M20C wing replacement question

[Urs_Wildermuth]

Just out of curiosity as I had some discussion about it.

If one needs to use a donor wing for an M20C, which models can be donors for a complete wing swap?

If I get it right, the wings of the C model are identical to the D, E and G? How similar safe for the fuel tank capacity is the F Wing? Or even the J?

 

[Guest]

You would need some form of approval to install a wing that differed from the parts manual.

[N201MKTurbo]

Considering I attended an FAA seminar today on approval, you would need to hire a DAR to give you that approval. If you did all the homework on the differences between the two wings, it would save you time and money. You could also get that approval from Mooney, but don’t expect that to be free either.

Using the correct wing is your best bet.

[Urs_Wildermuth]

13 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Using the correct wing is your best bet.

Thanks a lot.

Ok, yes I guess that makes sense.

So which wings qualify? Does the whole wing have a part number? And are they limited to one model or even specific years?

[67 m20F chump]

I replaced the wing on my 67’ F.  The parts manual has the number you need and it will say the serial numbers that go along with it.  That being said if you need to replace your wing you are probably better off parting it out or buying an airframe from Vans and using the engine/prop/avionics from the Mooney. I did the work myself and it took a long time to get it done.  Don’t forget the tank reseal you will need to do.  Nobody parts out a great airplane.

 

[Urs_Wildermuth]

2 hours ago, 67 m20F chump said:

That being said if you need to replace your wing you are probably better off parting it out or buying an airframe from Vans and using the engine/prop/avionics from the Mooney.

Well, me being in Europe, experimental is not really something I am looking at. Limited to day-vfr and so on. Anyway, for now it is only a hypothetical question, there is no direct reason to replace the wing right now. 

 

2 hours ago, 67 m20F chump said:

I replaced the wing on my 67’ F.  The parts manual has the number you need and it will say the serial numbers that go along with it.

Ok, thanks.

[MooneyMitch]

3 hours ago, 67 m20F chump said:

Nobody parts out a great airplane.

There was an attorney ( his wife too) about 15 years ago that parted out his very nice fully operational (recent annual too) ‘67 F model!  I purchased some parts from him.

I asked why he was parting out a perfectly good airplane…… hie didn’t want the liability of selling the plane whole.  Very interesting I thought 

[Hank]

12 minutes ago, MooneyMitch said:

There was an attorney ( his wife too) about 15 years ago that parted out his very nice fully operational (recent annual too) ‘67 F model!  I purchased some parts from him.

I asked why he was parting out a perfectly good airplane…… hie didn’t want the liability of selling the plane whole.  Very interesting I thought 

I've heard of people doing that with Experimentals, but not a certified, factory-built plane! Both sound extreme to me.

[hammdo]

I did that with my experimental - sold the whole thing as parts with a no liability agreement too…

-Don

[Urs_Wildermuth]

2 hours ago, MooneyMitch said:

hie didn’t want the liability of selling the plane whole.  Very interesting I thought 

IMHO this shows how irrational liability fears have corrupted a society. Or, if real, how perverted liability legislation has become.

[hammdo]

Liability legislation and easy to sue for any reason. Even if your in the right, it’s costly.
-Don

[Hank]

2 hours ago, hammdo said:

Liability legislation and easy to sue for any reason. Even if your in the right, it’s costly.
-Don

Around here, you can sue anyone you want, for any reason, as long as you have the $35 filing fee.

[hammdo]

True - it’s the lawyer costs that can come into play…

-Don

[EricJ]

5 hours ago, Hank said:

I've heard of people doing that with Experimentals, but not a certified, factory-built plane! Both sound extreme to me.

Richard Collins sold the P210 that he bought new to a recycler that chopped it up and parted it out.   

[Guest]

3 hours ago, hammdo said:

Liability legislation and easy to sue for any reason. Even if your in the right, it’s costly.
-Don

Stop letting lawyers take cases on contingencies and give the defence lawyer bill to the plaintiffs if they lose in court.

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

That sounds good in theory, but take away contingency fees and only the rich have access to the court system and any hope for justice.  I am no bleeding heart but this is the truth.  When you find a better way, please share it.  

The first sentence is true.

The better way existed before 1977 when  Bates v. State Bar of Azrizona was handed down by the Supremes allowing for unfettered advertising by lawyers.  Prior to that the Bar Associations prohibited advertising beyond simple Yellow Pages ads.  My mom was attorney and when this ruling was handed down she said it would ruin the ethics of the profession.  I'd say she was right.

[Z W]

Before this devolves into another lawyer bashing thread...

Insurance companies spend millions of dollars every year on advertising and influencing campaigns to blame the cost of insurance on lawyers.  Otherwise, who would you blame for your increased premiums?  They have intentionally biased the jury pool in their favor before the case is ever called.  They're very good at it.  

Bashing lawyers is a lot of fun, until you need a good one.

Bashing the court system and advocating limiting access to it is a lot of fun, until you've been wronged and need your day in court.

"It will never happen to me" is what most think.  Some are wrong.

You can be sued for anything, any time.  Most of the time, the system gets it right.  The alternatives of no system, or a system with limited access, don't help anyone.  That's why some smart people a long time ago wrote equal access to the courts into the constitution.

This lawyer would never chop up a perfectly good airplane. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

That sounds good in theory, but take away contingency fees and only the rich have access to the court system and any hope for justice.  I am no bleeding heart but this is the truth.  When you find a better way, please share it.  

Then use the second half of my suggestion, you sue someone and lose, you pay the defendants legal bill seeing as your lawyer want be invoicing you.  The defence isn’t based on contingency.

[Urs_Wildermuth]

Well, happily things are not that crazy here, so nobody will chop up a perfectly good airplane for that reason in Europe.

Friend of mine is asking, is there a drawing of the forward wing spar part (the one visible from the cabin) where you can identify which parts are which?

[GeeBee]

There is no need to part out an airplane to sell it. Purchase "seller's liability". It is a one time premium, last I looked it was really, really cheap.

 

[MikeOH]

4 hours ago, GeeBee said:

There is no need to part out an airplane to sell it. Purchase "seller's liability". It is a one time premium, last I looked it was really, really cheap.

 

Good grief!  The fact that such a product even exists is further proof how screwed up our 'justice' system is

[GeeBee]

Trust me, anything can be insured.

 

[Pinecone]

On 3/10/2023 at 12:47 PM, MooneyMitch said:

There was an attorney ( his wife too) about 15 years ago that parted out his very nice fully operational (recent annual too) ‘67 F model!  I purchased some parts from him.

I asked why he was parting out a perfectly good airplane…… hie didn’t want the liability of selling the plane whole.  Very interesting I thought 

Wouldn't there now be a lot of liability possibilities from all the parts????

[MooneyMitch]

On 3/12/2023 at 4:59 AM, Pinecone said:

Wouldn't there now be a lot of liability possibilities from all the parts????

I wondered the same thing 

[MikeOH]

13 minutes ago, MooneyMitch said:

I wondered the same thing 

Can used parts be sold without traceability back to a specific aircraft?  If so, then liability is going to be pretty well cut-off to the last owner of the aircraft.