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

[MikeOH]

39 minutes ago, Grant_Waite said:

I don’t mean converting to manual gear, I mean doing the Eaton swap. Converting to manual gear would most definitely be more difficult for parts and getting someone to do it 

Ah, my bad. I confused yours with another poster.

[DRH4249]

I know this was touched on briefly by a DER for gears post but not specifically the path I took . My gears were not quite on their last leg but well used as the actuator motor was as well; so my A&P and I asked the engineers at Mooney if it was possible to engineer or draw engineering plans to install the whole electric gear retraction assembly including emergency gear extension from a model J/K or later for my F model. In our thought process this would eliminate the emergency hand crank and clutch, the inevitable gear replacement issue and the frequent inspection requirements of my F model. Similar to a DER this is not a group endeavor because it is based on each model type and is assigned to each aircraft serial number. The FAA had to approve and reissue the emergency extension section my of my specific Operators Manual. But having said that the ground work has been laid for a "better" retract system for our "vintage" Mooneys by Mooney. The process did take a bit of time and of course money, I did purchase a very nice entire gear retraction system out of K model and had to pay for Mooney's time and effort as well. So I'm not sure if this an answer to everyone's issues but I really think it will work well for we Vintage Mooney owners moving forward. I have to thank my A&P and the two gentlemen in Engineering at Mooney that helped us get things moving forward and through the finish line of Mooney and FAA approval.  Now it is out with the old and in with the newer system.

[Matthew P]

1 hour ago, DRH4249 said:

I know this was touched on briefly by a DER for gears post but not specifically the path I took . My gears were not quite on their last leg but well used as the actuator motor was as well; so my A&P and I asked the engineers at Mooney if it was possible to engineer or draw engineering plans to install the whole electric gear retraction assembly including emergency gear extension from a model J/K or later for my F model. In our thought process this would eliminate the emergency hand crank and clutch, the inevitable gear replacement issue and the frequent inspection requirements of my F model. Similar to a DER this is not a group endeavor because it is based on each model type and is assigned to each aircraft serial number. The FAA had to approve and reissue the emergency extension section my of my specific Operators Manual. But having said that the ground work has been laid for a "better" retract system for our "vintage" Mooneys by Mooney. The process did take a bit of time and of course money, I did purchase a very nice entire gear retraction system out of K model and had to pay for Mooney's time and effort as well. So I'm not sure if this an answer to everyone's issues but I really think it will work well for we Vintage Mooney owners moving forward. I have to thank my A&P and the two gentlemen in Engineering at Mooney that helped us get things moving forward and through the finish line of Mooney and FAA approval.  Now it is out with the old and in with the newer system.

Can you send more specific info cause I asked Mooney about something similar and they didn't want to be bothered...if you don't mind, can you throw a ballpark price as to how much it cost?  TIA

[Yetti]

11 hours ago, DRH4249 said:

I know this was touched on briefly by a DER for gears post but not specifically the path I took . My gears were not quite on their last leg but well used as the actuator motor was as well; so my A&P and I asked the engineers at Mooney if it was possible to engineer or draw engineering plans to install the whole electric gear retraction assembly including emergency gear extension from a model J/K or later for my F model. In our thought process this would eliminate the emergency hand crank and clutch, the inevitable gear replacement issue and the frequent inspection requirements of my F model. Similar to a DER this is not a group endeavor because it is based on each model type and is assigned to each aircraft serial number. The FAA had to approve and reissue the emergency extension section my of my specific Operators Manual. But having said that the ground work has been laid for a "better" retract system for our "vintage" Mooneys by Mooney. The process did take a bit of time and of course money, I did purchase a very nice entire gear retraction system out of K model and had to pay for Mooney's time and effort as well. So I'm not sure if this an answer to everyone's issues but I really think it will work well for we Vintage Mooney owners moving forward. I have to thank my A&P and the two gentlemen in Engineering at Mooney that helped us get things moving forward and through the finish line of Mooney and FAA approval.  Now it is out with the old and in with the newer system.

I thought this was an option all along with the newer actuator being a $5000.00 price tag.

[Justin Schmidt]

4 hours ago, Yetti said:

I thought this was an option all along with the newer actuator being a $5000.00 price tag.

The Eaton is 40k new, so says LASAR. Eaton said to me they will not discuss with an individual.

[Matthew P]

2 hours ago, Justin Schmidt said:

The Eaton is 40k new, so says LASAR. Eaton said to me they will not discuss with an individual.

That's 1/2 the value of the plane...$40K

[201Steve]

@Grant_Waite has all the si’s for the change out. He’s posted it here before

[DRH4249]

Well, I sure didn't buy brand new; I bought everything associated with the retract system that could be unbolted, from a K model from BAS in Greeley CO, it was a bit more than $5K delivered but has everything associated electronically and mechanically. Plus pay Mooney for engineering documents and review, plus pay my A&P to install. The install isn't finished yet so there is not a final number at this point. 

 

 

[Yetti]

Does it look something like this?   https://lasar.com/actuators/gear-actuator-eaton-102000-3-sn-414

[DRH4249]

Yes, it does.  Plus there are a few other parts you might need. As I said we are not finished yet but there is hope for those who choose to go this route. I can see the light growing larger at the end of the tunnel. 

[Grant_Waite]

On 2/13/2025 at 8:48 PM, DRH4249 said:

Well, I sure didn't buy brand new; I bought everything associated with the retract system that could be unbolted, from a K model from BAS in Greeley CO, it was a bit more than $5K delivered but has everything associated electronically and mechanically. Plus pay Mooney for engineering documents and review, plus pay my A&P to install. The install isn't finished yet so there is not a final number at this point. 

 

 

Yeah I basically did the same thing but I got my Eaton from Lasar but the brackets from bas and all new hardware from aircraft spruce. I also have the 3 brackets that’d you need in cad since you’re not always going to be as blessed as I was to find all 3. You would just need to get the bushings off McMaster Carr or if you find all 3, that’s your best option. I sandblasted all the brackets and spray painted them with some zinc chromate. New hardware and they were basically brand new. Once they get installed, they ain’t ever coming out so take the time and make them like new. I did not however get Mooney or any DER involved because to me and my installer, it’s completely unnecessary. But as I’ve learned every mechanic and person is different it can be as easy or difficult as you make it. I’ve had zero issues with the new system. It’s a more powerful actuator so it doesn’t strain at all. You can really feel the floor torque underneath you when you swing the gear on the ground. 

[Matthew P]

That's nice

[Grant_Waite]

7 hours ago, Matthew P said:

That's nice

Yeah there’s a lot this document doesn’t tell you at all. 940007_F EatonPlessey upgrade.PDFLike cutting away some of the price that’s to left of the gear motor to make clearance. 

[DRH4249]

Looks good. I got the the accessories from BAS as well.

[Matthew P]

On 2/19/2025 at 11:46 PM, Grant_Waite said:

Yeah there’s a lot this document doesn’t tell you at all. 940007_F EatonPlessey upgrade.PDFLike cutting away some of the price that’s to left of the gear motor to make clearance. 

how did you mount the emergency release handle

 

[Grant_Waite]

1 hour ago, Matthew P said:

how did you mount the emergency release handle

 

These 6 nut plates that you see. You can see the holes in the emergency latch. The image you’re looking at is a template for all the holes in the small chance someone does this again. 

[Barneyw]

Hi All

I posted about this last year. Basically if Mooney aren't prepare to support owners in a meaningful way they should get out of the way including the Chinese interest. I know there are complexities involved which have already been noted.

I have a similar problem with repair schemes for the "undercarriage link assembly" where a small welding repair is required  and Mooney will not provide the metallurgical and hardness data of there parts. The AC 43.13 is not sufficient for this.

Despite this I explained this to a well experience engineer here in Australia who simple said it's not a problem. The simple solution was to get the item hardness tested prior to welding, do the welding and heat treat to the same spec. He was prepared to sign off on a scheme that would see the part returned to service. It's not rocket science.

My point here is, where there's a will there's a way, and surely with the combined aircraft engineering corporate knowledge in the US you must be able to find an economical solution to the problem. As an aside I don't buy the false equivalent argument that compares cars and aircraft to make a point about expectations. They are mutually exclusive industries.

Maybe it's time to become disruptive and start taking matters into your own hands. Maybe it's time, and I am not sure this is possible, to take your aircraft out of the system that is holding you back.

So I have some questions

How easily can a certified aircraft be reclassified as experimental?

If it's easy how hard would it be for a bunch of you guys to form an association or similar that regulates Mooney's outside of the certified regulatory system?

How many people know good and experienced engineers and manufacturers that you would happily deal with to provided manufactured parts?

I think you can see where I going with this because there is no point banging your head against a brick wall expecting something to change. I'm not sure if this is a viable solution but there needs to be change and direction otherwise these problems will only increase and we will be talking about the same ol' same ol' in five years time.

Cheers

Barneyw

      

[Matthew P]

54 minutes ago, Barneyw said:

Hi All

I posted about this last year. Basically if Mooney aren't prepare to support owners in a meaningful way they should get out of the way including the Chinese interest. I know there are complexities involved which have already been noted.

I have a similar problem with repair schemes for the "undercarriage link assembly" where a small welding repair is required  and Mooney will not provide the metallurgical and hardness data of there parts. The AC 43.13 is not sufficient for this.

Despite this I explained this to a well experience engineer here in Australia who simple said it's not a problem. The simple solution was to get the item hardness tested prior to welding, do the welding and heat treat to the same spec. He was prepared to sign off on a scheme that would see the part returned to service. It's not rocket science.

My point here is, where there's a will there's a way, and surely with the combined aircraft engineering corporate knowledge in the US you must be able to find an economical solution to the problem. As an aside I don't buy the false equivalent argument that compares cars and aircraft to make a point about expectations. They are mutually exclusive industries.

Maybe it's time to become disruptive and start taking matters into your own hands. Maybe it's time, and I am not sure this is possible, to take your aircraft out of the system that is holding you back.

So I have some questions

How easily can a certified aircraft be reclassified as experimental?

If it's easy how hard would it be for a bunch of you guys to form an association or similar that regulates Mooney's outside of the certified regulatory system?

How many people know good and experienced engineers and manufacturers that you would happily deal with to provided manufactured parts?

I think you can see where I going with this because there is no point banging your head against a brick wall expecting something to change. I'm not sure if this is a viable solution but there needs to be change and direction otherwise these problems will only increase and we will be talking about the same ol' same ol' in five years time.

Cheers

Barneyw

      

You are about 8 months late to the dance Barney..but thanks for chiming in and not really interested is how your guy in Australia would do things or thinks...he may sign stuff like that off, but I don't know any reputable A&P or IA that would when dealing with the FAA...have him do it then..

Edited February 23 by Matthew P

[Hank]

5 minutes ago, Matthew P said:

You are about 8 months late to the dance Barney..but thanks for chiming in and not really interested is how your guy in Australia would do things or thinks...he may sign stuff like that off, but I don't know any reputable A&P or IA that would.

Aussie regs are not FAA regs . . . .

Others here have asked similar questions to @Barneyw, but it isn't possible here. Canada has an Owner-Maintained category that we also cannot emulate. 

Both are good ideas . . . .

[Barneyw]

43 minutes ago, Matthew P said:

You are about 8 months late to the dance Barney..but thanks for chiming in and not really interested is how your guy in Australia would do things or thinks...he may sign stuff like that off, but I don't know any reputable A&P or IA that would when dealing with the FAA...have him do it then..

Thanks Matthew

I don't think I'm late at all quite the contrary. I wasn't trying to impose Australian rules or the way our engineers think but this is aviation with a common global interest despite differences in the regs. I was making a suggestion in a broader sense but it seems to me that the bedrock and birth place of aviation appears to be, on the surface, paralysed and dysfunctional. I felt that your reply was a bit of a shutdown for whatever reason.

Have a great day

Barney     

[Barneyw]

37 minutes ago, Hank said:

Aussie regs are not FAA regs . . . .

Others here have asked similar questions to @Barneyw, but it isn't possible here. Canada has an Owner-Maintained category that we also cannot emulate. 

Both are good ideas . . . .

Thanks Hank

Appreciate your reply.

While I understand the differences in regulatory jurisdictions I was coming at this form a global perspective. We Mooney owners here in Oz will live or die by the decisions that come out of the US. I was just trying to provide a perspective.

Cheers

Barney 

PS I agree with the broader statement that "Aussie regs are not FAA regs ..." But we are in the process of homogenisation of the regs so the regs are looking more similar with every passing year. 

[Matthew P]

33 minutes ago, Barneyw said:

Thanks Matthew

I don't think I'm late at all quite the contrary. I wasn't trying to impose Australian rules or the way our engineers think but this is aviation with a common global interest despite differences in the regs. I was making a suggestion in a broader sense but it seems to me that the bedrock and birth place of aviation appears to be, on the surface, paralysed and dysfunctional. I felt that your reply was a bit of a shutdown for whatever reason.

Have a great day

Barney     

Thanks, but this has been an exhaustive effort in futility when dealing with the FAA and Mooney, although Mooney has come through and agreed to license the gear sets to LASAR so we will have more options than we do now...as far as if it's a good thing or bad thing that it was licensed to LASAR is still yet to be determined...I've spent 8 months dealing with Mooney, the FAA, DARs, DERs, MROs and so on and so forth, I honestly don't know how ANYTHING gets done, the FAA is lacking in so many areas across the board, medicals are another issue, they are 20 years behind on what meds are used to treat various conditions, meds from 20 years ago are not used today to treat the same things that they were 20 years ago. But that's a different fight...but that's the problem, everything with the FAA is a fight..sorry if I came across as terse, nothing personal, I let my frustration get the better of me... thank you for your time

[Barneyw]

4 hours ago, Matthew P said:

Thanks, but this has been an exhaustive effort in futility when dealing with the FAA and Mooney, although Mooney has come through and agreed to license the gear sets to LASAR so we will have more options than we do now...as far as if it's a good thing or bad thing that it was licensed to LASAR is still yet to be determined...I've spent 8 months dealing with Mooney, the FAA, DARs, DERs, MROs and so on and so forth, I honestly don't know how ANYTHING gets done, the FAA is lacking in so many areas across the board, medicals are another issue, they are 20 years behind on what meds are used to treat various conditions, meds from 20 years ago are not used today to treat the same things that they were 20 years ago. But that's a different fight...but that's the problem, everything with the FAA is a fight..sorry if I came across as terse, nothing personal, I let my frustration get the better of me... thank you for your time

Hey Matthew

Not a problem.

I sense your frustration. It shouldn't be a fight and you should feel that you are being supported by competent people. If it's any consolation we have a similar problem here.

Take care

Cheers

Barney  

[cliffy]

Just tossing this out to see what sticks- Primary Category instead of Standard Airworthiness

Mentioned before as it has been done

Shields up!

[Matthew P]

2 hours ago, cliffy said:

Just tossing this out to see what sticks- Primary Category instead of Standard Airworthiness

Mentioned before as it has been done

Shields up!

You are more than welcome to run your suggestion past the FAA, I can provide you all of the contact info to see if they tell you anything different...just let me know