Sabremech

Hi Lood, I used the original fuel sending units with my Mitchell gauges. Mine are the 0-30 Ohm sending units. Mitchell does make a 10-180 Ohm gauge and sending units. If you do this cluster gauge change, I'd seriously consider getting the 10-180 Ohm gauges and sending units. They will be more accurate and you'll have all new units to start off with. Mine work, but maybe I'm just the lucky one for now. I will most likely swap to the 10-180 units if one of my sending units act up. David

The nice thing is that we all have different options and choices we can make. This is just another reasonable option for those who would like something functional and relatively inexpensive. David

Older Mooney's are never going to appreciate substantially in value. Even if I were to keep my C model for a very long time, large investments like a $5500 JPI just don't make sense and give me any really appreciable sense of satisfaction that I spent money well. That's a lot of gas money that can be used flying. There's only one item on my dream list and that's an autopilot that has heading and altitude hold. Ok, I feel better now David

The G1 CHT is much more responsive than the single Mitchell CHT. I doubt I even pay much attention to the single CHT. I was looking for an linexpensive option to replace the 6 pack and didn't want to spend the money for the JPI. Frankly, the older Mooney's just aren't worth enough to warrant that expense. The panel is actually aluminum with a carbon fiber vinyl overlay. I wasn't able to find the same material that was on my left panel, so I chose to use the carbon fiber vinyl. I'll see how well it holds up. David

The total cost for the cluster including the probes was $775. Add some misc for the installation and it's a good price. I breifly glanced at the Sigma Tek gauges and their price sheet. I think the Mitchell price is much better. As far as how they compare in function, I have no idea. I didn't know Sigma Tek was making something similar. Maybe someone will get a quote from them for the cluster and probes then post it here to compare. Thanks, David

I finally finished the field approval for the Mitchell 6 pack instrument cluster today for the vintage Mooneys. This is a great option for well under $1000. Contact me for a parts list and a copy of the FAA 337 if you'd like another option for your older Mooney. David

Whether a pre-purchase inspection was done or not is a mute point and not helping a fellow Mooney owner get through an issue. Great post JimR and I thank you for that as I went and read the service bulletin. That does look very promising and I suspect a repair can be made returning the airplane back to airworthy. I'd still be interested in seeing some pictures of the cracks and where exactly they are located. There's some great resources here and I suspect you'll find some useful information to get you back flying. David

Can you post some pictures of the cracks? I have a high time 66 M20C and have not seen this on mine. Thanks, David

Hi Tony, It depends on your airport and who owns the land or the lease. I just received a stack of documents from the airport manager to go through. If the airport owns the land, they can set the rules regarding what you can and can't do in your hangar as well as require anyone who performs commercial services on the airport to have a commercial permit, pay a fee to the airport, insurance requirements, etc. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the requirements from the FAA and whether the airport accepts Federal grants, has no bearing on the airport and it's lease agreements. I'll post more as I go through the information I received tonight from the UGN airport management. This is not to say that you can't or shouldn't use your own Mooney familiar A&P, but to possibly make you aware that there may be rules and requirements that have to be followed that are required by the airport. David

Hi Dan, since the C and the E are almost identical except for the engine the TCDS will be used in a 337 for the basis of approval. Different approved engine on the identical airframe. It will be substantially more than a logbook entry, but the need to prove it will fit and perform correctly is already done by having the TCDS. There are limits as to what is practical to use or what the FAA will allow as approval basis such as the other engine swaps you mentioned. It certainly isn't practical and an easier method would be to buy the C with speed mods like mine and cruise right with an E with 20 less HP. David

The M20 series of Mooney's carry the same TC, 2A3. This can be used as a basis for approval for a modification of the 200 hp from an E to a C. Like I said, it won't be an easy swap paperwork wise, but it is possible and the engine listed on the TC even for the E model will help greatly. David

It is an issue that certainly needs to be discussed. I especially want A&P's to not sell themselves short. Our licenses did not come to us for free and our skills are worth more than many are willing to pay. I hope to have a copy of the UGN document in the next couple of days. The insurance requirement may seem unreasonable to us, but are we going to challenge the airport and win a lower rate? Doubtful when the word "safety" is invoked! David

Hi Dan, for instance, I learned the UGN requires mechanics to carry $2 million in liability insurance to work on the airport from the one shop based here. How many free lance A&P's carry the required insurance to legally work here? The AC referred to by N601RX isn't necessarily applicable because the on field maint shop is given no exclusive rights. The airport authority has set a basic standard that all must follow in order to work on the field. Does that make it exclusive? The airport is merely protecting itself by setting a standard that must be followed to work on the airport, including free lance A&P's, Avionics technicians etc. Here's the real issue at hand, is it fair for me to under cut a based maint facility to make some extra money and lower my rates so that I can satisfy cheap aircraft owners who don't want to pay what we are worth? The issue is cheap airplane owners, some who probably shouldn't even own an aircraft. As an A&P, it really chaps my butt to hear that another A&P will do an annual for $200. Really? Who wins, cheap airplane owners, who loses, all A&P's as the bar keeps getting set lower by those willing to sign their license for nothing. With this said, I will not compete with the on field maint facility just so an owner can get cheap maint at the expense of A&P's. so to answer your question Dan, if your airport has rules or ordinances that are not being followed so you can take advantage of mechanics, both by short changing the on field maint and the free lance A&P, then yes, it is morally questionable. David

Since the 200 HP engine is listed on the TCDS, it can be done. The paperwork won't be as easy as the engine change itself. David

I understand the philosophy of the ordinance here at UGN. As an A&P/IA I agree with it and don't do Maint for other owners for the simple reason that I'm not here to undercut the shop and give airplane owners cheap Maint. It would be a different story if the shop was incompetent or grossly over charging their customers. This was just a note to inform you to check for rules at your airport if you have on field Maint before having someone come in and work on your aircraft. You could get a surprise you didn't expect. David

One thing to be aware of when having someone come to your hangar to do maintenance is of the airport having an ordinance protecting the on field maintenance facilities. UGN has an ordinance stating that in order to do maintenance you must have the same size facility as those on the field already and pay the associated fees. I believe this is the right thing to do and if I want someone other than the maintenance facility on my airport to do the work, then I should bring my airplane to them. These maint shops have a huge investment in their buildings and equipment so is it right to bring someone else in who doesn't have the investment and undercut them? David

I like your answer Scott. The young kids have little interest or money to get into aviation. There's only going to be more airplanes sitting and for sale. It's a sellers market with few buyers!! David

Stalls are pretty much a non event in my C model. David

1 quart every 10 hours or so.

This is why I sure like having mine in a hangar. I remeber the days of being in a covered T-hangar and watching for this on my Cherokee. Good catch! David

The Mooney manuals are not updated or revised. The new information is sent out via the Service Letters and Service Bulletins. I'm not a fan of this and feel that as mechanics we're left hanging by the FAA for not forcing the OEM's to revise their manuals. Lycoming is the worst for this. Their manuals have been updated by Service Bulletins for years, or forever, and it's a nightmare to verify the status or do maintenance on any of their engines per the manual. This is the reason I do not work on anyone else's small GA airplane. The maintenance manuals are a nightmare and leave us wide open to a violation of the FAR's or worse, an aircraft incident due to improper maintenance from lack of organized current technical information (data). David

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