1980Mooney

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.

Ouch! Just to be clear - so you have your plane in an LLC (maybe with other partners?) and you note you are an IA/A&P so I assume you are the LLC partner that will have primary responsibility for maintaining the airworthiness of the aircraft (i.e you are personally liable to the LLC for any claim in which maintenance played a role). so you must be personally leasing the aircraft from the LLC when you act as PIC and fly yourself or others and if/when you preform maintenance on the aircraft then you personally are billing the LLC. Are you trying to get "Renters Insurance" from Avemco to protect your liability when, as lessee, you will be the PIC and operator of the aircraft and be in “operational control” of the flight. You will be held personally liable for all actions attributable to your own negligence or other unlawful conduct during that flight apart from the LLC. Or are you trying to get Hull (and Liability) insurance for the LLC from Avemco? This will protect the LLC regardless of who is PIC. Are you trying to get these as separate policies or one policy together? Do you have a separate A&P insurance policy which the LLC will claim against in the case of an incident attributed to maintenance? (or are you doing work bare so that the LLC will have a claim against you personally?) It seems to me if you get one policy together (instead of separate policies) that will highlight the LLC as a sham. What am I missing? What say you @Parker_Woodruff

I think that was the idea. I don't know the current draw but I bet you could leave it on for it on for more than a day.

Actually, I find the Argentine Aviation Authority refreshingly pragmatic. From the firewall back all long bodies are the same structure. This plane has already been certified by the FAA to fly all day long with the 350 hp liquid 550 - so what is the big deal with flying 310 HP? Ditching the Liquid 550 reduces weight on the nose which is all good - CGs will be just fine. Rocket Engineering has proven you can take a mid-body K with no modification to the structure or flight controls and flog it all day long with 305 HP. I fly my IO550 Missile all the time wide open and generally at max 3,200 lbs and the single puck brakes are just fine. This proposed conversion from a 350 hp Liquid to 310 hp NA 550 will actually make his Mooney more reliable and safer at the end of the day. And raising the HP to 310 is just a RPM paperwork exercise (his existing prop is quite capable) - just an STC that puts paperwork form over substance.

This is the Argentine plane owner who owns a M20L that was previously converted to a liquid Rocket TSIO550L - and now is in the process of converting it to a plain IO550. (In multiple posts below looking for the original STC converting from L to IO550 which is a 280 hp IO550 conversion similar to an Ovation 1). Hence the desired increase from 280 to 310 hp.

Check this out - more detail on the old style fuel totalizer draining battery.

Lasar advertises them. Not sure what you mean by "Lasar is no longer". They may not have any in stock and need a core first. REPAIRED NOSE TRUSS — LASAR

Perhaps something is lost in translation. You asked the same question in a different topic. Contact @bfreelove and @VA FLYER here. They both have M20L conversions to IO-550/

Basically correct. There is a fused line running directly from the battery to the headliner lights and to the clock (bypassing the Master Switch). It has a single inline 5 amp fuse located in the tailcone near the battery box. On some early J and K there was an optional memory fuel flow meter totalizer (Aerosonic Floscan) that required power to retain its memory. It had a switch which you turned off during long idle periods. So there could be a third "always hot" wire stuffed in the panel even if the archaic flow scan totalizer meter had been removed. From the K POH BTW - I can't open the Concorde article on recovering a dead battery either