Doggtyred

I have maybe 10 years left... but If I was to buy into an airpark, I'd consider 30 years on the new purchase, then pay it off quicker. The whole point of my comment was that when living on airpark, while its typically pricier to live there with regards to land costs, you have the cost benefit of being able to keep your plane on your property without having to rent a hangar miles away at whatever the going rate may be. In my neck of the woods a turf private strip has a wait list for $250/mo, a bare bones private paved airport has Thangars waitlisted for $350 a month, or community hangar waitlisted for $300/mo, and you go to bigger more substantial fields and the price of poker gets $$$. I think the FBO's at Hobby will be glad to let you park your GA plane inside for $1000/mo. $300 a month extra on the house note, not budgeted for hangaring a plane, gets me another 50K in mortgage space... for either building a hangar (not a Taj Mahal) or buying a place with the hangar already on it. For some airplane owners, budget might be no object. For me, I'm looking at the math at how I can make airplane ownership more affordable. Being able to keep it at home is one way for me to do that. I've got a job that's portable, and a wife who's job is portable, so I'm open to relocating, and have looked at several of the airparks listed here in the past. Sadly for me, too many of them are too far of a commute away from the sort of jobs I would be able to find... near major medical centers.

So if you didn't have to pay $200 (or 300.. or 500...) a month in hangar rent you could ADD that $200 (or 300 or 500..) to a budgeted house payment? Right? Operative word was ADD... On a 30 year note, at 3% interest, $200 extra a month gets you another $47k in mortgage. At $500 a month extra gets you another $118k in mortgage. And you get to keep the hangar when the note is done (as opposed to many airport land leases)

How much would you be spending on hangar rent? Thats how much you would be able to add to a house note, if you had to.

Whats the lease terms for the land? This a MassPort affair?

My google-fu tells me the good doctor who owned this plane from 2008 until repo in Dec 2015 was an orthopedic surgeon. He reported a malpractice claim for low 6 figures in 2013. He has since not renewed his license and is delinquent on that. No idea if that was his only one (claim), but must have not been able to secure insurance afterwards. So his practice is closed and he's likely without income. I dont think he had it out for the bank, per se.. but I dont think he's buying planes anymore. What I CAN come up with tells me he didn't fly it much to begin with.

Yea.. I see that now... And noted it after I finished reading the whole thread that day. For whatever reason, the edits I tried to add to my post reflecting that... didn't upload. Probably pilot error.

Very familiar with the Houston Terminal Airspace, field and the ops, but not recently. Before IAH added the third E-W Parallel, Hobby's (airport diagram) primary runway in use was 12R/30L and approaches primarily came over the middle of town and from the NW of Hobby, or from the SE from Galveston. Bush (airport diagram) will almost always land east or land west on the parralels (before and after the expansion and airspace redesign in the 2000's) and send all departures out on 15 L. GA would be vectored to 15R to stay out of the flow. The only variation on that was with bad winds, when departures and landings all had to use 15/33 complex, at which point everyone's push times go to crap At hobby. Next to their then primary runway of 12R/30L There was a smaller, shorter parallel 12L/30R that they would side step GA traffic onto. 4-22 was only in use when winds were a factor. 17/35 was one of the legacy runways, and the only time it was used for airline traffic when I could remember was when the 04/22 rebuild was undertaken and the intersection of 04/22 and 12/30 complex. It was actually more useful for parking during the superbowl. Adding the third runway at Bush changed the airspace dynamic, and Hobby was realigned to have primary runway be 04 and approches from the SW of the terminal airspace. If we still were allowed to do Land And Hold Short with GA on intersecting runways, she would have made her first approach with the the rest of the inbounds on 04, and when she went missed, she could have been sent on Left traffic and brought around for 17 (hold short of 04) or one of the 12's (hold short of 04). That is no longer allowed, and there were several inbounds on the path for 04, so the only meaningful option the controller had operationally (without declaring an emergency and giving her priority) was to bring her to the right and set her up to land on 35 (which is plenty long, by the way.. 6000 feet) with that quartering tailwind. Then the controller could have kept the inbound flow without having to issue a hold short direction to the cirrus. The sad irony is.. the push of traffic was clearing up and she was being vectored back around to try and land either into the wind or on 04 when she stalled it in. Second sad irony, there was a world class runway 7 miles away at Ellington that would have put her landing into the wind and no airliner traffic to compete with.. She was over her head, and it was hard to listen to. Regarding the CAPS, the rocket fired at the same time of impact. I do not know if it misfired on impact, or if she was pulling the red handle and didn't have enough time.The chute was still in the bag and did not deploy.

It does, indeed... and IF I was in a position to seriously consider it, that would be one of my first things to track him down. But even WITH logs the limited information I am seeing here tells me that this plane has flown very little in the past 8 years, and almost none in the past two.... That is some serious hangar/ramp queen street cred in my non-owner mind... I came from a club where the busiest plane was getting its 100 hr every month or so, and the slowest one still flew 150 or more hours a year..

I am getting the impression that the value is being set by the bank/lienholder (plus consignment commission) and they are trying to come out golden. I'm also getting the impression from the very minimal run time and documented history of being outside that there is both internal engine corrosion, as well as potential airframe issues. I appreciate the input, the price points, and for what its worth, I'm slowly working my way back through the forums for relevant threads.. I'm back to 2015 so far, and still going.. Looks like the good doctor who owned the plane before had a malpractice judgement in 2012, and isn't practicing anymore.

let me start with "I am not ready to buy, and I am not buying this plane". I am asking those who are smarter than me "what am I missing, if anything". This is a 1982 M20K 231. LB1 without a Merlin. Bank Repo. In the pictures looks quite nice and appealing. Thats where most of the good news ends. Total time 2460. Original engine was Factory Reman in 1990, 895 hrs ago. Topped at 687 hrs in 2007. Has had 208 hrs since 2007. Prop last overhauled 232 hrs ago in 2008. Logs are missing. Partially reconstructed logs reviewed. Plane spent a lot of time outdoors in California. Last annual able to be reconstructed in documentation was Sept 2013 at 2449 hrs.. so in last two years its had 10.6 engine hours, and I'm sure most of that was to get from Cali to Arlington, Texas. Last annual before able to be reconstructed was from 2008. Reviewed what logs were there/able to be reconstructed. Lots of hoses and wearables replaced in the 2008 annual. You guys who have done this, knowing what you know about these planes would you even give it consideration? Is the recommended offer even close to what you would value this, given the limited information we have listed here? If I was to go look at this plane, what would be the must-checks/must do's in a comprehensive prebuy. Or by chance does one of you have personal knowledge of this airframe? My gut tells me to run away, given the very low useage in the past decade. If purchased, I would approach it from the standpoint that the engine is liable to need replacement and ANY meaningful time is just a bonus. Airframe issues/corrosion issues to look for? http://www.vanbortel.com/aircraft-for-sale/aircraft-inventory/685/1982-mooney-231-se-m20k http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1434527/1982-mooney-m20k-231?dlr=1&pcid=99&sfc=1&ssc=1&src=0&sps=0&ftr=0&if=1 http://www.vanbortel.com/files/N1163W-2.pdf http://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N1163W

So in a year, you could hypothetically buy a $90k plane? On the outside looking in, it appears like a little patience in the short run will put you in the position to have a GREAT buy down the road.

Paying for an oxygen fill or two at some exorbitant price will quickly exceed the cost of doing your own transfilling setup. 3 "M class" cylinders are more than adequate, and 2 would be more than sufficient for most users. I used a 3 bottle and 4 bottle "cascade systems" for breathing air and refilled firefighters breathing apparatus bottles and could refill many bottles in the field (and most of them held more cubic feet than the typical aviators tank. There are tons and tons of standards out there.. for tanks..fittings.. hoses.. threads.... but the standards are proprietary, and belong to the Compressed Gas Association. They share standards with their members. Membership is pricey. Even by aviation standards. If this was an experimental rig, I'd say get a mid life firefighters composite wrapped aluminum cylinder, get it hydro'd and inspected, and change the valve stem to the proper CGA fitting for an oxygen tank, and then go with the Mountain Home pulsed system - in panel. But for certified, perhaps you can get the tank from Mountain High and do a 337 to put one of their modern tanks in the place where the old one was? Its mentioned that field approvals have been done in the past using their equipment. Mountain High might be of assistance on this. It would be awesome if their "built in" system (tank, panel indicator, everything) could be 337'd but starting with a substitution tank MIGHT be workable depending on how friendly your local FAA directorate is..

The guy probably needs to be humbled.... but a ramp check is voluntary..ish. The inspector cannot delay you in any way if you do not consent to it. You might end up having to make arrangements to show requested/required documents, but if you have somewhere to be, they cant detain you or penalize you for that...

Agreed... which is why I asked for data points so that I can look at multiple things, look at the context and draw my own conclusions. If I need to ask further questions to clarify differences, I'm willing to do that. I identified my mission, and what I was looking for. Part of my detailed introduction, while somewhat vague, was to give the impression this wasn't my first rodeo. I was looking for other operators costs with this airframe, and operating techniques with this airframe, and I will look at all of them together and make an informed decision as to their relevance to what my situation might be. Clearly a plane that flies more might have lower overhead costs averaged out over those increased flight hours. Annuals with a new (to me) plane can be like playing the lottery.. or the Hunger Games... I get that. But once settled in, and maintained properly, and operated prudently, those costs should fall in line and be fairly predictable. (until something like the recent CMI 520/550 AD on ECI cylinders that came out this week happens, where a cylinder swap is mandated rather than being done "on condition"). And it IS one of the problems being an anonymous noob to an established group that most wont know anything about me, or my frame of reference... but threadjacks and pissing contests about what OTHER airframes are better than what I'm asking about (particularly when outside my price point) is frustrating, yet to be expected. And I am thankful to those who have chipped in with informative answers and details. The rest? It comes with the territory.

This sounds most likely to be in the CDI.. If the above troubleshooting tips dont fix it, I think you'd get the best bang for your buck with an avionics shop replacing it with something newer...