N261TA restoration

[LANCECASPER]

16 hours ago, Gubni said:

It has the original tach and the jpi digital neither one work. Both sensors were left on the motor when it was sent off to be rebuilt and neither came back. The JPI was easy to order the replacement but still didn't work. The original was with Bendix maga and I have Slick mags and I can't find a direct cross over replacement. I ordered a generic version and I'm waiting to see if it works.

.It is based at KTRI, but Greeneville is close.

You need an approved primary tach.  Even if you get the JPI EDM700 to display RPM it's only for supplemental information and not legal for flight if you don't have a approved primary tach. 

Both of these are approved and could replace the ship's approved tach:

https://www.jpinstruments.com/shop/slim-line-tach/

https://iflyei.com/product/r-1-rpm-tachometer-instrument/

(the EI should fit right in the same hole with the adapter plate that they sell)

@oregon87 who works for EI could chime in and help possibly

Horizon used to make an electronic tach that would have worked but they are no longer in business.

[oregon87]

Our R-1 is indeed certified as a primary replacement and fits in a standard 2-1/4" instrument hole.  If the existing tach to be replaced is a 3-1/8" unit, we provide the adapter plate in the package, as well as the cap for the tach cable.  Additionally, as we pick up the signal directly off the p-leads via provided isolators (resistors), there are no additional sensors to install, or wiring to be run through the firewall as the RPM inputs can be picked up off the mag switch.  

[Gubni]

14 minutes ago, oregon87 said:

Our R-1 is indeed certified as a primary replacement and fits in a standard 2-1/4" instrument hole.  If the existing tach to be replaced is a 3-1/8" unit, we provide the adapter plate in the package, as well as the cap for the tach cable.  Additionally, as we pick up the signal directly off the p-leads via provided isolators (resistors), there are no additional sensors to install, or wiring to be run through the firewall as the RPM inputs can be picked up off the mag switch.  

While I don't understand most of that, I have sent it to my A&P as an alternate if he doesn't get the original to work.

[oregon87]

35 minutes ago, Gubni said:

While I don't understand most of that, I have sent it to my A&P as an alternate if he doesn't get the original to work.

If your A&P doesn't understand that, RUN!  Run very fast!  

[Gubni]

3 minutes ago, oregon87 said:

If your A&P doesn't understand that, RUN!  Run very fast!  

Hehe, I'm sure he will understand it.

[carusoam]

Some MSers really liked their horizon tachs… it did the rpm drop calculation during the run-up.

It would be a cool feature for the EI units as well!

Best regards,

-a-

[oregon87]

The R-1 does indeed include a mag drop feature.  Attached is an excerpt from the R-1's install/operating instructions.

 

 

[kortopates]

Personally, the R1 is easier to install, which means cheaper labor, than getting a factory one working that is missing the sensor on the mag. Its only $550. 

The JPI sensor for the pressurized mags in $360.

I have both RPM indications - R1 and EDM-900. 

[LANCECASPER]

@Gubni  Any updates on the progress?

[Gubni]

We made more progress today with a ferry permit to fix a few more minor details.

[Gubni]

I'm starting to get excited. Only one problem is keeping it out of annual. The main gear when extended is not verticle. We are going to put it on jacks and investigate that. It locks in position and has new pucks. I'm guessing this will be obvious when we start investigating it.

The other problem is a minor oil leak. I don't know if it leaks with the engine running, but when parked it leaks onto the tire. My AI said it's coming from the internal altornator or oil filter adapter. Anyone else fought this problem?

[Andy95W]

Mooney landing gear isn’t necessarily “vertical” when extended. What matters is that the pre-loads are correct by using the real Mooney gear rigging tools. If your mechanic doesn’t have the actual tool, please don’t let him go adjusting things just to make it “look right”. And if he does, then make sure he has enough insurance to pay for a new prop and engine tear down inspection when the gear collapses.

Yes, this sounds extreme but it is accurate. Mooneys have been totaled by insurance companies because the mechanic didn’t have experience working on them and they thought they could rig the gear.

If you have electric gear, it’s only one tool for the mains. If you have manual gear you will need both tools. 

[Gubni]

44 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

Mooney landing gear isn’t necessarily “vertical” when extended. What matters is that the pre-loads are correct by using the real Mooney gear rigging tools. If your mechanic doesn’t have the actual tool, please don’t let him go adjusting things just to make it “look right”. And if he does, then make sure he has enough insurance to pay for a new prop and engine tear down inspection when the gear collapses.

Yes, this sounds extreme but it is accurate. Mooneys have been totaled by insurance companies because the mechanic didn’t have experience working on them and they thought they could rig the gear.

If you have electric gear, it’s only one tool for the mains. If you have manual gear you will need both tools. 

He quoted me an exact measurement. Maybe 59" that it should be and mine is 58". I didn't take notes on the numbers, but  his concern that it's one inch too short.

[Andy95W]

Those numbers correspond to absolutely nothing in the service manual or any service bulletins on Mooney gear rigging.  Good luck.

[LANCECASPER]

14 hours ago, Gubni said:

He quoted me an exact measurement. Maybe 59" that it should be and mine is 58". I didn't take notes on the numbers, but  his concern that it's one inch too short.

Hopefully your IA has the Mooney Maintenance Manual for a Mooney 231. If he doesn't he has no business rigging your landing gear, or even doing your annual for that matter.

Is this the same person who replaced your nose gear a couple years ago?

 

[Andy95W]

@Gubni- I apologize if my couple of posts came across too sarcastic.  I can imagine the spot you’re in.  You’ve got an A&P who is willing to help and is probably a really good mechanic.  You have to trust him and believe in his work, that is your half of a good mechanic/owner relationship.

Mooneys aren’t magic or unique in their construction.  A good A&P doesn’t need special skills to do good work on them.  But Mooneys do have some systems that ARE unique, and the landing gear is one of those.  (Flight control rigging is another.). Just because a guy is really good at Bonanza/Piper/TBM landing gear, doesn’t mean he knows Mooney landing gear.  He really has to follow the maintenance manual.  Many of those manuals are available for download right here on MooneySpace. Go up to “Browse” then “Downloads” and you’ll find the Service Manuals. Even if it’s not the exact one for your 231, it will at least give a starting place for gear rigging and show the proper way to check the preloads on the over-center links.

I’m not sure where the 58” and 59” measurements came from.  Maybe the height of the wingtips?  One thing for your A&P to understand is that each Mooney really is hand-built, and the exact angle of each gear or height of each wingtip may differ from other Mooneys.  That is very normal.  What matters is the torque needed to flex the overcenter links to unlock the gear.  Too tight and the pushrods will bend and eventually break the attachment fittings, leading to a gear collapse.  Too loose and the gear links won’t stay over center and the gear will collapse.  Both of these eventualities are well documented right here on MooneySpace.

One nice thing about Mooney landing gear- it generally doesn’t change from one annual inspection to the next.  So if your gear was good at the last inspection, and if nothing has been changed on the landing gear, then it is almost guaranteed to still be good.  That is better than the mechanic making adjustments without having the correct gear rigging tools or the correct manuals.

Good luck to you!  You’ve got a really nice conversion- the best parts of the 231 with the engine of the 252, which is the engine the 231 needed all along.

[EricJ]

7 hours ago, Gubni said:

He quoted me an exact measurement. Maybe 59" that it should be and mine is 58". I didn't take notes on the numbers, but  his concern that it's one inch too short.

Find out what he's measuring and why he thinks it should be 58".   As mentioned, that's not a measurement that's typically used to rig gear.    The Service Maintenance Manual is available for free download (maybe in the directory here), and has specific directions for rigging the gear.  

Mooney gear can look a little weird, but that's just the way they are.    Sometimes they look toed-in, but they're not.   Same thing with vertical or not.   They can look weird and be fine.

[Fly Boomer]

19 hours ago, EricJ said:

Find out what he's measuring and why he thinks it should be 58".   As mentioned, that's not a measurement that's typically used to rig gear.

I think it may be the track.  Somewhere it says 59 inches, and mechanic measures 58 inches, leading him to believe that the gear needs "alignment".

[EricJ]

58 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

I think it may be the track.  Somewhere it says 59 inches, and mechanic measures 58 inches, leading him to believe that the gear needs "alignment".

There's no adjustment for track and it's not an inspection item.  The K model SMM says the track is 9' 2" (110") in the data and then on the drawing shows 9' 3/4" (108 3/4").   It doesn't specify exactly what to measure, either (center to center?), but I get the impression there's no intention for it to be a precision thing.    The only real adjustments on the main gear are for the downlock preloads to prevent gear collapse.   There is no procedure in the SMM to adjust track.    I don't know what he might be looking at, as I don't know of anything that needs to be adjusted to 59" related to the gear.   All of the measurements in the gear rigging process, even starting from scratch, are small (either thousandths or a couple inches) and relative to positions of the control rods, springs, etc.

He might be worried that there's a bearing or bushing failed somewhere, but that could be assessed with a gear swing.   It might be worth clarifying what's up.

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

There's no adjustment for track and it's not an inspection item.  The K model SMM says the track is 9' 2" (110") in the data and then on the drawing shows 9' 3/4" (108 3/4").   It doesn't specify exactly what to measure, either (center to center?), but I get the impression there's no intention for it to be a precision thing.    The only real adjustments on the main gear are for the downlock preloads to prevent gear collapse.   There is no procedure in the SMM to adjust track.    I don't know what he might be looking at, as I don't know of anything that needs to be adjusted to 59" related to the gear.   All of the measurements in the gear rigging process, even starting from scratch, are small (either thousandths or a couple inches) and relative to positions of the control rods, springs, etc.

He might be worried that there's a bearing or bushing failed somewhere, but that could be assessed with a gear swing.   It might be worth clarifying what's up.

Of course you are right.  Those 58 or 59 numbers are way too small to be track.  I'll go back to my previous explanation:  "No idea".