Mooney Service bulletin M20-345

[Guest]

From the IPC, it appears to apply to 67 F models.

[hammdo]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

You don't want them to ignore the problem till they have weights available do you?

A loss of balance weight could result in a catastrophic flutter event - not that I've heard of any such events yet! But  just say'n.

But I am sure Mooney will work with anyone contacting them with these installed, to get replacements in your hands asap. 

No, I would not for sure but, I would like to know if they at least are in progress creating a few kits. Mine are good. Lead time is what made me wonder about the notice without kits. We know how the supply chain is… an ETA would be nice. 
 

-Don

[Utah20Gflyer]

1 hour ago, Ragsf15e said:

I’m wondering how hard it’s going to be to verify… I’m sitting at an airport all day so I went for a walk… took 5 minutes to find a ‘67F with smooth elevators.  No way to tell without sandpaper i think?

In the SB sample pictures you could see the transition between inner and outer sections through the paint.  So I would say that's not one of the affected weights.     

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

I’m wondering how hard it’s going to be to verify… I’m sitting at an airport all day so I went for a walk… took 5 minutes to find a ‘67F with smooth elevators.  No way to tell without sandpaper i think?

I suspect it'd be evident if the hybrid part were in place, but if there was doubt and one wanted to know for certain, especially if the airplane is expected to have that part number in place, it'd probably be worth taking some paint off to make sure.    That said, since it isn't an AD (at least yet), and compliance isn't required, if it looked clean like that it might not be worth worrying about too much.   If there were cracks evident, it might be worth looking at more closely or it might be more obvious where the paint was cracking at the bi-metal corrosion sites.

[Guest]

The 68 F model uses a different part number of weight

[Dmax]

The bad weights were on the early 1967 F models. There were about 140 of these F models that used these weights. They mention the smooth skins elevators so as to eliminate all others. The ribbed elevators began in 1969 models. Their concern is to get them all and they could have been acquired from salvage and put on other models pre 1969. The flat skin F model elevators are different from flat skin C D &E models. The difference is the number of ribs in the elevators. The F has 9 ribs in each elevator. Other model flat skin elevators have only 4 ribs in each elevator. This post has located two more planes with bad elevators today. 

[0TreeLemur]

Stopped by the hangar to look at the elevator weights on our C.   Not the composite ones described in the SB.  Hurrah for small victories.

 

[A64Pilot]

Probably 99% of AD’s come from SB’s, it takes awhile to issue an AD and they need a reason, like accidents or an SB.

If I had an airplane with the suspect weights I’d try real hard to get compliant ones from the recycled parts chain soon. I’ve not even read the SB, but from what you guys say it sure sounds like it will become an AD. 

Besides if you have the suspect parts you want to get rid of them ASAP it sound like anyway.

[Pinecone]

It is disappointing that it seems Mooney put this out, without any path to getting the parts in stock.

[DCarlton]

17 hours ago, David Lloyd said:

Picture in this thread recently looks much like the picture in the SB.

The counterweight part number in the SB is used only on the F, and only on1967 and earlier. C, D, E all used another part.   I think 1968 they used the beaded elevator skins all models.  The problem counterweight could show up on other models if the elevators were replaced with salvaged parts as mentioned in the SB.

My '67 F Serial 670429 does not appear to have the suspect counterweights.  I can post a pic later today if that helps anyone.  I'm going to check them as part of my preflight now.  I eyeball the elevators anyway and give them a shake.  

[DCarlton]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

It is disappointing that it seems Mooney put this out, without any path to getting the parts in stock.

I fly a '67F (one of the models in question) and I'm pleased that Mooney is showing interest and taking action on these older airframes.  Good that they're showing signs of life.  Agree additional parts support would be a great thing.  One of the reasons I like my old F, is I feel like I can find salvage parts if needed.  So far, never had a problem with parts.  

The real question, is how the heck did Mooney surge to produce 536 F's in 1967.  It was a great year.  

[Dmax]

3 hours ago, Pinecone said:

It is disappointing that it seems Mooney put this out, without any path to getting the parts in stock.

They wanted to get it out so that maybe they could save a life. 

[hammdo]

Agreed.. better safe than sorry… with all the detailed info now…

-Don

[Shadrach]

On 10/7/2022 at 12:19 PM, DCarlton said:

My '67 F Serial 670429 does not appear to have the suspect counterweights.  I can post a pic later today if that helps anyone.  I'm going to check them as part of my preflight now.  I eyeball the elevators anyway and give them a shake.  

Mine is 670422 with an airworthiness date of 07/03/67 and does not have the hybrid weights either.

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, DCarlton said:

I fly a '67F (one of the models in question) and I'm pleased that Mooney is showing interest and taking action on these older airframes.  Good that they're showing signs of life.  Agree additional parts support would be a great thing.  One of the reasons I like my old F, is I feel like I can find salvage parts if needed.  So far, never had a problem with parts.  

The real question, is how the heck did Mooney surge to produce 536 F's in 1967.  It was a great year.  

They built 751 airplanes in 1967. Seemed like a lot until I looked at Cessna’s numbers…Just looking at 172s, they built 1,436 in 1965. 1,597 in 1966.  839 in 1967 and 1,206 in 1968. 

[hais]

On 10/6/2022 at 12:27 PM, Marauder said:

Let’s hope you smooth skin guys don’t need to replace these elevators. When I was looking into reskinning or replacing costs, Mooney wanted $3k per elevator side. — And that was when Mooney was still making planes.

I can’t remember who told me about the changeover from smooth to beaded. But the reason it done was it is a lot cheaper to make the beaded because it eliminated the labor to install all those little ribs in the elevator.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Are there aerodynamic advantages for the smooth type?

[N201MKTurbo]

53 minutes ago, hais said:

Are there aerodynamic advantages for the smooth type?

Probably a little. I'm sure they changed to save money, not to make them better.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, hais said:

Are there aerodynamic advantages for the smooth type?

I think they look nicer. My guess is the “beaded” control surfaces eliminate a lot of the internal structure that would be comprised of ribs and stringers. I don’t have an IPC for a 69 or later model. It would be interesting to see the structural difference.

[Culver LFA]

I'm #670221, a '67 F produced 12/66. 

Just walked out to the airplane and took a look, there are no signs of cracking, corrosion or plugs on either one of my elevator counterweights.  No logbook entries for elevator repairs or replacement from birth to today so I have no reason to suspect replacement in the past. 

 

Edited October 8, 2022 by Culver LFA

[MooneyMitch]

1 hour ago, Culver LFA said:

I'm #670221, a '67 F produced 12/66

My former F might model is 670082, AW date 10/13/66…….. wow those folks were  producing a lot of airplanes rapidly! 

[1980Mooney]

13 hours ago, Pinecone said:

It is disappointing that it seems Mooney put this out, without any path to getting the parts in stock.

 

13 hours ago, DCarlton said:

I fly a '67F (one of the models in question) and I'm pleased that Mooney is showing interest and taking action on these older airframes.  Good that they're showing signs of life.  Agree additional parts support would be a great thing.  One of the reasons I like my old F, is I feel like I can find salvage parts if needed.  So far, never had a problem with parts.  

 

10 hours ago, Dmax said:

They wanted to get it out so that maybe they could save a life. 

Although it may sound altruistic and give some a warm feeling for Mooney, I suspect Mooney's motive is more selfish.  I bet it is driven by the advice of Mooney's lawyers to Mooney management in their desire to avoid liability.  Remember that the current CEO is a lawyer.

If the elevator of a F model disintegrates in flight for reasons of bad original design, improper materials or flawed original manufacturing and these issues were previously unknown to Mooney at the time of the accident then Mooney has no liability - Zero, None, Zilch.  You can thank GARA - The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA).  Manufacturers have no liability for anything over 18 years old.

But if Mooney becomes aware of a potentially dangerous condition (especially multiple instances) that is related to original design, materials or original manufacturing and Mooney takes no action to inform owners then Mooney could be found to be negligent in the event of a failure and accident.

So Mooney did all it needed to do - this relieves them of liability.  If anything happens it is because the owner did not heed Mooney's warnings to NOT FLY - it will be the fault of the owner because he/she did not ground their plane waiting on Mooney to produce new parts.

"NOTE 1: ...... 1.3. If the balance weight is found to be “abnormal” - DO NOT FLY -

NOTE 2: If elevator balance weights are the original 430018-1 style, DO NOT FLY

...the balance weights will need to be replaced with new weights developed by Mooney in a later revision of this Service Bulletin"

Edited October 8, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[DCarlton]

9 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

 

Although it may sound altruistic and give some a warm feeling for Mooney, I suspect Mooney's motive is more selfish.  I bet it is driven by the advice of Mooney's lawyers to Mooney management in their desire to avoid liability.  Remember that the current CEO is a lawyer.

If the elevator of a F model disintegrates in flight for reasons of bad original design, improper materials or flawed original manufacturing and these issues were previously unknown to Mooney at the time of the accident then Mooney has no liability - Zero, None, Zilch.  You can thank GARA - The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA).  Manufacturers have no liability for anything over 18 years old.

But if Mooney becomes aware of a potentially dangerous condition (especially multiple instances) that is related to original design, materials or original manufacturing and Mooney takes no action to inform owners then Mooney could be found to be negligent in the event of a failure and accident.

So Mooney did all it needed to do - this relieves them of liability.  If anything happens it is because the owner did not heed Mooney's warnings to NOT FLY - it will be the fault of the owner because he/she did not ground their plane waiting on Mooney to produce new parts.

"NOTE 1: ...... 1.3. If the balance weight is found to be “abnormal” - DO NOT FLY -

NOTE 2: If elevator balance weights are the original 430018-1 style, DO NOT FLY

...the balance weights will need to be replaced with new weights developed by Mooney in a later revision of this Service Bulletin"

it's nice when legal, financial, political, and technical forces align and result in leadership doing the right thing...   

[Shadrach]

On 10/8/2022 at 2:03 AM, 1980Mooney said:

 

 

Although it may sound altruistic and give some a warm feeling for Mooney, I suspect Mooney's motive is more selfish.  I bet it is driven by the advice of Mooney's lawyers to Mooney management in their desire to avoid liability.  Remember that the current CEO is a lawyer.

If the elevator of a F model disintegrates in flight for reasons of bad original design, improper materials or flawed original manufacturing and these issues were previously unknown to Mooney at the time of the accident then Mooney has no liability - Zero, None, Zilch.  You can thank GARA - The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA).  Manufacturers have no liability for anything over 18 years old.

But if Mooney becomes aware of a potentially dangerous condition (especially multiple instances) that is related to original design, materials or original manufacturing and Mooney takes no action to inform owners then Mooney could be found to be negligent in the event of a failure and accident.

So Mooney did all it needed to do - this relieves them of liability.  If anything happens it is because the owner did not heed Mooney's warnings to NOT FLY - it will be the fault of the owner because he/she did not ground their plane waiting on Mooney to produce new parts.

"NOTE 1: ...... 1.3. If the balance weight is found to be “abnormal” - DO NOT FLY -

NOTE 2: If elevator balance weights are the original 430018-1 style, DO NOT FLY

...the balance weights will need to be replaced with new weights developed by Mooney in a later revision of this Service Bulletin"

I don’t really see this as self-serving. Mooney should be shielded from liability for a 50 + year old airframe.  The corroded weights pictured in the SB are obviously an airworthiness issue. Notifying owners through the SB process was the right thing to do. The decision to issue the SB and the wording of the SB are different things. Anyone who spent any time dealing with lawyers and legal documents understands that once things go into writing, a cascade of additional considerations comes into play. This action does not seem at all heavy handed to me. I reserve the right to reassess if a subsequent AD is issued with an overly expensive termination.

The practical resolution is to install salvage counter weights or new counter weights from Mooney. These were off the shelf parts for many years, they should not require much in the way of engineering.

There are probably some salvage guys that are sorry they scrapped corroded control surfaces without removing the counter weights.

[67 m20F chump]

I have 67’ #84 and it has one of the bad weights on it.

[MooneyMitch]

15 minutes ago, 67 m20F chump said:

I have 67’ #84 and it has one of the bad weights on it.

Curious….. does the weight appear cracked, as described in the SB?