tony

did they make a M20J in 1964?

Joey painted my airplane too. I dropped it off just before COVID hit. It took a little longer than it was supposed to but that was understandable. He texted me pictures with very major step. He was always accessible when I wanted to call. I'm very happy with the quality of his work. I had him change all the windows out, and he did some body work but so far everything has held up well. All the inspection panels were removed and painted separately. All the camlocks were changed, and he even put nylon washers under brand new stainless screws so the paint wouldn't be damaged during removal.. I appreciated his attention to detail. He took care of my airplane like it was his own. I have no reservations in recommending him. Remember, you get what you pay for. If you want it cheap, you’re going to get cheap.

No, that’s not how its works. The FAA reacts to the data they are provided. I understand you have a very close relationship with the principles at Mooney and you feel the need to defend their actions. I’m just giving you another perspective. If you don’t want to hear it, that’s fine.

I have an almost 60 year old airplane and the OEM has never supported me. Thank God for LASER. They support me more than the factory ever has. The sad thing is that not only does Mooney not support me, they go out of their way not to support me by not making data available for parts they have no intention to make. Do I want Mooney to go out of business? No. My comment comes out of frustration. There are other avenues to support owners like me. License the data to a parts house that can apply for a PMA. Make the data available through there MSCs, provide the data to the owners on a one on one basis for a fee. I understand that they are not a charitable organization and they are entitled to make money but doing nothing and letting old airplanes rot is not an acceptable strategy. Hence my frustration. I’m sure part of the issue is that there is no one left with domain knowledge in the company anymore. If they go out of business, not bankruptcy, they must surrender the type certificate to the FAA. The FAA used to keep all the substantiating data when an aircraft was certified. I realize finding it is another issue. Let’s take the elevator AD as an example. Mooney’s service bulletin said to inspect my 60 year old airplane (which they grounded), before the next flight because of a corrosion issue that should have been caught during an annual years before. When Mooney gave the service bulletin to the FAA, it should have come with an assessment of the system effect (I got it, it could have been catastrophic) and the probability of occurrence. The probably of occurrence drives the time to comply. Do you think the probability of occurrence was a 1 which drives you to ground an entire fleet? A better answer would have been to inspect at the next 100-hour inspection. To make matters worse, if you had a bad counterweight, there were no parts available to correct the issue. That’s not supporting the owner operators. Or let’s take Matthew P problem. His airplane is AOG. He’s trying like hell to get it flying again and he can’t get support from Mooney to get some lousy gears. Mooney refuses to make the parts and refuses to provide the engineering data. Someone in the factory decided that there was not a business case for it. Or maybe they don’t have the expertise to procure the part anymore or. Ok I accept that but not to provide Mathew the data or a way to get the part made from a third party isn’t right. I hope this shed’s a little light on my frustration. If I had a modern Mooney perhaps my experiences would be different.

which supports Ross's assertion

Many in the Mooney community would be extremely grateful.

Their is a difference in the latent heat of vaporization between Mogas and 100LL. I believe, now this is just folklore, during hot day testing the Mooney aircraft experienced a vapor lock.

My opinion of course: The best thing that cold happen to us, the owners, is they just go out of business. They certainly are not supporting the owners. By going out of business it would put all the engineering data in the public domain. Then people who want to make an owner produced parts would have access to the design data. It would also stop these ridiculous ADs that have no value. I had to ground my 60 year old airplane, to perform an inspection on a part that should have been found in an annual. If the the time of compliance would have said at the next 100 hour inspection. But to ground the airplane was an emotional response, not an engineering response. Ok I'm waiting for all the negative comments now, bring them on.......

yup, you just push the button that says mon1 or mon2. Its actually made by PS Engineering for Avidyne..

I think so too

you might want to pull the finger screen while you're looking for leaks

That has been my experience as well. I have a little valve on the actuator. I pressurized the system with a syringe by the reservoir and then opened that valve. The result wasn't great but after a flight or two the system was rock hard again.

That's an approved radio call! woof woof woof.......

Ross, I really don't think you know how the FAA works, I probably need to say doesn't work. The FAA has ACOs, MIDOs, FSDOs, and none of the talk to each other. The engineering side would agree per 14CFR21.93 (a) this is a minor change. But the operational side who holds airworthiness in their hand says, there is no engineering to support the change. So here we are, stuck in a place where the airplane sits on the ground for paperwork. Life is short and I'd rather go fly then argue over who is right. The OP needs to just draw up a an engineering drawing that supports this change in his specific airplane, throw an 8110 on the engineering (not the part), and then use that with the FSDO. This happens everyday.

Dont ask the FSDO, just get a DER to sign an 8110 and move on.