Overgross

[Bob_Belville]

While you all are dreaming, maybe you can think about our (M20E) situation: 2575 pound gross = ~ 900 useful. I'd love to have "max landing weight" stay at 2575 but have "max take off weight" go up even to the 2740# F, early J spec. Keeping the fat boys up front and giving the back seat any leg room at all in our short body model keeps W/B in limits.

[jetdriven]

The M20J Missile has a 3200 LB gross weight. From their webpage it appears the only airframe mods  to the M20J are 4 additional mount points on the firewall.   I think you could safely fly an older 201 at the 2900 LB gross weight, but the real question is getting it approved.

[carusoam]

Now the question, who can do the job and who wants to pony up a few bucks???

A down payment of a few (500?) hundred bucks to get the project started. testing, documenting, followed by a final payment to receive the STC for your plane.

How does that sound, theoretically speaking? What else would be required?

What is an acceptable time line. 6 months, 9 months, a year?

Clearly, I am trying to forward the conversation. I am unable to do any more than talk. I am not a mechanic, and STC writing is out of my area of expertise.

Best regards,

-a-

[M016576]

I've actually started looking at STC application procedures on the FAA website... Would be nice to get some weigh in from somebody who has gone through this procedure before, they are a little much for my simple pilots mind on first glance!

My guess would be that MAC and/or Rocket engineering would NOT make their test data available to another entity, purely because they would want to reserve that data for their own use (after all, they paid for it). Just a guess on that, though. Maybe LASAR or another operator on this board could clear up some of these questions?

[aviatoreb]

I've actually started looking at STC application procedures on the FAA website... Would be nice to get some weigh in from somebody who has gone through this procedure before, they are a little much for my simple pilots mind on first glance!

My guess would be that MAC and/or Rocket engineering would NOT make their test data available to another entity, purely because they would want to reserve that data for their own use (after all, they paid for it). Just a guess on that, though. Maybe LASAR or another operator on this board could clear up some of these questions?

 

Good point Jobe that none of those companies is likely to want to share their data for free, but in that statement is hiding a good idea.   My guess is that no one here is in this to make money, but just wants a low cost stc to happen to allow you to fly with a bit more w&b flexibility.  So why not someone approach those companies to share their data as a business venture.  You guys share the elbow grease of pushing an stc through and the company who agrees shares their prior flight engineering test data and some know how experience with stc's in general.  You guys have a well qualified test pilot in Jobe, lawyer experience I am sure and some engineers in the group too I bet.  Plus the elbow grease to gather some pre-stc investment funds.   In return for their assistance, they own the stc but they sign a contract that limits the profit margin to something modest since they are just providing old data, and they can make a small profit on each stc sold.  And you guys get the stc you want a bit more easily. Just an idea.

[M016576]

I think I've just found my new hobby/project until I can determine if this is feasible!

[Piloto]

I've actually started looking at STC application procedures on the FAA website... Would be nice to get some weigh in from somebody who has gone through this procedure before, they are a little much for my simple pilots mind on first glance!

My guess would be that MAC and/or Rocket engineering would NOT make their test data available to another entity, purely because they would want to reserve that data for their own use (after all, they paid for it). Just a guess on that, though. Maybe LASAR or another operator on this board could clear up some of these questions?

 

The reluctance to share engineering data is more related to liability than anything else, particularly on flight critical issues. It can make a third party liable in an accident. It can also open a can of worms if something wrong is found with the data. But do not despair. There are several computer programs for quick engineering analysis.

 

José 

[Parker_Woodruff]

Except you have to remember that the Mooney Missile testing was done by Rocket Engineering with an IO-550 up front, not an IO-360...which probably also changes the empty CG quite a bit.

[M016576]

Except you have to remember that the Mooney Missile testing was done by Rocket Engineering with an IO-550 up front, not an IO-360...which probably also changes the empty CG quite a bit.

 

No doubt.  again, not a factor, though, assuming a proper CG envelope is constructed for the 2900# M20J weight and proven to be an acceptable max gross... which it would (and maybe will be!). 

[Mcstealth]

Oh Man... lawyers really have a bad reputation don't they!!! ;-)

My profile will be updated in 5 min!!

 

Nope. Not good enough. You didn't state the breed of the dog. 

[aaronk25]

Another thread on Mooney Space has me fired up about older J's gross weight increase STC so I just talked with a fellow (don't want to say who, for they still currently do lots of STC work and would hate to get him in trouble) to see if we could collectively hire him to handle the STC work since he already did it on other Mooney mods.  I'll tell you who it is at Oshkosh next year while enjoying a cold beverage.

 

He said it use to be very simple and from what I got out of the conversation is that only minor things would need to be changed, such as what is required to upgrade eligible 201s to the 2,900lbs weight.  He said the problem comes is that the FAA is not the same as it use to be.  All the folks who made it possible and relatively simple have retired and now with all the newer help its bogged way down and very tough to get a decisive decision made and they want to always revert back to a published document but when its not available they refuse to use there own "expertise" to make a decision.  

 

The old days were the days when someone who had the proper knowledge would just go ahead and sign it off, if there expertise lead them to believe it was a acceptable request, design ect.

What use to take a week or 2 now takes 6 months!

 

I asked him if we could raise 50K collectively in funds to have him get it done and it sounds like that would only scratch the surface.  So in short I think we should just go drop the whole thing.  If we really want change, its time to vote for less government in the next election.  Sorry guys.

 

Aaron

[Bennett]

Many years ago I had numerous STCs, and 337 form mods done for my Mooney.  Never had any real problems, although there were times when I had to choose a "friendly" FISDO. The Mod Works in Florida, and LASAR in California handled almost all of these over the 16 years or so that I owned the Trophy 261 (modified M20K).  And we did some really extensive mods in those days.  A couple of years ago I wanted to change from a generator to an alternator in my Cessna 120, and the San Jose FISDO took 13 months to approve the 337 form installation.  The alternator was already STCed in a number of other small Cessnas, but the cost to add the C120 to the STC was "prohibitive". My most recent STC was for the LED recognition lights, LED strobe lights, and LED navigation lights in the wingtips of my J.  I sent copies of this 337 form to a few forum members, and somehow there was too much inquiry with the Oakland FISDO, and as I understand it, they will not approve additional 337 forms for this conversion at that office.

 

I hold little hope for a weight increase STC for the pre 205 Js.  I would gladly pay for such a STC.  I really don't believe that the early Js need more than "paper" to fly at the same gross weight as the 205 Js, but I do adhere to the POH gross weight figures for my 1983  M20J.  Like so many other areas, being legal doesn't change the flying characteristics of aircraft that share the same wing, essentially the same engine, fuselage length, and so much more.  Rounded windows, 24 volt electrical system, and a few other minor "improvements" just add to the 205's empty weight. So far as I know the landing gear of the 1983 J and any year of the 205 are the same. I've been told that the 205 roll cage has one thicker tube to bring uniformity with the mid length 252 model which has the 6 cylinder Continental (210 HP vs 200 HP) that is somewhat heavier.  My 261 Trophy conversion used the exact same roll cage structure used by the 231 and 201 of that year - 1980, and the 261 conversion was STCed. In fact, the POH of that conversion was identical to the 252 POH, with the exception of the retention of the 231's 12 volt system. In other words, my 1980 231, converted to a 261, had the same landing gear and roll cage structure of my current 1983 201. When the 231 was replaced by the 252, one tube of the roll cage received an increased wall thickness, and thereafter the 201 and 252 shared that same change since the fuselages, firewall aft, was identical between the two models. I suspect that the older 201s were not granted a factory STC so that there was a marketing difference between the 201s and the 205s.  Can't prove this, of course, but why wasn't the STC extended backwards? It is interesting to run a weight and balance for the 201 and the 205 - check out WnB Pro - hard to see where you could get out of CG with any normal combination of passengers and fuel, and still stay under 2900 pounds. As I said, I am always within the 1983 POH limits for my J, but I sure would like the flexibility that a weight increase STC could bring. 

[fantom]

Smaller government and fewer (Dr. No) attorneys interfering with every aspect of ours lives ain't gonna happen. We're doomed

[aviatoreb]

Smaller government and fewer (Dr. No) attorneys interfering with every aspect of ours lives ain't gonna happen. We're doomed

 

I think Friday they are going to fire the air traffic controllers especially at the towers, but all the attorneys will soldier on.

[M016576]

Still working this in my spare time.... Might be doable.