Shadrach

double post...

Quote: triple8s In the busniess world and the sue happy society that we live in I see exactly why Aspen and lots of others do what they do. It is all a matter of protecting the business, the owners, and even the employees. I would bet that the Aspen unit even though it has been submerged probably works just fine and may even continue to work fine, however, I wouldnt want my name on it knowing it had been underwater or transfered from one aircraft to another. How would you like to sleep at nitght knowing someone may be hauling the family to the Bahamas depending on the unit in IMC. NOT I no thank you.

Quote: Piloto An STC does not gives the holder an exclusivity right to be the only manufacturer of a mod or product. The STC only indicates that the product is in compliance with applicable FAA rules such as FAR 23. The holder of the STC would need to manufacture it's product under a PMA approval indicating the product is manufactured and tested per the STC approval. Parts from the submerged Mooney can be reused as long the installer can qualify them via an 8130 form. Do not be discourage of avionics components that has been submerged in water. Most electronic PCB assemblies are submerged and washed during the manufacturing process. It is likely that after being cleaned throughly with contact cleaner or similar solution they will work back again. A passing test by an avionics shop can issue an 8130 form. Jose

Quote: N601RX The FAA sees a STC as intellectual property much as a patent. That is the reason that you need a letter from the holder stating that you have permission to use it. Unfortunately some companies see that as easy money for doing very little work on their part. Other companies such as Brittain Autopilot will give you the permission letter free once they have tested the parts to make sure they function correctly. They only charged me $200 to repair and test an autopilot that I wanted to put in my plane. They said there was no charge for the STC and permission letter.

Quote: RJBrown I don't want to be rude but the understanding I am getting about Aspen as a company scares me. This conversation and the responses by an Aspen owner? employee? make me much less interested in an Aspen product for my plane. Either Aspen has a product so temperamental that they must control every step in its life to maintain a semblance of safety or they want to control the product at every level so closely as to force additional revenue streams. Either attitude is unacceptable. With a KX 155 I can have one pulled out of a plane checked by my avionics shop and put in another plane. Plug and play so to speak. If Aspen needs $$$$ to allow me the privilege to swap an installed and operating unit from one plane to another there is a big problem. It sounds, from the posting of Peter, that if I buy an Aspen product I really don't own it at all. I am only using it at the behest of its "godlike" creator. Someone is either a total control freak OR acting like one because he does not trust his equipment.

Quote: N9937c As to my conversation, I did tell the Aspen guy that the unit would be installed by my local avionics shop that is an Aspen dealer. His reply was that Aspen's policy was NO on STC's for used equipment. I will call Aspen monday morning. larry

Quote: peter Let's be clear, it is the FAA that requires an STC holder to give permission to another party to use their STC. That is because once installed under their STC, the STC holder becomes forever responsible for the airworthiness of that installation.Installation of an Aspen system is a complex task, and the equipment performs a safety critical function. I definately think it contributes to safety to ensure the STC installation is done by qualified individuals, using current data, and airworthy components. In your scenario, I have to ask who would do the inspection and determine that the used equipment is airworthy? As of today, there is no facility outside of the Aspen factory that is capable of performing that task. Furthermore, who would do the installation? Without factory support, there is no way to know if the installer has the right skills or equipment, or access to the appropriate and current technical data required by the STC. If someone wants to install our equipment then all they need is to gain the required FAA credentials, and the appropriate business qualifications, and then make application to become one of our dealers. Alternately, they can pursue their own STC for the installation of the equipment, and thereafter assume the perpetual responsibility for preserving the airworthiness of any systems installed under their independent STC.

Quote: peter Couple of things. The Aspen display in this aircraft has not been recertified by Aspen. If this unit or its subassemblies come to us and are identified as being from this aircraft, or that they were submerged, we would most likely scrap those parts as being unairworthy. Aspen does recertify used equipment that comes to us, but only after it is run through our factory rebuild process. Each factory rebuilt part conforms to new part performance requirements. Recertification of a piece of used equipment for reinstallation in a previously modified aircraft is not the same as modifying an aircraft for the first time using used equipment. FAR 21.120 requires that Aspen provides written "permission" to folks we authorize to use our STC. We currently provide this permission only to our authorized dealers, and then only for them to use our STC to modify an aircraft and install *new* Aspen equipment. Installation of *used* Aspen equipment is not covered by the new equipment permission statement. Per FAR part 21.120, a separate permission statement would be required to install the Aspen AML STC in an aircraft if using used equipment. Given the safety critical nature of our equipment, it would be bad business for Aspen to give a blanket authorization for people to modify an aircraft with our STC using used equipment. We will certainly consider requests to install our STC using used equipment, but each case would need to be evaluated on its individual circumstance before we would provide the FAA required 21.120 permission statement. For example, I anticipate we would, as a minimum, require that the used equipment be tested and inspected to verify that it conforms with all design and airworthiness requirements applicable to new equipment.

Quote: N601RX It only took them a couple of months to get the U-boat back in the air!

Quote: 74657 I know the auction ended on 5/13 and there is NO WAY that all of the repair work could be done already. It takes at least a month to send all of the engine parts out, get them checked, sent back and re-assembled.

Still there for now... http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ULTIMATE-MOOONEY-HAS-ALL-/270761911215?pt=Motors_Aircraft&hash=item3f0aaae3af#ht_2991wt_1167

Quote: N9937c Try to put in a 430/530, Aspen etc. without one. Garmin will furnish one for WASS but not 430. Aspen Will not furnish STC and this will keep from being able to install in cert. aircraft. Used auto pilots are the same. STEC just recently change their veiw but made it VERY expensive. larry

Quote: N9937c One of the main items in the panel of this mooney had NO value as salvage other than the homebuilt market. Aspen will not issue STC for used equipment install. larry

Middlesboro KY to Johnson City TN is only 30 mins via Mooney. I would not be surprised in the least if Jerry was the friend. What kind of idiot would post a pic with a chewed up prop tip without mentioning it? http://barnstormers.com/listing_images.php?id=558210&ZOOM=bd8770d6c573b6eefc5f83e0c555c71b

Lood, you're in the ball park. You may benefit from having the rigging checked. It might give you a few knots more. Also, why are you reducing RPM in climb? Noise?

I'm guessing your bird is fine. We've all dropped it on a time or two with the exception of N6719N... :-) I'm with Jose on the tank leaks. I think someone suggested back in 1973 that hard landings cause tank leaks and it's been repeated so many times that........

What's the TT and condition of your engine? How long have you been flying behind it? Quote: Lood Throw a 201 into the equation and all the calculations go belly up. The M20J is an incredibly effecient airplane.

Quote: sleepingsquirrel Young man, I'm tired of shoveling it's your turn. The more you shovel the lighter my load!

Lood, get yourself one of these... http://www.amainhobbies.com/product_info.php/cPath/89_610/products_id/23619/n/Hanger-9-Micro-Digital-Tachometer?utm_source=Google-Base&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Product-Feeds&source=google_ext I keep one in the plane to make sure I'm getting full RPM...

Quote: WardHolbrook My thoughts as well. Something's not quite kosher - inaccurate tach? Rigging? I should be able to do much better. What kind of speeds and power settings are you using?

Quote: sleepingsquirrel This is WTF I'm talking about : I guess we are lucky that the parts/ electronics are in one airplane and not being sold among several aircraft with the potential for failure. There could be several deaths spread out over many different airframes if it was parted out to the highest bidders. JPs offering started somewhere, Eve sinned, then Adam sinned, they were both considered guilty and both banished!

Quote: sleepingsquirrel Well , ask the insurance company who sold it to the highest bidder! Do you think they cared about the final disposition? No they only cared about the bottom line. This is why I will deny any insurance company any revenue I can!! Now I'm talking about the insurance company!! An insurance company that tried to cleanse its' hands of this loss, by selling it to the highest bidder!

Quote: Lood What would you do??

My biggest concern here is the avionics. This engine and airframe could be cleaned, inspected and returned to service, even though it will always have silt contamination. However, I have serious doubts that all of the avionics/instruments were pulled and returned to the factory for cleaning/IRAN. I would not want to fly this thing in the clag...

deleted.....