on the aft fuselage side is the zero thrust line. The aircraft is leveled fore and aft by this line. The elevator travel board is put on the elevator and the elevator is trimmed "aircraft nose up" to 3 1/2 degrees. At this point, the elevator will be displaced from a "trail" position in an up elevator position. This is the elevator setting at the bungee zero spring travel setting. It is adjusted by tightening or loosening the nuts on the bungees.

Here is everything you ever wanted to know about nav lights and TSO approval and compliance. Also, Aveo Engineering spent a long time getting their LED lights TSO approved. I looked at them several years ago and when I saw they were not TSO'd I didn't put them on my Mooney. Now that they are TSO'd I might, as they are pretty good looking and way bright. I've seen them on experimentals and they are bright even in daylight. In addition, the owner of the airplane is responsible for the maintenance being done on the a/c. Per FAR 91.403 § 91.403 General. (a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter. Part 39 deals with complying with ADs. Here also is a link to the AOPA web article on Owner Performed Maintenance. Note that it includes the requirement to sign off in the log book any "Preventive Maintenance" that you do as and owner of the airplane. http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/PIC-archive/Aircraft-Ownership/Preventive-Maintenance.aspx TSO-C30 http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidan... ADDED; See the following : Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 21, Certification Procedures for Products, Articles, and Parts. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/tex... Advisory Circulars 20-110, Index of Aviation Technical Standard Orders http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidan... 20-41, Substitute (TSO) Aircraft Equipment http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidan... 21-43, Production Under 14 CFR Part 21, Subparts F, G, K, and O Orders http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/... 8110.43, Joint Technical Standard Order Authorization for U.S. Article Manufacturershttp://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidan... 8120.20, Production Approval Procedures http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/... 8150.1, Technical Standard Order Program http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidan...

Man, I want to use these also BUT philplane is correct- THEY ARE NOT LEGAL YET ON CERTIFIED AIRCRAFT no matter what the company ad says! And please note that on their website under "About" they specifically say that the 7.5 watt units are 'non-compliant" in very fine print as the last sentence. If you look at the TSO you will find specific manufactures listed as being in compliance with the TSO, this company is not listed. As mentioned, it can be "designed" to meet the TSO but if it is not approved as a TSO product, it is not legal. The testing is quite extensive and expensive to qualify as meeting the TSO. In addition, as mentioned, one has to hold a PMA (Parts Manufacturing Approval) to manufacture and sell a/c parts for certified airplanes. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet These look like a neat way to improve our planes but right now we can't use them. Our regs are so antiquated that they inhibits innovation but they are the only ones we have. They are a morass of minutia that only dedicated bureaucrats can comprehend on a daily basis. Many thanks to philplane for trying to work with the manufacturer. I await his next posting so maybe we can all use these.

n601 and rob- both ways absolutely correct. Not a simple bolt on but some form of approval.

Letter from the factory noted except that it's still not legal to do unless there is a change to the TCDS reflecting the approval for higher throws and p/n change OR and STC accompanies the work OR a DER signs it off OR a FSDO gives a Field Approval or maybe a Service Bulletin. I can't as an A&P do that work on just a letter from the factory. I'm willing to guess there was more to it than just change the part and sign it off. I'd really like to know what approved process LASAR used to install the part and change the throws. With the TCDS showing the "conformity" of the aircraft, I can't deviate from that unless I have some other "APPROVED" paper work to go by, nor can any other A&P. Especially with something that affects the basic flying qualities of the airplane. I won't disparage Bill Wheat's words as he know these planes as well as anyone ever did BUT there has to be more to it than just change the part and increase the throws beyond what the conformity calls for to be legal. Mr. Wheat can't, on his own volition, change a conformity issue by just a letter. There has to be a legal means to do it,

Actually it's worth a look but as mentioned the price may seem a little high (trying to recoup the radio work) but he's probably got a lot more in it than that and could you find a similarly equipped F or J for that price, just price the radios alone + install. I would take a real good look at the gear for wear (6800 hrs and now on grass), tank leaks (same, grass) how old are the gear pucks? (old and hard and on grass means tank leaks) and make sure you shake the tail for any looseness in the hinge bushings! As said, a good MSC pre-buy is in order before money changes hands.

Just asking the question and not criticizing but: On a Model B the listed rudder throw is 18 degrees L and R On a C, D, E, F, it is 23-24 degrees, max of 6 degrees more, not 11 more, according to the TCDS. Phil, does your throw match what is called for on the TCDS? 18 degrees? If it does, it is at the max legal throw even though the Cs have a different part and go further. Here is a link to the FAAs website to check your allowable rudder throw on the TCDS. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/e74974516b2c5ee886257c3500689e02/$FILE/2A3_Rev_53.pdf I'm not saying that there is no approval to use some other part to increase throw but it would have to go through a full flight test regime to get such an approval as it affects the basic flying qualities of the airplane. If there is such an approval I would like to know about it so I can advise those I come in contact with (yes, really, I'm very interested in having correct information for people, if it's available as a mod, I really do want to know about it) but to legally do such a change requires some kind of written approval traceable back as a modification to the original Type Certificate. Just because a certain part fits doesn't mean it's legal to use it. This can also affect your personal liability and your insurance if you have an accident. If an A&P installs it without knowing of such an approval HE will lose his license as he is required to ascertain the legality of each part he installs before he installs it and sign off the installation according to some "approved" process. If you install it and it is not logged (you can't sign the log book unless you are an A&P (under most circumstances) and you have an accident, your insurance may not be valid (not maintained according to the regs), you could be violated for performing a/c maintenance without the proper credentials (A&P) and God forbid anyone is hurt, you could loss everything you have in court. I guess this is my biggest Achilles heel and it rears its ugly head even here on this forum and I won't apologize for it. In doing a/c maintenance for almost 50 years I have seen things done by owners (even well meaning owners) that is not legal, or, in most cases, not even safe. I know of one Piper Pawnee on a farm that was bought new and has never had an annual or parts bought from an approved source since it left the factory. At least the owner will only kill himself if he goes down. On my own Mooney, when I bought it, it had a battery lead to the starter made from automotive cable and it had been maintained by an A&P even. I could go on and on about what I have found on airplanes (even when the owners thought they were doing right). I have lost many friends in a/c accidents due to ignorance, stupidity or error. This is not your high school Chevy you're working on. You could pull over and park your car, you can't do that in your airplane. I just don't want to see any more friends (and yes, you all are my friends if you fly airplanes) go west in airplanes. I teach flying and a/c maintenance the same way, if it ain't legal, it ain't safe.

OK now I understand where you are coming from. When I was working on Boeings (many years ago) effectivity was a big thing with each airframe.

rob47v Don't quite know what you are saying but I've included a clip from the TCDS sheet on C models (Ds Fs are the same) but this shows how the throws change at certain S/Ns and they also changed the bungee number. This is why changing elevators from one airplane to another (even of the same model) can become an issue if this is not known. I knew at one time why they did this I just can't remember now after 40 years. I do know that 2 Mooneys went off the end of Stockton Airport, CA only because they had the elevator trim set at full up on T/O and they couldn't rotate. Control Surface Movements (Aircraft with serial numbers up to 690001) Wing Flaps .................................... T.O. Position .... Down ........ 15° ± 1° ....................................................... Landing ............ Down ........ 33° + 0°, -2° Aileron .............................. Up ....... 12½° to 17° ...... Down ........ 8° ± 1° Aileron static position ............................................... Down ........ 0° to 2° Elevator ........................... Up ....... 24° ± 1° ............ Down ....... 10½° ± 1° Rudder ............................ Left ....... 23° to 24° ......... Right ........ 23° to 24° Stabilizer (L.E.) ................ Up ....... 1 to 2½° ............ Down ....... 4½° + 5° Elevator Trim Assist Unit With stabilizer set at 3½° negative setting to the thrust line, adjust trim assist unit (740044) for elevator up angle of 19° ± ½° at the zero spring travel position. (Aircraft with serial numbers 690001-700091, 20-0001 and up) Wing Flaps .................................... T.O. Position .... Down ........ 15° ± 1° ....................................................... Landing ............ Down ........ 33° + 0°, -2° Aileron .............................. Up ....... 12½° to 17° ...... Down ........ 8° ± 1° Aileron static position ............................................... Down ........ 0° to 2° Elevator ........................... Up ....... 22° ± 2° ............ Down ....... 22° ± 2° Stabilizer (L.E.) ................ Up ....... ½° to 1° ............ Down ....... 5¼° to 5¾° Rudder ............................ Left ....... 23° to 24° ......... Right ........ 23° to 24° Elevator Trim Assist Unit With stabilizer set at 3½° negative setting to the thrust line, adjust trim assist bungees (740188) for elevator position of 10° ± 1° at the zero spring travel position of the bungees.

Had the question pop up as to "why" the elevator rigging changes between different S/Ns of vintage Mooneys according to the TCDS sheets. I heard it mentioned once a long time ago but can't seem to drag it from the memory bank right now. A search of records here hasn't shed any light either. Anyone remember or know why Mooney changed the rigging?

That's cool! I hope you have many great hours in that airplane!