wombat

Jimmy and I are still working on finding our stride. Let's see how it all goes. I think we've got a shop to do the exam the week after next and I'm now coordinating to get the plane over to the shop's location, and trying to get dates locked down so I can buy airline tickets to go see it then. But so far I'm not seeing anything to keep me from buying it.

Sorry I don't have an answer to your question, but for $750, you can have savvy Aviation find some maintenance shops and manage the prebuy for you. It's extra money, and probably kind of big compared to the value of most '65 Mooneys, but it would work.

Thanks. I do too.

Well, I now have a signed purchase agreement; just waiting on the prebuy. The one I'm looking at is N5773S https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/221183449/1985-mooney-m20k-305-rocket-piston-single-aircraft If anyone has any knowledge of this plane other than what I can get from the FAA or in the advertisement, please let me know!

Oh jeez I hope this doesn't devolve into an argument too.... But here we go! The FAA has a thing or two to say about Aeronautical Replacement Parts. You can read more here: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_20-62E_CHG_1_Editorial_Update.pdf The FAA has defined several types of parts. (In their doc these are lettered, but the BB here can only do numbers and I'm too lazy to make the list manually) FAA Approved Parts Acceptable Parts Article Commercial Part Product Standard Part Interface Component Surplus Overhauled Rebuilt As Is Owner/Operator Produced Part Time-Limited Part The things I think we'd be most interested in are Standard Part (Paragraph 6(f)) and Owner/Operator Produced Part (Paragraph 6(n)). f. Standard Part. A part manufactured in complete compliance with an established U.S. Government or industry-accepted specification, which includes design, manufacturing, and uniform identification requirements. The specification must include all information necessary to produce and conform to the part. The specification must be published so that any party may manufacture the part. Examples include, but are not limited to, National Aerospace Standard (NAS), Air Force/Navy (AN) Aeronautical Standard, Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Aerospace Standard (AS), Military Standard (MIL-STD), etc n. Owner/Operator Produced Part. Parts that were produced by an owner/operator for installation on their own aircraft (i.e., by a certificated air carrier). An owner/operator is considered a producer of a part, if the owner participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of the part. Participating in the design of the part can include supervising the manufacture of the part or providing the manufacturer with the following: the design data, the materials with which to make the part, the fabrication processes, assembly methods, or the quality control (QC) procedures. The FAA is also quite specific about Electrical Parts and Instruments, they wrote section 13 just for that. 13(b) is even more specific, it reads: b. Discrete Electrical and Electronic Component Parts. Electrical and electronic parts, such as resistors, capacitors, diodes, and transistors, if not specifically marked by the equipment manufacturer’s part number or marking scheme, may be substituted or used as replacement parts, provided that such parts are tested or it is determined that they meet their published performance specifications and do not adversely affect the performance of the equipment or article into or onto which they are installed. The performance of such equipment or article must be equal to its original or properly altered or repaired condition. Integrated circuits such as hybrids, large scale integrated circuits (LSIC), programmable logic devices, gate arrays, application specific integrated circuits (ASIC), memories, Central Processing Units (CPU), etc., are not included because their highly specialized functionality does not readily lend itself to substitution. And in general what we are talking about is the Replacement of Parts and Materials, which is paragraph 8 (a) a. Replacement of Parts and Materials. The performance rules for replacement of parts and materials used in the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration of aircraft that have (or have had) a U.S. airworthiness certificate, and components thereof, are specified in § 43.13 and part 145, § 145.201. These rules require that the installer of a part use methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the FAA. Additionally, the installer of a part must accomplish the work in such a manner and use materials of such quality that the product or appliance worked on will be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition with respect to the qualities affecting airworthiness. We can find 43.13 here: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-43/section-43.13 So to answer @Utah20Gflyer's direct question, which I'm actually assuming was more of a joke, but I'm taking it seriously as an example of how I would try to use the document to answer the question about other parts.... The wire does not need to be STC'd as long as it is a MIL-STD or SAE wire. For @Me & 8883's question about MS switches, I'm assuming we're talking about something like this one: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/7270_5_5.php?clickkey=32749 It says it's "MIL-C-5809 qualified", so my guess it this would be considered a 'Standard Part', and may be substituted or used as replacement parts. Side note: In their document they mix singular and plural. (Part Vs. Parts) and that bothers me.

@geoffb Thanks, I might head down there at some point. My father-in-law lives in Corvallis and keeps his planes there and I get there once a quarter or more. Part of my mission with the Rocket is to get down there more often. I saw N252AC for sale, and since it doesn't have TKS I'm not interested at this time. If I got a flight in that it would be purely a gift from the seller.

Last spring the transponder for my 182 was misbehaving. Sometimes, no matter code I put in, it was showing up to ATC as '7777', which they said was "live military operations in US airspace".... But then it would start replying normally again. It didn't seem to be affected by me power cycling it After about 3 flights with a radio call from ATC in the middle that started with "Uhhh... N12345...." I replaced the KT76 with a GTX327. I'd been holding out for a big panel upgrade, but decided I didn't think I could justify turning that transponder back on any more.

That all sounds correct to me.

OK, back to this. I was getting frustrated and was probably going to write stuff in a snarky and insulting way, which I don't want to do. From past experience doing that is not helpful. I choose to believe that all of us are trying to do the right thing and get good information out to the Mooney community. @philiplane You asked about the altimeter and encoder talking to each other.... They don't, which is why there is a correspondence test required between the altimeter and altitude encoder. 91.217 says (I'm paraphrasing here) that if you install an altitude digitizer or an altimeter, they must be tested to report the same altitude *****OR***** they are both TSO'd. So you don't even need to do the test if both the altimeter and encoder are TSO devices. I will once again bring up the point that the data correspondence test is between the altimeter and encoder, and while you *could* use the output of the transponder to see what the encoder is reporting for altitude (which is required by 91.411(c), no transponder is required to do this to comply with 91.413. You could do it with a vacuum and multimeter, setting the altitude on the static system and looking at the altimeter, then probing each of the wires on the gray code output of the encoder. You also bring up the transponder transmitting at the right wattage and frequency... That is tested with Appendix F, on the bench. Specifically frequency is subpart (a) and wattage (power) is subpart (d) The only thing about altitudes in that appendix F is it says "Verify that the altitude reported in the replies to UF = 4 are the same as that reported in a valid ATCRBS Mode C reply." That's bench checkable. Regarding 91.227.... There is nothing in there that requires a periodic re-test. It's available here: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-C/section-91.227 Regarding the install..... Well, I will once again mention that I'm not making any claims about if a non-A&P can do that. BUT if the transponder has been bench checked IAW Appendix F, no further testing needs to be done in order to comply with 91.413 after the transponder is re-inserted into the aircraft. You mention 91.225, which is about ADS-B Out. It's available here: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-C/section-91.225 There is no periodic re-check requirement. You mention the instructions for continued airworthiness from the ADS-B manufacturer. There is nothing in the two I've looked at that require what I think you are talking about. For the uAvionix wingtip unit I have installed. It can be found here: https://uavionix.com/downloads/skybeacon/skyBeacon-Continued-Airworthiness-Manual-UAV-1002112-001.pdf The important parts are on pages 13 through 15, in sections 8.3 through 8.6. In 8.6 they do bring up altitude encoder testing, but this is only for IFR operations, so is not relevant for our discussion which was just the 91.413 requirement. And even then, it's only applicable if your ..."altitude encoder has been recently adjusted,"... For the Garmin units, I found what I'm assuming is a valid maintenance manual here: http://www.n927sf.com/Current POH AFM FMS/Garmin GTX 345 Maintenance Manual - 190-00734-11_07.pdf The instructions for continued airworthiness start on page 4.1 (page 41 of the PDF). For "testing" in table 4.1, they say to refer to 14 CFR 91.411 and 91.413 and part 41 appendixes E and F. (appendi? appendixes?) There are annual 'Equipment Visual Inspection" requirements and a 10 year or 2,000 hour electrical bonding test, but that's it. If it matters, the shop that I have service my current aircraft does not add a line "found ADSB compliant" to the annual inspection log entry. Nor does the mooney service center who has been doing the work on the Mooney I'm looking to buy. Recommending a periodic PAPR is fine, but that's just a recommendation. Yes, they send out letters to aircraft owners whose aircraft are out of spec. But that does not make a requirement for a periodic re-check of your ADS-B out equipment. If I take a transponder in for a check in accordance with part 43 appendix F and they charge me for performing a test to meet the requirements of 91.227 I'll be angry. There is no reason to test that. Not in 91.227, not in the Garmin maintenance manual, not in part 43 appendix F. As you say, the Garmin service manual does include language about the regulatory test. But if I'm not flying IFR, no testing at all is required to comply with 91.411. And a bench check is sufficient to comply with 91.413. And after a removal, (as of Rev 7, but not before), 'sufficient' testing in accordance with part 43 Appendix E paragraph C must be completed. Now *THAT* is a nebulous requirement. What is sufficient testing? Good job, Garmin. NOT. But this is not a periodic requirement, this is about removing, replacing, or modifying. @N201MKTurbo I have had a few similar experiences. A few years ago I was ferrying a plane into the Seattle area with a transponder that had long passed the 91.413 check time. When airborne, but before the 30NM mode C veil, I called ATC on the radio for flight following and told them my transponder was inoperative. They told me to proceed as requested. I also told Renton tower before I entered their airspace. When I bought my 182, on the flight back to Seattle (BFI) my very first flight in my new plane the transponder died on the way, about 1 hour away from Seattle. Fortunately I was on flight following and they told me before I inadvertently flew under the mode C veil with an inop transponder. Totally weird side note about 91.225.... subpart (f) says ..." must operate this equipment in the transmit mode at all times unless -" and then (f)(2) says "Otherwise directed by ATC when transmitting would jeopardize the safe execution of air traffic control functions." .... So my conclusion is that if you are directed by ATC to turn it off for a reason other than jeopardizing the safe execution of air traffic control functions, you are prohibited from turning it off! Now that's a wild condition!!! As a pilot, I wouldn't necessarily know why ATC asked me to turn it off. But if they ever do, I'm totally asking them if it's because transmitting would jeopardize the safe execution of air traffic control functions.

No, you are reading something that doesn't exist. The correspondence test applies between the altitude encoder (The TSO-C88 device) and the altimeter. NOT the transponder. Removing and then reinstalling the transponder does not introduce the chance of correspondence errors any more than washing the plane does. Why do you think Part 43 appendix F says "The ATC Transponder tests required by 91.413 of this chapter may be conducted using a bench check..." ? Are you saying that line is completely useless and means nothing?

@philiplane I have thoroughly read 91.217(a) and 91.217(b). Part (a) is talking about the difference in reported pressure altitude between the altimeter and altitude encoder. I have not mentioned anything about removing either of those. There is no change to either of them. So 91.217(a)(2) remains 'true'. As does 91.217(a)(3) (Both of the "unless" statements) In the case of my aircraft, I've got an ACK A-30 altitude encoder that meets TSO-C88 requirements. I have a GTX-327 that does not. No GTX-327 meets TSO-C88, because it's not applicable to a transponder. In the case of a GTX 3X5, the GAE module meets TSO-C88, but the transponder itself does not. See http://www.aero-hesbaye.be/dossiers/GTX335/GTX 345 335 installation.pdf, page 1-13 table 1-11, row 1, columns 1 and 2, footnote #2. If you slide the transponder out of the sled, the GAE module remains undisturbed and no re-test under 91.217 is required. And 91.413 is the only test I'm saying can be complied with by sending the transponder in for a bench test. There is no periodic re-test of an altitude encoder required as part of 91.217. The encoder is installed, tested, then remains good. For the transponder, The record for compliance is for the transponder itself, not the aircraft. To re-emphasize my point, the correspondence test is between the altitude encoder and the altimeter, and has nothing to do with the transponder. For VFR there is no periodic testing requirement for altitude encoders and I have thoroughly read 91.412 and 91.217 and part 43 appendix F. I'm familiar with transponder to altitude encoders using gray code and RS-232, both of which are digital and not subject to signal drift. They are either correct or incorrect. There is no coax on the signal from the altitude encoder to the transponder. The only coax is between the transponder and antenna which the FAA says you don't need to test because they clearly state that a bench test is sufficient. I'm still not finding your argument convincing. And while you have an impressive background, that's not enough to convince me and I'm sorry because I think you've been steering your customers wrong for a long time. Fortunately this probably isn't a situation that comes up often. While an appeal to authority may convince me to dig deeper into the regulations, this seems pretty clear and the deeper I read the more the evidence indicates that a bench tested transponder satisfies the requirements of 91.413.

@philiplane Yes, I agree, but I don't see how that's relevant here. I'm assuming an aircraft with a TSO-C10b altimeter, and a single TSO-C88 altitude encoder. I didn't (and don't) recommend anyone remove the altitude encoder because it's not necessary for the 91.413 test. For my case, I've got an ACK A-30 altitude encoder, and a (Whatever model it happens to be that was produced in 1958) altimeter. I could undo the set screw in the transponder, (GTX-327) and slide it out, hand it to the avionics shop, they could perform a test on the transponder on their bench that conforms to Part 43 appendix F, make a maintenance record of their test and results, hand it back to me, and I have it legally slid back in, and the set screw tightened, and add the avionics shop's maintenance record text (hopefully on a sticker!) to my aircraft's maintenance records.

@philiplane I think you are reading more into these regulations than exists. Those are not requirements. Appendix F to Part 43 is very clear about this. The tests may be conducted using a bench check. So, in order: #1: You could break the antenna off during this morning's wash job after testing the transponder (plus aircraft systems including antenna). Same difference. #2: There is no requirement for confirming ADS-B Output as part of 91.413 #3: I don't know about bench testing a GTX335/345. Maybe those can't be bench tested in a way that conforms to 91.413 or maybe the bench test requires taking the configuration module. I'm not a repair station. But my GTX327 sure can. So could my KT76, before it bit the dust. And when I installed my ADS-B out system (uAvionix wingtip) we didn't do any calibration and nobody ever has since, even when I switched from the KT76 to the GTX327. And there is no part of 91.413 or Appendix F. to part 43 that requires ADSB lat/long. Re: 91.217. Unless as installed they were tested and calibrated to be within 125' (95% probability), then yes, both the ADS-B out and transponder must be using the same source. If you have a GTX345, or a uAvionix wing or tail beacon, or pretty much everything, that'll be the case. Why would you have two altitude encoders? Re: Your shops.... That's unfortunate. But if you are bench testing a transponder, you wouldn't know which airframe was going to receive it, so of course you couldn't make a maintenance record for an airframe at that point anyway. Re: 91.413.b: I think it highly unlikely that the FAA would consider sliding the transponder out and then in to its tray to be an installation or maintenance action where data correspondence error could be introduced. If they'd consider doing that action as an installation at all.... I choose to remain silent.

@1980Mooney Is there a VFR pitot-static certification? 91.411 is specific to IFR. 91.413 is transponder only.

@philiplane Can you help me find the regulations that state that? The way I read the regulations I don't find anything requiring anything different from before. Appendix F to Part 43 - ATC Transponder Tests and Inspections From here: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-43/appendix-Appendix F to Part 43 The ATC transponder tests required by § 91.413 of this chapter may be conducted using a bench check... (Loads of other important information not necessary for this discussion omitted by wombat) Chapter 3, Paragraph 2 C of FAA order 8200.45 From here: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/order/8200_45_ADS-B.pdf Dedicated periodic flight inspections of ADS-B are not required. The closest thing I could find is that if you are performing a 91.411 test and have an altitude encoder interfaced to your transponder, the correlation must be checked with your altimeter at the same time in accordance with FAR 43 Appendix E Part c. But for this part of the conversation, I was referring to a 91.413 check, which was maybe not clear. From here: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-43/appendix-Appendix E to Part 43 Each person performing the altimeter system tests and inspections required by § 91.411 of this chapter must... (The rest of the appendix omitted, by wombat)

No, @M20 Ogler your aircraft is not totally grounded and you don't need a ferry permit. Just talk to ATC before you enter any of the airspaces listed in 91.215 (b) for an authorized deviation and don't fly IFR in controlled airspace. The authorized deviation can be requested on the radio moments before you enter the airspace it's required for. Alternatively you can take your transponder (without the plane) to a shop and have them bench test it. At that point you can use it like normal but the rest of your static pressure system still needs to be tested before flying IFR in controlled airspace. (You could fly IFR in uncontrolled airspace if you wanted. ) Yes, @hubcap is mostly right, although that message lacks detail that could get you into trouble. Yes, @PT20J is completely correct. And lucky for you, @midlifeflyer and @GeeBee I like to be 'that guy' providing authoritative references. § 91.413 ATC transponder tests and inspections. From: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-E/section-91.413 (a) No persons may use an ATC transponder that is specified in 91.215(a), 121.345(c), or § 135.143(c) of this chapter unless, within the preceding 24 calendar months, the ATC transponder has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendix F of part 43 of this chapter; and.... (More content here has been omitted by wombat; important but not relevant to this conversation) § 91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use. From: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-C/section-91.215 (b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, and except as provided in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an operable coded radar beacon transponder... (More content here has been omitted by wombat; important but not relevant to this conversation) (1) All aircraft. In Class A, Class B, and Class C airspace areas; (2) All aircraft. In all airspace within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1 of this part from the surface upward to 10,000 feet MSL; (3) (Omitted by wombat; important but not relevant to this conversation) (4) All aircraft in all airspace above the ceiling and within the lateral boundaries of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for an airport upward to 10,000 feet MSL; and (5) All aircraft except... (Omitted by wombat; important, but not relevant for this conversation) (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 feet above the surface; and (ii) In the airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL within a 10-nautical-mile radius of any airport listed in appendix D, section 2 of this part, excluding the airspace below 1,200 feet outside of the lateral boundaries of the surface area of the airspace designated for that airport. (c) Transponder-on operation. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, while in the airspace as specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintained in accordance with § 91.413 shall operate the transponder, including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC, unless otherwise directed by ATC when transmitting would jeopardize the safe execution of air traffic control functions. (d) ATC authorized deviations. Requests for ATC authorized deviations must be made to the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the concerned airspace within the time periods specified as follows: (1) For operation of an aircraft with an operating transponder but without operating automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment having a Mode C capability, the request may be made at any time. (2) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative transponder to the airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made or both, the request may be made at any time. (3) For operation of an aircraft that is not equipped with a transponder, the request must be made at least one hour before the proposed operation. § 91.411 Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and inspections. From: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-E/section-91.411 (a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace under IFR unless - (1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure system, each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude reporting system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendices E and F of part 43 of this chapter;

Looking at buying a rocket, but I've never flown in one before. Anyone in Washington or maybe Idaho, Oregon, or Western Montana have one and would be willing to take me up for a short flight?

Thanks for the advice, everyone. I have not yet actually purchased the plane I'm looking at, but I'll let y'all know if I do.

I'm possibly buying a rocket fairly soon and while I've got several hundred hours in a M20E, that's almost 6 years ago and my hours with a turbo is < 10 and I don't have much experience in planes that are > 165 KTAS. Does anyone have recommendations on somewhere or someone to do some training for me? I live in the Pacific Northwest but the plane I'm looking at is out East. Possibly willing to fly an instructor out to where the plane is and put them up for a night or two, (if/when I purchase it) if anyone is willing to do that. I've got about 1,700 hours total, and commercial single and multi-engine, as well as single engine sea, and my CFI (but not MEI or CFI-I) and I've even got my tailwheel endorsement. So I'm more ready than a fresh PPL. I'm no Don Kaye, but I'm ready enough to know that I want some more specific training before I launch in one of these beasts.

I had to replace a KT-76 the other day. Much less common than the 76A. But I bought a used, 'working when removed' one for $150, and it worked great when I got it.

You are correct that it's 50 miles different (328 to BFI but 373 to TTD). The point I was trying to make was that at that total distance the difference isn't that much, it's a 12% increase. I was looking for the list of MSCs on Mooney's site too and couldn't find it. Great minds think alike. That's a good point about catching a commercial flight from SeaTac being easier than Portland. Galvin went through some ownership changes fairly quickly over the last few years. They got bought by Quantem, then Signature, then Landmark (In some order that ended up with Landmark) but they ended up being the only FBO that the company owned that had a flight school. So they were looking for a buyer or looking to shut the operation down. A local DPE (Skip Moshner) ended up buying the flight school in 2015 and brought back the Galvin name and has been operating as a flight school only since then. When I bought my Mooney in 2014 and mooney.com still had the list published Galvin was not listed as an MSC and even though the plane was at Paine (KPAE, only 22 miles away) I ended up taking it down to Troutdale for the inspection and I've taken my plane back there every year. For what it's worth, Galvin has two Mooneys in their fleet that they use for commercial students and complex endorsements. I instruct there part time and think they have a pretty good operation going.

Prebuy at Galvin at KBFI? Galvin just does flight training, they are not a full FBO, and I don't think they were ever a MSC. Advanced Aircraft, in Troutdale Oregon at KTTD is a MSC and from Kalispell, MT is about the same distance, roughly speaking.

MooneyMitch, DanB and M20F..... Can I have your 'old, worn-out' tires when you are done with them? In my opinion, that tire is fine to keep flying and landing with.

I don't understand why 1,000 miles away from my home base is really that much worse than 10 miles away. It's not my mechanic and I have to find a ride home and then a ride back to get the plane when it's fixed. Car rental and commercial tickets may run $600 or so for both ways, but that's the same price as maybe 5 hours of flying time. Just fly less next month and be a little sad. I flew for work from Seattle to Georgia once. Everybody said "Don't do that, if you HAVE to get there, don't use your Mooney (or any GA plane)". The way I thought about it, is that at pretty much every stop along the way it's probably cheaper and faster for the plane to break down and for me to buy an airline ticket at the last minute to complete the journey. But it all worked great and I had a wonderful time and spent a lot of money!

I grew up on a farm and we maintained a stock of fuel for farm equipment (Diesel and gasoline) that we didn't pay the road taxes on. The diesel at least had a different color so they could check if you used it in vehicles that were on the road, although I never saw or heard of anyone getting checked.