Mooney cowl stc SA000946AT

[67 m20F chump]

That is the STC Mooney Mart had for putting a J cowl on a F Mooney.  Do any of you have a copy of it?  I’m thinking about trying to find the parts to do the swap and think it would help with the list and possibly the paperwork I would need to get it approved.  

 

I think I need the cowl, baffles, motor mount modified for cowl flap linkage, air intake, spinner and backing plate for my 3 blade prop.  Does this sound like the complete parts list?

 

thanks,

russell

 

[bradp]

Russel I'm pretty sure that STC is orphaned.  You may be able to use it as approved data for your own follow on 337 with your IA- but this is a ton of work.

Instead, consider @Sabremech's cowling mod.  There are plenty of pictures of @Bob_Belville's E wearing it.  It will probably cost a lot less to go this way too.  It looks really good on the E/F.

[67 m20F chump]

I don’t know what his cowl is going for or what is included and the speed increase he is seeing.

 

i have found a M20j wreck so I could pull all the parts needed.  I just don’t know what those parts are.  I can’t find any information on the orphaned STC other than the number and who used to have it.  

 

People have this stc on aircraft now and I was hoping someone could post a copy or a parts list.

[jetdriven]

We called the FSDO about using STC data for a field approval and they said no they can’t do that, you got to buy the STC. It’s intellectual property. The problem with all of those Modworks STCs is that the FAA still shows them as active and they really are orphans

[carusoam]

Do some homework to see if you can loosen up the grip on the orphan STCs...

Many have tried before...

Maybe something has changed...

I know a TC guy that has the same challenge.

Best regards,

-a-

[67 m20F chump]

I have called the FAA to ask about the STC and the guy didn’t call me back.  I also called Mooney.  When I was at Oshkosh I was talking to a guy who worked for Mooney.  I told him it was hard to get parts and information about the plane.  He said I should call him directly.  He didn’t call back either.  

 

I will keep trying.  What else can you do?

 

[Sabremech]

2 hours ago, 67 m20F chump said:

I have called the FAA to ask about the STC and the guy didn’t call me back.  I also called Mooney.  When I was at Oshkosh I was talking to a guy who worked for Mooney.  I told him it was hard to get parts and information about the plane.  He said I should call him directly.  He didn’t call back either.  

 

I will keep trying.  What else can you do?

 

You can do what I've done on the 4 airplanes I modified with my first cowling mod. Contact the FAA and work with them to do a 337 field approval. Fill out a 337 with the detail of what you want to do which is use mostly original later model Mooney parts and submit it for a pre-approval before starting your modification. They will most likely send it to ACO for review and approval. Another route you can take is to contact a DER and get the data approved on an 8110-3 form.

 Thanks,

 David

[wcb]

10 hours ago, 67 m20F chump said:

What else can you do?

 

Only a few options.

1.  Do what @Sabremech mech did and work with the FAA directly or the DER.

2. Get in line for the @Sabremech mod.  I think it is going to be better than an original J.  (So far this is what I have done!)

3. Go big time and go with Lo Presti

4. Add the ARI

5. Be low key add the LASAR mod

6. Join the CB club do nothing.  (wait we are Mooney owners and not cirrus drivers doesn't that automatically make us part of the CB club!)

[67 m20F chump]

I was hoping to get a parts list and try to do it with a 337.  I have located a parts plane but I don’t want to buy it if I can’t get the paperwork through.  This mod has been done before so I’m making some calls to see if I can make it happen.

 I’m having some medical issues and can’t fly so it just seems like a good time to try.

[KSMooniac]

Definitely start with the FAA and your local friendly IA. Find out if he'll work with you, and then ask if he'll arrange a meeting with his FSDO overlord. Assuming you can get to a face to face meeting, explain what you would like to do and emphasize the following:

1. Existing/approved STC is unobtainable but not official orphaned (shows it was FAA approved in the past, and that you're not trying to cheat someone's STC work)

2. Mod uses original Mooney parts from a newer model (shows that they're approved from engineering and production quality/PMA perspective, not backyard engineering and auto part fiberglass)

3. Mod provides easier and better access to engine as well as better cylinder and oil cooling performance. (Safety enhancement!)

4. Mod requires no structural mods to airframe or alters performance, control, stability, etc.

5. Bonus... The J evolved directly from the F without major alterations so retrofitting improvements back to an F model is a natural course of action to improve a vintage plane.


That is what I would do if I were in your shoes. I'm an engineer in the industry, but have not done this myself yet. It should be enough to convince a reasonable FSDO or ACO engineer/inspector but not all are reasonable. Good luck with this, and whatever ailment is keeping you on the ground. Hangar time spent improving a plane is as good as flying one to me!

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

Get parts manuals for your F and the donor J...

Detail all of the parts Of one that will be replaced by the other...

This will help you organize how big the project is or isn’t...

 

For the other project...

There is a thread or two regarding Class III SI(s) and another one regarding the value of Basic Med when the SI becomes too much of a hassle...

Best regards,

-a-

[rbridges]

My paperwork for the 201 cowl is of little help. It references other literature but offers little detail for the swap itself. 

[67 m20F chump]

Any chance it has a the parts used listed?  I’m wondering if I need to change the motor mount.  It has a different dash number for the J.

[Ragsf15e]

On 8/23/2019 at 2:59 AM, 67 m20F chump said:

Any chance it has a the parts used listed?  I’m wondering if I need to change the motor mount.  It has a different dash number for the J.

Sorry to revive the dead… did you ever figure out what parts of a J would be required to put the cowl on an F?  I’d like to keep that as an option and start getting the pieces together.

[67 m20F chump]

It’s the engine baffles and oil cooler ducting, intake, cowl flap handle from inside the plane to where it attaches at the flap, tail pipe and hangar, spinner and backing plate, and the cowl.  The parts where the cowl attaches are listed as shim in the manual.  I think I should let this idea die but I still want to do it.  You would also need a 337 and possibly a DER to sign off on it.  I’m trying to get a FAA guy to give me a thumbs up on a 337.  I ordered the records from the FAA on a couple of aircraft that had the swap done.  
 

On top of that I can’t find any A&P willing to take the job on.  I think I should sell the Mooney and buy a Vans.  
 

Allen has a 80’s J that he is parting out but the engine and baffles are already gone.  I could pick some parts from him but I want to be sure about getting a 337 before I sink more money into this black hole.

[Ragsf15e]

31 minutes ago, 67 m20F chump said:

It’s the engine baffles and oil cooler ducting, intake, cowl flap handle from inside the plane to where it attaches at the flap, tail pipe and hangar, spinner and backing plate, and the cowl.  The parts where the cowl attaches are listed as shim in the manual.  I think I should let this idea die but I still want to do it.  You would also need a 337 and possibly a DER to sign off on it.  I’m trying to get a FAA guy to give me a thumbs up on a 337.  I ordered the records from the FAA on a couple of aircraft that had the swap done.  
 

On top of that I can’t find any A&P willing to take the job on.  I think I should sell the Mooney and buy a Vans.  
 

Allen has a 80’s J that he is parting out but the engine and baffles are already gone.  I could pick some parts from him but I want to be sure about getting a 337 before I sink more money into this black hole.

Yeah it would make a great mod if you could get it done. Probably the best bet would be to work with one of the big mscs on doing it as they’re the most familiar with the differences.  Id love to do it but i think it would be tough to find the right person (IA) willing to follow it through.

[67 m20F chump]

I have talked to a MSC and the factory.  Nobody will touch it.  I’m on the fence about grabbing any available parts needed as they become available because it ain’t cheap, getting a 337 approved is a challenge, and nobody wants to do the job.  I feel like I’m pissing in the wind here.

 

I bought a nice cowl already but so far that is it.

[Echo]

This is where certified becomes a bummer. It’s a shame that the stc is caught up in the legal system and Vintage Mooney owners and those that profit from installation expertise suffer.  Not much you can do. I bought with conversion (337) and the mod was a strong plus column check mark. 

[Echo]

How many Sabre cowls have been completed?  Is this a legit option?  Certainly helps J prices stay strong by not having options to upgrade vintage cowls. That is a good thing. 

[Sabremech]

22 minutes ago, Echo said:

How many Sabre cowls have been completed?  Is this a legit option?  Certainly helps J prices stay strong by not having options to upgrade vintage cowls. That is a good thing. 

I did four cowling modifications initially when I started my project. I’m still working on two different cowlings but am in the process of moving right now. Many other issues with composite shops have hampered progress for quite a while but I am too far into it and too much money invested to walk away from it. 
Thanks,

David

[Shadrach]

My understanding of the regs is far from comprehensive but I have always been curious about the regulatory language that makes adding some types of factory parts to update a factory airframe more difficult than others.

Does Installing wing tank gauges require a 337?  It requires cutting sheet metal, drilling, counter sinking and flush riveting.

[KSMooniac]

53 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

My understanding of the regs is far from comprehensive but I have always been curious about the regulatory language that makes adding some types of factory parts to update a factory airframe more difficult than others.

Does Installing wing tank gauges require a 337?  It requires cutting sheet metal, drilling, counter sinking and flush riveting.

My interpretation (I'm an engineer in the industry working on new products) is that the IA has the authority to determine major/minor according to the regs.  Using factory approved and produced parts goes a long way towards nudging many things we're discussing towards minor... such as adding the wing sight fuel gauges.  They are supplementary, and independent of the primary fuel quantity system, so that should be a slam-dunk minor mod, especially using the Mooney parts.  (Weep No More added mine during reseal long ago with a logbook entry).  NORSEE was written with this kind of logic too for safety-enhancers like AOA systems that are independent of the existing pitot-static system.  

Adding later model Mooney factory seats also falls into this category...they're already certified, they fit, so just install them with a logbook entry and W&B update.  We did this with my throttle quadrant deletion modification... I took all of the factory Mooney parts from an 81 J and retrofitted them into my 77 J.... minor mod.  I did NOT engineer new engine controls or do other crazy contortions, I just used factory parts.

It should be the same way IMO for a J cowl retrofit, although at that point there might be a minor nit using J parts going on to an E or F... but I suspect many IA's would be fine with it.  With the VARMA regs and the unobtanium ram air duct, you could perhaps twist some logic into supporting the mod to delete ram air and use the more efficient J airbox and cowl without the ram air hole, which Mooney even deleted themselves towards the end of the line.  That is a safety and reliability improvement in my mind to get rid of a leaky duct that will pass dirt into your engine and perhaps clog a fuel injector....  

For those that are on the never-ending path to improving our great vintage airplanes, I encourage you to not give up!  There are logical reasons to do so, and there are still (almost) reasonable paths to accomplish it if you're using the right mindset, and have a good relationship with your mechanic/shop/IA.  It helps to be a DIY-er too b/c paying for a lot of it does NOT make economic sense.  It is a hobby for me, and (mostly) enjoyable so I don't mind doing the work myself with supervision.  I also don't do anything crazy or stupid.  The regs were not written to keep our planes stuck in the 60s or 70s until they become completely unsupportable and unairworthy.

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

My understanding of the regs is far from comprehensive but I have always been curious about the regulatory language that makes adding some types of factory parts to update a factory airframe more difficult than others.

Does Installing wing tank gauges require a 337?  It requires cutting sheet metal, drilling, counter sinking and flush riveting.

In Part 43, Appendix A, there is a list of things that qualify as major repairs or alterations, as well as a (non-comprehensive, according to FAA legal opinion) list of tasks that qualify as Preventive Maintenance.    Generally, anything that doesn't qualify as a major repair or major modification is by default minor and can be done with a logbook entry.   Anything "major" requires a 337, which therefore requires "approved" data as the basis for completion.   There doesn't seem to be much regulatory language that discriminates factory parts from any other.   OPP, VARMA, etc., are all legal ways to document when non-factory parts are just as approved as factory.   So a legal part is just a legal part.

Interpreting the list and coming to a conclusion on what is major or minor is the source of increasing amounts of heat and decreasing amounts of light.   This is why I just punt and tell people to do what their IA wants, since he's the guy signing the logbook.   Ask two different IAs about a grey-area case and you'll get three different answers.   The entire VARMA program is basically an IA-education effort so that if one IA approves something as a minor (or even major) alteration, the next IA won't make the owner rip it back out.   So, yeah, the confusion is understandable and widespread.   FWIW, often two different FSDOs may not agree on something, and often different inspectors within a FSDO may not agree.  So when somebody says they know the definitive answer to a certainty, unless they're a judge in a court case asked to decide the topic...just ask your IA, his opinion is the one that matters.

48 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

My interpretation (I'm an engineer in the industry working on new products) is that the IA has the authority to determine major/minor according to the regs.

Yes, the regs actually say the "installer" determines whether it is major or minor.   The next different guy to come along may easily have a different opinion, though...hence the issues.

48 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

Using factory approved and produced parts goes a long way towards nudging many things we're discussing towards minor... such as adding the wing sight fuel gauges.  They are supplementary, and independent of the primary fuel quantity system, so that should be a slam-dunk minor mod, especially using the Mooney parts.  (Weep No More added mine during reseal long ago with a logbook entry).  NORSEE was written with this kind of logic too for safety-enhancers like AOA systems that are independent of the existing pitot-static system.  

Adding later model Mooney factory seats also falls into this category...they're already certified, they fit, so just install them with a logbook entry and W&B update.  We did this with my throttle quadrant deletion modification... I took all of the factory Mooney parts from an 81 J and retrofitted them into my 77 J.... minor mod.  I did NOT engineer new engine controls or do other crazy contortions, I just used factory parts.

It should be the same way IMO for a J cowl retrofit, although at that point there might be a minor nit using J parts going on to an E or F... but I suspect many IA's would be fine with it.  With the VARMA regs and the unobtanium ram air duct, you could perhaps twist some logic into supporting the mod to delete ram air and use the more efficient J airbox and cowl without the ram air hole, which Mooney even deleted themselves towards the end of the line.  That is a safety and reliability improvement in my mind to get rid of a leaky duct that will pass dirt into your engine and perhaps clog a fuel injector....  

For those that are on the never-ending path to improving our great vintage airplanes, I encourage you to not give up!  There are logical reasons to do so, and there are still (almost) reasonable paths to accomplish it if you're using the right mindset, and have a good relationship with your mechanic/shop/IA.  It helps to be a DIY-er too b/c paying for a lot of it does NOT make economic sense.  It is a hobby for me, and (mostly) enjoyable so I don't mind doing the work myself with supervision.  I also don't do anything crazy or stupid.  The regs were not written to keep our planes stuck in the 60s or 70s until they become completely unsupportable and unairworthy.

I tend to agree.   The main issue is to document things reasonbly well enough so that somebody else later doesn't say you have to undo it.   My fingers are crossed that that'll be less of an issue as time goes on, but it's always a risk.

[FlyingDude]

I was once trying to see the feasibility of doing this while I was obsessing about the doghouse engine baffles.  Fixed the baffles, plugged tons of gaps and CHTs improved, and I kind of gave up the unicorn hunt.

However, installing J cowls on a pre-J is a major alteration per Appendix A of Part 43.  You can argue that item (iii) won't apply because engine cowls are not part of Fuselage (this is Mooneyspace after all, we argue all day long), however item (viii) clearly lists "cowling". 

Also, I am pretty sure this mod will change flight characteristics.  If a dumb Brake Caliper Swap (TM) speed mod requires a 337, changing the engine cowls would definitely require an STC.  I am sure the plane will handle differently but I am pretty sure that it won't be anything drastic...

 

Appendix A to Part 43—Major Alterations, Major Repairs, and Preventive Maintenance

(a) Major alterations—(1) Airframe major alterations. Alterations of the following parts and alterations of the following types, when not listed in the aircraft specifications issued by the FAA, are airframe major alterations:

(i) Wings.

(ii) Tail surfaces.

(iii) Fuselage.

(iv) Engine mounts.

(v) Control system.

(vi) Landing gear.

(vii) Hull or floats.

(viii) Elements of an airframe including spars, ribs, fittings, shock absorbers, bracing, cowling, fairings, and balance weights.

(ix) Hydraulic and electrical actuating system of components.

(x) Rotor blades.

(xi) Changes to the empty weight or empty balance which result in an increase in the maximum certificated weight or center of gravity limits of the aircraft.

(xii) Changes to the basic design of the fuel, oil, cooling, heating, cabin pressurization, electrical, hydraulic, de-icing, or exhaust systems.

(xiii) Changes to the wing or to fixed or movable control surfaces which affect flutter and vibration characteristics.

[MooneyMitch]

Possibly you could contact Mark Rouch, Top Gun.  Mark did the mod on his F years ago..................He called the plane his F n J.