Nose Gear Woes!

[CharlesHuddleston]

12 hours ago, carusoam said:

Charles,

Give an extra look at the tubes supporting the nose gear when you get a chance...

The usual towing incidents include the tubes as they clash into each other during an over stead situation...

Best regards,

-a-

That was the first place I looked after noticing the damage. Fortunately, just a little paint rub, but no indentation. 

[CharlesHuddleston]

15 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

THis also happened in Miami (KTMB I believe) to a 35 hr old Ultra, and was the catalyst for sim 20-137 being issued last May.

Ouch!!! I hope that the gear was the only thing damaged. Was this a towing mistake as well??? I can image lots of other important moving parts that could have hit the ground as well... I’m certain that was a BAD day for everyone involved. 

[mike_elliott]

4 minutes ago, CharlesHuddleston said:

Ouch!!! I hope that the gear was the only thing damaged. Was this a towing mistake as well??? I can image lots of other important moving parts that could have hit the ground as well... I’m certain that was a BAD day for everyone involved. 

Yes, the towing error was captured by the security footage also. Other moving parts hit when taxiing began and the nose gear completed the failure. New Engine, new prop, new nose parts = no damage.

[bradp]

I encountered an almost new Ovation in Provincetown one summer that had the same thing happen.  I ended up giving the owner and his daughter a ride to NH later that day in a rented 182. 

[CharlesHuddleston]

Work is getting started. Actually had to get a new nose truss as the back attachment bracket of the ‘doghouse’ was broken as well. We removed the front nose well panel to expose the cross member. Next up, going to support nose with an engine hoist, remove the nose gear, and grind the old welded pin off. Only upside is that I can do a good thorough cleaning of the nose well! That, and I’m replacing the pucks all around. In the pic, the red circle is the broken pivot point and the blue represents where the steering arm would live. You can also see (or not) the absent pilot’s side turn limiting tab. Love to do and learn, hate to do it at the expense of flight time. 

[cliffy]

While you are in that area check the 4 bolts that hold the rudder pedal cross shaft in place. 2 can be easily gotten to and the other 2 (the ones of course that get loose) are much harder to tighten.  Lots of rudder control slop in the pedals can be attributed to these 4 bolts working loose. 

[cliffy]

Just to add-   I found I had to drill a hole in the floor above the hard to get bolts (the floor is NOT structural here) and make a thin ground down box wrench on a long handle and wiggle it in to get on the back side of the bolt for tightening. 2 man job to tighten for me. Maybe someone else can figure another way to get at it. 

[larrynimmo]

1 hour ago, cliffy said:

Just to add-   I found I had to drill a hole in the floor above the hard to get bolts (the floor is NOT structural here) and make a thin ground down box wrench on a long handle and wiggle it in to get on the back side of the bolt for tightening. 2 man job to tighten for me. Maybe someone else can figure another way to get at it. 

very simple...you do what you got to do to make it work!  Great job thinking "out of the box"

[PT20J]

On 1/30/2020 at 5:09 AM, cliffy said:

While you are in that area check the 4 bolts that hold the rudder pedal cross shaft in place. 2 can be easily gotten to and the other 2 (the ones of course that get loose) are much harder to tighten.  Lots of rudder control slop in the pedals can be attributed to these 4 bolts working loose. 

Hmmmm. In the M20J IPC, I see that the rudder control torque tube is installed on four bushings with bolts that have castle nuts and cotter pins. Is this what you are talking about? Maybe your installation is different, but I don’t see how these bolts could loosen.

Skip

[cliffy]

Mine were self locking nuts  (64D)  and the ears tighten onto the bushing shoulders. When loose they wear the bolt holes, 

You're never going to fix the ears if they wear too far, without removing the firewall. A little wear causes a lot of slop.

Tighten the bolts and secure the bushings in the ears - stops the slop before the wear goes too far. 

Its a judgement call How much slop is too much - only your mechanic knows, the design is to capture the bushing between the ears clamping with the bolt. Just make sure the bolt is secure. 

[PT20J]

4 minutes ago, cliffy said:

Mine were self locking nuts  (64D)  and the ears tighten onto the bushing shoulders. When loose they wear the bolt holes, 

You're never going to fix the ears if they wear too far, without removing the firewall. A little wear causes a lot of slop.

Tighten the bolts and secure the bushings in the ears - stops the slop before the wear goes too far. 

Its a judgement call How much slop is too much - only your mechanic knows, the design is to capture the bushing between the ears clamping with the bolt. Just make sure the bolt is secure. 

Interesting. Mooney must have changed the design by the J. Perhaps @M20Doc knows. 

[CharlesHuddleston]

Progress! Re-Assembly complete. New nose truss, clamp-on pin, and new nose pucks. (They were over-due!) 
Now waiting for all the TN rains to pass to try some taxi runs and then take to the skies. I huge thank you to my new local A&P, Ted Tippon (son of the country music star).  They are Mooney owners as well!

 

[RLCarter]

4 hours ago, CharlesHuddleston said:

 huge thank you to my new local A&P, Ted Tippon (son of the country music star).  They are Mooney owners as well!

The Tippins are big into aviation

[carusoam]

Charles, great pics showing what the old v. New looks like!

Good luck with the taxi tests...
 

Things are going to go smooooth.... 

Tom made the news a few years ago...

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/december/02/aaron-tippins-son-solos-three-1940s-classics-on-16th-birthday

Ted showed up here...

https://classiccountrymusic.com/country-singer-aaron-tippins-son-delivers-cover-of-the-eagles-hotel-california/

 

Lots of aviation in that family!

Best regards,

-a-

[pagirard]

Hi all,

 

Thanks for sharing the pictures of the Lasar Kit 148. I have a slightly worn pin on my 1974 M20E and contacted Lasar about this kit. This kit has been unavailable for the past 5 years and Lasar is in the process of renewing their PMA but can't release the drawings for this part. 

May I ask if anyone know what is the dimension L of this kit ? 

[1980Mooney]

15 hours ago, pagirard said:

Thanks for sharing the pictures of the Lasar Kit 148. I have a slightly worn pin on my 1974 M20E and contacted Lasar about this kit. This kit has been unavailable for the past 5 years and Lasar is in the process of renewing their PMA but can't release the drawings for this part. 

May I ask if anyone know what is the dimension L of this kit ? 

 

Check with @65MooneyPilot.  He said that he installed it.

 

 

 I also wonder why it has taken LASAR five years to get around to the "process of renewing their PMA"

The current owners of LASAR bought out Paul and Shery Loewen in 2017.  Sounds like they sold out the inventory and never started the "process of renewing" the PMA for the past 8 years.  Sad - they are the same ones asking us to pay them a $200-$500/month subscription.

[takair]

I can’t answer the dimension question until I visit the airplane next. Even then hard to get at with it assembled. 
 

My vintage had the situation where the pin was a bolt through the cross tube and the tube had elongated. I was really thankful that LASAR developed this kit. Made me nervous when they ran out of stock, since there are some long term wear parts. That said, it. Has held up very well. I do have to say though, that it seemed like a very complex solution to the problem and did not seem entirely easy to manufacture. Likely multiple vendors, process steps, and inspections, all of which complicate the PMA process. 

[pagirard]

6 hours ago, takair said:

I can’t answer the dimension question until I visit the airplane next. Even then hard to get at with it assembled. 
 

My vintage had the situation where the pin was a bolt through the cross tube and the tube had elongated. I was really thankful that LASAR developed this kit. Made me nervous when they ran out of stock, since there are some long term wear parts. That said, it. Has held up very well. I do have to say though, that it seemed like a very complex solution to the problem and did not seem entirely easy to manufacture. Likely multiple vendors, process steps, and inspections, all of which complicate the PMA process. 

That would be wonderful if you could measure the length of the part. I agree the part is not trivial to manufacture, the 3 parts clamp (in black) should be steel - I'm guessing 4041. The "sleeve" around the part is likely stainless, probably 316. the pins holding the sleeve are hard to guess but since they are structural I'm also guessing 4041. The bolts looks like stainless steel grade 8. Then there is the question of the pivot pin, I can measure the angle from the pictures but I don't know if it is heat treated. I will measure the hardness on the receiving hole of the steering horn. Last is the cotter pin to prevent the rotation of the pivot pin - not sure either what material is used. 

If we are going to keep our airplanes flying, we are going to need a way to make vintage parts available or PMA easier to get or remove intellectual property rights to these kits after XX years....

[Hank]

15 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

Check with @65MooneyPilot.  He said that he installed it.

 

 

 I also wonder why it has taken LASAR five years to get around to the "process of renewing their PMA"

The current owners of LASAR bought out Paul and Shery Loewen in 2017.  Sounds like they sold out the inventory and never started the "process of renewing" the PMA for the past 8 years.  Sad - they are the same ones asking us to pay them a $200-$500/month subscription.

All of LASAR's PMAs had to be reapplied for, from scratch, when the new owners moved from CA to AZ. It was triggered by the move to a new location, not by the change in ownership. 

Like many government "rules," it does not make sense to me. Approval should be based on materials and process; the "who" part should be determined by whoever develops it--whether they make it themselves, have some things subcontracted or just sell the idea, designs and processors to someone else. The important thing is whether the final output marches the design, not who does the physical work and which exact building it happens in.

[N201MKTurbo]

24 minutes ago, Hank said:

All of LASAR's PMAs had to be reapplied for, from scratch, when the new owners moved from CA to AZ. It was triggered by the move to a new location, not by the change in ownership. 

Like many government "rules," it does not make sense to me. Approval should be based on materials and process; the "who" part should be determined by whoever develops it--whether they make it themselves, have some things subcontracted or just sell the idea, designs and processors to someone else. The important thing is whether the final output marches the design, not who does the physical work and which exact building it happens in.

They moved to Oregon, not AZ. 
 

It’s not like they started from scratch, they should have all the paperwork that was submitted the first time. They just need to resubmit it with a few minor changes. 
 

I wonder what the real reason is.

[Hank]

20 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

They moved to Oregon, not AZ. 
 

It’s not like they started from scratch, they should have all the paperwork that was submitted the first time. They just need to resubmit it with a few minor changes. 
 

I wonder what the real reason is.

Same FSDO or a different one? They each run like separate kingdoms, with different rules and interpretations of the regulations. The FAA should operate the same all over the country, not with ten or twelve or ever-how-many sets of not-quite-the-same rules. 

[N201MKTurbo]

It seems there are no more MIDO’s so manufacturing is handled by certificate management branches. The same one that handles CA handles OR. 
 

Seeing that it is a different organization than it used to be. There is probably some wet behind the ears millennial running the whole thing who is trying to reinvent the whole orginazition in his (or her) own image. Not to mention the same office handling LASER’s applications, is also handling Boeing. I wonder where their priorities are. 

[N201MKTurbo]

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/certification_branches

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/certificate_management_sections

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/2023_reorganization
 

It is interesting that that last website clearly states that the new organization’s goal is servicing commercial aircraft manufacturers and the engines that run them.

[PT20J]

LASAR quit producing this part long before the move to Oregon. I inquired about it six or seven years ago because I thought I might need a new steering horn at some point. Corrine Boatright told me at the time that many of the PMA parts had been made by a local machinist that retired, and since they weren't selling many of these anyway, they decided not to look for another machine shop.

[cliffy]

One has to remember that in the FAA - crap runs downhill!

Everything, and I mean everything starts as how it affects the 121 world and then and only then

rolls down hill.

You want just one example?     ADSB

60 years of dealing with them

If you have trouble with the metaphor I can clarify