philiplane

an early 210 is a money pit. With the fabulous Leakin' Continental engine, eats gas, eats cylinders, eats any money you have and any money you might borrow, corrosion issues everywhere on the airframe, complex gear that eats more money... but your mechanic will LOVE you.

The way this works, the current STC holder can sit on it forever. They would have to sell the intellectual property to a new owner, and then the new owner has to go through the production certification process with the FAA to build parts again. I doubt we will see a resurrection of the RAJAY systems for new sales. Price seems to be the problem. For comparison, RAJAY used to install new turbos on Piper Apaches in Long Beach CA in 1962 for $3985, on the roughly $41,000 twin. That installed price is equal to $42K today, on a twin engine airplane. Ten percent of the new airplane's value for that upgrade. I don't see any way that RAJAY would be able to match that value proposition today, which means no one will buy it. For direct comparison, Tornado Alley gets $59K for a twin turbo installation on a Cirrus, and that includes dual intercoolers, a new starter adapter with oil scavenge pump, and the automatic wastegate controller system. And engine baffle mods. It's a very complete, very sophisticated system, The Rajay systems have manual controls and no intercoolers, which limits the usefulness of the system due to very high induction temperatures as altitude increases. As much as 190 degrees at 85 percent power, which raises CHT's and lowers power output. If RAJAY could supply an install kit for $25k for a single, they might have a market. If they added an intercooler, that would be a huge benefit.

The point of who owns the STC is moot, since there are no new systems available.

There are no good shops at HWO. The airport is full of hackers who keep the worn out trainers barely in the air. Advanced Aircraft at TMB is good but your bill will be large. They will fix things that didn't need fixing and charge double for it. There are three decent shops at Pompano: South Florida Aircraft Maintenance, Aerodiesel, and Aircraft Specialty Services. Premier Aircraft at FXE is a Mooney Service Center and authorized wallet cleaner. They will leave your wallet empty and spotless. But you'll get to know them well since you'll take your plane back several times to get everything right. Lantana is a dumpster fire. Forget it. Go further west to find Johnny Stinson at North Palm Beach County Airport, (F45) Aircraft Maintenance Specialist. They are good people. You'll find that many shops won't work on any older Mooneys, just the newer Ovations and Acclaims.

the data junkies on the Cirrus forum are currently obsessed with this type of data analysis, in an effort to reduce the damage done to nose landing gear and fairings. They're trying to pull AHRS data that shows the pitch upon landing, and then teach pilots to maintain a higher pitch attitude if theirs is normally flat. But what they really need, is a few sessions with a decent CFI to fix their landings. They already have a great attitude reference system for landing, it's called the windshield. Don't get wrapped up in the flight data. Get wrapped up in flight.

Narrow deck cases don't suffer from the amount of cracks that wide decks do, which is odd, since the wide deck case was supposed to be better.

exhaust valve sticking is caused by two factors: valve to guide clearance being set too tight, at the minimum end of the acceptable range, and by deposits from leaded fuels. If the guide clearance is too tight, nothing will fix that short of reaming the guides in place. Which is not that hard to do.

Camguard oil treatment is well known for reducing internal engine deposits. That will help keep the valve stems clean, which will prevent them from sticking.

I've had the vortelators on my Aztec props for two years now. Before and after data from my Insight G4 and TAS1000 air data computers indicates that the engine max RPM increases by 20-30 RPM, and the engine cooling is improved by the increased airflow at the blade roots, where the cowl inlets are. I removed them the following year to repaint the props. Left them off for a month, and that data set matches the original, pre-mod data. So of course I put a new set back on. They work, and the attached file explains the theory. 1Vortelator.pdf

There is no AD to compel an engine teardown on a Continental engine. Only a Service Bulletin with a recommendation for inspection of the crankshaft flange area, and a few other items in the engine. It is perfectly legal to take a bent prop off of a Continental engine, check for flange run-out, bolt a new prop on, and fly away. Even the Lycoming AD does not compel a tear-down. It calls for removal of the accessory drive cover, inspection of the crank drive gear, and replacement of the gear retaining bolt and lockplate. That's it. FWIW, I've been involved in dozens of engine tear downs over 25 years, and we have never found any internal damage related to the prop strike. Corrosion pits on cylinders, camshafts, and cranks from sitting, yes, but no damage from the strike itself. These engines are very robust, and the props take the hit and dissipate the energy enough that real damage is extremely rare. FWIW, the famous Aerostar gear up landing and fly away that happened in Fort Pierce FL a few years ago- that plane's engines were on their second prop strike tear down when the owner landed gear up, powered up and flew back to Fort Lauderdale. The props were curled back six inches. The subsequent owners had the Lycoming crank gear AD done (does not require a tear-down), bolted new props on it, and it flew for some time before being sold again. If any engines should have been impacted by a prop strike, this would be the poster child. All that said, the insurance companies are always happy to pay for a tear down out of an abundance of caution. There's no way to know if anything else inside is damaged, without disassembly.

Commercial Part 91 operations still do not require compliance with SB's. Part 135 operations might, but only if the ops specifications required it. It depends on how the maintenance program was written.

"If it is not a major alteration, as described in the letter, why would a 337 be required? " Because it may be the only way to get installation approval for parts that otherwise are not eligible for installation on Type Certificated airplanes. This is the maddening part of the current rules. You can have an approved part, but no installation approval to install it on a particular aircraft. Most people don't seem to understand this difference. But I can explain it this way: you might have a nice Lycoming 210 HP IO-390 engine. FAA certified no less. But you can't install it on your Mooney M20J, without an STC. Even though it's essentially the same as the existing IO-360, and has the same power output of an existing IO-360 that is modified with the 210 HP high compression pistons STC (the helicopter version IO-360). Why did you even need an STC to modify that engine with these pistons anyway? It's in the Lycoming parts catalog, and it's less than a ten percent increase in HP, so it shouldn't need an STC, right? Clear as mud. The G5 is different yet, because it's an electronic flight instrument that can replace more than one steam gauge. There are individual TSO's that each steam gauge meets, and Garmin certified that the G5 meets several of them. So it's different technology, which the FAA is still getting used to after 20 years of the glass revolution. Garmin basically side stepped the processes by just going for an STC. Which drives the 337, flight manual supplement, etc.

ALL STC's are major alterations. Every one. That's why they are called Supplemental Type Certificates. "STC". The definition of an STC is major alteration to the Type Certificate. Rosen visors were originally STC'd. Now, some are approved under NORSEE. Not all, but some. I do like that some things formerly STC'd are now being moved into the NORSEE program. But G5's are not one of them. But if you buy any kit that is STC'd, you are back in 337 land. Someday, the FAA will make sense of their approvals, but until then, we mere mortals have to build a paperwork mountain in order to remain on the good side of our Friendly Aviation Advisors.

It's always true. An STC by definition is an alteration, so the only way to add it to the airplane is via a 337. An IA can't have an "opinion" about it, he's compelled to file the correct paperwork. And hopefully update the weight and balance, and the flight manual.

Any STC product requires a 337, and in this case, a flight manual supplement too. Which comes as part of the G5 document package.

Have you verified that the oil hoses are connected correctly? I also ran across one that had been installed wrong, and had been that way for two years before the plane came to me. I only noticed that when I went to cut the filter open, and the pleats were totally clean on the outside. They were using a long 48109 filter, so it never overpressurized.

Fixing the autopilot would be at the top of my list for IFR flying. The Century III is not complicated to diagnose, nor is it expensive to repair. And it can fly GPS approaches very nicely. You will either need to retain the existing attitude indicator to drive it, or switch to a GI-275. The G5 cannot drive it.

the red and white 231 at PMP needs some interior cosmetic work, panel placards, and it has the obsolete Horizon tach in it. It also has the original King autopilot, which can be problematic. Requires a flight check to verify that it works correctly. It does have a new GTN650 and a GTX345 transponder, but the rest is original from 1979 and it sits out in the Florida sun and rain. And I'd have the flight controls checked carefully for damage. The fire department helicopters, and the helicopter school with six Robinsons and a Jet Ranger fly over or air taxi by that parking area daily, and there's a nitwit with a fixed gear turbo Saratoga that uses full power to turn his plane while taxiing to or from his spot. He blasts several planes in that line. A few times a week.

It's the same prop that Cirrus uses on the normally aspirated SR22. Great prop. Very smooth. The scimitar blades make more thrust with less drag, so acceleration is improved over the previous props. It's also a bit quieter due to the tip shape. From experience with both props on several Cirrus, I would expect the Bravo to get the same benefits. Now if Hartzell would just put the composite blades on the Mooney prop...they've done it on the Cirrus props since 2008.

The Hartzell composite props are a work of art. Durable too.

the Sontara towels need extra care when using, they tend to leave a white film or streaks on the windows. Plexus is the best though. Makes the windows nearly invisible. Well worth the cost.

For your purposes, they are the same. You'll be using a vacuum pad drive, which exists on both engines.

Correct. Camguard reduces corrosion and also helps prevent formation of deposits to keep the engine clean inside.

The AFMS are required to be in the plane. Just like the compass card, airworthiness certificate and registration. They're the things an FAA inspector would check on a ramp check. When those are in order, the rest is a non-event. Each one has configuration data check boxes, that the installer must complete. These are harder to do after the fact. There should be an equipment list update along with a new weight and balance sheet. These are part of the airworthiness of the plane, so insist that they are provided. It can't legally be flown without them. Did they file 337's for the installation? If you had to create them, you'll be paying someone for a whole day's work.

those fittings are two giant leaks. They should be connected to the magnetos for pressurization, or to the injector shrouds for the same purpose if the air isn't coming from elsewhere. If it is, then they need to be capped.