wombat

As a CFI, I also recommend against doing PPL training in a Mooney. This is a recommendation, not a rule. One of the most important aspects of teaching is the student's motivation and if a student is really motivated by training in *their* plane, if it's a Mooney or a 152, that motivation might be a larger factor than the reasons I have for recommending against it. My goals are for the student to be safe, and if we have accomplished that, I want them to gain knowledge and skill, and have a positive experience. The process of taking someone through their PPL I think of just keeping the student on the edge of being overloaded at all times, and as the CFI I pick up the slack for them. For the first flight I'll make all the radio calls. But as they can keep up with the plane I'll ask them to start making the radio calls. The faster we can get them to keep up with the plane and do all of the necessary things (aircraft control, engine and system management, communications, maintaining situational awareness, etc) the sooner we can get them solo in the plane, and the sooner we can get them capable of meeting the airmen certification standards. Everything else is just a distraction that slows down the learning process. The simpler you can keep things in the plane during this time the faster they'll progress. In a 182 it will take a student more hours to solo than in a 172. In a Mooney it will take even longer. The majority of the skills gained in PPL training translate from a 172 to a Mooney with very little additional training. I suspect (But have not done a study, I don't have that many students!) that the amount of flight time or calendar time required to train someone in a 172 and transition them to a Mooney is lower than doing the whole thing in a Mooney. And the Mooney will quite probably be more expensive per hour as well. But if the student has high motivation to fly the Mooney... Well, it's their plane and their money. If I've informed them of what I think the expected outcomes are and they still want to, that's fine with me to fly the Mooney.

Sooo.... I'm trying to buy an airplane. Most things on the plane are good, but the tanks are leaking pretty badly and I'm trying to negotiate a price that takes this into account. Pictures of the fuel leaks can be found here: https://photos.app.goo.gl/ecnYFM7PP7y2Z7mr9 (Includes a page of the service manual talking about seeps and leaks) Every tank is leaking at least somewhere. There are 6 where the fuel is running back on the wing, and two of them are leaking into the confined areas of the wing. According to the service manual, these should be fixed before the next flight. Houston Tank Specialists and Weep-No-More are both booked out to the middle of next year although wet-wing-ologists can get me in this year. I don't think this plane should fly until these are fixed, but maybe I am reading too much into the service manual's text. So I'm looking at several thousand dollars to patch now if I want to fly it now, and then $19,000+ (estimate from Houston Tank Specialists) to fully reseal all four tanks in another year and a half, so my total outlay will probably be $25k. What other options do I have? Anyone else doing full tank reseals? I don't want to have a struggle with the tanks like @Barzook is having and I don't want to fly with avgas build-up in the wings, or paying "the angel's share" on my fuel because 10% of it drips out. Am I just being too worried and the leaks in these tanks are just fine to fly with in the meantime? There is enough fuel inside the wing cavities that I'm sure there ends up being a stoichiometric ratio of fuel and oxygen in that cavity some of the time, which feels pretty dangerous to me. There are wires that run through there too and a tiny spark could literally blow my wing off. Too bad wetwingologists are in the absolute farthest corner of the country from where I live.

The way I read it, @Greg Ellis had pulled the oil sample previously during a regularly scheduled oil change, and inspected the filter and found no metal. So looking at the filter at the same time did not catch the issue. In this context the oil analysis added a LOT.

From @Greg Ellis, the message can be found on this thread on page 2. The content that we are talking about is as follows: Story number 2. I flew up to Kansas City from Texas. I had done an oil analysis prior to the flight. One drawback to Blackstone is that they seem to take a long time to get you your results. I was sitting in a restaurant in Kansas City and got a call from Blackstone which is never good when they call you. They advised me not to fly the airplane. I had a shop on the field take off the oil filter and it was a mess. This was on the engine that replaced the one in the previous story. It had about 450 hours on it and was flying great. No issues with temps or pressures or anything else. This took me totally by surprise. So we contacted the shop (a very well-known engine builder) that sold me this engine and they asked to have it back to be torn down and inspected. So, while my wife and I drove home, the shop in Kansas removed my engine and sent it back to the engine shop. I got a call from the engine shop with a laundry list of problems with the engine. They were laying the blame at my feet for a 450 hour engine going south. I contacted multiple A&P's for advice. They told me that this was not my problem and were almost unanimous in what the issue was that could cause the lengthy list of problems. So, back and forth with the engine shop I go until I get to the owner of the shop. He and I had a pleasant conversation over the phone and he basically told me I was on the hook for $14,000 and the cost was rising as they got further into it. I explained to him in detail how I fly the airplane and that this should not have happened. Well, I would say long story short but it has already dragged on long enough. I get a call a few weeks later saying they will cover all of the bill and I just have to pay for shipping. The point of this lengthy story is that if it wasn't for that analysis from Blackstone Labs, I would have flown a sick airplane from Kansas back to Fort Worth and who knows what might have happened during that flight home. Like I said, the engine was running great with absolutely no issues that I could discern if it wasn't for the analysis.

Picture should be fixed now, thanks for pointing it out. This is my second Mooney, and I'm commercially rated on single and multi-engine and a CFI with ~1,750 hours. I'm not stumbling into this, I am specifically looking for a fast, turbocharged aircraft with anti-ice capabilities. And I fully understand the limitations of the TKS system on this plane. This won't be the fastest plane I've flown, but it'll be the fastest plane I've owned.

@carusoam I don't know why but I think we don't yet quite understand each other. What you were saying is half of my point. We already expect more information from the seller than they are required to provide. We expect to be able to do a pre-buy. And look at the logs. And look at pictures of the plane. And none of those items are required by law. Even the minimal log information is only required *after* the sale. The other half is that if you want me to buy your plane you will need to send me not only the logbooks but any other information you have, such as oil analysis reports and engine monitor data. That's a requirement if you want me to buy your plane. I don't have to buy any specific plane. That plane might be special to their owner but I'm not the owner and it's just another plane. Some people won't buy a plane with damage history. I won't buy one where there exists engine monitor data unless I can look at it. No, I'm not buying the seller, but I am buying the condition they left the plane in. If the temp limit on the cylinders is 400F, I'm going to look through the engine monitor data to see if they have been exceeding it. They don't have to sell to me, but I don't have to buy from them either. Ideally they'll have nothing to hide and we can come to a mutually acceptable deal.

@carusoam You say that the airframe, engine, and prop logs go with the plane by law. but that's not what the regs I found say. That's what I was trying to say when I was bringing up 91.417. It is very specific about what is required, and what is specifies is way less than "the logs". Pasting the content below, or read it at the government's website here: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-E/section-91.417 It requires transfer to the new owner records containing the following information: (i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each propeller, and each rotor. (ii) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance. (iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on the aircraft which are required to be overhauled on a specified time basis. (iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including the time since the last inspection required by the inspection program under which the aircraft and its appliances are maintained. (v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety directives including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required. (vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by § 43.9(d) of this chapter for each major alteration to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and appliances. Nowhere does it say you have to transfer anything else. So for a Mooney that has no time limited or required overhaul parts (I can't think of any I would expect on a light GA airplane other than ELT battery) I could hand over a napkin that says "Mooney N12345: Airframe TTIS: 3123 Engine TTIS: 3123 Propeller TTIS: 3123, Annual inspection completed 1/2/2023, Transponder check completed 1/2/2023, Pitot/Static completed 1/2/2023, ELT battery installed 1/2/2023" then a copy of STC's and 337's, and an AD compliance report. The buyer would be (understandably) upset with that, but it complies with the law. @RoundTwoCorrect, there is no legal obligation for the owner to say anything about the condition. But there are enough sellers out there that I can afford to pass on one like that. And to me, there is a difference between an owner that doesn't know and an owner that knows but doesn't tell. One is slightly ignorant, and the other is hiding something. Would you want to buy a plane where you know there is something about the plane the owner is hiding from you? I wouldn't. In the case of the plane that I'm in the process of trying to buy, I told the seller that I wanted to go fly in the plane. I wrote it into the offer letter. If they didn't let me go fly in the plane, I would not be buying it.

Hmm. I think I didn't communicate clearly and I think I gave you the wrong idea. I don't think I'm looking for a particularly special plane or requiring anything out of the ordinary from the seller. It really comes down to the idea that if the seller has any information about the condition of the aircraft, I as the buyer want that information. I expect the seller to be truthfully representing the aircraft and to be willing to prove it as long as the proof is not too hard to provide. How willing would you be to buy an aircraft if the seller said "Yes, I have the entire logbook history but you can't have it." ? There is no reasonable reason they would refuse to provide it unless there is something there that show that the aircraft is not worth as much as they are asking for it. I consider oil analysis and engine monitor data the same way. I'm going to be putting my life on the line with this thing, and I want to pay a reasonable price for the aircraft when I have complete knowledge of its condition.

Awesome; thanks @1980Mooney

Does the rocket conversion include flap gap seals? They are pop riveted on, so I don't think the factory did it.

That AC seems to apply only to aircraft type certificated before January 1, 1980. But it's been 14 years since then... Why can't they move the date up? (So says someone who is probably buying a 1985 airplane)

On the pilot side near the back of N5773S is the static drain. The label is printed in such a way as to make it right-side up if you have your head upside-down, or are sliding under the plane with your feet further toward the pilot side wingtip. Edit: I was told my pictures are not visible to everyone else.

If buying a plane with a high-time or even mid-time engine I need the oil analysis reports if they are having oil analysis done. I understand @exM20K's unhappiness at what appears to be a company I do business with (Blackstone) sharing customer data with other customers without asking for permission. If Blackstone has this on their web page as part of the terms of service...Well, bad on me for not reading it thoroughly enough. If they don't have it there, bad on them. And if I were to suffer any loss due to their policy that was not published, I would probably seek compensation. A loss due to selling a plane with an engine where I had an oil report that said something like.. Oh, I don't know... "...a jump like this probably shows trouble...(lots of other text omitted talking about how bad things are) Caution!" that they then sent to someone else without asking for permission first, and then I lost the sale.... Anyway, it doesn't really bother me too much because I will always be forthright about the condition of anything I sell. If they have a checkbox for "Share your data with others?" I would check it. But I think @exM20K is being reasonable if he says he is bothered by this enough to find a different vendor and wants to tell all of us about his decision. That's a fine way to behave. Not my way, but my way isn't for everybody. Don't want to focus on the relatively rare negative situations here, but...if the seller has oil analysis data and fails to provide it I will assume they are hiding something bad and will not buy that plane. If they provide it only after asking I'll kind of roll my eyes because they should have provided that earlier with the logbooks. If they lie about it and I find out about it before I've spent any money, I will not buy that plane. That seller is dishonest and I'll never do business with them. You shouldn't either. If I find out about it after I have spent some money but before I have bought the plane I will require all of my money back including such things as travel expenses and prebuy costs. If they refuse, I strongly suspect that the court system would back me up on this and compel them to pay based on their fraudulent statements about what information they have about the condition of the aircraft. If they lie about it and I find out about it after I have purchased the aircraft, I would ask them to provide the reports (or more accurately, ask them to tell the oil analysis company to provide the reports, since that individual has proven themselves to be dishonest) and if they fail to do so, I would probably ask the courts to compel them to based on the assumption that refusing to do so is highly likely because they have committed fraud in failing to disclose this information. This would most likely come up only if an engine problem was discovered relatively shortly after the purchase that would probably have shown up in oil analysis... Such as, for example, extremely high chrome that went from in the 30's to 60's all the way up to 360 over 50 hours of flying... Totally random example. The same goes for engine monitor data. If you have it, provide it. If you fail to do so, I will assume you are hiding something. Regardless, I'll be sharing my experience with that seller, good or bad. There are records that the seller is required to transfer to the buyer when the aircraft is sold. According to 91.417.(b)(2)) , 91.417(a)(2) records must be transferred No other records must be transferred, but if a seller didn't want to give me ALL the old maintenance records (even unofficial maintenance records like shop invoices) I would probably walk away or only offer to buy at an extremely steep discount. Saying this as someone in the middle of two separate issues that are related to this: I'm in the middle of buying a plane and have been making decisions on when I might want to walk away instead of continuing. The oil analysis on my brand C aircraft is showing super-high chrome in the last 50 hours of flying. High enough that Blackstone called me. This is after 400 hours of flying this engine and getting oil analysis done the whole time at roughly 30 hour intervals.

The one on N5773S has a label. Update: Uploading picture in a different way.

Re: Damage history.... It's a big price discount because many potential owners will not buy a plane with any damage history. But as a buyer, since the price discount is already included in the price you pay, it's not really a problem. When considering the time cost of money, it's actually a better deal. If you could magically purchase aircraft at 1% of market price (99% discount!), but also had to sell them at 1% of market price (The same 99% discount), we'd all do that! Financially there is nothing different between that and a 10% to 15% discount that 'damage history' gives. But why do some buyers shun airplanes with damage history? I suspect they think that the aircraft is less safe or will have further maintenance costs. This suspicion is based on my conversations with other aircraft owners over the last 10+ years. My personal opinion is the risk of an accident or incident, or further maintenance costs from a 'damage history' airplane are negligible. Not zero, but small enough that on a statistical scale you won't be able to show any additional risk. The much larger risk factors are corrosion and un-reported/un-repaired damage. If an airplane had an incident and is repairable, that repair was done to FAA standards. The same organization that made the standards the airplane was built to. There are no additional limitations on that airplane and it is officially just as safe as it was before. There are many events that can cause damage to the aircraft that don't get found or reported as damage. A hard landing that doesn't cause any obvious damage or an in-flight turbulence event could both cause damage that is undetected by maintenance and could cause a later accident/incident or unexpected repair costs. But after one of those you don't have a certified mechanic looking at the airplane for damage that might have been caused by the event. But with a 'damage history' causing event, you *DO* have someone specifically looking for issues that could have been caused by the event. On the other hand, some maintenance shops might be particularly picky about how previous shops have performed and logged repairs. I took a C-branded 182 to a shop for annual and the shop would not sign off on it because they wanted to open up the wing to inspect a repair made 40 years previously. They said they didn't think there was enough detail in the logbook entry to convince them that the repair had been made correctly. I pointed to a logbook entry that said the repair had been made in accordance with the C-brand repair manual and FAA standards (I don't remember the exact wording) and that other A&P's (At least 10) had signed off on this in the 40 years since then. I ended up taking the plane back with the annual inspection completed but not airworthy and with a discrepancy list. One ferry permit later and at another shop, I had a logbook entry that said something like "Found entry in logbook documenting repair to left wing in accordance with manufacturer and FAA requirements." Mike Bush has written about damage history a little; https://resources.savvyaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/articles_eaa/EAA_2013-12_damage-history.pdf I wish he would do an analysis of accidents/incidents and maintenance costs associated with aircraft damage after the initial repair has been completed. He has enough data that his analysis could perhaps be considered authoritative and he has enough market attention this could significantly alter the 'damage history' aircraft market. So says the guy who has a prebuy on a 'damage history' airplane that was supposed to start today.

Yeah, I've found Mike's stuff to be very reasonable and what he advises is normally what I try to do. Hard to run LOP on a Continental O-470 though. When leaning, one of the cylinders starts missing before the last one even reaches peak EGT, let alone get even the slightest lean of it. But what you are saying about him running WOT all the time was part of the reason I was thinking it was possible to get the throttle all the way open before spooling up the turbo. If your throttle doesn't open all the way until 35", running at 25" at FL180 with the turbo providing 12" of boost and the throttle partially closed seems wasteful. Well, if I do end up buying this plane, I guess I'll see how it runs LOP.

The plane I'm looking at is N5773S. It's still up on controller.com at the moment.

Oh, believe me I understand the overall benefits and costs of having a turbo. With luck (Well, good maintenance on behalf of the seller) I'll own a plane with a turbo this time next month.

It's starting to make sense @kortopates In Mike's description, the upper deck pressure is always at much as the turbo can do given the exhaust flow up to the maximum upper deck pressure, which is just a little above maximum intake manifold pressure. That fits the "Fixed Absolute Pressure System" in the PDF that Rich attached. In the case of the TSIO-520-NB, which is a Variable Absolute Pressure System there is a the addition of the linkages and cams that take the throttle position and provide that as an input to the pressure controller, so the pressure controller will vary the upper deck pressure to just enough to overcome the fluid friction losses of the intake system. This is the "Variable" part of the variable absolute pressure system. Sounds a bit inefficient to use the turbo to boost the upper deck pressure then restrict it with the throttle again. But I don't know how much power we're talking here. If the ambient pressure is 29", I've got the throttle halfway open, turbo is boosting to maybe 34" and because the throttle is 1/4 closed, it restricts it back to 30". As I open the throttle more, the upper deck pressure will increase, and the difference between upper deck and manifold will decrease. But running at say 25" at FL210 and having the throttle partially closed still sounds wasteful. So the shape of the cams and angles of the linkages would determine the map of throttle position to target upper deck pressure. And the more closed the throttle, the greater the differential between upper deck and manifold pressures would be. At wide open throttle, it would be the most efficient with least differential. The description of the system in the PDF Rich attached is: VARIABLE ABSOLUTE PRESSURE SYSTEM (TWIN ENGINE, WITHOUT COVER): Operation: The variable absolute pressure controller (direct sensing, without cover) works much like the nonvariable absolute pressure controller in that it senses deck pressure, compares it to a reference absolute pressure, and adjusts the wastegate butterfly (controlling turbocharger speed) to maintain sea-level horsepower at varying altitudes. It differs from the nonvariable version, however, in that it is directly linked to the engine throttle, and through a system of cams and followers, adjusts itself to varying power settings, achieving the optimum deck pressure for a given throttle movement. A pressure relief valve, set slightly in excess of maximum deck pressure, is provided to prevent damaging overboost in the event of a system malfunction. A sonic venturi, if installed, is incorporated to provide a constant source of compressed air to the cabin pressurization system. An intercooler, if fitted, is added to cool the compressor outflow and increase cylinder charge air density.

Thanks, @N201MKTurbo. So it sounds like the throttle control in the cockpit in this case will connect to the 470836-18 or 633388-10 pressure controller and that pressure controller will actuate both the waste gate and engine throttle as necessary (Through oil pressure and a system of cams and followers, respectively) to achieve the absolute pressure set by the cockpit throttle control. I'm assuming then that the controller is set to keep the actual engine throttle as wide open as possible and the turbo wastegate as open as possible (Lowest boost) to achieve the desired absolute intake pressure. But as a pilot I don't actually have control over these things directly and I can consider the control in the the cockpit to be simply setting the manifold pressure however I want. As long as it's within the manufacturer's allowed operational parameters, of course.

There has to be some mechanism for controlling manifold pressures below ambient pressure though, so you can't just control the wastegate with the throttle control. Let's say I wanted to climb from sea level at 25" of manifold pressure.... When I start the throttle is partially closed and the wastegate is fully open so the turbo is spinning as slowly as possible. As I climb, the throttle needs to open more and more until it's fully open, and then the turbo needs to start spinning faster by closing the wastegate. At some point if I keep climbing I'll exceed the critical altitude of the turbo and the wastegate would be fully closed and the manifold pressure would start dropping. (This altitude may be above the service ceiling of the airplane)

How does the linkage from the throttle knob work to control the throttle and turbo? Does the throttle control have two stages, one for the actual throttle and one for the turbo? Does the turbo automatically try to maintain 2" of upper deck pressure over the intake manifold pressure? Something else? Does anyone have diagrams of this? This is for the install on a Mooney Rocket

Some sample A&P schools... https://www.bigbend.edu/academics/aviation-maintenance-technology/ https://scc.spokane.edu/What-to-Study/Hands-on-Building-Trades/Aviation-Maintenance-Technology If things went perfectly my way, I'd do a couple of online courses for a few terms while I keep working my job and then pick and choose courses based on schedule like having one really busy day then a day off, so I can go home. Things never go that smoothly, but I can try to get things as close as I can.

FYI, I'm using Savvy to coordinate the prebuy for an East Coast (Maryland) Rocket. I am also going out to see the plane in person and fly it. Hopefully with the seller, but if not, then with someone that has more recent mooney experience than me.

I am planning on going to school for my A&P when I retire from my regular job. Just a few more years.....