Aircraft jacking using a weighted tail stand Vs using a cable winch

[Hank]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

The funny thing is those that rail against those that don’t use a tail weight, it’s not their opinion or advice.

It’s Mooney’s advice, you know the guys that built the airplane, but what do they know? 

So I guess we need to add Mooney to the list of manufacturers that don’t know what they are talking about and should be ignored?

I can only assume it’s due to unforeseen things, like I’ve seen people sitting in the airplane with it on jacks, a couple of 250 lb people could add a lot of stress on whatever is holding the aircraft down or up if you will.

Personally as my gear are electric I don’t get in the airplane with it on jacks, I reach through the window and can flip switches etc that way.

So far as not flying with the tie down rings installed, I’d bet money that the aircraft wasn’t test flown for Certification with them installed, due to Mooney wanting it in its cleanest configuration as the charts come from this testing, so therefore the restriction of don’t fly with them installed. I’d bet lunch Mooney thought it insignificant and the FAA pointed it out. 

I’ve done quite a bit of Certification, the FAA WILL have findings, it shows they are doing their job, so as a manufacturer you thank them for their attention to detail and put that prohibition in the POH, you have to give them something, so you give in on things that don’t matter.

You might be surprised at what’s in the POH that Mooney didn’t want there, but put there to placate an FAA inspector.

So how many POH / Owners Manual changes foes the FAA recommend fifty or more years after its initial release a d 40 or more years after production has ceased? Mooney didn't change the many Owners Manuals, they just issued as SB, which is contradictory to the propeller and engine manufacturers' own recommendations. 

Mooney: don't raise the nose by the tail, raise it using a prop jack or lifting the engine.

Hartzell & McCauley:  don't lift the nose of your plane using the propeller. 

Lycoming & Continental:  don't lift the nose of your plane using the engine hoist point.

So how do we get all three wheels in the air to check / rig the gear and doors? My powers of levitation won't pick up even my short body Mooney . . . . . which was jacked with a tail weight for 40 years before Mooney's recommendation was issued.

[Shadrach]

21 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Someone pointed out that their POH had them climbing at 26 squared. But I bet that maybe on a stupid hot day with a heat soaked engine at gross weight, climbing at Vx, you may not can exceed 26 squared and stay within limits, those seemingly silly restrictions come from somewhere

So bottom line, follow the manufacturers instructions, even those you disagree with, just because you don’t understand why they are written, doesn’t mean they are invalid.

If your following them and something bad happens, it makes an investigation more likely to break your way than if you weren’t.

Does your POH recommend climbing at 26X2600? Presumably if the recommendation has current and sound reasoning behind it, any aircraft with an angle valve IO360 should be operated that way. Or at least any Mooney? 
I think the reason folks venture outside the bounds of recommendations sometimes is because they are contradictory to current understanding and available data. Long ago I decided to start “flying” my engine based on the real time data available to me in the cockpit. It’s proven to be much better than using optimistic POH tables that recommend aggressive settings.  Many of those settings produce higher CHT’s than I’d prefer. I can run 100ROP 24x2400 74% per the POH, but I wouldn’t.

Will be interesting to compare the power setting numbers in your POH to mine. I bet lunch they don’t match. I wouldn’t be surprised if the POHs from different years for the same model don’t match.

Sometimes it’s hard to believe that the factory “had a good reason” for writing everything that they did. Sometimes they just had a reason, and not necessarily a good one. That reason was likely expediency, marketing or some other purpose other than logic or safety.  The majority of POHs could not be used to plan a long range flight based on book speeds and fuel burn.  I’m not just talking about Mooney, I’m talking about all of them. What is the factory’s “good reason” for embellishing speed and economy? Safety?.

I am grateful that the factory provides recommendations. I’m also grateful that there’s nothing regulatory that requires me to follow those recommendations if decades of experience suggests that they are sub-optimal. 

[mooniac15u]

Does anyone here take their plane to the Mooney factory for service?  What is their procedure for jacking?

[A64Pilot]

Just now, Hank said:

So how many POH / Owners Manual changes foes the FAA recommend fifty or more years after its initial release a d 40 or more years after production has ceased? Mooney didn't change the many Owners Manuals, they just issued as SB, which is contradictory to the propeller and engine manufacturers' own recommendations. 

Mooney: don't raise the nose by the tail, raise it using a prop jack or lifting the engine.

Hartzell & McCauley:  don't lift the nose of your plane using the propeller. 

Lycoming & Continental:  don't lift the nose of your plane using the engine hoist point.

So how do we get all three wheels in the air to check / rig the gear and doors? My powers of levitation won't pick up even my short body Mooney . . . . . which was jacked with a tail weight for 40 years before Mooney's recommendation was issued.

I told you and even posted a picture of the engine mount, it’s what I lift the nose with. I can’t come up with any other way that’s not prohibited, can you?

So, what’s your thought on why Mooney issued that SB?

Of course Lycoming, I assume Continental and maybe both prop manufacturers say don’t use their product as they have no way of knowing how much weight is being lifted, I’m sure it’s not just a prohibition on Mooney’s. 

I know Maule issued a “mandatory SB” to decrease the baggage compt weight limit because the FAA discovered in an Audit that old man Maule didn’t properly test it back 40 or so years ago. There had never been a failure or service related failure, just the audit. So the FAA does do audits, and occasionally finds things in these audits, and often negioates with the manufacturer as to what to do, apparently with Maule they were happy with an SB.  How many complied in the US? I assume not many, but many other Countries SB’s have to be complied with just like AD’s.

I am not saying that Mooney hadn’t documented structural testing to validate using the tail tie down to use to jack the airplane, but it is I think one possibility. You can’t validate every possible thing, you would never get Certified, you would run out of money and time.

Truth is, we don’t know, maybe one that had been ground down broke and Mooney’s lawyer said better prohibit its use or we may be sued, who knows?

But that’s not the point, point is, if a manufacturer specifically prohibits something and you choose to ignore that, then your likely on your own.

If for example as a maintainer I lifted your aircraft from the engine case lifting ring and pulled a chunk out of the case, I wouldn’t have any recourse against Lycoming, I’m on the hook for a new engine, or at least cases. Assuming the aircraft wasn’t damaged too.

[A64Pilot]

20 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Does your POH recommend climbing at 26X2600? Presumably if the recommendation has current and sound reasoning behind it, any aircraft with an angle valve IO360 should be operated that way. Or at least any Mooney? 
I think the reason folks venture outside of bounds of recommendations sometimes is because the are contradictory to current understanding and available data. Long ago I decided to start “flying” my engine on based on the real time data available to me in the cockpit. It’s proven to be much better than using some optimistic tables that recommend more aggressive settings that produce higher CHT’s than I’d prefer. I can run 100ROP 24x2400 74% per the POH, but I wouldn’t.

Will be interesting to compare the power setting numbers in your POH to mine. I bet lunch they don’t match. I wouldn’t be surprised if the POHs from different years for the same model don’t match.

Sometimes it’s hard to believe that the factory “had a good reason” for writing everything that they did. Sometimes they just had a reason, and not necessarily a good one. That reason was likely expediency, marketing or some other purpose other than logic or safety.  The majority of POHs could not be used to plan a long range flight based on book speeds and fuel burn.  I’m not just talking about Mooney, I’m talking about all of them. What is the factory’s “good reason” for embellishing speed and economy? Safety?.

I am grateful that the factory provides recommendations. I’m also grateful that there’s nothing regulatory that requires me to follow those recommendations if decades of experience suggests that they are sub-optimal. 

I’d be lying if I told you what my POH recommends to be honest.

‘Often a “good reason” is expediency and or to prevent unnecessary testing etc, or even marketing.

‘People would be surprised at how much back and forth there is with the FAA in Certification flight testing, by back and forth I mean how much testing will be required, very often there is a lot of give and take.

‘And very often things even simple things take a ridiculous amount of time. Take for example flying with tie down rings, it may not be just go out and hit a representative number of test points to validate no change.

It very well could start with a test plan being written and submitted to the FAA for review, where it goes into the Que, a month or two later it’s reviewed, marked up by the FAA and returned, where you make the changes, resubmit and of course it goes back into the Que.

‘Then eventually it’s accepted, company flight tests done and hopefully the results of those tests are sunmitted, back in the Que again of course while the FAA decides if the are going to fly a representative sample of the test points to validate your company flight tests.

One whole heck of a lot easier if the FAA will accept an SB or whatever telling people to not fly with the tie down rings installed.

‘I am not saying this happened, just saying that it could have, that often the factory isn’t stupid, that there are often very good reasons why what seems to be silly things make it into pubs, like don’t fly with tie down rings.

[Shadrach]

9 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I told you and even posted a picture of the engine mount, it’s what I lift the nose with. I can’t come up with any other way that’s not prohibited, can you?

So, what’s your thought on why Mooney issued that SB?

Of course Lycoming, I assume Continental and maybe both prop manufacturers say don’t use their product as they have no way of knowing how much weight is being lifted, I’m sure it’s not just a prohibition on Mooney’s. 

You should reach out to Mooney and ask about the engine mount strap method. What do you think the odds are that they bless your method? 100%, 70%, 50%? I think you’ve got a 50/50 shot, which isn’t bad.  Maybe they’ll produce a new SB recommending the strap/hoist jacking method.

[A64Pilot]

A quick story, I was at an Officer call many years ago listening to a Retired very senior General talk. He had been in charge of one REFORGER exercise, where we practiced returning to Germany in force to defend it.

He noticed a very large number of broken down trucks and tasked his staff to find out why. Well apparently there was a large number of flats, because in the tools for the trucks there was no air pressure gauge and over time being shipped to Germany the tires were under inflated. So he issued the order that he wanted every truck driver to be issued an air pressure gauge.

Well REFORGER is over, and he’s giving a talk to an armor unit that was competing against the German tankers on a range and asks if there are any questions.

Some LT pops up and asks the General why is every Armor officer required to carry a tire pressure gauge in the pencil pocket of their BDU now, they had been told he ordered it.

He had no idea, but later put it together, all he wanted was for the truck drivers to have access to an air pressure gauge, but by the time that had been implanted, every Armor officer was required to have one as part of their uniform, even though of course a tank doesn’t have tires

Point being is sometimes what seems logical by the time it’s implemented, it makes no sense

[A64Pilot]

7 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

You should reach out to Mooney and ask about the engine mount strap method. What do you think the odds are that they bless your method? 100%, 70%, 50%? I think you’ve got a 50/50 shot, which isn’t bad.  Maybe they’ll produce a new SB recommending the strap/hoist jacking method.

I don’t honestly think Mooney has the time to worry about things that likely don’t really matter.

One assumes if there hasn’t been any service related issues, it just isn’t worth them spending money on, even time is money, hopefully the spend time on sourcing no back springs or something first as opposed to fixing something that ain’t broke.

Hopefully they are spending the little time they have available on things that may matter, I don’t know what those are though

[Shadrach]

3 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I don’t honestly think Mooney has the time to worry about things that likely don’t really matter.

One assumes if there hasn’t been any service related issues, it just isn’t worth them spending money on, even time is money, hopefully the spend time on sourcing no back springs or something first as opposed to fixing something that ain’t broke.

Hopefully they are spending the little time they have available on things that may matter, I don’t know what those are though

It's not likely that they will spend any money or time. They will likely start off their response with two words, "that's not approved".

[Kelpro999]

3 hours ago, Shadrach said:

are you moving it inside for paint?

All removable parts done in my booth along with surface balance. The rest magically happened one panel at a time over time.

[Shadrach]

3 minutes ago, Kelpro999 said:

All removable parts done in my booth along with surface balance. The rest magically happened one panel at a time over time.

Is there a thread with images? I would be interested in seeing it.   I have seen airplanes painted outside before. Sometimes it's easy to see in the finished product, sometimes not.

[Kelpro999]

11 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Is there a thread with images? I would be interested in seeing it.   I have seen airplanes painted outside before. Sometimes it's easy to see in the finished product, sometimes not.

Not yet, I have many images but still in progress. Currently working the extensive squawk list. It’s all basic wht and any other color or accent will be vinyl at this time. I’ll list the process with images later if anyone is interested 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

The funny thing is those that rail against those that don’t use a tail weight, it’s not their opinion or advice.

It’s Mooney’s advice, you know the guys that built the airplane, but what do they know? 

So I guess we need to add Mooney to the list of manufacturers that don’t know what they are talking about and should be ignored?

I can only assume it’s due to unforeseen things, like I’ve seen people sitting in the airplane with it on jacks, a couple of 250 lb people could add a lot of stress on whatever is holding the aircraft down or up if you will.

Personally as my gear are electric I don’t get in the airplane with it on jacks, I reach through the window and can flip switches etc that way.

So far as not flying with the tie down rings installed, I’d bet money that the aircraft wasn’t test flown for Certification with them installed, due to Mooney wanting it in its cleanest configuration as the charts come from this testing, so therefore the restriction of don’t fly with them installed. I’d bet lunch Mooney thought it insignificant and the FAA pointed it out. 

I’ve done quite a bit of Certification, the FAA WILL have findings, it shows they are doing their job, so as a manufacturer you thank them for their attention to detail and put that prohibition in the POH, you have to give them something, so you give in on things that don’t matter.

You might be surprised at what’s in the POH that Mooney didn’t want there, but put there to placate an FAA inspector.

I guess that Mooney didn't check with Lycoming or Hartzell to get their advice either.

I'm betting that somewhere someone jacked up a plane with a damaged tail tie down ring.  It broke and this S/I is the result.

[A64Pilot]

Many large Yachts are painted outside with awfully good results. Tough to find a 150’ long paint booth I guess.

I believe there is one in Savannah, but they aren’t common.

I believe ALL Hatteras Yachts come from the factory painted, not Gel Coated.

[PT20J]

The Museum of Flight in Seattle had a B-52 painted outside at KPAE by a company that specializes in doing that. They used rollers and bucket trucks. Not sure what paint. It looks great even up close.

[Hank]

12 minutes ago, PT20J said:

The Museum of Flight in Seattle had a B-52 painted outside at KPAE by a company that specializes in doing that. They used rollers and bucket trucks. Not sure what paint. It looks great even up close.

If it looked good up close, it wasn't Sherwin Williams or Behr, and the rollers weren't from Home Depot!

Seriously, though, aren't the BUFFs painted with flat paint, where we prefer glossy finishes [where the roller texture and strokes would be highlighted]?

[Jpravi8tor]

Soooo. the intent of my question was to determine if it was feasible to use a come along type hand winch to raise the nose while jacking, I have used a weighted tail stand once but dont have one available at the moment. What I do have is a come-along and a tail tie down ring imbedded in the ground. I think I might give these (see photo) a try.

[N201MKTurbo]

8 minutes ago, Jpravi8tor said:

Soooo. the intent of my question was to determine if it was feasible to use a come along type hand winch to raise the nose while jacking, I have used a weighted tail stand once but dont have one available at the moment. What I do have is a come-along and a tail tie down ring imbedded in the ground. I think I might give these (see photo) a try.

I don't understand why you need the winch or turnbuckles. Just chain the tail to the tiedown and jack the plane. The nose wheel will come up off the ground.

[Kelpro999]

2 minutes ago, Jpravi8tor said:

Soooo. the intent of my question was to determine if it was feasible to use a come along type hand winch to raise the nose while jacking, I have used a weighted tail stand once but dont have one available at the moment. What I do have is a come-along and a tail tie down ring imbedded in the ground. I think I might give these (see photo) a try.

Looks like it will work, I felt a little uncomfortable hanging 100% from my tail eye that shows signs of a gear up. Instead I added weight on top of the horiz spar along with hanging to mimic in flight forces best I could. 

[A64Pilot]

Just use a ratchet strap.

‘If it’s like a Cessna you want a little slack so that initially the aircraft comes up nose low, then of course as you keep bringing it up it gets level as of course the tail is fixed in position.

‘It doesn’t take much, maybe 6” slack? 

Note, I’ve not jacked a Mooney with a tail weight

[Jpravi8tor]

13 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I don't understand why you need the winch or turnbuckles. Just chain the tail to the tiedown and jack the plane. The nose wheel will come up off the ground.

My general concern was supporting the tail in both directions, but yes essentially shackling the tail to the ground will do it!

[Hank]

18 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Just use a ratchet strap.

‘If it’s like a Cessna you want a little slack so that initially the aircraft comes up nose low, then of course as you keep bringing it up it gets level as of course the tail is fixed in position.

‘It doesn’t take much, maybe 6” slack? 

Note, I’ve not jacked a Mooney with a tail weight

We jacked the plane until the mains were high enough to retract, then added weight to the tail. Otherwise, how do you know how much to use? Stack until the nose wheel is in the air . . . .

[N201MKTurbo]

18 minutes ago, Jpravi8tor said:

My general concern was supporting the tail in both directions, but yes essentially shackling the tail to the ground will do it!

When you say both directions, do you mean up and down? 

I've been using the chain for 30 years. Sometimes when it is on jacks and I step on the step a little too vigorously, the tail will pitch down a little, maybe 1/2 inch or so. As soon as I step on the wing the chain goes tight again. If I'm doing something like pulling the engine, I use a piece of 1X2 square tubing with a 3/8 hole drilled in both ends. The tubing fits over the tiedown eyebolt and the eyebolt in the floor anchor. I put a bolt through both ends and the tail will not move up and down unless the plane moves fore and aft.

[A64Pilot]

28 minutes ago, Hank said:

We jacked the plane until the mains were high enough to retract, then added weight to the tail. Otherwise, how do you know how much to use? Stack until the nose wheel is in the air . . . .

OP I believe has an anchor in the floor, but if not so long as your not talking stacking weight on the aircraft itself, but say weight in a tub, you can’t have too much.

‘Used to be pretty common for people to hang on Cessna horizontals to lift the nose and turn it tight, but then horizontal spars were sometimes broken and you don’t see that practice as much anymore

https://www.tennesseeaircraft.net/2016/11/13/cessna-approved-bad-training/

[PT20J]

4 hours ago, Hank said:

If it looked good up close, it wasn't Sherwin Williams or Behr, and the rollers weren't from Home Depot!

Seriously, though, aren't the BUFFs painted with flat paint, where we prefer glossy finishes [where the roller texture and strokes would be highlighted]?

This one had a gloss. Not sure it was as glossy as Jet Glo, but it wasn’t flat.