1980Mooney

LOCATION OF AIRCRAFT: Tied down at Central Jersey Airport Services, Inc., At least it was there in the summer.

Did you contact Sample International Aviation? They list it as "Sale Pending" Sample International Aviation, Inc. (avclaims.com) This is the link to N41XL Sample International Aviation, Inc. (avclaims.com) This is the link to "For Sale" - at the bottom of the page is shows a lot of aircraft as "Sale Pending" Sample International Aviation, Inc. PO Box 730118 Ormond Beach, FL 32173 386 677 7504 - 24 Hours 386 267-3153 - 24 Hour Fax avclaims1@cfl.rr.com COMPLETE & SUBMIT THE BID FORM AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE before 7:00 pm Eastern on July 8, 2022 SIAI #: 2022-50S 2006 MOONEY M20M BRAVO N41XL Your bid is solicited for the following salvage, as is, where is, before deadline of 7:00 pm Eastern on July 8 , 2022 WARRANTY: There is no warranty, express or implied for the information provided herein or the condition, useability, workability, operability or marketability of the aircraft salvage. All times are approximate and the logbooks and aircraft should be inspected by each bidder BEFORE BIDDING. Failure of the bidder to view the salvage or wreckage, or confirm any information provided is NOT grounds for a claim or withdrawal of bid after bid closing date.) Read CONDITIONS at bottom of page. HOURS estimated from logbooks or other information - not guaranteed or warranted AIRCRAFT: 2006 MOONEY M20M Bravo N41XL, s/n: 27-0355 Last annual inspection on 08/02/21 at Tach/TT 1586.8 ENGINE: Lycoming TIO-540-AF1B, s/n: L-12248-61A Last annual inspection on 08/02/21 at Tach/ETT 1586.8 PROPELLER: McCauley B3D32C417-D, s/n: 050773 Last annual inspection on 08/02/21 at Tach/PTT 1586.8 EQUIPMENT: Click for Equipment List from 2020 Appraisal WAAS avionics upgrade on 04/01/22 for the G1000. See receipt. DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT: On 04/04/22 N41XL crashed in the front yard of a home several blocks from Central Jersey Regional Airport, NJ. . DESCRIPTION OF DAMAGES: The damage includes but may not be limited to the following: See Photos LOCATION OF AIRCRAFT: Tied down at Central Jersey Airport Services, Inc., 1034 Millstone River Road, Hillsborough Township NJ 08844 Terri Horner terri@centraljerseyairport.com (908) 962-7272 ONLY contact for appointment to inspect salvage. INQUIRIES: Avclaims1@cfl.rr.com REMARKS: *Insurer reserves the right to reject any and all bids. *Salvage is as is/where is. *The posting information is the best to our knowledge. *An inspection of the salvage is highly recommended. *Logbooks may not be complete CLAIM NUMBER: 10544887 SIAI NO: 2022-50S COMPLETE THE BID FORM BELOW & SUBMIT. YOU WILL RECEIVE A CONFIRMATION OF YOUR BID (Bids may also be faxed to 386-267-3153 or sent via email to avclaims1@cfl.rr.com) AIRCRAFT: AMOUNT OF BID : US DOLLARS ONLY NAME OF BIDDER: ADDRESS: CITY STATE ZIP CODE PHONE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER: EMAIL ADDRESS: Please complete each line so that we have complete contact information for you CONDITIONS: The aircraft listed are for sale "as is where is". There is no warranty either express or implied. All times and descriptions are believed to be the best information available and are not warranted. Prospective buyers should inspect the aircraft and records before bidding. Purchaser bears all risk regarding condition, useability, workability, and operability of all salvage. The underwriters have full and complete authority for all decisions regarding salvage and they reserve the right to reject any or all bids. The bid deadline dates are firm without exception. Payment in full by Wire Transfer, cashier's check or certified funds is required within 7 business days of notification to the successful bidder. FOR SALE PAGE RECENT SALVAGE Sale Pending 2010 Cessna 510 N915CF, 1979 Beech 200 N200BM, 1997 Air Tractor AT502B N5092J, 1979 Cessna 501 N501KM, 1978 Cessna 402C N2712F, 1981 Cessna 172RG N6376V, 1978 Cessna 402B N900CR, 1963 Cessna 172D N2540U, 1997 Cessna 525 N177VV, 1988 Cessna S550 N659AS, 1967 PIPER PA-28R-180 N3725T, 1979 PIPER PA-31-350 N809AB, 1979 BEECH 95-B55 (T42A) N14AT, 1981 BELL 206B N401HP, 1978 CESSNA 182RG N639RR, 1980 CESSNA 421C N421PJ, 2018 ICON A5 N83BA, 2007 CESSNA COLOMBIA 400 N1003X, 1996 ROBINSON R-44 N855LS, 1970 AMERICAN AA-1 GRUMMAN N6149L, 1977 CESSNA 402B N98649, 2016 ROBINSON R44 N612GG, 1970 PIPER PA28-180 N3930R, 1980 BEECHCRAFT 58P N60SH, 2005 ROBINSON R44 II N89LA, 1967 PIPER PA-32-300 N4143W, 1977 PIPER PA-28-161 N2635Q, 1978 CESSNA 172N N739LS, 1966 BEECH C90 N695DA, 2019 CIRRUS SF-50 N217GB, 1979 GRUMMAN AG CAT N6944K, 1979 CESSNA 551 N48DK, 2007 PIPER PA46-500TP N3088X, 2012 ROBINSON R44 RAVEN II N322SH, 1979 MOONEY M20K N231NK, 1984 PIPER MOJAVE PA-31P-350 N9272Y, 1962 PIPER PA-24 N8089P, 1976 GRUMMAN AMERICAN G-164A N48594, 1982 BELL 206L-3 N170AM, 1946 AERONCA CHAMP 7AC N35FT, 2020 CIRRUS SR22 N729SA, 1967 BEECHCRAFT 95 TRAVEL AIR N5467U, 2006 ROBINSON R44 RAVEN II N512RT, 2014 ROBINSON R66 N266RK, 1974 Cessna 150L N65987, 2013 CESSNA 510 N81CB, 2012 CITATION 525B N973CG, 2003 CIRRUS SR22 N987AA, 1975 BEECH V35B N457JN, 2001 BEECH A36 N396JG, 1977 CESSNA 172N N737SY, 2006 MOONEY M20M BRAVO N41XL, 1974 BEECHCRAFT KING AIR A100 N93GT, 2002 BEECHCRAFT 390 PREMIER I N351CW, 1976 CESSNA 172 N9010H, 1993 BEECH 58 N100JP, 1981 BEECHCRAFT KING AIR F90 N990F, 1979 CESSNA T210N N5276C, 1973 CESSNA 172M N471PR, 1973 CESSNA 340 N47BP, 1977 CESSNA 172N N737BW, 2010 CIRRUS SR22 N112TR, 1946 ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH 415-C N99726 © 2004 Sample International Aviation, Inc. - All Rights reserved For More Information Contact: avclaims1@cfl.rr.com

I just called Century Flight Systems in Mineral Wells. Both the "800" number and their local number are no longer in service - just a recording that "The number you dialed is not a working number". I suppose it is possible that someone is there with a cell phone but I think it doubtful. More likely Century Flight Systems is history like so much of General Aviation. For those of us with Century autopilots, if you have any problems be prepared to scrounge used parts or get ready to write a big check.

Actually that’s looking at the world through 19th century “job shop” goggles. It’s the same team at the top. It’s the same business philosophy that picks leadership top to bottom It’s the same business systems that manage and control the workflow. There are centers of excellence which guide the philosophy and structure of technology, software, and avionics - there are chief technology officers, and there are leaders for technology and software integration. They are not letting every person reinvent the wheel …. Companies do matter.

You forgot to mention that Boeing is the lead/prime contractor for the core stage, avionics and upper stage.....flawed MCAS 737 control software and flawed software controlling Starliner botched launch and near disaster in flight.

More like a yawn in the park today. In 1969 everyone was watching. Today I bet 99% couldn’t tell you what “Artemis” is if asked.

Here is the same Rocket engine frame corrosion/ repair from 2019. His total cost was $11 k. Engine removal and reinstallation was 80 hours. Based upon my Missile experience that is about right. Rocket designed a complex engine mount.

@rocketman Rocket Engineering repaired the engine mount from my Missile conversion last year. I had some corrosion. 3 tubulars were replaced. Rocket uses 3 different wall thicknesses depending on the tubular. They are oil filled. They re-powder coated the entire frame. Give them a call.

There is no way to accurately recalibrate the senders. - or replace them. Because of the dihedral wing, the Monroy extended range tanks which are further out are therefore slightly higher than the main tanks (the extended tank flows into the main tank). If you fill the main tank and extended range tank each to the lip, the height of fuel from fuel pick-up to top of the extended tank is greater than the range of the fuel sender. First you will burn some fuel off while the fuel level remains above the "full limit" on your sender. In my J, when I have actually flown full fuel, it seems like I burn at least 6-7 gallons a side (maybe more) before the gauges even budge off of full. I have the 18 gallon extended tank - if you have speed brakes it will be 15 gallons. Second, at some point your gauges will read right (once the level is below the connection to the extended tank). I was told that they gauges are accurate when the gauges are at half full. So if your K is the same then the gauges read right when you have about 19 gallons or less on each side. But between half (19) and full you could have up to another 34 gallons (total of about 53 gallons per side or about 105 gallons total). It is not linear and it cannot read a drop in the top approx 5+/- gallons a side when completely full.

Probably nothing. Your calipers do the stopping. They put them in the last K's - the "Encore" in 1997 and '98. Those planes had a 230 lb. GW increase to 3,130 lbs. and I think they had double puck brake calipers. They put them on the last J's with single puck calipers from 1993 - '98 but they were only 2,900 lb GW. I have a 3,200 lb GW with an IO-550 transplant on a J - It has the original brakes (small capacity master and calipers). It stops adequately.

I think the 10-49 and 880027-501 are the same based upon the compatibility of this kit: Brake, Master Cylinder Kit. Mooney M20J With 880027-501 / A-110-37 / 10-49 Brakes PPBMC31 - Knots 2U, Ltd.

880027-501. The large capacity 10-24D can be retrofitted in pairs. I think that is what is in the "Retrofit Kit"/

I don't believe that Rocket Engineering altered the brakes or master cylinders on the Rocket or Missile Conversions. I owned my 1980 J when converted to a Missile and there was no change during the conversion. Looking at the Parts Diagrams it appears that the master cylinder on a 1982 K is the same as the master cylinder on the J models from 24-0764 - 24-2999 (1978 - 1990). They are the "small capacity" Parker Hannifin. Therefore you simply have brake issues that are the same as any other K and Mid-body of that vintage.

Tip - if you click on the image next to the persons name it will bring up their web page. It shows joining date. Matias joined October 26.

No agenda. I just find it amazing that are able to deduce exactly what one's intent is on these faceless, voiceless, impersonal chat sites dashed off on an iphone or multitasking computer with mispellings, missing words, autospell f-ups- all deduced with 100% absolute certainty - no chance, zero, that you might be misinterpreting anything. That's a great gift. BTW...if I am a "cabron" are you calling me a male goat or a bastard or a badass or an asshole or a buddy or a brothel keeper or....

You could also have simple connector issues which may be hard to find https://miscsolutions.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/troubleshooting-old-century-autopilots/

I have a Missile conversion with a Century 41. Does it show "Fail" all the time or only when you perform the "Test" on the ground holding the button while it sequences? I had some issues with the servos about 15 years ago and also sent the computer to Autopilots Central in OK. It has worked like a champ since.

Thanks but it sort of sounds like you have a grudge against Mathias because of his poor English communication while you, as you say having grown up in Latin America, are well fluent in both. I have lived my life in states bordering Mexico. I know that if I tried to chat in a Spanish speaking forum in Spanish I would probably insult everyone and be totally misunderstood. I bet everyone would be calling me an Arrogant Gringo asking for favors as well as lecturing me to use more "miel" (honey?). Regarding your comment "Sounds like someone did take time out of their day to provide him with very useful information without any sort of compensation." Doesn't @M20Doc do that all the time?!

I agree with you completely. I did not reference you with the "@" invite because I did not mean to drag you into this mess. Until this topic/thread there was never a problem talking about, referencing and sharing details related to STC's. Truth be known I bet there has been plenty "real IP" shared behind the scenes in PM's in an attempt to keep alive our fleet of so-called "active STC's" that many/most in reality are no longer sold, unsupported, left for dead in bankrupt estates, abandoned etc. The situation with Mooney STC's will only get worse over time. Every month the fleet shrinks. The few truly active STC holders are getting older and older. For instance the owner of Rocket Engineering is in his 70's and there is still some level of support for Rocket and Missile conversions. However I have no illusions that they will be around in another 10 years to continue to support my Missile STC - but I won't be flying anymore so who cares. The Mod Works/Mod Squad STC debacle will likely never get cleaned up and supported although the FAA will list them as "Active" forever. Let's face it - the FAA STC process is an American invention that is far from perfect. Where else do you have to spend ~$6,000 to operate your engine at the speed Continental designed it to run? - i.e. Increase RPM from 2400 to 2700 on the Screaming Eagle and increase from 2500 to 2700 for Ovations? OMG - I JUST DISCLOSED IN PUBLIC THE MAIN (ACTUALLY SOLE) "REAL IP" IN THE MARKETING NON-INVENTION "INVENTION" IN THIS STC ! All kidding aside I just did a search and noticed that about 15 Mooney's actively registered and flown have been converted from Certified to Experimental (excludes Factory mules). It includes 4 "J"s, 1 "K", an Ovation, 3 "E"s. The rest Bs and Cs. Perhaps that is the future to allow owners more flexibility to deal with diminishing support for a shrinking fleet. Spare yourself reading the details of this thread - rather than being the usual free flow of helpful guidance it is full of acrimony, accusations of theft, labeling of accomplices and partners in crime as well as some illusive threshold of "precedent".

You stated " I think the precedent for respecting IP ownership here has been set." - "The supplemental type certificate ... are the property of the supplemental type certificate holder." .."You must contact the supplemental type certificate holder to seek written permission.".."People here have refused to even include a page of the MAPA PPP course because it’s proprietary" You are overlooking the many posts of "IP" here on MS over many years involving some of the MSer's that are participating in this current topic. STC's have been posted many times - there were even more before the server change when most pictures were lost. And in addition, these MS "public posts" likely stimulated more information shared by PM. Clearly the MSer's posting STC's become identified as sources to go to for more information and detail. As a result, you are promoting a double standard to chastise @Matías Equiza for reasons that I don't understand. December 7, 2016 - M016576 posted images of the STC pack from his M20J Missile Rocket Engineering conversion mainly related to GW increase. @carusoam actively participated in the 3 page discussion. (pictures now lost due to server change) May 1, 2018 - Jerry Pressley posted images of 4 STC's and the power charts for a M20C RayJay turbo conversion. @carusoam praised him "Nice details Jerry" On October 18, 2020 Adversyaw posted images of 2 STC's for the M20K Rocket Conversion. @carusoam participated. On January 28, 2022 I posted the image of the Oil Drain (Auto-Valve Inc) STC for the Missile Rocket Engineering conversion On February 22, 2022, HawkGT posted the image of the Mod Squad 261 Thunderbird STC. @LANCECASPER participated in that discussion multiple times. NEVER ONCE DURING THIS PERIOD WAS ANYONE ON MS CAUTIONED TO NOT POST STC'S, NOT POST PERFORMANCE DETAILS, NOT SHARE INFORMATION RELATED TO THEIR STC'S. NOT PM STC INFORMATION.

I think the problem is in your premise. You and some others immediately concluded without any nuance that the gentleman from Argentina and his "accomplices" here on MS are "thieves" that are stealing active STC's from Midwest/Mooney and Mod Works. Step back for a moment and think about the big picture. In order to "steal" an STC it needs to be installed/applied/modified with all the bits, pieces and alterations on the airframe or engine that is identified in the STC as specified in the STC drawings - all without the STC holders knowledge, approval or compensation. The plane in question was an M20L with 217 Porsche horsepower converted somewhere along the way to 350 HP TSIOL-550 Liquid Rocket by Rocket Engineering. The OP is making (and proposing) changes that include bits and pieces from Rocket Engineering, - engine mount, unique Liquid Rocket cowling w/holes patched up, Continental - TSIOL core that has been stripped of turbo, cooling plumbing, radiator, and apparently the "wet" cylinders have been replaced with some form of stock air cooled cylinders. It has an unknown prop and governor setup but known to be specified by Rocket Engineering for 350 HP application on a TSIOL-550. He is not "stealing" and replicating the Mod Works STC nor the Midwest/Mooney STC. He can't - he doesn't have (and apparently has no intention of replicating) all the bits and pieces of those specific STC's. I believe that he is asking for the STC's because he want to show the Argentine Aviation Authorities that he is trying to do something similar to the longstanding proven STC modifications. You keep taking issue with the 310 HP STC. I believe SA02193CH is the STC for the airframe 310HP upgrade. and it mentions both engines, N and the modified G. I believe SE02930AT is the STC for the IO-550G upgrade to 2700 RPM. He doesn't have an N, G or modified G He has a bespoke 550 comprised of some combination of parts. He is downgrading his airframe from 350 HP (Rocket Engineering STC properly associated with his airframe) He is not modifying a 280 HP engine by increasing RPM from 2500 to 2700 - he already has a (Rocket Engineering spec) prop governor set up for 2700 RPM. Why the heck does he need to pay Mooney Corp or anyone to downgrade an engine which Mooney Corp never specified? He is not stealing the Midwest/Mooney STC because it doesn't apply to his engine or plane. The same goes for the Mod Works STC - he is only trying to do something similar. He is not replicating and stealing the STC because he does not have a Mod Works engine mount or cowling for starters. His proposed modifications will produce a bespoke Mooney with a bespoke engine. It will not be modified exactly like the Mod Works or Midwest/Mooney STC's. The Argentine Aviation Authorities may consider his application to be "Experimental". They may or may not approve but if they do that is not stealing. The OP has a stranded Mooney AOG in a foreign country speaking English as his second or maybe third language. He has a Mooney that is unsupported and abandoned for all intents and purposes. First with the Porsche engine and now with the Liquid 550 from the Rocket Engineering "Liquid Rocket" modification - no help, no support from Mooney, from Porsche, from Continental, from Mod Works, or from Rocket Engineering. And when, as a newbie, he reaches out to MS for help he gets crapped on. He desperately find a way to make "lemonade" out of a "lemon". The OP has presented some pretty imaginative and unique solutions to get his grounded plane flying again. Although many may think his ideas are outrageous he is being pretty resourceful. When MSer's make outrageous suggestions about hanging a Turboprop on a Mooney they get congrats here on MS for being open minded whether their suggestions make any practical/economic/safe sense or not.. This guy got quite a different treatment. If you believe that the modifications which the OP is contemplating on MS are unwise, uneconomical, outrageous, unsafe or will never be approved either certified or experimental then just say that. And educate him as to your thinking. But don't call him a thief.

Technically you are correct. I should have more correctly said that wing and steel frame fuselage of all mid-body and single door long-bodies are sufficiently similar in design and strength that the FAA has confidently over the past 3+ decades approved multiple STC's for: Increase NA Mid-bodies to 300 HP without structural modification Increase TC Mid-bodies to 305 HP without structural modification Increase NA Long-bodies to 310 HP without structural modification Increase TC Long-bodies to 350 HP without structural modification And as you point out "our guys" at the FAA addressed the affects upon the structure and potential hard pointing and stress loading for HP increase as well as GW increase. The FAA also approved GW increase to 3,200 lbs. Without Structural Modification J Models 24-0764 and up and all K Models Including J Models with thin wall tubulars (below 24-1686) STC ST00472SE The 3,200 lb GW Increase was good enough for the FAA but surprisingly not Mooney Corp.

I am confused. What does a U or V have to do with modifications to a single door model Mooney? You are no doubt correct that the addition of the pilot door and the lengthening of both doors was weaker than the decades old one door frame design. It doesn't surprise me that there were tube changes. At the same time the FAA was perfectly happy letting Rocket Engineering slap 300+ hp IO550 into a J, 305 hp TSIO520 into a K or 350 hp TSIOL550 into any long body including L all without structural modification. As well as allowing Mod Works to put the 550 into the L. All single door.

The one thing that you omitted in your summary is that the OP was called a thief and the rest of us were labelled criminal accomplices. I think that has to be a real "first" on MS and something that you need to highlight. I searched MS and cannot find another example where one MS'er is calling another member, especially a new member, a thief and labelling the rest of us here as partners in crime.

With the Master off the only possible draw should be the single line coming from the battery box in your tailcone. It feeds your Headliner lights, the clock and the hot memory circuit on your archaic fuel flow totalizer. There is an in-line glass fuse - should be 5 amps. Open it to break the circuit. There should be no parasitic draw at that point. If there is current draw with your inline fuse removed then you have a chaffed wire between the battery and the Master switch or your Master is bad. If the parasitic draw drops to zero with the in-line fuse open (out) - then reinstall the inline fuse and isolate the clock separate from the headliner and separate from the fuel totalizer. 9 milliamps is only 6.5 amps/month. That should not kill your battery in 8 days as you observed. Davtron M800 keep alive current is 4 milliamps.