philiplane

It did. The M22 resulted in the Mooney 301, which lead to today's TBM series from Daher/Socata. During the brief Mooney/SOCATA partnership, the name “Tarbes Built Mooney,” or TBM, emerged and has remained to this day. https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/mooney/mooney-301/

There is not enough time in the day for any FSDO to ensure that every airplane in their jurisdiction is properly registered. There is a rat somewhere in this process. Who wants to get you in trouble with the FAA?

I would avoid the closed cell foam insulation. It is heavy, will also retain water, and does not last as long as fiberglass. It does not reduce noise as much as a good ANR headset either. You are much better off using wrapped fiberglass insulation.

it's from 2022

It needs to be crated properly, then any freight carrier will take it. Build a box with 1/2" plywood, if you're handy. If not, ask your local A&P if they have a box, or know someone to build one. You can get a used prop box from a local prop shop. Those are often made from heavy-duty cardboard. Fedex freight is a good choice.

https://www.local10.com/news/local/2023/10/26/small-plane-crashes-outside-north-perry-airport/

If you don't discharge the battery at the rate specified, you won't get a true reading of the capacity. Meaning you can't discharge at half the rate for double the time. It doesn't work that way.

I have a uAvionix AV20-S AOA, and it works very well. I plan to add the AOA option to my Aspen EFD Pro Max as well, just for fun. I was never impressed by the other AOA systems that relied upon anything other than a true AOA vane for sensing. Of course, the vane type of AOA systems are not available for light aircraft, due to $$$$$.

https://shamir.com/us/shamir-lenses/ Shamir makes the absolute best lens there is. I got my first pair six years ago, and they are amazing. In one day, I'm driving, or flying, or working under instrument panels, reading tiny wiring diagrams, tiny numbers inside avionics connectors, in bright light or darkness, and all with one pair of progressives. I've had bifocals one time, then run of the mill (cheap) progressives, but these things are just amazing. I keep one extra pair of polarized Shamir glasses for boating, flying, skiing, or driving in bright sun for extended periods. Those are even better to reduce eyestrain than the regular Shamir Transitions lenses.

The Shamir polarized lenses work with all aviation panel mount displays, iPads and automotive displays, and even on boats. I have no idea how they do theirs differently, but they work. I work on all different types for a living and haven't encountered a display that is a problem with them.

Don't do lasik. You will regret it later when you get halos at night from the circular scar caused by the corneal flap incision. Several friends had it done, and all are having problems with night vision due to this. One friend had RK done years ago, and is at risk of losing his medical due to the vision problems caused by the RK procedure. Very bad effects, he gets a starry kind of halo, much worse than the Lasik halo effect.

The only precise progressive is the Shamir lense. You don't need to take any measurements of panel to eyeball, etc. They even make a polarized version that is the only lens that will allow you to still read GPS displays with no trouble. They did cost $600 with Rayban frames. But WOW. Nothing else comes close to these lenses.

Get progressives, but get the best ones. Shamir lenses are outstanding. You can see everything clearly, with less "nose pointing" at what you want to see. You retain excellent peripheral vision to help with your landings. They cost more, but you will only regret not getting them sooner.

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.