Texas Composites Wingtip light lens?

[Dgeyer]

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 

 

[Hank]

Talk to LASAR, see if you buy theirs, can you return them if they don't fit.

The only other choice that comes to mind would be to buy some sheet PC and bend your own set. Vacuum molding is pretty inexpensive. 

[Aerodon]

Try LP Aero or Great Lakes Plastics - both make lenses for various OEM's and STC holders.  Send yours there so they can compare?

Or use it as an excuse to get Aveo wingtips like I did.

Also, 3M sell some 2 part plastic glues that are awesome.  I have seen C172 wingtips 'welded' back together.  Especially good if you grind a gap and bridge it, just like you would do with a metal weld.  I suspect you could do a half decent repair, its not like you have to spot traffic? 

Aerodon

 

 

[PeterRus]

https://www.knots2u.net/categories/mooney-aircraft-models/wing-tips.html

[Grant_Waite]

On 2/4/2025 at 12:44 PM, Dgeyer said:

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 

 

I just had both of mine replaced at my last annual. The Lasar ones are half the price and just as good. Not to self though they are way oversized and will need a lot of trimming and cutting to fit perfectly. Your lens look exactly how my planes lenses looked and mine is a 77J so someone added them and I greatly thank them for it. Mooneys without wingtips look goofy. Think about getting some Whelen leds if you really want to update the look. Nothing drags down a nice new lens like old lights. 
 

[PT20J]

I believe Great Lakes Aero Products (GLAP) makes the lenses for Mooney and these are also the lenses that LASAR and knots2u sell, so check the price and stock everywhere for the best deal.

GLAP has a service where they will trim the new lenses to fit your existing lenses if you send them the existing lenses. 

Skip

[Andy95W]

10 hours ago, Grant_Waite said:

 Mooneys without wingtips look goofy.
 

No they don’t.

[mmcdaniel33]

I love my squared off M20J tips!

[1980Mooney]

On 2/6/2025 at 11:57 AM, Andy95W said:

No they don’t.

 

1 hour ago, mmcdaniel33 said:

I love my squared off M20J tips!

Where I am hangared, Mooney’s with squared wingtips are approved for a slightly smaller hangar saving $100/month. The wingtips add 1.5 ft, just enough wingspan to push those with wingtips to a wider more expensive hangar. 

My J originally had square tips. The Missile conversion required the addition of wingtips. Next year I will mark 20 years that I have been in that hangar. Those wingtips have cost me $24,000 just in extra rent over that time. They add nothing to the plane other than appearance.

The price of vanity!  
 

 

[Hank]

51 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

Where I am hangared, Mooney’s with squared wingtips are approved for a slightly smaller hangar saving $100/month. The wingtips add 1.5 ft, just enough wingspan to push those with wingtips to a wider more expensive hangar. 

My J originally had square tips. The Missile conversion required the addition of wingtips. Next year I will mark 20 years that I have been in that hangar. Those wingtips have cost me $24,000 just in extra rent over that time. They add nothing to the plane other than appearance.

My wingtips add 12", from 35' to 36'. How wide are your wingtips???

[PT20J]

M20J SN-0001- 24-1037 had a wingspan of 35'. Thereafter, the wingspan is 36' 1" according to the SMM.

The advantage of the wingtips is added recognition lights, and lower roll forces because the ailerons are moved inboard away from the tip vortices.

 

 

[1980Mooney]

17 hours ago, Hank said:

My wingtips add 12", from 35' to 36'. How wide are your wingtips???

 

17 hours ago, PT20J said:

M20J SN-0001- 24-1037 had a wingspan of 35'. Thereafter, the wingspan is 36' 1" according to the SMM.

The advantage of the wingtips is added recognition lights, and lower roll forces because the ailerons are moved inboard away from the tip vortices.

Fair point - the Factory wingtip fairings do not add 1.5 ft.  The Factory J wingtip fairings (installed starting in the 1981 model year after 24-1037 which is the end of the 1980 model year) technically add 13 inches over the square J wing tips (1977 - 1980) as noted by Skip.

My 1980 J has the LASAR (Loewen) Wing Tip Fairing STC SA4443NM (no longer available from LASAR).  See picture below comparing Original square J vs LASAR vs Factory.  The LASAR wingtips overlap the aluminum skin of the outboard edge of the wing.  The Factory wingtips are attached flush with the aluminum skin of the outboard edge of the wing.  The LASAR wingtips are attached with screws I think in the area where it overlaps which is a little further inboard from the square edge of the wing.  It makes it hard to eyeball the relative width of the LASAR vs the Factory wingtip.

I assume the LASAR(Loewen) created the STC with the same resulting wingspan dimensions as the Factory but I am not sure and there are no drawings.   It has been nearly 20 years since I argued and argued with the City about this.   The City actually came out with a tape measure to measure my wingspan and they said is was more than 36' 1".  Even at 36" 1" I would not have qualified for the smaller hangar.  Prior to the STC mod I would have qualified for the smaller hangar with 35' wingspan.  I don't recall the measured wingspan claimed by the City, but it was clear that I was never going to win the argument.  Since the airport is less than 5 miles from my house, I agreed to stay and pay.

Edited February 11 by 1980Mooney

[Mooney in Oz]

Southwest Texas Aviation (swta.net). JD is great to deal with.

[PT20J]

4 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

Fair point - the Factory wingtip fairings do not add 1.5 ft.  The Factory J wingtip fairings (installed starting in the 1981 model year after 24-1037 which is the end of the 1980 model year) technically add 13 inches over the square J wing tips (1977 - 1980) as noted by Skip.

My 1980 J has the LASAR (Loewen) Wing Tip Fairing STC SA4443NM (no longer available from LASAR).  See picture below comparing Original square J vs LASAR vs Factory.  The LASAR wingtips overlap the aluminum skin of the outboard edge of the wing.  The Factory wingtips are attached flush with the aluminum skin of the outboard edge of the wing.  The LASAR wingtips are attached with screws I think in the area where it overlaps which is a little further inboard from the square edge of the wing.  It makes it hard to eyeball the relative width of the LASAR vs the Factory wingtip.

I assume the LASAR(Loewen) created the STC with the same resulting wingspan dimensions as the Factory but I am not sure and there are no drawings.   It has been nearly 20 years since I argued and argued with the City about this.   The City actually came out with a tape measure to measure my wingspan and they said is was more than 36' 1".  Even at 36" 1" I would not have qualified for the smaller hangar.  Prior to the STC mod I would have qualified for the smaller hangar with 35' wingspan.  I don't recall the measured wingspan claimed by the City, but it was clear that I was never going to win the argument.  Since the airport is less than 5 miles from my house, I agreed to stay and pay.

Well, it certainly qualifies as a very expensive STC that keeps on costing. Bummer.

[Slick Nick]

23 hours ago, PT20J said:

M20J SN-0001- 24-1037 had a wingspan of 35'. Thereafter, the wingspan is 36' 1" according to the SMM.

The advantage of the wingtips is added recognition lights, and lower roll forces because the ailerons are moved inboard away from the tip vortices.

 

 

In addition, The wingtips also improved the takeoff performance and reduced the flaps up stalling speed by a whopping 6 knots! They aren’t just for show. 

[Mister_Bevilaqua]

5 hours ago, Mooney in Oz said:

Southwest Texas Aviation (swta.net). JD is great to deal with.

I had no idea they existed, this is great news. Thanks for sharing!

[Andy95W]

1 hour ago, Slick Nick said:

In addition, The wingtips also improved the takeoff performance and reduced the flaps up stalling speed by a whopping 6 knots! They aren’t just for show. 

I’m not buying that.  If that were true, they would have put them on the 201 when they started production on the 231.  They didn’t.

The 231 needed them for perceived greater stability at high altitudes.  The 201 didn’t get them until a few years later (I’m betting because everyone thought they looked “cool”.)

[Slick Nick]

14 hours ago, Andy95W said:

I’m not buying that.  If that were true, they would have put them on the 201 when they started production on the 231.  They didn’t.

The 231 needed them for perceived greater stability at high altitudes.  The 201 didn’t get them until a few years later (I’m betting because everyone thought they looked “cool”.)

Don't take my word for it. Fred George of FLYING magazine went over all the numbers when he wrote the original article on the M20J MSE. They're not just for looks.

If you like the looks of the square wingtips on your plane that's fine, all the power to you. But to insist they have no performance benefit and that they were only installed "for looks" is to ignore the data. They do make a big difference. It's why Texas composites, LASAR, and Mooney fitted them instead of leaving the ancient squared off tips in place.

[EricJ]

I think they'll slow down cruise speed a bit.    I miss Blue On Top being around to help with the aerodynamics stuff, but I recall that the square tips are actually very good for cruise speed.