wombat

Good post. Those are all great points.

I am looking at buying a pulse oximeter with an alarm, which would help protect against my failure to continuously monitor the O2 saturation. Humans are really bad at monitoring something that doesn't change much, and I'm no exception Examples: https://www.turnermedical.com/CREATIVE_PC_60B1_FINGER_PULSE_OXIMETER_p/creative_pc-60b1.htm https://www.concordhealthsupply.com/Wrist-Oximeter-p/75006.htm?gclid=CjwKCAjw6IiiBhAOEiwALNqncUt85iR167brcsAsyhAToxNDzKaX_JBpxzUmbxtC39iAliAH0O1pjRoCjeIQAvD_BwE&click=71&gad=1 If I am at FL220 and find that my oxygen is not working properly, it's an emergency. I bet that with speed brakes on and engine to idle I can get down to lower altitudes pretty quick. Hyperventilation is an option that can help for a short period of time.

What's the failure rate for the built-in O2 system? What is the price of failure if you do nothing? What's the price of failure if you mitigate it with some different options? (Carrying a second pilot with a separate O2? Using a pulse oximeter?) If I'm flying with oxygen, I use my pulse oximeter and only take it off long enough to reposition it onto maybe a finger or something. For me, that is a satisfactory mitigation. I would also be satisfied to to mitigate by flying with another pilot on the same system or a non-pilot on a separate system. But this has all been below FL180, we'll see how I feel after I start getting up a little higher. There is *always* a safer option. You can always just taxi off the runway, abandon the airplane, go home and go to bed. So the question is where does the risk of the activity meet your risk tolerance and your budget for risk management? As long as the activity is legal (which is the government's statement about where you are not allowed to accept the risk regardless of your personal preferences) it's really for you to decide.

I did one of the non-pressure chambers with the FAA, where they use an oxygen concentrator. Here is a video of it. During this event I realized that many of the symptoms I had experienced in previous flights were medium intensity hypoxia. I'm quite healthy and figured that like most things my ability to deal with hypoxia would be significantly above average. But it's not. I'm actually quite a bit worse than average. So when I fly with oxygen, I also fly with a pulse oxymeter.

Great first post. Thanks for all the info. To me it seems like you've put a lot of thought into this already. Since all of your planned flight ranges and loads are well within just about any airplane's capabilities, you don't really need it to be a Mooney. Non other plane can be quite as awesome as a Mooney though. So if you want a Mooney and you can find one that fits your budtget then you should get one. So the questions I've got time/motivation/ideas to answer: 1.a: I agree. 1.b: A cover will damage the paint and maybe the windows, but not having a cover will damage EVERYTHING. On the other hand, covers take time to put on and take off, and you need a place to store them, and when they are wet when you store them, it can get nasty. I would strongly recommend having a cover over as much of the fuselage as you can and using it. Maybe even get wing covers too. 2.all: I don't think you need a turbo at all. But the highest point in South Carolina is 3,500'. I would say you don't need a turbo unless you are regularly going to be flying over 10,000'. If you want one, then get it. I don't think learning how to use one is going to be a challenge at all. If you get it, use it. It won't be nearly the most complex part of fixed wing system management. 3: Kinda, but almost all the parts are either manufacturable by owners (Owner Produced Parts), findable as salvage or new old stock, or something. Keep in mind this is coming from a guy whose second Mooney purchase is supposed to close on Friday. 4: If you fit in a 172 you'll fit in a Mooney. If you struggle to fit in a 172, you'll struggle more to fit in a Mooney, but you'll still fit. You should totally go get a ride in one before spending any money though.

I think a certified aircraft mechanic should be worth no less than 10X unskilled labor, and that's for the newest A&P. 'Cmon... the training requirements are higher than that for airline pilots. But a mechanic can put thousands of people at risk, but a pilot can only get a few hundred at once.... While I don't *WANT* to pay tons of money for the labor on my aircraft, but considering the training requirements, I think it's fair. I suspect we'll probably see an increase in in-shop A&P training where the non-A&P's earn $15 to $35 an hour (Adjusted for inflation) and the actual A&Ps earn $150+ an hour At least that's what I hope happens, as soon as I finish A&P School. hahahahah

That's good to hear, because that's basically what I'm doing.

@ArtVandelayIt's got the monroy long range tanks. And yeah, inflation is a pain.

I'm trusting that Edison at Wet Wingologists knows what to do.

Latest developments.... The seller and I have negotiated a price that we are both satisfied with considering the condition of the aircraft as documented in the prebuy. I'm on the schedule with Edison at Wet Wingologists this year and will be only ferrying the plane down to him and not flying it in the meantime. Yes, I'm aware of the cost of a paint job and expect to have this plane repainted probably in 2026 to 2028. I have factored this into my estimated cost as well. Fortunately I live in a very dry environment now and also have a hangar so I don't expect there to be a problem with corrosion getting worse. Not that there is significant corrosion now. I looked over every inch of the plane, as did the prebuy shop. Yes, we looked closely at the mounting for the engine and there is a tiny bit of work to be done there. As you say, some of the spots are hot. But when looking at the overall condition of the aircraft, I think it'll be worth it once I've put another $50,000 into the plane. Which is funny because neither of my previous two planes have been worth $50,000 And as far as the $19,000+ for tank sealing.... Well, they have a product that is in demand and they are able to charge that much and still have customers. I don't want to pay it, but I want their services. So good on them for developing a product that they can market and continue their business. If I thought they were making crazy money off of unsuspecting Mooney owners, I could start my own business doing the same. But I don't. As long as Edison delivers the product he promises (well sealed tanks that will last a long time) at the price he promised, good on him!

That is very impressive! Please say you took a bunch of pictures and have a big write-up for us!

I'm satisfied with the climb performance. It is appropriate for where I live (On the East edge of the Cascade mountain range)

Yes, this is a K. A rocket, specifically. Yes, it has TKS. Yes, I flew in it. More briefly than I'd like, but better than nothing. Between the flight and the prebuy we tested just about everything. Didn't test ILS or VOR receiver, but it's got a 750 and there is a clear path to fixing those if there is a problem. The engine has not been sitting for very long. The TKS, maybe. But I tested it and it works, so I'll take the risk. If the sellers and I can come to an agreement on what to do about the cost of these tanks, I'll be transferring the money into the escrow account this week.

@carusoam Yes, it is leaking from the screws in the bottom access panels, the access panel seals, the sump drains, and also as at least two places internal to the wings. Anything less than a full strip and reseal of the tanks is going to be nearly as expensive because so much has to be patched and getting the patches all actually sealed will probably take multiple tries. While I am quite often willing to perform extensive labor for my projects, this is one I am not comfortable doing. I've talked to 5 shops including the three biggest names in tank sealing (Houston Tank Specialists, Wet Wing-ologists, and Weep-no-more) for their evaluation, quotes, and timeline. They've all said that the condition as pictured (or in the case where I simply described it) really needs a full strip and seal, so that's what I'm expecting to do. There is no fuel smell in the cabin at all, but that basically doesn't matter because the very first thing this plane needs is a full strip and reseal anyway. As far as being a 'special' plane... Nope. I don't own it, it's not the slightest bit special. It is one of the very few aircraft with the engine, avionics, and ice capabilities I want that are in my price range. I am negotiating with the broker and sellers on the cost of getting the plane airworthy again. But there are others that are nearly as good and if I add the price of the sealing work and the price of even half of the paint job that this plane desperately needs to the cost of the plane as is... I'll find another plane and watch this one sit on the market for a year. The dye does not act as a sealer, but it does slow down the leak flow rate significantly. You can plug your bottle of coke with a couple of sugar cubes. and while the coke will still escape, it won't pour out, it'll seep out. @GeeBee Thanks for the info. The last time I looked at Mooneys my budget was smaller and mid and long bodies were out of my price range.

Thanks for the report, @GeeBee I take it you do not have the long range monroy tanks, at that price? Either that or the ovation's fuel tanks are different enough from the J&K tanks... Did you have to worry about compliance with AD85-24-03 and SBM20-230A? In the thread about a J that got resealed elsewhere there seems to be some problems that compliance with these should have resolved. https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/AwD-CN/documents/US85-24-03.htm https://www.mooney.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/SBM20-230A.pdf

In person it's clear that many of them have fresh fuel flowing out of them as well. Not all that much, but enough that when flying the wind makes a trail of fresh blue fuel. Kind of hard to see in the pictures though. Yes, these have been accumulating for years. The plane has not been washed since at least 2020, and when looking at the condition of a new part that was installed in 2020, the other parts were very dirty before then so I would guess the plane hasn't been washed since 2015 or before. LASAR recommended that if I buy this plane, I should NOT wash it until I get the tanks sealed, since the dried fuel dye is probably keeping the leaks from being a lot worse than they are right now. Thanks for the advice on looking for other things, @Fly Boomer. I think my pre-buy was pretty thorough and while the fuel leaks are troubling and there are a few other things that I'd like to fix (Engine monitor needs IRAN and the plane needs paint) I think that other than the tanks, the overall condition is acceptable considering the price.

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