Vintage Mooney cowling mod completion pictures!

[Sabremech]

From your pictures, that spinner won't work with my modification. The diameter of my spinner is 14 inches. I need to spend some more time on the spinner issue and see what options I can come up with. The problem with having too many different options in an STC is that it complicates the paperwork part of it quite a bit.

 Thank you,

 David

[DaV8or]

 I am curious about the outside corners on the upper cowl. What is the major challenge to integrating/blending the upper cowl into the air inlets?

I think it's because in order to reduce the cost to the buyer, he wants to reuse most of the upper cowl and just replace the very front part. The original cowl is a very boxy shaped affair. I'm assuming the placement of the inlets is based on relative placement on the RV cowls to reduce the amount of experimentation required. I imagine the hope is to get something that works great with regards to cooling right out of the gate and so he's going with proven sizing and placement. In this case, likely form follows function of cooling and function of cost.

Edited October 19, 2015 by DaV8or

[Sabremech]

DaV8or is right about the upper cowling and blending the air inlets in. I wanted to keep the side access panels and as much of the original cowling as possible to improve cooling, have better looks, and maybe gain some speed. I wanted to produce a product that will be available at an attractive cost for those of us who have a lower valued Mooney but still want to improve on it. It certainly is a compromise and I could have done something much more appealing looks wise, but then I'd be like the other manufacturer of a cowling that would be overpriced and not deliver enough bang for the buck. 

Thanks,

David

[MyNameIsNobody]

DaV8or is right about the upper cowling and blending the air inlets in. I wanted to keep the side access panels and as much of the original cowling as possible to improve cooling, have better looks, and maybe gain some speed. I wanted to produce a product that will be available at an attractive cost for those of us who have a lower valued Mooney but still want to improve on it. It certainly is a compromise and I could have done something much more appealing looks wise, but then I'd be like the other manufacturer of a cowling that would be overpriced and not deliver enough bang for the buck. 

Thanks,

David

Home Run David.  You delivered EXACTLY what I wanted aesthetically.  If the cooling is there it is a win/win.  I want a lower price point with updated appearance retaining my side/panel access.  Thank you.  Highly psyched for pricing and availability....

Will continue in "holding pattern"...

Hope testing and certification are as uneventful as possible.

[Hank]

DaV8or is right about the upper cowling and blending the air inlets in. I wanted to keep the side access panels and as much of the original cowling as possible to improve cooling, have better looks, and maybe gain some speed. I wanted to produce a product that will be available at an attractive cost for those of us who have a lower valued Mooney but still want to improve on it. It certainly is a compromise and I could have done something much more appealing looks wise, but then I'd be like the other manufacturer of a cowling that would be overpriced and not deliver enough bang for the buck. 

Thanks,

David

Rah! Rah! Go team!! Sabremech!! 

[MyNameIsNobody]

Rah! Rah! Go team!! Sabremech!! 

Nice emoticon Hank.  Looks like me ogling the cowl mod  

[philipneeper]

I want one!!!!

[StinkBug]

From your pictures, that spinner won't work with my modification. The diameter of my spinner is 14 inches. I need to spend some more time on the spinner issue and see what options I can come up with. The problem with having too many different options in an STC is that it complicates the paperwork part of it quite a bit.

 Thank you,

 David

Wonder if there would be a way to just make a little add on trim ring to close the gap.

 

EDIT: actually on second look I see that your cowling tucks behind the spinner. What's the actual hole diameter? any chance the Top Prop spinner would just fit through the center, rather than over the top?

Edited October 21, 2015 by StinkBug

[Sabremech]

I hope to have my spinner issues worked out by the end of next month. That's one of the last pieces I need to finalize and then I'm closer to seeing what a kit would cost.

It's entirely possible that your spinner would work through the smaller opening, but that would leave a flat flange exposed and could cause issues with peoples perception of my product and the ungainly look. It would also cause some more certification issues and costs.

 Thank you,

 David

[N601RX]

If I remember correctly the ARI STC uses the wording "any spinner that is approved for the same prop on a J model"  I don't remember it listing specific pn's.

[Hank]

Could the spinner hole be made slightly smaller for those of us with the normal spinner, then the 201 spinner folks could enlarge the hole as needed, with guidance in the DFU for how large to cut the hole? Combined with Mike's semi-quote from ARI, this could multiply your sales since we wouldn't need to drop another 2-3 AMU to replace a perfectly good spinner. Just sayin . . .

[Sabremech]

Hi Hank,

Two issues come to mind in regards to the smaller spinner. In order for me to get the air filter in the left cylinder cooling inlet, I need the extra 1.5 inches in forward space that the 201 style spinner gives me with the spinner backing plate being mounted further forward on the spinner hub. Secondly, I would need to create a new mold for this change in the parts, new airbox, different baffling than I have so it would essentially be a completely different modification. What I have currently will work on all 1966 and later C,E,F & G models with the current major expense being a new spinner. I'm looking to have my own spinners made to bring the cost down substantially on my kits. In order to keep the cost in check, I need to make this fit as many models as I can. There's always a compromise, but I think I have a pretty good one so far.

N601RX,

ARI lists a specific part number of spinner for each propeller used and they are all essentially the 14 inch diameter base and mount forward on the prop like the 201. 

Thanks,

David

[DXB]

From your pictures, that spinner won't work with my modification. The diameter of my spinner is 14 inches. I need to spend some more time on the spinner issue and see what options I can come up with. The problem with having too many different options in an STC is that it complicates the paperwork part of it quite a bit.

 Thank you,

 David

Uh oh..I have the identical Top Prop setup- seems like this configuration is getting pretty common when folks get a new prop.   I really hope there's an easy solution here.   

[Sabremech]

Hi DXB,

I believe I will have a good solution. 

 

[N601RX]

 

N601RX,

ARI lists a specific part number of spinner for each propeller used and they are all essentially the 14 inch diameter base and mount forward on the prop like the 201. 

Thanks,

David

They gave the pn for the 2 most common, but then included the words "or any other approved spinner assembly for the Mooney M20J". 

"Install Mooney 201 (M20J) standard spinner assembly (Hartzell P/N 940087-501 or McCauley 680031-500 series P/N) or any other approved spinner assembly for the Mooney M20J, in accordance with ARI Drawing List Report Number 1005, the accompanying STC, and the manufacturer’s instructions for the approved M20J spinner assembly."

[Sabremech]

Here's the latest form their website:

 "one of the following Mooney M20J spinners of your choice: (1) standard M20J factory 2-blade unpolished spinner (no longer available), (2) Hartzell A-2295-5 2-blade unpolished spinner, (3) Hartzell A-2295-5(P) 2-blade polished spinner, (4) Hartzell A-2295-4(P) 3-blade polished spinner, or (5) McCauley D-6504(P) 3-blade polished spinner"

[N601RX]

The quote above was directly from their STC install instructions which should take precedence over their web site. It actually showed some forethought on their part.  It eliminates them having to go back and add more spinners later as new props and spinners are developed. 

 

[Sabremech]

Hi N601RX,

 Thanks for the information. I don't think that I can get that kind of open statement approved on an STC now. It's probably not going to be an issue for me as I plan to have my own spinners manufactured and included with the kits. It could become an issue if for some reason the FAA won't approve my spinner or the cost can't be controlled.

David

[StinkBug]

I don't know a whole lot about these things, but if you include a spinner will it work with my scimitar prop? Are these things fairly universal or are they specific to the prop?

[Sabremech]

I'm going to have several spinners made as each are a little different. 

[Hank]

Polished Hartzell 3-blade, please.  

[francisg]

Any pricing or performance data available yet? I am anxious .....

[Sabremech]

Hi francisg,

I'll have some performance data soon as it's ready to fly. The pricing is going to take a while yet as some parts have yet to be finalized. I'm going to be cautious about releasing a price until it's closer to being an STC.

Thank you,

David

[jamesm]

Hi  David,

Just curious what cylinder(s) give you your highest CHT's ?   and what temperature(s) range are hottest cylinders  they at?

[Sabremech]

Hi Jamesm,

Here's a picture of my engine monitor after an extended ground run and taxi. All temps are pretty close so far with my cowling and baffling. The real test will come with my test flights and how the temps are in climb and cruise.

Thanks,

David