Ovation 1 to Ovation 3 via the Midwest STC

[1980Mooney]

18 hours ago, carusoam said:

Seems to be a huge amount of miscommunication occurring…

MS thrives on teamwork…

Essentially, we all play on the same team…

Everybody has something of value to share…

 

Often, it is hard to see their values…    But, it IS there…

MSers speak an incredible number of different languages…

They live in several different countries and a few different continents…

When having difficulty communicating, around here… often people will write in their favorite language, and use Google translate to do the conversions…

Having your favorite flying machine down for infinite maintenance is a giant source of stress…

MS can be a giant source of relief from the unknowns of aviation….

 

MS has thousands of members supporting each other, every day… 24/7…

The more you bring to the party… the more you get in return… 

The opposite, is often true, as well…
 

Sometimes… you get to be the new guy… with little to offer… and have a lot of questions that need answers… or just one big one…

 

How I know there is miscommunication going on…

Lance has been an MSer for more than a decade…

Here, nearly every day…

Continuously offering insight on all things Mooney aviation… with an incredible knowledge about aviation supplies… parts, avionics, relays and how to modify them…. 
 

Plus, he has owned a few Mooneys over the years…

 

On the internet… you can ignore a lot of resources… and not feel bad… the internet is happy to ignore you back.

On MS… Every answer to every Mooney question is here, or held in the memories of its members…

When you have a really challenging question…  finding the MSer with the answer… is a community building experience…

MS only has several thousand active members…  you can be known by all of them…

Being known… in a good way… helps. 

Helps other MSers go out of their way to help you find the answer that you seek…

 

GA in the US is hard….

GA in the rest of the world doesn’t get any easier…

Owning a Mooney is different than owning a plane built for the masses…

Owning an M20L is really special….  There is nothing easy or accidental related to owning and operating an M20L…

 

There is only one MS….

Go MS!

Best regards,

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. 

[Matías Equiza]

On 11/3/2022 at 6:52 PM, LANCECASPER said:

You sent the private message to me -  things got unfriendly when you told me to watch out for myself - implying a threat from you. I did mention that your English was difficult to understand. I apologize if you took offense at that. You came back with all kinds of ridiculous nonsense about the history of my name. I don't wish you any harm, but I don't ever want any dealings with you. 

No, I will replay all you write me... You has started with injuries about the stc's and for my english. Am here looking helpness, if you don't do it perfect, but you has started doing acussation about the information that I was requesting...if you don't help, great, don't speak and that will be a helpness 

[Matías Equiza]

On 11/3/2022 at 4:56 PM, Matías Equiza said:

Really, I am very gratefull with you, I Will. Lancecasper write me others thing by private message... He is not friendly man, but don't worry...

I have many friends and I helped many too, but I won't tolerate disrespect and arrogance.. I hate that attituds

[LANCECASPER]

23 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

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. 

I'm open to suggestions on what you would call someone who wants to use an active STC (310hp STC) without paying for it. Back in 2014 when I wanted to take an Ovation from 280hp to 310hp,  if I had asked for all of the paperwork and instructions on how to do that without paying for it, I hope someone would have called me out on it.

[mike_elliott]

On 10/31/2022 at 12:03 PM, 1980Mooney said:

From the firewall back all long bodies are the same structure. 

Not to disparage, but this isnt factual. Kevin Hawley can confirm, but common sense says there are a number of tube changes in the U and V. of which I have seen. And then there is that pesky pilot side door. How the panel height change affects the structure and potential hard pointing and stress loading exactly I dont know, but am sure it does. Perhaps its something the Argentina authorities will simply ignore, but not our guys....

[carusoam]

Speaking of STCs and paying for them…..

One of my favorite aviation conversations was with the writer of the 310hp STC…

After that conversation… I was more than willing to be a buyer of that document…

The document is incredibly well conceived and technically written in full Rocket Engineering style… by a person with the full depth of knowledge of Continental engines…

 

May I recommend making contact with that individual…. He would be a great resource to have on your team for this project…?

That would be a great conversation….

Be ready to take a lot of notes… the valuable data comes in hard and fast!   

In the end…

Re-powering a long body is a huge cost… getting it done correctly in one shot… is incredibly efficient…

The STC financial process always adds another layer of confusion…  who do I pay, how much, for how many STCs…. As the STC owner has been Re-assigned to Mooney (for the Ovation)….

The cool thing… The STC writer is very familiar with the current answers for all of this… and that first phone call didn’t cost me anything….   
 

The document is one thing… getting the full knowledge behind the document may be even better…  

Best regards,

-a-

[1980Mooney]

5 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

Not to disparage, but this isnt factual. Kevin Hawley can confirm, but common sense says there are a number of tube changes in the U and V. of which I have seen. And then there is that pesky pilot side door. How the panel height change affects the structure and potential hard pointing and stress loading exactly I dont know, but am sure it does. Perhaps its something the Argentina authorities will simply ignore, but not our guys....

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.  

[mike_elliott]

From the firewall back all long bodies are NOT the same structure as you stated was what I was addressing as not factual

[1980Mooney]

5 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

From the firewall back all long bodies are NOT the same structure as you stated was what I was addressing as not factual

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.

[1980Mooney]

19 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

I'm open to suggestions on what you would call someone who wants to use an active STC (310hp STC) without paying for it. Back in 2014 when I wanted to take an Ovation from 280hp to 310hp,  if I had asked for all of the paperwork and instructions on how to do that without paying for it, I hope someone would have called me out on it.

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.

[carusoam]

Very nice technical summary 1980!

As for the rest of the summary…

Can’t we all just get along…..   - Rodney K.

We can’t afford to lose any friends….

Best regards,

-a-

[ilovecornfields]

I think some people, while not calling the gentleman from Argentina any names, pointed out that:

1. His question on how to obtain the STC had already been answered.

2. His approach, if more considerate, might yield better results.

The OP asked for intellectual property owned by someone else without compensating the owner:

“I've found a supplemental type certificate that I want to install on my airplane. What do I do now?

You must contact the supplemental type certificate holder to seek written permission. The supplemental type certificate and its related information – all drawings, data, specifications – are the property of the supplemental type certificate holder. FAA will not release this information without authorization from the owner.”

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/stc/stc_install

I don’t care if he’s using it to build an orphanage - what he was requesting is the property of the STC holder. Not public domain.

Prople here have refused to even include a page of the MAPA PPP course because it’s proprietary. I think the precedent for respecting IP ownership here has been set. That being said, if he’d asked nicely I think it’s likely someone would have sent it to him.

Things are rarely black or white. @LANCECASPER has helped me out many times. He even sent me an Ovation checklist for free and refused to let me even pay shipping.
 

Instead of pointing fingers why don’t we just acknowledge that how you treat other people has a huge effect on how likely they are to help you. Honey works better than vinegar.

[Andy95W]

It seems that if anyone has taken offense at the theft of intellectual property, the complaint should be made to the Argentine government and not Matias.  He is simply attempting to modify his airplane in accordance with his government’s rules.

Even in the US, you don’t have to purchase an STC to modify your airplane.  You could get a field approval- but you’d have to go through the hassle of providing the engineering data.  Evidently Argentina doesn’t require that.

And frankly, Matias would probably be willing to pay for the STC for converting his airplane to the IO-550, except that STC is an orphan and no longer available for sale.  And the 310 HP STC doesn’t apply to his M20L, only the M20R.

Edited November 8, 2022 by Andy95W

[Matías Equiza]

On 11/5/2022 at 10:33 PM, LANCECASPER said:

I'm open to suggestions on what you would call someone who wants to use an active STC (310hp STC) without paying for it. Back in 2014 when I wanted to take an Ovation from 280hp to 310hp,  if I had asked for all of the paperwork and instructions on how to do that without paying for it, I hope someone would have called me out on it.

You definitely didn't understand anything. it is easier to criticize than to interpret. I've already spent a lot of time reading you and I'm bored. I explained a thousand times that with the documentation, showing that it exists here in Argentina, an ITA technical alteration report is made) to enable the plane, since the work was done but it was not seen by an inspector. now you understand?

[Matías Equiza]

1 hour ago, ilovecornfields said:

I think some people, while not calling the gentleman from Argentina any names, pointed out that:

1. His question on how to obtain the STC had already been answered.

2. His approach, if more considerate, might yield better results.

The OP asked for intellectual property owned by someone else without compensating the owner:

“I've found a supplemental type certificate that I want to install on my airplane. What do I do now?

You must contact the supplemental type certificate holder to seek written permission. The supplemental type certificate and its related information – all drawings, data, specifications – are the property of the supplemental type certificate holder. FAA will not release this information without authorization from the owner.”

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/stc/stc_install

I don’t care if he’s using it to build an orphanage - what he was requesting is the property of the STC holder. Not public domain.

Prople here have refused to even include a page of the MAPA PPP course because it’s proprietary. I think the precedent for respecting IP ownership here has been set. That being said, if he’d asked nicely I think it’s likely someone would have sent it to him.

Things are rarely black or white. @LANCECASPER has helped me out many times. He even sent me an Ovation checklist for free and refused to let me even pay shipping.
 

Instead of pointing fingers why don’t we just acknowledge that how you treat other people has a huge effect on how likely they are to help you. Honey works better than vinegar.

basically because he didn't understand what I was requesting, maybe because of my English or whatever, but he didn't understand it and he addressed me in a bad way. the stc developed by Mod Works is no longer sold, and since it is no longer sold, I need photos of someone who has the documentation to be able to develop an ITA and be able to enable my plane. I made every effort to be understood, I'm not interested in stealing anyone's intellectual property. In Argentina we also know about aviation and regulations, we are not monkeys, greetings

[Matías Equiza]

1 hour ago, Andy95W said:

It seems that if anyone has taken offense at the theft of intellectual property, the complaint should be made to the Argentine government and not Matias.  He is simply attempting to modify his airplane in accordance with his government’s rules.

Even in the US, you don’t have to purchase an STC to modify your airplane.  You could get a field approval- but you’d have to go through the hassle of providing the engineering data.  Evidently Argentina doesn’t require that.

And frankly, Matias would probably be willing to pay for the STC for converting his airplane to the IO-550, except that STC is an orphan and no longer available for sale.  And the 310 HP STC doesn’t apply to his M20L, only the M20R.

Thank you so much Andy! You has understood perfectly!!!!

[Matías Equiza]

3 hours ago, carusoam said:

Very nice technical summary 1980!

As for the rest of the summary…

Can’t we all just get along…..   - Rodney K.

We can’t afford to lose any friends….

Best regards,

-a-

Good man! Thank you. I hope all members can understand it

[Matías Equiza]

3 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

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.

Thanks! I has modified my mooney. I has converted it to M20R but to do airworthy I must to demostrate to ANAC (same FAA) that has existed a stc in the past and this was develope by Mod Works but Mod Works is closed now, and I need find copies of that documents to develop an ITA here in Argentina and with that I could do flyable or airworthy my mooney. Go pictures to understand me and don't tell that I obly wanna copy documents and steal copyright. My mooney fly perfect but not airworthy, for that reason I need to find the documents and use that as buckup.. @LANCECASPERcan you understand me now?

 

My mooney was converted and is flying great in test but not airworthy for now, for that reason ANAC ask me for some stc developed in the past tp can develop an ITA over that document. Thanks 

[ilovecornfields]

Beautiful airplane! 

[EricJ]

4 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

I think some people, while not calling the gentleman from Argentina any names, pointed out that:

1. His question on how to obtain the STC had already been answered.

2. His approach, if more considerate, might yield better results.

The OP asked for intellectual property owned by someone else without compensating the owner:

“I've found a supplemental type certificate that I want to install on my airplane. What do I do now?

You must contact the supplemental type certificate holder to seek written permission. The supplemental type certificate and its related information – all drawings, data, specifications – are the property of the supplemental type certificate holder. FAA will not release this information without authorization from the owner.”

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/stc/stc_install

I don’t care if he’s using it to build an orphanage - what he was requesting is the property of the STC holder. Not public domain.

Prople here have refused to even include a page of the MAPA PPP course because it’s proprietary. I think the precedent for respecting IP ownership here has been set. That being said, if he’d asked nicely I think it’s likely someone would have sent it to him.

Things are rarely black or white. @LANCECASPER has helped me out many times. He even sent me an Ovation checklist for free and refused to let me even pay shipping.
 

Instead of pointing fingers why don’t we just acknowledge that how you treat other people has a huge effect on how likely they are to help you. Honey works better than vinegar.

The OP asked for the data related to an abandoned STC for which there is no possibility of purchasing permission due to the essentially abandoned status.   Without detailed knowledge of Argentine aviation law,  which I suspect the vast majority of us do not have,  I don't think we have any basis for claiming what anybody does or does not need to do in that country related to the use of a US STC.

I can comment from relevant personal experience on the basics of international applicability of intellectual property.  One downside of applying for a patent is that it requires public disclosure  of the gist of the idea, and the published patent must in fact teach the how-tos of the invention.   The "data" becomes publicly accessible to anyone in the world.    While a US patent protects the ability to sell (i.e., generate revenue from) a covered invention in the US, it generally has no effect anywhere else.   So a patent requires public disclosure of the invention to the world, but anyone outside the US can freely use it anywhere outside the US.  It is not theft to use IP covered in one country in a different country that has no legal protection for that patent.  US companies are not obligated to pay for IP that is not covered by patents recognized in the US for products sold in the US, even if it is covered by patents elsewhere in the world.   It is pretty common for people or companies to harvest IP published in other countries and use it in their own country where there is no legal  protection for the invention.   It isn't theft, or at least it isn't generally recognized as theft in relevant courts, it's just a recognition of where various laws apply and where they don't.  When someone applies for a patent somewhere,  it is usually a conscious decision to determine where to file it and how much international coverage is desired.   The more international coverage is desired,  the higher the application costs to obtain coverage in all of the desired countries. It adds up fast, so often coverage is specifically limited to contain cost, and it is recognized that there will be no protection in countries for which patent coverage is not specifically obtained.

It is not theft to use IP that is not protected by relevant law.  IP protection can expire or be abandoned, too.

Likewise, an STC is a US thing that protects usage in the US and on US-registered aircraft.  It does not provide protection in jurisdictions that don't require that STC permission be observed,  and different jurisdictions may have their own rules for what to do if an STC exists but has been abandoned.   It takes knowledge of the specific relevant laws of a specific region to know what is required in that region,  but it is generally not a good assumption to think that US IP protection applies outside of the US, for patents or STCs or copyrights or whatever. 

I think it's also a little difficult to expect somebody with limited English proficiency to get all of the etiquette nuances right.  I didn't see anything in his posts to suggest any intentional disrespect or malice.   I think that may have been read-in by some.

Long post, but it seems like there may be some continuing misunderstandings. 

 

 

[1980Mooney]

5 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

The OP asked for intellectual property owned by someone else without compensating the owner:...You must contact the supplemental type certificate holder to seek written permission. The supplemental type certificate and its related information – all drawings, data, specifications – are the property of the supplemental type certificate holder. FAA will not release this information without authorization from the owner.”...I don’t care if he’s using it to build an orphanage - what he was requesting is the property of the STC holder. Not public domain.

Prople here have refused to even include a page of the MAPA PPP course because it’s proprietary. I think the precedent for respecting IP ownership here has been set. That being said, if he’d asked nicely I think it’s likely someone would have sent it to him.

Instead of pointing fingers why don’t we just acknowledge that how you treat other people has a huge effect on how likely they are to help you. Honey works better than vinegar.

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

[T. Peterson]

May I suggest a motto for MS? “We may not always be right, but we are never in doubt!!”

[Matías Equiza]

On 11/4/2022 at 10:33 PM, 1980Mooney said:

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. 

That person who treated us criminals and  accomplices was @LANCECASPER

[Matías Equiza]

7 hours ago, EricJ said:

The OP asked for the data related to an abandoned STC for which there is no possibility of purchasing permission due to the essentially abandoned status.   Without detailed knowledge of Argentine aviation law,  which I suspect the vast majority of us do not have,  I don't think we have any basis for claiming what anybody does or does not need to do in that country related to the use of a US STC.

I can comment from relevant personal experience on the basics of international applicability of intellectual property.  One downside of applying for a patent is that it requires public disclosure  of the gist of the idea, and the published patent must in fact teach the how-tos of the invention.   The "data" becomes publicly accessible to anyone in the world.    While a US patent protects the ability to sell (i.e., generate revenue from) a covered invention in the US, it generally has no effect anywhere else.   So a patent requires public disclosure of the invention to the world, but anyone outside the US can freely use it anywhere outside the US.  It is not theft to use IP covered in one country in a different country that has no legal protection for that patent.  US companies are not obligated to pay for IP that is not covered by patents recognized in the US for products sold in the US, even if it is covered by patents elsewhere in the world.   It is pretty common for people or companies to harvest IP published in other countries and use it in their own country where there is no legal  protection for the invention.   It isn't theft, or at least it isn't generally recognized as theft in relevant courts, it's just a recognition of where various laws apply and where they don't.  When someone applies for a patent somewhere,  it is usually a conscious decision to determine where to file it and how much international coverage is desired.   The more international coverage is desired,  the higher the application costs to obtain coverage in all of the desired countries. It adds up fast, so often coverage is specifically limited to contain cost, and it is recognized that there will be no protection in countries for which patent coverage is not specifically obtained.

It is not theft to use IP that is not protected by relevant law.  IP protection can expire or be abandoned, too.

Likewise, an STC is a US thing that protects usage in the US and on US-registered aircraft.  It does not provide protection in jurisdictions that don't require that STC permission be observed,  and different jurisdictions may have their own rules for what to do if an STC exists but has been abandoned.   It takes knowledge of the specific relevant laws of a specific region to know what is required in that region,  but it is generally not a good assumption to think that US IP protection applies outside of the US, for patents or STCs or copyrights or whatever. 

I think it's also a little difficult to expect somebody with limited English proficiency to get all of the etiquette nuances right.  I didn't see anything in his posts to suggest any intentional disrespect or malice.   I think that may have been read-in by some.

Long post, but it seems like there may be some continuing misunderstandings. 

 

 

I understood perfectly. I don't want stole PI, I only wanted find the documents to do an ITA here in Argentina. If some would want to stole something. I think that person would not be interacting in a forum, where it is supposed to be a place to clear up doubts, not to freely and publicly accuse someone of being a criminal... since doing so would imply legal problems for those who do so freely and publicly. @LANCECASPER

 

[HawkGT]

@1980Mooney The FAA offers electronic copies of STCs through their own database (https://drs.faa.gov/browse) so sharing them on a public forum does not challenge an STC holders IP.  The real IP is in the design drawings held by the STC owner and their ability to issue an authorization letter to install the STC.  I did not go through all the referenced posts but for mine the only thing being asked for was that which the FAA makes publicly available.