logbook issues

[Ben E.]

Hi Guys, I'm close to making an offer on an M20J and I have been reviewing its logbooks and have a few logbook questions I was hoping you could help me with.  

The engine was replaced in March of '98.  I pulled the FAA records and do not see a 337 for the replacement, is that normal?  The engine was previously in N32JC.  I'm guessing that plane got a missile/rocket conversion or some other upgraded engine, but I'm not sure why my potential plane's owner would have replaced the original engine.  There are no airframe logbook entries to explain why (no mention of damage) and the current owner is not the owner when this happened and he doesn't know why.   Before installing the new engine they had a Mattituck overhaul done on it.  So it doesn't seem like an economically feasible move unless the previous engine was toast.  Does this raise a red flag to you guys?

Also, if you look at the engine logbook excerpt (attached), it says the total time in service for the engine was 3471 hours but the total airframe time was 4305.  I don't see any logbook entries around 834 total time that indicate a new engine was installed.

Lastly, I found a two page entry in the airframe log from '88 (attached) that says the engine was reinstalled after an inspection and the prop was reinstalled after a repair.  Does this sound like a prop strike to you?  The owner claims no damage history.

Thanks for any help you can provide.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Ben E.

[Bob_Belville]

In my experience log book entries routinely only reflect what was done, not why. 

Reading between the lines in consultation with an experienced A&P is only prudent. 

 

[glafaille]

Ben:

I wish I had a dollar for every time I was told by a seller that there was no damage history on the aircraft they were selling, when the logbook clearly indicated that there was.  Some folks think examining logbooks and aircraft records is a waste of time and not productive in the purchase of an aircraft.  These are usually the same guys that buy planes with missing logbooks or seriously messed up records.  They will pay the piper when they try to sell their airplane.

When purchasing an aircraft, all you really have in order to pass judgement about the condition of the aircraft, are the records, a pre buy examination and a test flight.  I like to examine a prospective aircraft's records in great detail as a way to get a feel as to how the aircraft has been maintained and cared for over the years.  Meticulous, detailed records says something about an airplane, as does a lack of such records.  Personally, I will not consider an aircraft without complete records.

Having said all of that, you have only provided 3 pages for us to pass judgement, and to be fair to the seller, this is not near enough information to tell what is going on with the aircraft and it's past.  There are many reasons why an engine might be replaced and not all have to do with landing incidents or similar bad events.  If you are concerned with damage from a gear up landing, pay particular attention to any entry regarding replacement of lower antennas, belly skins, flaps, and gear doors as well as engine and propeller repair or replacement.  

A gear up landing in a Mooney is really no big deal, in fact if there was an aircraft designed to withstand such a thing with minimal airframe damage, it would be a Mooney.  Not true with other aircraft!

Have you checked the FAA Website for accidents or incidents related to this aircraft?

If you would like more information on how I examine aircraft records please send me a PM.  

Otherwise, please post a few more pages of the logbook entries for the period surrounding this particular entry.

[Cruiser]

Just now, glafaille said:

 I like to examine a prospective aircraft's records in great detail as a way to get a feel as to how the aircraft has been maintained and cared for over the years.  Meticulous, detailed records says something about an airplane, as does a lack of such records.

I like to think the logbooks reflect on the mechanic that writes the stuff in the book. Normally, really, really good mechanics prefer to wrench on something instead of writing (or typing in a computer). I know my logs do not reflect all the work that my A&P/IA puts into the plane.

[Ben E.]

Here's the complete logbooks:   https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0aGPCdxkGcg7cI .  Once you click on one of the images, you can quickly scroll through like flipping through the pages.  I have ordered the FAA incidents and accident reports.

These are the two entries before the engine replacement:

 

 

The only entry I could find that made me suspicious about a gear up landing or collapsed nose gear was this one saying the gear door was fixed and belly patched, but there's nothing else in the logbooks around that time to confirm damage.  Note this was 7 years before the engine was replaced:

Edited August 15, 2016 by Ben E.

[Cruiser]

47 minutes ago, Ben E. said:

The engine was replaced in March of '98.  I pulled the FAA records and do not see a 337 for the replacement, is that normal?  The engine was previously in N32JC.  I'm guessing that plane got a missile/rocket conversion or some other upgraded engine, but I'm not sure why my potential plane's owner would have replaced the original engine.  There are no airframe logbook entries to explain why (no mention of damage) and the current owner is not the owner when this happened and he doesn't know why.   Before installing the new engine they had a Mattituck overhaul done on it.  So it doesn't seem like an economically feasible move unless the previous engine was toast.  Does this raise a red flag to you guys?

Also, if you look at the engine logbook excerpt (attached), it says the total time in service for the engine was 3471 hours but the total airframe time was 4305.  I don't see any logbook entries around 834 total time that indicate a new engine was installed.

Lastly, I found a two page entry in the airframe log from '88 (attached) that says the engine was reinstalled after an inspection and the prop was reinstalled after a repair.  Does this sound like a prop strike to you?  The owner claims no damage history.

I don't think you need a 337 to install approved equipment on the plane. it is NOT a major MODIFICATION which the 337 is used to document. The owner traded out a 1500 SMOH/ 3500 TT engine for a zero time one.

The current engine has flown in this plane for 16 years, I think any inherent problems with the engine or install would have shown up by now? What are the current hours on the installed engine?

The 1988 prop strike was on the old engine removed. Since it was removed, the damage (if any) to the engine is no longer part of this aircraft. Why would you call that damage history? Now, the prop, that is a different matter. IF it is the same prop there is damage history, if it was replace then there are no parts left that were damaged in any way.

[ArtVandelay]

It could have been a prop strike.

[glafaille]

Ben:

You can get a report on the aircraft immediately here:

http://report.myairplane.com

Not as detailed as the one you send off for but good enough to get started in your evaluation.

[Sqrtree]

 Looks like they installed a different serial number engine at 4305.5. It looks to be the same model number and 200 hp.  Only a 8130 certification would be required coming from a shop if rebuilt or overhauled and a STC or 337 would be Required if it's installed and not an approved engine model for that aircraft. 

 Hard to tell just by looking at three pages of logbook but if the engine in question has been removed then it should not cause an issue currently. But as far as why the engine was removed and installed back in 88 that would be the question to ask.   Was it removed for a prop strike inspection or just to gain access for maintenance during annual?  Hard to read from the picture. Curious  

I am an A &P. Hope this helps. 

[glafaille]

13 minutes ago, Cruiser said:

I like to think the logbooks reflect on the mechanic that writes the stuff in the book. Normally, really, really good mechanics prefer to wrench on something instead of writing (or typing in a computer). I know my logs do not reflect all the work that my A&P/IA puts into the plane.

Cruiser:

No worries, we each do things our own way.  Personally, I don't pay for anything that is not documented in the logbooks.

For example: Serviced engine is not good enough.  Drained engine oil, removed filter, examined filter element for metal, installed new filter, replenished oil, ran engine, chevked for leaks IS good enough.

Just my opinion.

[Ben E.]

6 minutes ago, Cruiser said:

I don't think you need a 337 to install approved equipment on the plane. it is NOT a major MODIFICATION which the 337 is used to document. The owner traded out a 1500 SMOH/ 3500 TT engine for a zero time one.

The current engine has flown in this plane for 16 years, I think any inherent problems with the engine or install would have shown up by now? What are the current hours on the installed engine?

The 1988 prop strike was on the old engine removed. Since it was removed, the damage (if any) to the engine is no longer part of this aircraft. Why would you call that damage history? Now, the prop, that is a different matter. IF it is the same prop there is damage history, if it was replace then there are no parts left that were damaged in any way.

The engine has about 3400 total hours (was installed when it had about 1500 hours TT), 830 SMOH by Mattituck to new limits.  It's had two Mattituck new limits overhauls since it was put on the plane.  The second overhaul was done around 1500 hours and 14 years SMOH, but the compressions didn't seem bad at the time (I think the lowest was 68/80). Maybe the owner had money burning a hole in his pocket.

I'm not concerned about any lingering damage if there was a prop strike but I just want to know if there was one because my finance company is basing its valuation on the no damage history claim and also because future buyers will knock down the price for it.  

I will have an A&P look at these logs but I know you guys have a lot of experience and you can't put a price on that.

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by Ben E.

[Ben E.]

Just now, glafaille said:

Ben:

You can get a report on the aircraft immediately here:

http://report.myairplane.com

Not as detailed as the one you send off for but good enough to get started in your evaluation.

BINGO, thanks for that link, I never knew that site existed:

#FAA1

Accident/Incident Occurred on: 1987-10-24 Narrative: THE PROPELLER STRUCK THE RUNWAY ON LANDING. THE PILOT REPORTED HE ADJUSTED THE FLAP SETTING AND LANDED ON NOSEWHEEL

[Ben E.]

By the way, for those interested, here's the plane in question:  http://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M20J+201&listing_id=2197152&s-type=aircraft

She's beautiful.  I'm trying to ignore that paint job and interior and think logically here.

[Cruiser]

The way I look at it there are three major elements to an airplane which are recorded in their logs, airframe, engine, propeller.

damage history follows each of these. If anything on the airframe is damaged it stays with the airframe, likewise, if the engine/prop were damaged in a prop strike but no airframe damage occurred, when the engine and prop are removed, the damage history goes with them, it does not stay with the airframe. (which had no damage history)

[Ben E.]

1 hour ago, Ben E. said:

Also, if you look at the engine logbook excerpt (attached), it says the total time in service for the engine was 3471 hours but the total airframe time was 4305.  I don't see any logbook entries around 834 total time that indicate a new engine was installed.

This is the only evidence I can find that the plane is on its third engine:

This is the first page of the first airframe logbook.  The original engine was scratched out and replaced with the second engine, which was replaced according to the logbook entry I posted previously.  There's nothing in the airframe logbook that indicates the first engine was replaced.  That seems strange.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Ben E.

[Bob_Belville]

1 minute ago, Ben E. said:

By the way, for those interested, here's the plane in question:  http://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M20J+201&listing_id=2197152&s-type=aircraft

She's beautiful.  I'm trying to ignore that paint job and interior and think logically here.

Really nice looking 201. I see a Stormscope in the panel not listed in the description. Be sure it is working, if not it's probably $1000 to overhaul.

OTOH, you'll probably want to add ADS-B to get 2020 compliant and to enjoy weather and traffic.

[Ben E.]

Just now, Bob_Belville said:

Really nice looking 201. I see a Stormscope in the panel not listed in the description. Be sure it is working, if not it's probably $1000 to overhaul.

OTOH, you'll probably want to add ADS-B to get 2020 compliant and to enjoy weather and traffic.

I think the stormscope is inop.  If you look at the breaker panel it looks like it has a zip tie holding the breaker pulled out for it.  I don't think I need a stormscope, but definitely want to get ADS-B in for the weather.  

[Bob_Belville]

Just now, Ben E. said:

I think the stormscope is inop.  If you look at the breaker panel it looks like it has a zip tie holding the breaker pulled out for it.  I don't think I need a stormscope, but definitely want to get ADS-B in for the weather.  

Everybody needs a Stormscope. 

[Ben E.]

Just now, Bob_Belville said:

Everybody needs a Stormscope. 

Do they work well?  Currently I look on foreflight for lighting strikes and radar readings.  I live in NYC and rarely fly out of the region, and we don't have a lot of real storms.  I'm from the south originally and we had real storms there, and I would definitely want a stormscope there.  

[gsengle]

No real storms around NYC, nope...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ben E.]

Just now, gsengle said:

No real storms around NYC, nope...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol, in all fairness that's quite a bit north of NYC, but I guess I'm just used to southern storms.  It's like when people tell me NYC is hot and muggy and then I remember daily temps back home around 100 degrees with 80% humidity for several months straight.  

Do you guys think a stormscope is more accurate or useful than foreflight and ADS-B in weather?

[Bob_Belville]

Just now, Ben E. said:

Do they work well?  Currently I look on foreflight for lighting strikes and radar readings.  I live in NYC and rarely fly out of the region, and we don't have a lot of real storms.  I'm from the south originally and we had real storms there, and I would definitely want a stormscope there.  

Ben, there are several threads here on SSs and weather flying. I'm probably one of the stronger proponents for Stormscopes here but I'm certainly not the only one who has a lot of experience flying around storms and feel the real time stormscope info is much more helpful than time delay NexRad or XM. I have flown through a lot of NexRad colors in smooth air. I would never get near a fresh concentration of SS dots. 

I regularly fly between NC and MA, NH, ME. I assure you that there are plenty of thunderstorms in your area. If you buy that plane, get the SS fixed. You'll thank me later.  

[Ben E.]

Just now, Bob_Belville said:

Ben, there are several threads here on SSs and weather flying. I'm probably one of the stronger proponents for Stormscopes here but I'm certainly not the only one who has a lot of experience flying around storms and feel the real time stormscope info is much more helpful than time delay NexRad or XM. I have flown through a lot of NexRad colors in smooth air. I would never get near a fresh concentration of SS dots. 

I regularly fly between NC and MA, NH, ME. I assure you that there are plenty of thunderstorms in your area. If you buy that plane, get the SS fixed. You'll thank me later.  

Ok, good to know.  I'm going to try to figure out what the issue is with it.

[Bob_Belville]

9 minutes ago, Ben E. said:

I think the stormscope is inop.  If you look at the breaker panel it looks like it has a zip tie holding the breaker pulled out for it.  I don't think I need a stormscope, but definitely want to get ADS-B in for the weather.  

I've had XM and NexRad weather on a Garmin GTN 750 for 4 years. If I had to choose I'd give up that weather before I'd give up a SS.

[glafaille]

I hate having anything on an airplane that doesn't work.  Either fix it or remove it, in my opinion.

Lot's of great info here Ben.  You will soon be part of a great community.