MikeOH

It's 12 degrees here in southern California...that's a 12 mile error over 60 miles travelled! Better take that into account Back in my PPL days (1978) pre-GPS and out of range of a VOR, you'd best take a four degree compass error into account, as well.

And, I'd happily skip the reinstall part of the process

Sure, some of us come out of the woodwork to say, "NO." When someone posts this question it's not to much of a stretch to assume they are a first time buyer....even to assume they are looking for a 'low price'. The PRUDENT thing to do is WARN them that buying LOW is rarely a good idea. You are right, it MIGHT work out fine, but odds say it probably will not. As @carusoamsummarizes, there's a lot more to it. If they already have the requisite skills and experience he mentions, then it's another safe assumption that this question wouldn't have been posted in the first place. It isn't a matter of how old the plane is. A plane that has been sitting for 20 years is going to have more than just the engine that needs attending to. How much is it going cost to go look at it? How much to have a sufficiently in depth PPI done? WHY? There are recently flown models where the OP's time, and money, is probably better spent. NOT trying to discourage anyone. I just hate to see anyone starting out have a bad experience.

Might give this a read: http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/step/step_wide_screen.pdf The c.v. of this guy is pretty respectable.

Sorry, unless this plane is nearly free, I'd move on. Even pickled, 20 years is a long, long time. You might get lucky, but if you don't you'll be in for $20K to $30K, plus the cost of updating avionics. What's a G with a mid-time engine and decent avionics going for? Will you be at that number after an OH and updated avionics? Breaks my rule of the most important thing in shopping for a plane: Recent use!

@Parker_Woodruff Regarding ONLY liability coverage, I am curious how often the typical $1 million limit is actually paid out, AND, more importantly, how often a judgement EXCEEDS policy limits and the owner has to pay out of pocket. Are these things tracked, or is it all secret 'sealed document' information? Curious in California

Do you know if it had the auto-extend installed? And, was it disabled?

^^^ THIS ^^^ Just finished mine; just one week.

I don't believe any of the F's, at least as they came from the factory, have them. I think the change came with the J model; I'm going to go compare part numbers in the F and J parts manuals to confirm. We do have that pesky two part gearbox inspection, however. When they wear out most seem to replace with the lower stress/higher ratio gears, but gear cycle time gets longer. I plan to replace with the original ratio as I like the quick cycle time and I figure if they make it 50 years like the originals, I don't really need the longer life of the 'low stress' ratio

As a happy F owner, I've got to ask: What made trading up to a J worth all the hassle, and cost??? And, now you have that no-back spring to deal with!

It's been awhile, but I asked for and received one in northern California. Haven't tried recently. I believe you are restricted to only those altitudes below the one given in the clearance. And, if you report leaving an altitude descending (you don't have to, however) you can't climb back above that altitude. What's rarer than hen's teeth, in SoCal, anyway, is a through clearance!

Ok, but can we make it 10 am? I may not live past noon!

I saw this same argument, it's a REALLY popular one: "Something is coming!"....wait for it....in 1970, FIFTY years ago

Great story! Gotta hate the result. Reminds me of what happened to my son many years ago in a paper airplane contest. His flew farther (the criteria for winning) but was disqualified because his was a hoop design and "didn't look like an airplane"....I was majorly pi$$ed off, but, to his credit, didn't want dad to make a scene with his teacher. So, I let it go...but, it still rankles me!

Whether it's fuel cells or batteries...the 'breakthrough' is 'just around the corner.'. Sorry, what all the fan-boys call my cynicism, I call reality after hearing this for the last 50 years! Batteries just don't have the energy density, not even close. Fuel cells are great, despite their cost, but everyone seems to ignore where the energy comes from. You're going to have to spend money for 'energy' somewhere to create the 'fuels' that go into the fuel cell...either by 'mining' hydrocarbons (like natural gas), or using massive amounts of other energy sources to create, for example, hydrogen and oxygen. Not to mention safely storing those gases on board a high-speed aircraft.

Ah, so only 2200 pounds of batteries!

I think you're on the right track. I, too, valued recent use over just about all else. Beware the 'hangar queens' and 'ramp rats' with low time engines. The need for an OH shortly after purchase could easily eat up half your purchase price! I bought my '70F with 2100 SMOH from an owner who had flown it 100 hours per year for the 13 years he owned it. You may be surprised how hard it is to find a plane at the lower price range that has been flown adequately. I'm three years and nearly 300 additional hours in with no problems (2400 SMOH). Thing is, I got a run-out engine price so if it goes TU tomorrow I've had three years of 'free engine time.' Read Mike Busch's publications regarding maintenance on condition; I think he's run Lycoming's to over 3000 hours! Do you automatically rebuild your car's engine when it reaches an arbitrary number of miles? I'm with KLRDMD, though. I really wanted manual gear, but when the 'right one' came along I accepted the electric gear. Frankly, it's been trouble free even though the required 100 and 200 hour lube intervals/inspections add a bit to the maintenance cost. Note that the electric gear in the '70 M20F (and, I think later Fs) does NOT suffer from the notorious $1000 no back spring issue; just the lube/inspection AD. Other advice is to buy with the avionics you want; GPS and, for certain, the AP. Adding these after the fact is ridiculously expensive (you could drop $20-25K on the AP, alone!). And, you will be lucky to get half that back on resale. Finally, you'll likely have around 1000 pound useful with an M20F, which has 64 gallon tanks, leaving around 620 in the cabin. With four on board (even kids), luggage, and full fuel you'll be pushing gross. Be careful if the DA is high!

Just curious why no comments regarding jetdriven's rather rude, crude, and socially unacceptable post? Or, was his diatribe ok merely because "he didn't start it." Looking for a little less bias, and more equity.

Data point: Mine had similar intermittency and I, too, first suspected poor connections at the Sonalert. Turns out it was the Sonalert, itself! I believe it is an SC628N available in the aviation aisle at DigiKey for around $25.

It's not amazing when bright people disagree on new and unknown/poorly supported science. Don't confuse political motivation/posturing with actual science and well established facts. And, do let me know when you come up with an example of pretty much any individual human activity that does NOT affect others. The argument that an individual's action affects others, thus justifying limitless control, leads to totalitarianism whereby every aspect of an INDIVIDUAL's life is controlled by group-think because it would all so selfish to do otherwise. That is the slippery slope we are on and, that is NOT freedom. Life is a risk and part of that risk IS living with the actions and consequences of others; like it or not. I am NOT saying COVID is to be brushed off, but I do think it has become a poster child for FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) resulting in politically motivated overreach. Meantime, please don't trot out the tired guilt trip on me. I'm going to continue to wash my hands, stay home if I'm sick, and wear a mask when I'm forced to (inside businesses), but NOT out of fear, and poorly established 'science.' Generations may well look back on this 'pandemic' and wonder why we stopped living, and destroyed small businesses over a virus!

They both should be judged EQUALLY harshly: they screwed up and landed at the wrong airport. Once equipment starts entering the picture it's a short slide to MANDATING equipment, and MANDATING its use, claiming it's for SAFETY. The safety glasses situation is NOT an analogy. It is a situation where NOT using or NOT having safety glasses is a VIOLATION (i.e. a MANDATED requirement) of established policy. Do you want an FAA that makes it MANDATORY to categorize avionics as SAFETY equipment and MANDATE it's installation and use? I'd prefer to just hold the pilot responsible for his mistakes, not drag what equipment he had, or did not have, used or did not use, into the fray. Or, to put it another way, it is disturbing to me that a pilot that doesn't use some equipment is a 'bad' pilot because it rather strongly carries the connotation that the pilot that does NOT choose to have that equipment is ALSO a bad pilot. Pretty soon if you don't install synthetic vision and the 'Blue button' A/P you're going to be judged a bad pilot...

The troubling thing about rulings like this one is the broad and overreaching nature of quips like, "Because Ferguson's conduct had clearly foreseeable consequences, it demonstrated a gross disregard for safety and created an actual danger to life and property. Thus, the conduct was reckless within the meaning of § 91.9.". Now tell me, exactly what is an example, especially judged AFTER the fact, of something that was NOT foreseeable? It today's law, EVERYTHING is deemed foreseeable AFTER the fact. It is part and parcel, and the 'go-to' argument the Feds use to hang anyone they wish. Pilots have been, and likely will continue to, land at wrong airports, unfortunately a consequence of being human and making mistakes that others have made before them. You can do it with all the fancy INS/GPS/FMS or with map & compass. Thing is, this thread is a scary reminder of the slippery slope we are on where we will be FORCED to purchase ALL the technology that is available! Yet, mistakes will continue to happen. My point is, should a pilot that lands at the wrong airport be judged more harshly simply because had equipment that he did not use than the pilot that did not have said equipment? Be careful how you answer.

Geez! Youse guys have been on lockdown too long

We perform BOTH shock and vibration testing of our electronic assemblies at my company. There is a big difference in each one's effects on the hardware. You can pass vibe and fail shock. Granted electronic assemblies are NOT airplane wings, but I think the principle still applies. To me, in flight turbulence is much more akin to vibration than shock, although I admit to having a few "shock" type hits in rough air! Either way, the nature of turbulence is going to spread its effects across the entire wing whereas the landing shock load on a Mooney wing is applied in a localized area through a compression spring (the donuts) which absorb some of the shock (reduce transmitted 'g'), UNLESS they are as hard as a rock. So, it makes sense that donut condition and smoothness of landing directly affect the stress the tanks are subjected to. Not so with the Cardinal where the gear is NOT bolted to the wing and, I suspect, has much more compliance than our donuts. All, IMHO, of course

Ah, so that means it "never was"...got it