Shadrach

Total misfire on my end. Most TFRs can be suitably navigated when in contact with ATC and with a discrete squawk code. You won’t get the exact routing when there are prohibited areas but they will work you around with reasonable routing.

I fly through it all the time. If you’re VFR you will need to file a SFRA flight plan with an entry gate, exit gate, TAS, transition time and altitude. https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/405/1310/200115 Kneeboard - Flight Plan Filing Instructions.pdf If on an IFR flight plan you need not file an SFRA flight plan, the SRA is entirely transparent, went on an IFR flight plan.

I’m here to read what you say and ensure that you say what you mean… at least you know someone is paying attention.

I always backfill from the actuator (lowest point in the system). Consider switching to synthetic fluid (Royco 782). You will need a barbed AN fitting and vinyl hose to attach to the reservoir and a catch can to collect the overflow.

I’m just relaying what I was told by several folks on the fed side.

Any competent A&P/IA should be able to sort through it. That being said, I assisted AMS in West Palm Beach with sorting one out over the phone earlier this year. Not sure they’ll have much enthusiasm to do another but you can try them. Bob was the tech that I worked with. He seemed bright and competent. https://amspalmbeach.com/contact/

Looks like this:

The ASI gets no points for doing field approvals and could be held liable if a 337 is later deemed to be have been outside the FAA guidelines. Under such circumstances, why would anyone want their name on a 337?

No. In fact, I go out of my way to remove formatting because it's annoying when I try to read posts that are mis-formatted. Whenever I paste, I get a prompt that says: Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead I always chose plain.

Weird. I saw this happen to half of one of @MikeOH's posts. It looks like it's a dark vs light mode thing... It looks perfectly normal in dark mode.

I have been told that FSDOs are not doing any field approvals. It seems that not only is there no institutional incentive to do so but there is also a professional disincentive to work through field approvals.

I don't have much experience with the heavier birds. Given that I don't have rudder trim (just roll), why would you trim for anything but neutral on final? Would it not be better to be managing the rudder with your feet rather than a trim servo?

It is not on the approved model list. The STC document does not authorize the installation of this voltage regulator on the M20K. This is a minor alteration that must be approved by the mechanic installing.

I think you meant lower.

Is my post not readable?

Nice. Mine is a bit more crude but I just uploaded the latest version.

You're not reading before you post. Airworthiness of the part in question and compatibility are two separate issues. I argued that if the definitions of a minor alteration which is clearly codified in the FARs is met, than it is up to the AMT installing to determine what they are comfortable with doing. You made an appeal to your authority - "as a 40 yr A&P and 15 year or so IA I feel" Then you proceeded to insinuate that I was suggesting complete parts compatibility between all aircraft- "Using your logic I’d be able to use engines, props and all kinds of other things on my Mooney, because they are approved on other Mooney’s." I never said any such thing. Once again...for changes that meet the definition of minor alterations, I think that PMAd parts with operationally identical specifications but different part numbers can be installed as a minor alteration... "It might just possibly start with wondering why the manufacturer didn’t include your model Mooney in with the others." There are a whole host of reasons why a model might not be included in the application list. Some times it's a simple oversight or a paperwork omission. Sometimes it's a lack of data available for a specific model. Sometimes there is a compatibility issue. In this case, perhaps it's because it would cause the battery to explode thereby blowing the airframe into pieces and causing it to plummet to the ground in a fiery mess...or...bare with me here, everything would be A'OK given per the TCDS that the components of the charging systems of each model are virtually identical save for a slightly lower capacity Alternator option on some J models... J Model K model

Agreed and neither does an 8110…It is focused on the part, not its compatibility. Those Helo pistons are still airworthy and don’t require an 8110. Their installation is another matter. I appreciate your experience and expertise. I only wish you would actually read what’s been said and reserve your critiques for things that I have actually said. An 8110-3 determines compliance with airworthiness standards for the part. FAA Form 8110-3 is titled "STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS" and is used to approved or recommend for approval the data used in making alterations or repairs to aviation products or articles. Only FAA designees are allowed to issue this form.

Why would an 8110 be required for an FAA/PMA part? Good luck finding a DER would do that.

They don’t get to just “consider it” anything. You’ve made no case for why this is a major. FAA must make the case based on the situation and the applicable FARs as written. You've also not made a case for why there is an increased risk of failure. Why would a TSO/PMA’d Voltage regulator, approved for service in other Mooneys with the exact same specifications, but a different P/N have a different propensity for failure? This is the kind of thinking that needlessly makes GA maintenance more challenging and quite frankly detracts from safety rather than enhance it. At the end of the day this is about the installing mechanic’s comfort level and understanding of the FARs and their confidence that their interpretation is correct and defendable. Unfortunately folks are becoming more and more averse.

A stall will always cause a buffet. A stall strip will cause buffet that occurs further ahead of the break. I’ve never removed a strip to see the difference in the buffet. I’m simply relaying what I’ve read how they work and what they do.

Same basic airframe with very different wing loading and fuel burn. Thats why I figured you at 2700ish. 20 gals is 2 hours of fuel at cruise for me, so pretty conservative reserves for the end of an XC flight 55kias is slow for the pattern but not for the threshold. I want to be at 1.2xVso over the numbers. At 2000lbs, calculated Vso is ~46kts (less in ground effect).

Stall strips hasten the stall in the area where they are installed by causing boundary layer separation aft of the strip. It causes a consistent localized stall ahead of the break and a pronounced buffet.

I was under the impression that most GA aircraft had stall strips. Stall strips yield a pronounced buffet before the wing breaks

I built an aircraft specific spreadsheet long ago that calculates stall and approach speeds in all configurations at any weight and bank angle up to 60°. I was actually curious about the weight range of his aircraft for normal single pilot ops. Normal single pilot ops for me is is between 2000 and 2100lbs (200lb pilot, two hours of fuel remaining and 20 to 40lbs of stuff/baggage). Under those conditions, I’m crossing the threshold of 55kias. If @dkkim73 is crossing the fence at 70kias, I’m guessing he weighs around 2700lbs for that target speed.