EricJ

Those both look Very Bad. The bottom one looks to be on a component that may be replaced, but the top one looks structural.

Agreed, but given some of the information provided I wasn't going to assume that any or all of the work stated actually needed to be done. A squawk list that long for a new owner with a new airplane smells a bit too much like opportunism to me without a second opinion from somebody Mooney-competent. It may be all or mostly legit, but I certainly wouldn't assume that when presented with a large repair estimate on inspection squawks.

Valve clearance needs to be checked with the tappets dry. If they didn't remove and empty the lifters, they're going to think the pushrod is too long. Essentially all reputable engine shops have had very long lead times for years. FWIW, based on what you've said so far, and the squawk list you got from the A&P I would STRONGLY suggest that you get an A&P who is very familiar with Mooneys to provide a second opinion on everything, including the engine issues. There are a number of things on the squawk list that I think need a second set of Mooney-experienced eyes, and I suspect much of that list (if not most or maybe all) does not represent airworthiness issues. DO NOT move the data plate until further investigation. Not all Mooneys had the data plate on the tail. Some were on the nose in front of the wing, and there may have been other places as well. This is one of those things that raises a yellow (if not red) flag. I wouldn't move the data plate unless there was a compelling reason to do so. "The A&P said so" is the LEAST compelling reason to do something like that. As a new aircraft owner you should be made aware that YOU, and not the A&P, are legally responsible for the maintenance on the aircraft. Ultimately you are in charge. Don't sign up for new engine mounts until you determine that the shims have been adjusted the maximum amount for any droop that may or may not be happening. Bottom line, I'd stop everything and get a 2nd opinion from an experienced Mooney mechanic. There are too many big questions about what you've described so far.

If you have maintenance records back a full year, AD history, STC paperwork, etc., basically everything that is actually required by the regs, then you aren't missing anything. The only place where "missing records" creates an issue is with a buyer using it to try to negotiate a reduced price from a seller. It is strictly a percieved value issue. If you have the records required by regulation, everything else is just used for negotiation, so do with it what you will. As already mentioned, that page may have been taken out due to a coffee spill or whatever other reason. If you're basing all of this on input from your current A&P, you're only hearing one side of the story. You'd probably hear something completely different from the other A&P. Don't get caught in the middle or to one side. This can happen to a new aircraft owner and it can wind up being very expensive if you don't take your time, proceed slowly, and get additional opinions. GA airplane alternators are often based on automotive alternators (if not direct appropriations) and if the installation on your airplane is an STC it is possible that you have the correct alternator. As you were previously advised, look at any relevant STCs before making too many conclusions.

What are the dates on the surrounding pages? Records older than a year are not required to be kept. There is no regulatory requirement to keep maintenance records older than one year. Records are also not required to be kept in "logbooks" or even in paper or whatever. The records that are required are just required to be kept as records. They can be written on used napkins as far as the regs are concerned. If the record was older than a year I don't know what basis you'd have for pursuing action against anyone.

That's a screaming deal on some quality jacks. I'm surprised they haven't disappeared already.

A G5 is a very good instrument and a good addition if you have a GPS navigator. My G5 HSI was installed not long after my DG failed, and later after several AI failures I punted and put in a second G5 to replace the AI. I highly recommend them. I've flown with GI-275s as well, and while they certainly have their place, I think the display space on the G5 is used much more efficiently and is more readable than the 275. I'd suggest getting a good look at both before making a decision.

Published minimums isn't even an opten on the poll, but right now that's my viewpoint. That said, I don't have a lot of IFR experience due living in the southwest, but so far I've not come across a reason to not just use the published minimums.

Looks like it has potential, and an MS part number. It's cheaper from Newark: https://www.newark.com/honeywell/ms24659-23d/switch-toggle-dpdt-20a-277v/dp/61M4738 Somebody could 3d print a wheel handle to go over the switch part.

That's for the starter solenoid/relay, not the starter circuit itself. It's extremely unusual for a starter to have a breaker in its power path, partly because of the impracticality of putting such a high-current breaker in an aircraft.

These days the 406 gets the alert out, and will likely be received by AFRCC who sorts out who to call for SAR. The AFRCC may or may not have GPS coordinates of the transmitter from the 406 signal, and even if they do the coordinates may not be accurate for a variety of reasons. AFRCC should have a reasonable idea of where to initially search, though, even without GPS coordinates from the ELT, and can dispatch searchers to find the source. A common strategy is to use the 406 data or its intermittent signal to get close enough to use the weaker but continuous 121.5 signal to more quickly or more accurately find the ELT. So it's still a good idea to have a unit that does both. A 121.5-only ELT doesn't reach as far and 121.5 is no longer monitored by AFRCC. A 121.5-only signal will depend largely on airliners and others monitoring guard to notice that there's an active ELT. The equipment needed to find a continuous 121.5 signal is much simpler, cheaper, and more portable than what is required to find the intermittant 406 signal. It can be a real problem for a ground team to find a 406 that isn't transmitting 121.5. I've been helping to try to solve this problem. It's doable, but tricky and more expensive, so typical SAR teams are unlikely to be equipped for it.

I don't think I did. Your example of similar data being private isn't really an example of data that is kept private. The changes for the CARES case just removes the easiest path to the data, which you are correct doesn't really exist comparatively (as much) for things like license plates. I think it remains to be seen how private it really winds up being for typical users.

If you have a few bucks to hire a PI you can do most of those things. Privacy is largely an illusion these days.

I don't know the full span of field tests that they do, but they're doing acceptance testing for delivery, not a full chemical evaluation. This is one of the things that generally happens in standard development, e.g., developing test strategies for field compliance verification, so that it is known that the fuels can be adequately acceptance tested in the field with practical equipment sufficiently to be able to reliably reject non-compliant or contaminated deliveries. I observed them doing some color tests as well as specific gravity, particulate contaminant, and a few other tests that I don't know exactly what they were, but they had a checklist to go through before they accepted delivery and it was fairly thorough. The delivery driver was right on top of it, like he knew he needed to support the testing for any delivery so it was a totally routine thing for them. When I worked in standards the development of compliance verification tests was always a big part of the effort, as well as how to mark compliance verification. Verification marking can't be done on fuel, so field testing has to be available as part of the verification system.

Our local self-serve fuel vendor is very diligent about testing a fuel delivery to the spec before it goes in their tank. I've been there when they've been processing a delivery. It's impressive. The guy delivering the tank was totally on top of it, too. They're all involved in verifying the spec is met all the way through the supply chain. It's one of the reasons consensus standards involve stakeholders from all parts of the chain, which helps make deployments successful and avoid surprises.