Bad News from the FAA regarding Landing Gear Actuator (Gear Set)

[201Steve]

12 hours ago, MikeOH said:

I've often wondered the following but never seen any data to provide answers:

1) How many gear ups have been because of failed Dukes gears?
2) How many gear failures have been due to failed Dukes motors but landed ok because of the manual extension.
3) How many gear ups have been because of failed no-back springs?

Well, if the premier Mooney troubleshooting and complaint website (Mooneyspace) has never reported one, I’d say it’s extremely rare. At least I’ve never seen such a report, or seen any associated thread in the archives after copious reading on the hardware. 
 

maybe we could invite @Dmax @Pmaxwell to chime in on the subject? Commentary on why Mooney won’t release any data or allow other MFG to produce the dukes gear set? Or an update on the hydraulic actuator?
 

 

[cliffy]

Lets not conflate VARMA with OPP. They are different entities.

VARMA is one way of obtaining "off the shelf" parts for use on vintage aircraft. Not manufacturing parts. IMO it is not a very viable option for most anything after having done a webinar course on it but that is just my opinion.

On the other hand OPP has a lot of ability for owners to get things done if done properly. One still has to have some sort of "approved" reference for the part being considered. NOT just it looks the same. If one were to reverse engineer (metallurgy and design) a gear set with a DER and get his sign off then the gears could be made FOR THAT AIRPLANE ONLY. Each airplane owner would need to go through the same process except the design has already been approved by the DER so quite possibly the DER would only require a fee to be paid  to use his approval. 

The aircraft owner still has to have a hand in the design of the part (by writing down, "make it to this drawing design as approved by a DER") and sign the log books saying he supplied the OPP part. Then the A&P can install the OPP part knowing that it comes from an "approved drawing".

We can't just go down the path of thinking we can just install some other "similar" part than that which was installed in the Type Certificate Data package. That just won't work without an STC. 

Also as stated before- A PMA only relates to a companies approved quality control procedures to produce "approved" parts from "approved" drawings".   It really has nothing to do with the part being made. The part still has to be made from approved drawings by the PMA holder if they are to be sold on the open market.

My right arm is not as strong as it was 25 years ago but it can still work my Johnson bar  :-)

 

 

 

 

[aviatoreb]

I read this thread trying to understand what it is in my airplane that might eventually bite me and need replacement but I wont be able to find one - what is this part? Is it an actuator? A gear? The helix screw? Where is it?  How hard is it to get to and replace if I had this part in hand?  

[Hank]

13 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

I read this thread trying to understand what it is in my airplane that might eventually bite me and need replacement but I wont be able to find one - what is this part? Is it an actuator? A gear? The helix screw? Where is it?  How hard is it to get to and replace if I had this part in hand?  

This is the gear attached to your gear motor, which makes the wheels go up and down. There are two styles:  original (fast) and "improved" (slow), also known as 20:1 and 40:1 gear sets. Someone thought that the original gears moving the wheels so quickly are overstressing the motor, so changed the gear ratio to double the time, and hopefully reduce the never-measured "high stress" on the gear motor.

Note that there is a different brass / bronze gear (I forget what it is) in your Emergency Extension mechanism that is subject to wear if you forget to disengage it before retracting your wheels normally, which is also difficult to impossible to source. But this thread is not about that gear, it's about the one that raises and lowers your wheels on every flight.

[Matthew P]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

I read this thread trying to understand what it is in my airplane that might eventually bite me and need replacement but I wont be able to find one - what is this part? Is it an actuator? A gear? The helix screw? Where is it?  How hard is it to get to and replace if I had this part in hand?  

Only applies to electric landing gear aircraft, they don't sell the parts (gears), they (Mooney) could but refuse to run a batch, only option is to buy a used actuator and take your chances that the gears are good in the used one...or, buy all the spare parts and put the manual J-Bar back in.

[tony]

On 12/23/2024 at 11:12 AM, Matthew P said:

I've found out, when contacting the 17 MSCs that they aren't interested in discussing the issues with me because they have all heard it before when dealing directly with Mooney leadership, Mooney knows the issues yet REFUSES to do anything about it....might be better for Mooney to just go defunct, get someone to take over the Type Certificate hoping that they have the wear withal to address the issues. I just wish I knew the Chinese Company that is licensed to manufacture Mooney in China, I'd reach out to them.... 

that's what I said before but I got jumped on by Lancecasper.....  

Edited yesterday at 02:56 PM by tony

[Shiroyuki]

On 12/23/2024 at 10:12 AM, Matthew P said:

I've found out, when contacting the 17 MSCs that they aren't interested in discussing the issues with me because they have all heard it before when dealing directly with Mooney leadership, Mooney knows the issues yet REFUSES to do anything about it....might be better for Mooney to just go defunct, get someone to take over the Type Certificate hoping that they have the wear withal to address the issues. I just wish I knew the Chinese Company that is licensed to manufacture Mooney in China, I'd reach out to them.... 

since when is Mooney licensed to build in china? Never heard of such a story or news…

[Matthew P]

1 hour ago, Shiroyuki said:

since when is Mooney licensed to build in china? Never heard of such a story or news…

Mooney was purchased by a Chinese company, started to build aircraft in China, eventually sold their interest in Mooney yet retained the license to build in China...understood they were losing about $20k per acft

Edited yesterday at 04:53 PM by Matthew P

[Matthew P]

The primary goal is to service the fleet,“ Pollack says. “There are folks who bought new aircraft and we’re going to honor our warranty on those airplanes. The service centers aren’t really having trouble getting parts,” he adds. 

 

So, if the primary goal is to service it's existing fleet, and there only source of income is manufacturing and selling parts, why is it that they are aware of the need, have the ability, yet refuse to do so?  

I just don't get it and while I don't have an MBA, what I did glean from my BSBM is that you make more money selling parts that are needed than not making parts that are needed...I could understand if there were only 1-2 individuals needing parts, but when you have more than enough that warrants a production run, makes no monetary sense not to, but it seems as though Mooney's biggest problem has always been financial decision making and listening to it's customer base...atleast from the articles I've read.

[AJ88V]

Posting for reference Vintage Aircraft Article Replacement  and Modification Article (VARMA): What to Know

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publications/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/varma-what-to-know

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publications/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/-/media/7a1f984087b64f1dbcd5410608491126.ashx

[Matthew P]

1 hour ago, AJ88V said:

Posting for reference Vintage Aircraft Article Replacement  and Modification Article (VARMA): What to Know

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publications/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/varma-what-to-know

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publications/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/-/media/7a1f984087b64f1dbcd5410608491126.ashx

Per FAA, in this particular instance, since the part is not COTS replacement, VARMA wouldn't apply for Category 1 parts, which landing gear actuator gears fall under, since the part would be made based off of measurements of an original part and materials based off of the Rockwell Hardness testing, the part(s) would have to go through the same testing and approval process as the original PMA'd parts...there may be an exception if proof can be made to show that the replacement is built to the same or better quality than OEM but in order for that to be be done an original part(s) need to be submitted with the newly submitted part for destructive testing and since I can't get a (new) original part, we can't meet that criteria...and I don't have the 10s of thousands of dollars it would cost to go through the testing and certification process...so that's the issue with VARMA and how it applies to what we are trying to do

[1980Mooney]

8 hours ago, Hank said:

This is the gear attached to your gear motor, which makes the wheels go up and down. There are two styles:  original (fast) and "improved" (slow), also known as 20:1 and 40:1 gear sets. Someone thought that the original gears moving the wheels so quickly are overstressing the motor, so changed the gear ratio to double the time, and hopefully reduce the never-measured "high stress" on the gear motor.

Note that there is a different brass / bronze gear (I forget what it is) in your Emergency Extension mechanism that is subject to wear if you forget to disengage it before retracting your wheels normally, which is also difficult to impossible to source. But this thread is not about that gear, it's about the one that raises and lowers your wheels on every flight.

 

8 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I read this thread trying to understand what it is in my airplane that might eventually bite me and need replacement but I wont be able to find one - what is this part? Is it an actuator? A gear? The helix screw? Where is it?  How hard is it to get to and replace if I had this part in hand?  

This is for a Dukes landing gear actuator.  They were last used in the first year of the M20J - 1977 (basically a carryover of much of the 1976 M20F until the engineering was finished and parts inventory was used up).

It has nothing to do with your plane which has an Eaton landing gear actuator.

AD 75-23-04: SB M20-190 | Mysite 

 

Edited yesterday at 09:47 PM by 1980Mooney

[PT20J]

These actuators haven't been used by the factory for almost 50 years. Bill Wheat stated in the Boots on the Ground video that Mooney switched to the Avionics Products actuators because the Dukes were not "up to the job" (or something similar, I don't remember the exact quote). There is a AD on the Dukes gears. How many are still in the field? Maybe Mooney believes supplying parts for a product that it believes is inferior and is subject to an airworthiness directive involves too much liability risk. I don't know if this is the case, but I could certainly see the logic. And it would explain why nobody's talking.

[201Steve]

1 hour ago, PT20J said:

Maybe Mooney believes supplying parts for a product that it believes is inferior and is subject to an airworthiness directive involves too much liability risk. I don't know if this is the case, but I could certainly see the logic. And it would explain why nobody's talking.

When is the last time somebody died bc of a gear not coming down in a SEP retract?. Pure speculation but I would go out on a limb to say it’s so rare that it would take a lot of effort to find a single example. Seems like a risk a failing company could reasonably take to increase its’ revenue and therefore its value to the buyer they are actively looking for and who wouldn’t have the faintest clue about the potential “liability” of a landing gear part.  It’s not exactly a company worth suing. 

[Matthew P]

1 hour ago, PT20J said:

These actuators haven't been used by the factory for almost 50 years. Bill Wheat stated in the Boots on the Ground video that Mooney switched to the Avionics Products actuators because the Dukes were not "up to the job" (or something similar, I don't remember the exact quote). There is a AD on the Dukes gears. How many are still in the field? Maybe Mooney believes supplying parts for a product that it believes is inferior and is subject to an airworthiness directive involves too much liability risk. I don't know if this is the case, but I could certainly see the logic. And it would explain why nobody's talking.

Enough that I've had a request for more than 100 sets from the people that have reached out to me over the last 6 months that I have been working the issue, NOT including the MSCs....If I'm not mistaken, Avionics Products are part of Transdigm which bought out Dukes back in 2009...

[Matthew P]

7 minutes ago, 201Steve said:

When is the last time somebody died bc of a gear not coming down in a SEP retract?. Pure speculation but I would go out on a limb to say it’s so rare that it would take a lot of effort to find a single example. Seems like a risk a failing company could reasonably take to increase its’ revenue and therefore its value to the buyer they are actively looking for and who wouldn’t have the faintest clue about the potential “liability” of a landing gear part.  It’s not exactly a company worth suing. 

What gets me is that they are only in the parts business now, so one would think, if there is a demand that exceeds the minimum order to run a batch, that they would do it to get the revenue...business 101, shouldn't matter that it would only be 1-2 runs, they would still make money and  $4-6K is better than $0..at least in my house that's the case....but then again, Mooney doesn't have the best record when making financial decisions.....but evidently, even though it would bring some income in, AND TAKE CARE OF IT'S EXISTING CUSTOMERS, that it's not anything they are interested in doing, I even called down asking about a substitute Landing Gear Actuator and guess what the response was..."I've asked the engineers about it but they won't give me an answer, I asked about the Actuators they currently have in stock and warrany and the same individual said he asked the engineers if it would work and was told, well, the newer actuators are 24v"...SO, there are ways to put a 24v actuator in a 12V aircraft...just sound like LAZY engineers to me...the engineers I work with are all about solving problems, what do they need engineers for if they aren't looking for answers, hell, it's not like they are engineering ANYTHING new....

 

 

[ArtVandelay]

If they’ve decided not to support existing planes, they have zero chance of of ever getting this company back in business again.

[Echo]

I asked Santa for a Christmas miracle.  Like Mooney, no reply yet.

[PT20J]

7 minutes ago, Matthew P said:

Enough that I've had a request for more than 100 sets from the people that have reached out to me over the last 6 months that I have been working the issue, NOT including the MSCs....If I'm not mistaken, Avionics Products are part of Transdigm which bought out Dukes back in 2009...

Mooney's motives are unknown. But, for whatever reason they have decided not to pursue this and that's the owner's right. The people on MS that expressed interest have mostly said they would buy the gears if they were reasonably priced and few specified an amount they considered reasonable. Maxwell told me that the no-back springs used to cost $300. Now LASAR is taking orders for them for $3000 (well, $2500 if you ordered early). Bet if LASAR were able to get the gears made they'd be charging a lot more than $3K. The 100+ number number of interested parties might shrink when the true cost is known.

But, let's say that there are 50 people who would commit to purchasing the gears for $5K if available. That's $250,000. Seems like someone could buy a Dukes actuator, take out the gears, get the material testing done, create the drawings and have a DER approve them and maybe work with McFarlane or someone already set up to make PMA parts and have them made. 

 

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, PT20J said:

There is a AD on the Dukes gears. How many are still in the field? Maybe Mooney believes supplying parts for a product that it believes is inferior and is subject to an airworthiness directive involves too much liability risk. I don't know if this is the case, but I could certainly see the logic. And it would explain why nobody's talking.

If Mooney manufactured these, why did they call it a Dukes?  I was under the impression that they were manufactured by a company called Dukes.

[Matthew P]

2 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

If Mooney manufactured these, why did they call it a Dukes?  I was under the impression that they were manufactured by a company called Dukes.

They are Dukes Actuators but Mooney hold the proprietary information for the gear sets and has them made by a 3rd party  for use in Dukes actuators in Mooney aircraft.

 

[Hank]

18 minutes ago, Echo said:

I asked Santa for a Christmas miracle. 

My Christmas Miracle came through! Finally!

 

[Fly Boomer]

1 minute ago, Matthew P said:

They are Dukes Actuators but Mooney hold the proprietary information for the gear sets and has them made by a 3rd party  for use in Dukes actuators in Mooney aircraft.

 

Does anyone know who that third party was?  Just to understand this, did Mooney have the gears manufactured by that third party, and then disassemble all the actuators in order to put in their special gears?

[Matthew P]

9 minutes ago, PT20J said:

Mooney's motives are unknown. But, for whatever reason they have decided not to pursue this and that's the owner's right. The people on MS that expressed interest have mostly said they would buy the gears if they were reasonably priced and few specified an amount they considered reasonable. Maxwell told me that the no-back springs used to cost $300. Now LASAR is taking orders for them for $3000 (well, $2500 if you ordered early). Bet if LASAR were able to get the gears made they'd be charging a lot more than $3K. The 100+ number number of interested parties might shrink when the true cost is known.

But, let's say that there are 50 people who would commit to purchasing the gears for $5K if available. That's $250,000. Seems like someone could buy a Dukes actuator, take out the gears, get the material testing done, create the drawings and have a DER approve them and maybe work with McFarlane or someone already set up to make PMA parts and have them made. 

 

Someone with a hell of a lot of money and time, a person that could afford something more than a Mooney aircraft as well which leaves out probably 99% of the individuals that are potentially affected by it...I won't even state my opinion regarding LASAR when it comes to price gouging.

[Matthew P]

10 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

Does anyone know who that third party was?  Just to understand this, did Mooney have the gears manufactured by that third party, and then disassemble all the actuators in order to put in their special gears?

It appears to be Avon Gear and Engineering as I submitted the CAD Files to get an estimate and was told by Joseph Tinaglia (VP)  that he already makes those exact gear sets for other customers, but he wouldn't tell me who they are, assume Cessna and Mooney..and when I asked him to forward my info to the "customers" he responded back that they were not interested in talking with me and that the customers would not allow their identities to be released.

In regards to your 2nd question, as I understand it, and I could be wrong as it's from a 3rd party, the actuators and gearsets would be assembled at the Kerryville pland during the production process.