Sabremech

Is it really that hard to understand Mooney Service INSTRUCTIONS M20-114 and what instructions it calls out? Whether you believe that mooney provided qualitative or quantitative variables doesn't detract from the fact that they changed the procedures for us in maintaining our older Mooney's. I'm baffeld by the resistance here to a fairly new procedure and the demand that Mooney justify it. Really? I'm glad Mooney did this and that it's not an AD or other actions deemed necessary by the FAA versus the manufacturer. Hi Bob, I believe Mooney is out of the picture since they released SI M20-114. It now falls to the owner / A&P/IA who is maintaining the airplane. I know that if an owner told me to use a tail tie down to jack his aircraft, I'd have to politely refuse and show him the SI issued by Mooney and explain that is how it needs to be done from now on. It really doesn't matter that it's been done for the last 40 years now because as an A&P I'm bound to follow the current instructions (data). I'll venture to answer the tie down question as one of there being the possibility for corrosion to set up in the threads of the tie down ring / jacking fittings. Also, to possibly prevent someone from using the tie down rings for jacking, potentially resulting in them breaking and damaging the aircraft. David

Let me throw these questions out there. Who is liable for the airplane if something were to happen and the correct procedure is not used? Who's liable if the owner insists it's ok to jack the airplane using a tail stand and something happens? Is it really worth it to not follow current tech data? David

While I can only offer my thoughts as to why Mooney changed the procedure, the correct way to jack your airplane if applicable by model to Mooney SI M20-114 is with jacks and an engine hoist not a tail stand. As an A&P/IA, if I condoned or recommended any other method, I'd be recommending violating the FAR's. I know that this sounds silly and it probably is as I use to jack my airplane with a tail stand too, but when new procedures come out, we're obliged to follow them. David

Hi Bob, I built a tail stand much like you have until I found out about Mooney service instructions M20-114. I no longer use the tail stand. Hi John, I rely solely on the hydraulics with my jacks. I do not leave the airplane overnight or an extended period of time on the jacks, just in case. I've never had one fail yet and I'm not going to safety myself out of maintenance or flying. David

Here's how I jack a 66 M20C. I've done a mod to my doghouse by adding an access panel to get to the engine lift point. Much easier to do and done IAW Mooney service instructions. David

I installed the new boot today and it works as advertised. It's not made from all leather this time as the area around the Johnson bar has to be flexible. I'll be sending one to Hector at Aero Comfort next week. Here's a couple of pictures of the new boot installed.

I have a newly designed boot that just came in today. I'll be installing it in the next couple of days. I'm having another one made to send to Hector at Aero Comfort for him to review. The all leather boot just isn't going to work correctly. We tried elastic in a few key locations and even modifying the boot hoping to make it work. It was a complete no go. I'll post a picture or two of what I hope is the final boot installation. David

Just about as brilliant as damaging the propeller if you use it to move your plane around.

If you brought your Mooney to me for maintenance, how should I jack the aircraft?

AmigOne, you're correct in that I haven't heard it directly from Mooney as to why the change. You asked the question about jacking the Ranger model Mooney's and I answered it citing the specific current document from Mooney. As an A&P/ IA I am bound to follow the FAR's which state I must use the most current data. This is the current data. I've done my part as an aviation professional in getting you the most current data. To get the "why" answer you so desperately seek, call Mooney and let us all know what you find out. David

AmigOne, what do you hope to get out of this exercise? If you don't like what Mooney has recommended, either don't follow it or call Mooney up and ask them why. As an A&P/IA I don't find it that difficult to understand what Mooney is asking us to do. David Staffeldt

I will not jack my 66C model holding the tail down. If you look in the tail cone, you can see the limited amount of structure there that has to support a good amount of weight. It's a long arm and damage could be done especially if you're climbing in and out of the cockpit while working on it on jacks. Do we need to wait until there is a structural failure to change a procedure that could be causing un seen damage? It's really not that big of a deal to hold the front with an engine hoist. +1 on jacking the aircraft IAW Mooney instructions.

From my understanding, the tail section of our short bodies does not have enough structure in it to support holding the airplane off the ground when jacking. Not all shops are aware or won't adhere to new instructions because it takes longer to remove the top cowling, baffling and they've done it the old way for years with no issues. It's your airplane and you have it done the way you want it done.

Hi AmigOne, look at Mooney service instructions M20-114 that can be found on the Mooney Aircraft website. They changed jacking instructions several years ago and prohibit you from holding the tail down. You'll need to lift the front of your airplane using an engine hoist to the lifting ring on your engine. I built a tail stand several years ago before this change and now use it just for stabilizing the tail when mines on jacks. I don't let the tail support or carry any of the weight while on jacks. David Staffeldt

I can say this website does not list all the damage history. I typed in my n-number and the gear up in 2005 is not listed. The only way to determine the airplanes status is through an inspection! David

Very interesting topic, Let me relate what happened to my C model prior to me purchasing it the best I can. 2652W has a bunch of speed mods and cruises in the yellow arc all the time. It was during a descent if I remember correctly, that the previous owner encountered heavy turbulence. The next flight he noticed something odd with the airplane seeming to wag the tail while flying. After landing it was found that the horizontal stabilizer could be deflected well beyond the limits of play allowed. Both of the tail pivot bolts were found bent and the left side fitting rivets pulled away from the skin. I inspect the tail before every flight and pull the MP back to get the airplane into the green arc if mild to heavy turbulence is encountered. Those bolts and fittings are amazingly small considering what they hold!!! David Staffeldt

I'll be driving the camper again this year. We spend 10 days at Oshkosh in Warbird Camping. Living 2 hours away almost makes it impractical to fly in. The Mooney will be at home in the hangar. I plan on trekking out to the Mooney rows this year and saying hello. David Vintage Airworks

Just a quick update, I've been working with Will James of James Aircraft to create the new nose. I have the inlet rings for the cooling air and carb air and am working on the mould for the aluminum. Slow but steady. David

Well, February has come and gone, March is almost over and still an unfinished panel. WIth the threat of good weather, I'm spending my lunch time working on the panel. Here's a couple of pictures of the almost assembled panel and the hookups for the new 6 pack instrument cluster. I hope to have those who are interested in the 6 pack cluster a copy of my field approval soon. David

It's going to use a 201 spinner for the slope that you mention. I can provide the spinner with the STC or leave it to the owner to find one and control the cost. I personally can't wait to see the round inlets on my C. David

Here's a picture of what will be used in my cowling mod. I am keeping the side panels, and landing light. Thank you for the oil cooler suggestion, that is a great idea. I'll need to think of the easiest way to have it optional while keeping aesthetics and cost down. I need to finish my engine monitor and then I can wrap the engine, install these cowls and begin the process for making the mold. David

My motivation is to make my Mooney look better and to get rid of the ARI cowl enclosure that keeps cracking. Riveting fiberglass or carbon fiber to aluminum does not work for long. I'm not going to do it this way. I don't look to get rich and make a killing from this. My first goal will be to make my Mooney look great at a reasonable cost, second, recoup my investment, thirdly, to make a little money to do the next mod Mooney owners want. Should be fun and challenging. David

Owner produced parts are a great option if you understand what that means. I'm more than happy to do owner produced parts, especially if time is an issue. They're manufactured to original specs in my shop. David

Most corporate operators base their decision to use an airport on runway length not whether they have a tower or not. We have some of the newest and best equipment on board and we use it. The point of corporate aviation is to use the other 4500 airports when we want or need to in order to serve our customers. Part 135 or 121 service would be more impacted depending on their ops manual. I too am not getting all worked up over this. The sun will rise tomorrow and in a short time we'll never even notice the change! David

I'd fly it another 10 hours and re-check it. Marvel Mystery oil should be banned from your hangar. David