Sabremech

I have my reasons but I will not be supporting the new LASAR at all. I was a customer when it was owned by the class act of Paul and Sheri.

Yes and no. There’s issues between FSDO’s and MIDO on this. To this day, FSDO’s are saying at IA renewal clinics that owners can get together to share in the cost of making the same unavailable part as a group. So, do we need to ask every FSDO and every MIDO if they agree on this or just the one covering the geographical area you are in? All communications with the FAA in regards to parts should be recorded or in e-mail format only because it’s likely you’ll need to remind them of what they said!

Once you tell said reputable gear manufacturer it’s for an airplane, most are going to say no thanks! Been there done that with machine shops. Most won’t touch anything that goes on an airplane.

Even for Money? Nope!

My point is that Mooney is not going to give or sell you the drawing or approved data. So, AI isn’t going to do you much good in producing the part. You’re missing quite a bit in making a part. Who here commenting about OPP parts has actually made a part using the OPP rule? I have!

Answer: you do not need the approved data to manufacture an OPP part. If you have an original part, you can reproduce that part.

Been there done this with the gear up and downlock blocks. Did the lab analysis for material specification etc. Had drawings made, machined a first article for test fit and function then finalized the part. This was not a new design, this was copying an original or PMA part. No blessing needed to do that. There are parts such as the Gear set that aren’t advisable to do as OPP parts. I chose not to do them!

There’s always someone taking it to the nth degree. The OPP parts will be documented in the logbooks if the owner is ethical and not trying to put a part in that he machines up with his Harbor Freight lathe in the garage. The point is that the OPP part meets or exceeds the original designed part and you won’t be looking for a lawyer. I briefly thought about the 40:1 gear sets and decided that I did not want the liability by producing them, not even PMA versions. There are plenty of parts on my Mooney that I would have no issue making my own parts for it. They would all be documented in the logbook so there would be no need to disclose it. If you don’t like it, go buy another Mooney. It’s really that simple.

@Cliffy, You do not need the manufacturers drawing, DER approval or approved data for an OPP. What you do need is an original part to use to make the new one and be able to prove your part meets or exceeds the original part if ever challenged by the FAA to prove it is an equivalent. Of course having the drawing would be optimal but not likely from Mooney, DER would be nice but not required as well as some sort of approved data. You quoted the OPP rule fairly well but then went off course with what I’m disagreeing with you here! I have done OPP parts as we all know and have had numerous conversations with the FAA on this topic. The one inconsistency is the FAA between offices.

Once $28K came from ABS. The other $500K came from an estate specifically for overcoming the ruddervator skin issue. Maybe we need to form the American Mooney Society and as a group of owners and maintainers tackle our most pressing problems. Have the AMS work the parts that are needed and not available at true cost to the members. It could be setup as a not for profit entity for the benefit of its members. @cliffy Care to try something different than the promises generated by AI from LASAR?

@cliffy ruddervator skins are now available for V-tail Bonanzas from SRS Aviation. They are also selling them for LESS than when they were last available from Beechcraft. Hmmm?? What? Less? How can that be?

I have the drawings as I have made these in the past. Since it cost me money to have the drawings made, I won’t give them out for free but won’t charge an arm and a leg for them either if that’s something you’re interested in. Thanks, David

Steel is much easier and cheaper to manufacture than aluminum. Steel is also less likely to be damaged than aluminum. As an IA myself, and doing these torque checks, the steel tool works as I’d expect it to by the book. Thanks, David

Hello KiethN92KD, Appreciate the reply. Internet or forum searches don’t always find what we want, including me making the tools again because LASAR can’t get their act together. I’m sorry you couldn’t find my tools. Your nose tool looks fine but that main tool is lacking in the contact surfaces needed to hold the tool in place and get accurate torque readings. Having used these tools for 15 years now, the weight of the steel for the main tool makes it easier to hold and get accurate torque readings. Just my honest thoughts for improving your tooling. Thanks, David

I think it would have been a better idea to start your own thread than put this on mine. Just so happens I still make and sell the duplicate of the original Mooney tool. Thanks, David

I’ve been making and selling these tools for quite some time! A Googke search would have probably found them. The Johnson bar can also get bent by being kicked out of the uplock while at cruise by back seat passengers. When it slams into the instrument panel, it can bend it. Do this a few times on a high time airframe and I’m not surprised you found what you did. David

It’s still going to happen! I’ve just been extremely busy with the full time job which I’ll be retiring from in January. After 40 years, I’m going to be done with being on call 24/7 /365 and worrying when I’ll get the call that one of my airplanes is broken somewhere. I’ve moved to the UP, Michigan, last April and have been commuting for work to Waukegan IL Fridays and Mondays. Lots of driving. I did have a conversation with the composite shop and we’re still good there as they have people who can make molds! I’m to far into it with the research and money spent to walk away. What I need is time which will be happening soon. Thanks, David

I can get that for you. David

Hello Igor_U, Does the manual covet the early M20? Prior to the A? Thanks, David

I don’t think we’ll lose much value. These New LSA’s will likely cost $300 -$500K and with a shrinking customer base, not likely to impact our birds.

I’m at OSH now and here through Saturday. Wouldn’t miss it as I’ve been going 23 years now, but I’m only 2 hours drive from Aviation Mecca! You might not want to come Don as it drains your wallet! David

Look for the A2295-5P as that should include the backplate. You’ll also need the installation kit. I don’t think your spinner will fit the backplate. I purchased 2 spinner assemblies from Hartzell a few years ago. They weren’t terribly expensive at that time but don’t know what they are currently. Thanks, David

I think the inter cylinder baffle is there. It’s in the picture with the OP’s finger. Look back behind the homemade divider. As for RTV on the exhaust gasket, just did that with a new exhaust on a J model. Can’t hurt and I’ve had issues in the past with the anti blow out gaskets. David

The wood wing is really not that hard to inspect. That was the key factor as to whether this airplane would fly again or be parted out. My 56 still had the original landing gear shocks installed and the nose pucks were shot. The engine mounts were sagging a lot and I was shocked at the price for replacements. I have all new instruments from a friends C model as he upgraded to glass. So at least I’ll move up to the 80’s for the panel. Getting back going on mine now. I’m looking forward t flying this one and comparing it to my friends C. David

Definitely home made and not stock.