cliffy

Thank you for the explanation Your investigation analysis seems quite good but I have no idea how to do Fluid Dynamic Analysis Way beyond my basic mechanics vocational work. Keep going please

How will the flanges be stiffened? The bellows look good but I have the same concern as Andy95W

Its a Mooney forum talking about an alternative engine option A thought to using in a Mooney was proffered And Es Fs and others were talked about as a subject of investigation- so I don;t think my comments were too far off subject but if they were OK

Do we realize we are talking about a re-engine project on a close to 50 year old airframe? With a limited amount of viable subjects and we aren't making any more of them so as every day passes with every crash the market size dwindles? I'm thinking ROI here.

It was black with a metallic matrix The base mount area on the fuselage had to be cleaned to bare metal for conduction A spot about 60-&)% of the base size was sufficient back then. The same theory applies to the plain bent wire whip antenna that mount in one small hole (frankly for small GA airplanes they do a good job) You would drill the hole and the center of the coax cable was hooked to the vertical whip and the shielding of the coax was attached to the base where it connects to the fuselage skin (called a Ground Plane) You big white antenna has the same requirement for a "ground plane" connection. You always need a good clean connection to the ground plane on any communications antenna (not VOR antennas).

I worked for COMANT back when they started up at KSMO We included GROUNDING base gaskets with each antenna. Grounding the base is vital to the efficiency of the antenna The screw holes on the top of the antenna "may" be able to be used as a ground path on some models IF the bottom of the are cleaned to bare metal so the screw heads make contact to transfer the ground path to the nuts inside the fuselage. Make sure the washers and nuts are clean and the metal inside is also clean.

When I rebuilt mine I bought all the parts from LASAR and did my own assembly. IIRC bolts bushings and HEIM joints were all available but its been a few years. The worn items were obvious and then the shims come in many thicknesses and you need a variety of them to get the slack out.

You didn't say which model Mooney you have but on some short bodies the flap position indicator on the nose wheel bay may need to be unscrewed and moved sideways out of the way also in order to get the seat to move far enough forward to unhook the front end.

Holding my breath that all this comes to pass. I'm in for helping get any kind of approval for the short bodies If they are willing and want resume from me to help move it along with my short body - I can supply both

PM sent to Florian

Questions IF anyone knows- Is there any indication just what the short body mod might entail? Do they have an idea of what is entailed? I wonder what the possibility of getting a field approval due to similarity of airframe with the short body mod? It happened with the Trio A/P on Cessnas I can't think that DER involvement would be too difficult if only a roll channel hardware mod is contemplated. Can anyone confirm that they are delivering units? Who has a supply as I'd might be willing to be the Guinee pig for the short body

I did mine in about 3-4 hrs but I think I was the second install he had. My interior was out at the time.

Everyone also forgets about the rudder pedal bearing blocks right behind the firewall that get loose They are a PIA to tighten but need it. Probably never done on 95% of Mooneys

How times have changed My COM ride was two turns about points and 4 spins - Done! In my Cessna 140 to boot!

No metal in the oil, good oil pressure, good borescope, good compressions? Fly it! Engines don't magically eat themselves at 2,000 hrs IF taken care of properly. That means fly it and not let it sit for years. At least the little 4 banger Lycomings don't eat themselves

The entire tail comes off fairly easily

To bad we can't have ACO shopping like we have US Court shopping Federal Agencies both.

Someone mentioned here a while back that that was tried and poo-poo'd by the Feds as not a way they would go for autopilots even though NORSEE SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT AUTOPILOTS ARE ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT NORSEE WAS APPROVED FOR!!

Its just the same as ADSB- EVEYTHING starts at the top and we in GA have to "fit into that envelope" ADSB IS AND WAS designed for121 ops to decrease spacing along high traffic arrivals by using more accurate position data than what was available just using RADAR. In order to sell it to the masses (GA) (and make them pay for it) they had to include Weather and Traffic to get us to buy in (proven fact by there admissions). So it is with panel electronics and their approvals. It all comes down from the top. We don't have our own "less risk" niche.

We (and I include the FAA in "we") have the ability in our hands to have one of the greatest SAFETY DEVICES ever installed in small GA airplanes. It can prevent many instances every year of accidents and deaths and yet because of bureaucracy people are dying every year The new small-AFFORDABLE autopilots with the "One Button Push to Level" feature can be and is that Safety Feature I speak of. How many "Inadvertent flight into IMC conditions" do we see every year? How many deaths come from that every year? How many lives could be saved every year with this feature? Yet we fiddle while Rome burns! Its ludicrous! We are faced with an entire fleet of aging GA airplanes all of them equipped with half century old avionics and instruments WITH PERFECTLY USABLE ALTERNATIVES in the form of "non-certified" instruments and radios that can be just as reliable and usable (as proven in experimental airplanes) and yet they are out of limits for simple small airframes. Most of GA (MOST!) by a wide margin, does not fly in IMC conditions The risk factor is small to use these A/Ps in these airframes for VFR conditions AND they could be used as a safety valve for inadvertent IMC encounters. Saving lives. Similarly (with the above limitations in mind) flight instruments could be done the same way, Affordable replacements to half century old flight instruments to further enhance safety with NO risk to safety. Yet again we fiddle while Rome burns! There is no valid reason why we couldn't have CERTIFIED airframes MAINTAINED to certified rules and regs and yet allow NON-certified electronics to be installed in VFR airplanes with a cautionary placard much like experimental airplanes do today. "THIS AIRPLANE USES NON-CERTIFIED INSTRUMENTS AND RADIOS" Where is the safety detriment? The airframe is still maintained to the certified standards and only the reporting of those items normally read on the panel is different. There is the added benefit (life saving strategy) of straight and level flight if inadvertent IMC or Loss of Control is encountered. Yes we do have "APPROVED" autopilots and glass panels but the certification process is so broken that the price of entry is way beyond the ability of most small GA airplane owners. Safety for the masses is available at a price they can afford yet we bar entry through bureaucracy. We have our entire segment of aviation (small GA) at risk of disappearing due to lack of ability to safely modernize the fleet to keep it active. Our segment is going away slowly and we can't do anything about it because of bureaucracy! I watched a webinar about the "fantastic VARMA system" now available. What a joke! We wait for MASAIC- from all I see it too will be a joke in the areas we need- trying to keep the fleet alive! Sorry to be pessimistic but if we don't solve the affordable electronics questions our segment of aviation will die and go away. Last comment- I saw a question asked just the other day- What will happen when the G1000s are no longer supported by Garmin? Do we just crush those Mooneys so equipped because they can't be modified? The problems are not limited to just the G1000 airframes.

OK if that is the case then things moved faster than the known data was found ( the submitted package was short of the empirical data need)(not looking far enough ahead?) BUT, also, IF that is true, it foreshadows more models being approved in the initial AML. Could it be that both BK and Dynon will have approvals at the same time? The sky will truly fall if that happens. I have almost 2 complete Brittian systems on the shelf and if either BK or Dynon come through in the next 6 months I'm going to sell them.

Somethings can not be explained- Not including the correct drawings in an STC application? Unbelievable that someone in the aviation business doesn't know how to submit an STC application. Sorry to be harsh but 50 years dealing with the FAA gives me a biased point of view. This ain't rocket science we're dealing with here.

I think these are what I was thinking about https://mitchellproducts.com/product/modular-gauges-fuel-quantity-gauges/

There is a place in Lock Have PA that also overhauls them In fact 2 places there. You're lucky you have the six individual units Each ca be overhauled separately and not as a 6 pac for the early ones. There is also replacement units new available from several suppliers

I used to make VOR antennas Early Moonies didn't have internal baluns (mostly ferrites) They only had folded coax cable baluns, If you have a NEW antenna that fits and it has only a BNC connector then (as noted above) it has an internal balun. If you are using the old antenna then it more than likely has/had a cable balun that needs to be replaced. Directions on how to make a VOR cable balun are easy to find on line. Show us the antenna and it connections and we can better advise Forgot to add that there are new antennas that come with a cable and cable balun as a kit and there are new VOR antennas that have the balun built in. Be sure you know what you have if you buy new. They each work the same.