65C Wing (Damaged by falling off Jacks)) Anyone Interested?

[patriot3300]

7 hours ago, Bolter said:

If you literally cut the wings off, won't they be useless because of the continuous spar?  It would be a totally different disassembly if you want to fit the plane on a truck or in a container, AND have the wing repairable.  The popular options appear to be removing the total wing, or removing the tail, and carrying the fuselage sideways on the truck.  Either way, the wing spar is left intact.  

Thanks 

All the options have been thoroughly researched.

I am taking her apart to haul inside an enclosed trailer.

Fuselage will stay in one piece with tail unbolted.

Cheers

Stuart

[Captnmack]

There is a C in Texas with the same issue except it did not puncture the upper skin. The area it went through was an Aux fuel tank. I looked at it and I do not think you can simply do a patch. I believe it should have the entire skin section replaced. 

[patriot3300]

4 hours ago, Captnmack said:

There is a C in Texas with the same issue except it did not puncture the upper skin. The area it went through was an Aux fuel tank. I looked at it and I do not think you can simply do a patch. I believe it should have the entire skin section replaced. 

That is correct.

The  repairs needed are replacement of both wing skins.

 

[47U]

7 hours ago, Captnmack said:

The area it went through was an Aux fuel tank. I looked at it and I do not think you can simply do a patch. I believe it should have the entire skin section replaced. 

What king of damage is to the lower wing skin/bottom of the wing?

[patriot3300]

On 2/6/2025 at 6:14 PM, 47U said:

What king of damage is to the lower wing skin/bottom of the wing?

I was not able to complete the disassembly over the weekend due to horrible weather and airline delays.

I also do not wish to destroy this wing if anyone is willing to repair it.

This is the totally of the damage.

Please Pm me if you are up to the repair.

I will be going back no later than The end of March to complete the disassembly and absolutely will section the wing at that time if none are able to repair.

Cheers

Stuart

 

 

 

[47U]

6 hours ago, patriot3300 said:

I also do not wish to destroy this wing if anyone is willing to repair it.

Wow.  After seeing your last post I’m in 100% agreement with those who recommend replacing the affected wing skins.

Not sure what part of Texas you’re in… but if you’re disassembling the aircraft (either removing the tail or wing from the fuselage) for flatbed transport then that opens the potential repair locations.  Don Maxwell has rig for transport with the tail section removed.  

Mooney will manufacture the wing skins, inquire with your favorite MSC for pricing.  Hopefully, no ribs or stringers are damaged.  Your MSC will also likely have recommendation(s) on who would be a good repair facility.   

[M20E for me]

On 2/5/2025 at 7:04 PM, patriot3300 said:

Sorry to say this is the situation I expected.......

 

• 
• Supporter
• •  18
• Location: Redding CA
• Base: O85

 

Posted yesterday at 09:44 AM

Hi all, my new to me 1979 J- model (serial 0905) has an STC (SA7609SW) for Texas Composites, Inc wingtips that was installed in 1995.  Both of the lenses covering the lights are cracked, one just around the screw holes which will be manageable for some time, the other is cracked right down the middle and needs replacement.

I can't find these and believe they are likely a slightly different shape than the LASAR tips or other tips that came from factory on later J models.  They do not have recognition lights.

Anyone else out there have these wingtips and had success finding lenses?  I contacted a 3D printing company about scanning and printing new lenses, but they want $2500 just for the scan.  I might as well get new wingtips.

I tried tracking the company Texas Composites, Inc but the larger corporation that bought them out doesn't respond to me. 

Donovan 

 

 

That’s looks like mine and I bought a replacement for the right hand one from Laser.  It took a while to get it but fits fine.  Another option, if you are handy, is to make a new one.  Use your cracked on to pull a male mold off of.  The lens material is cheap and plan on several attempts to get a good one.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, M20E for me said:

That’s looks like mine and I bought a replacement for the right hand one from Laser.  It took a while to get it but fits fine.  Another option, if you are handy, is to make a new one.  Use your cracked on to pull a male mold off of.  The lens material is cheap and plan on several attempts to get a good one.

The last one I bought from LASAR, c.2017, was almost $200. Try making one, it won't hurt and is guarantees to cost you less.

[Echo]

12 hours ago, Hank said:

The last one I bought from LASAR, c.2017, was almost $200. Try making one, it won't hurt and is guarantees to cost you less.

There is the rub for me.  Such a bend over price from Laser.  Instead of taking a fair profit they rape you.  No thanks.  I will just carry on with one cracked lens thank you.

[Hank]

5 minutes ago, Echo said:

There is the rub for me.  Such a bend over price from Laser.  Instead of taking a fair profit they rape you.  No thanks.  I will just carry on with one cracked lens thank you.

I didn't have much choice, water-soaked insulation fell from the hangar ceiling onto the wingtip and knocked off the front of one.

But if it is only cracked, it should be fairly simple to make a male mold of the inside, then heat up and carefully stretch a piece of plexiglass over it. It'll take a little time, some scrap lumber and a sheet of 1/8" plexiglass from your favorite big-box store.

[Echo]

On 2/15/2025 at 9:08 AM, Hank said:

I didn't have much choice, water-soaked insulation fell from the hangar ceiling onto the wingtip and knocked off the front of one.

But if it is only cracked, it should be fairly simple to make a male mold of the inside, then heat up and carefully stretch a piece of plexiglass over it. It'll take a little time, some scrap lumber and a sheet of 1/8" plexiglass from your favorite big-box store.

I have zero knowledge on the process of making the mold and forming the part.  Has anyone done this and done a video of the process?  I can do a youtube search as well.  The crack iscosmetic and hasn't really bothered me that much.  If the process is not difficult why are the parts so expensive?  Such a racket.

[CaptainRamius]

Came off even with the correct jack pins?  My predecessor had plane come off jacks but was using some screws he got from Lowes, et al. I got the correct pins and get nervous climbing into the cockpit while on jacks. 

[patriot3300]

23 hours ago, CaptainRamius said:

Came off even with the correct jack pins?  My predecessor had plane come off jacks but was using some screws he got from Lowes, et al. I got the correct pins and get nervous climbing into the cockpit while on jacks. 

Yes,I can verify the correct Jackpoints were in the wing when I evaluated the aircraft.

My understanding is the tailweight let go overcoming the jackpoints falling forward.

Don’t know the tailweight setup used at the time but doubt it’s one like I own being full of concrete and pinned to the tail!

Stuart

 

[MikeOH]

As I've never actually jacked up the plane myself, I'm curious how many pounds of down force are really required on the tail?  My only reference point is that back in the day we moved C150/C172s by pushing the tail down by hand (I know, horrific!!) and it couldn't have taken but 50 pounds, if that.  The barrels of concrete always seemed over-kill, BWTHDIK?

[1967 427]

Call me paranoid, but I use a tail weight that has a fixed length.  I use my wing jack along with a cherry picker that I attach to the lifting point on the engine.  One inch up at a time on all the lifting points until all wheels are 2 inches off the deck.  My concrete tail support is actually a wash tube filled with bags of sand that hold my umbrella stand with the fixed height mounting point (all that is sitting on a dolly so it’s easy to move around). With all 4 mounting points in place and the plane unable to rock, I still get in gingerly.  Or MaryAnn

And it’s returned to the deck for the evening if my mechanic doesn’t finish underneath in one day. (Never rely on hydraulic cylinders or the possibility of an earthquake)

[patriot3300]

16 hours ago, MikeOH said:

As I've never actually jacked up the plane myself, I'm curious how many pounds of down force are really required on the tail?  My only reference point is that back in the day we moved C150/C172s by pushing the tail down by hand (I know, horrific!!) and it couldn't have taken but 50 pounds, if that.  The barrels of concrete always seemed over-kill, BWTHDIK?

Wisdom from Mooney….AMM

[Hank]

5 hours ago, patriot3300 said:

Wisdom from Mooney….AMM

Except Mooney has said this century to not use a tail tie down; McCauley and Hartzell have said to not use a prop jack; Lycoming and Continental have said to not lift the nose using an engine hoist.

So when we jack our planes, the nose is supposed to levitate itself to stay level while we jack under the wings . . . .

[1967 427]

Hard to see, but there is a tub of sand bags on the tail hook, it isn’t pushing up or pulling down, it holds the tail in a static position. 

[patriot3300]

On 3/25/2025 at 5:23 PM, Hank said:

Except Mooney has said this century to not use a tail tie down; McCauley and Hartzell have said to not use a prop jack; Lycoming and Continental have said to not lift the nose using an engine hoist.

So when we jack our planes, the nose is supposed to levitate itself to stay level while we jack under the wings . . . .

Great points !

I would never suggest anyone “Lift” an aircraft using the propeller or the engine mount either.

The tailweight in the pic is similar to the one I use.

Its pinned to the tail before jacking and as the nose-wheel leaves the ground takes up the weight and  hopefully prevents any potential damage.

 

[patriot3300]

11 minutes ago, patriot3300 said:

Great points !

I would never suggest anyone “Lift” an aircraft using the propeller or the engine mount either.

The tailweight in the pic is similar to the one I use.

Its pinned to the tail before jacking and as the nose-wheel leaves the ground takes up the weight and  hopefully prevents any potential damage.

 

Here is the Updated Procedure Indeed “Quite different than the old”

As Hank pointed out….

[Hank]

@patriot3300, Mooney says to lift the nose using engine lift points.

Lycoming says to NOT use the engine lift points to raise the nose of the plane.

So what is left is simply to levitate the nose while working on the nose wheel, swinging gear, etc.

[IvanP]

On 3/25/2025 at 2:23 PM, Hank said:

Except Mooney has said this century to not use a tail tie down; McCauley and Hartzell have said to not use a prop jack; Lycoming and Continental have said to not lift the nose using an engine hoist.

So when we jack our planes, the nose is supposed to levitate itself to stay level while we jack under the wings . . . .

Long bodies have a third hoist point on the pilot side of the engine mount. Eliminates the need for tail weight. Jacking the plane without assitant with three jacks ia a bit of a logistical challenge.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, IvanP said:

Long bodies have a third hoist point on the pilot side of the engine mount. Eliminates the need for tail weight. Jacking the plane without assitant with three jacks ia a bit of a logistical challenge.

The nose jacking point apparently began with the TLS, as the above Mooney Service Bulletin applies for all models up through the L.

My C used a heavy tail tiedown for several decades before this Bulletin was issued . . .

[Greg Ellis]

On 3/25/2025 at 4:40 PM, 1967 427 said:

Hard to see, but there is a tub of sand bags on the tail hook, it isn’t pushing up or pulling down, it holds the tail in a static position. 

Nice pic of your plane but I want to see more pics of the Vette!!!!

[Kelpro999]

On 3/25/2025 at 2:23 PM, Hank said:

Lycoming and Continental have said to not lift the nose using an engine hoist

 Unless it’s also lifted on wing jack points. If not then there’s more weight on the front because the arm difference between lifting points and main gear.