Tcraft938

I hope that's not a bad and costly repair for you. My non A&P thoughts, but based on things my A&P has mentioned during annual. If you do not have the 201 windshield, make sure your avionics bay (long narrow sheet metal) has some sort of caulk like tape under it. Don't just screw it down metal to metal. If like mine there are two small holes at the bottom for some reason and the metal to metal doesn't make a water tight seal. He had me get a 3M product from Spruce I believe. It comes in sheets and you peel off a gooy caulk like material and put around the opening. It squeezes down when tighten screws and does an excellent job of sealing the area (plane quieter too and lower CO reading too). The other thing is condensation. If you have a hangar that sometimes gets very wet, or a wet floor, condensation will happen inside the plane. I have that issue for 3 days every spring. I love it because my A&P told us the best thing is to fly it a lot and blow it out. So for weeks after that time my Wife has a To Do List item for me to "fly the plane to clear it of moisture. I saved gas money honey, fly it two hours every day if you can". DARN IT!!!! Okay if I have to. :-)

Sounds like you have the reverse issue of me. Do you have the original or analog (dial) Manifold Pressure gage? Likely it is in accurate. Mine has started reading lower than what I believe to be actual, yours appears to read higher. When on the ground is your MP instrument reading the same or very close to the barometric pressure? set your altimeter to filed elevation, read the baro, say it's 30.25, your MP without the engine running should read the same. Unless very cold at 10,000 it is unlikely you are getting every bit of 75% power up there. Who knows, you Tach might be off also. Another thing I've noticed, I have a 63C and the early performance numbers in the POH appear to be for just the cruise phase of flight at best power "150 rich of peak", which my understanding from SAVY is that's flirting or in the red box. So the 1965 POH at 10,000' says at 2500 rpm 20.25" is 71% power yielding 176mph on 10.3 gph. Then look at a 1970 POH and will be same altitude, same MP and RPM, same % power but speed is down to 164 mph and fuel burn down to 9gph. Some pretty big difference that translate to substantial implied range impact. One is basically 17mpg the other 18.2mpg for a 7% increase in range. However, reading the charts, the 1965 says best power mixture which is 100 or 150 rich of peak (sorry can't remember), and the 1970 charts is "lean mixture at 75% or below to rough operation and just rich enough to smooth operation". Also it appear the 1970 POH give range numbers and is including the climb and descent profile, so the gph takes that into account as well. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding things. As for range, fortunately, or not, as I age, my bladder and back issues are natural alarms to prevent fuel exhaustion. LOL The plane has a 5 hour range, I have a 3.5 to 4

Definitely contact them. They are awesome and served me well for the old Mooney.

Nice looking Mooney and intriguing comments. I've often wondered what the performance differences are for the A model, speed, climb and useful load with the same HP as the C should be significant. My aircraft prior to the Mooney was a 1946 Taylorcraft BC12D. Several years ago, instead of a Flight Review I decided to get tailwheel endorsement, and fell in love with the challenging landings, going to short grass strips etc. Always kept it hangered and never had issues with the wood and fabric. The Tcraft's tightness helped prepare me for the short body Mooney making it feel spacious for my wife and me. LOL On a nice day I often miss the Tcraft, short strips 4 gph but I love the efficiency, flexibility, travel, fly at night or IFR the Mooney provides. Like any plane, it's about the mission and finding what fits that mission. A friend recently bought a Bonanza, constantly making fun of "the little Mooney". Recently he complained how much his insurance went up, mine decreased slightly. Then found out he flew 14 hours last year compared to my 96. "How the %$#@ can you afford to fly that much?!!!" (he's always complaining about fuel cost). Well, I fly similar speed on 9 gph compared to your 16. Therefore for the same $ I can fly 75% more than you, and that my friend translated into lower insurance cost. Think how much fuel and flying time you could have enjoyed for the $2000 increase in insurance. Sure your's is roomy and debatably more comfortable, but what do you care, you're in it one hour per month. Incidentally, his annuals are much more expensive because it's not flying. In my opinion he bought outside his mission and/or budget and now paying for it one way or the other.

Thank you. My zooming did not give a clear enough picture to make it out.

Very nice. What engine monitor is that? Thanks

September 2020, Penn Yan Aero did my O360-A1D so not as complicated perhaps as your engine, to new specs, new cam and crank, new mags, starter, alternator, fuel pump and cylinders, a little north of $24K with three year warranty. By the time I did the engine, new oil cooler, overhauled governor, engine mount inspections, bought new top prop and paid A&P to remove and re-install, I didn't have as much in total cost as you're being quoted for just the engine overhaul. I know pricing as gone up a bit lately, maybe a west coast thing, but that seems high. Due to yours being an IO, if I was looking today, I would anticipate a good number to be a little under $30k, but that should include plugs and accessories. What's nice is if some of your accessories, like fuel pump or alternator are fairly new, keep them and you have potential spare for the future. Be advised, I am not an A&P and still a fairly new Mooney owner, so my input is worth perhaps nothing, your mileage may vary.

From Lycoming..... " It has often been said that regular doses of clean, fresh oil provide the least expensive maintenance an owner can give an engine. Lycoming Service Bulletin No. 480 makes these specific recommendations for oil changes under normal operating conditions: A. 50-hour interval oil change and filter replacement for all engines using a full-flow oil filtration system. B. 25-hour interval oil change and screen cleaning for all engines employing a pressure-screen system. C. Even if the aircraft is flown only a few hours, a total of four months maximum between changes for both systems listed under “A” and “B.” I have oil filter and 90hrs SMOH, I still do oil filter and analysis every 25-30hrs. Partially because the doghouse an minimal sight access under the cowl I like opening up a bit and see/check things. Always nice to NOT see oil leaks. Occasionally I will find a few screws out of the doghouse or something like that. #3 CHT up a bit is usually an indicator that something has loosened on the doghouse.

Interesting point. Since I'm an aviation geek and spreadsheet geek I did some quick calcs with some assumptions. No engine mod, no turbo add, etc. Therefore, assume same power setting and thus gallons per hour and same time to climb/descend, yes I know some mods allegedly increase climb rate. So basically we are saying the increased speed enhances the efficiency, it can go slightly farther on the same amount of fuel. So 142kts v 150kts using 10.5gph $4.50 per gallon fuel, on a 1,000nm trip, one plane takes slightly over 7.04 hours the other 6.67 hrs. That means one uses $332.75 of fuel, the other $315. So on a 1000 mile trip the savings is only 22 minutes and $17.75. That means to make up the $100,000 you would have to fly 5.6 million miles, or fly almost 38,000 hours. I LOVE the vintage Mooney, but do you think the plane, let alone the mods will survive 38,000 hrs of use? I think if a rich uncle suddenly said, "I will give you $100,000 for you to enjoy the Mooney", I would either use it to upgrade to a different Mooney, but more than likely not significantly modify it, but figure my next 2200 hrs of flying are at zero fuel cost. If I put the fuel cost away in savings, at the end of 2200 hrs I could pay to have the engine overhauled and have $70,000 left over. Now to find that uncle

someone who is or knows a good welder should get their hands on one and make a bunch

Here's the link to the thread on the hydraulic compression tool/process. Maybe not the one some of you were referencing, but it's something Landing Gear Disc Compression Tool - General Mooney Talk - Mooneyspace.com - A community for Mooney aircraft owners and enthusiasts I'd love to see the weld tool. I have a friend that would likely make a few. Best regards

Hat rack is where I put my cabin cover, cowl plus, pitot cover bungee cords to lock control surfaces and tiedown straps. Weight is 10.4 lbs and the .4 has not bothered anything in 120 hours of flying. Even though I hangar, never know when have to land somewhere and spend the night, etc. Also all of it is pretty soft so not too worried about being hit by it, and if done properly the cabin cover packs tight. I considered purchasing a M20C that had a 15 gallon aux tank in the baggage compartment. That made the compartment virtually useless for baggage, and as a result the owner had a bunch of stuff on top of the tank and in the hat rack. VERY easy for that stuff to migrate forward over the backseat, not to mention, way more than 120 lbs back there. Maybe that explains why he reported it was faster than most Cs? :-)

Great points. To give perspective on a C with upgraded panel, so some weight savings but it doesn't add inches. As my wife describes the family, I and my 17 year old son are vertically enhanced and width limited (tall/skinny) and she and my daughter are, shall we say the opposite. We took the C on a 430nm trip. The actual for the day with headwind and healthy reserve 38 gallons was required for the slightly over 3 hour flight. Our useful load is 1,028 lbs so virtually if you can fit it in a C you can haul it, less 228 lbs of fuel (38 gallons), we technically had 800 lbs of people and stuff we could haul. We found putting shorter legs in the front and sliding seat way forward worked better than the opposite for some reason. Yes it was a bit tight, but my son brought up a good point...... "We do this for 3 hours 2.5 hours to come home for a round trip of 5.5 hours. When we drive it is almost 10 hours each way, fly commercial is 8 hours and then we have to drive an hour to Grandma and Grandpa's house. In the Magic Mooney Carpet Ride saves us time and over $1,000, even more if you figure all of us are not losing an additional day of work, I will take this any day, unless there's icing conditions!!!" My wife laughed and said, "I think Ethan's reasoning just made the Magic Mooney Family Time Machine bigger, LOL. Trips like that for us are very rare. It's usually just me or maybe my wife, so the back seat is almost irrelevant. I've been considering the mod where you can fold down the rear seat. Sure I can dream of a new Ovation with longer cabin, faster climb and cruise, latest avionics autopilot, and TWO DOORS, but have to realize the $$$ and diminishing return. It's pretty cool to think that a 57 year old plane can still do what it was designed to and still do it VERY well.

I have a 1963D/C so you bring up a good point regarding the 1.1" gap on the C, but the D is around 2" if I remember correctly. We were unsure what to set it at since plane was converted to C, so we set it up to 1.1". The attached diagram is from a 1970 Part Catalog, so mine is slightly different. I have drawn in red where the spring is connecting lower control arm to the diagonal engine brace where a bracket is for it to attach. The spring hold tension in the up/flap closed position and stretches when lower the arm/close the flaps. I will try to get a pic of the actual on the plane this weekend. Thanks Cowl Flap.pdf

It's hard to say, since can't see the plane and am not an A&P/IA, but have learned a lot assisting one as a part time job and owning a C model. I cannot stress enough the importance of a solid pre-purchase inspection by someone very familiar with Mooney. The engine overhaul is approaching the calendar recommended TBO, not so much the hours. Which would be my first concern point, it has not flown much in 18 years. Then add to that the seven year question period, why did it not fly? How was the plane stored and prepped for the hiatus? Look at the log, what did they do to it for that first flight after 7 years. How regular has it flown since 2016? If 50 or less hours, yup, I'm concerned if 300hrs and trouble free, I'm a little less concerned. If it's flown regular, I would do a pre-purchase inspection, cut open the oil filter and have a sample sent for analysis. If owner doesn't agree to that, then walk away, he already knows something. The gear up 48 years ago not a huge concern at this point, it's made it this long and a good AP/IA can verify the work. In looking at the logs especially since 2016, are they pretty detailed and specify parts and work performed, or they handwritten pretty short, "performed 100 hr inspection per Mooney Service Manual, packed wheel bearing, changed oil, plane is airworthy", type deal (called pencil whipping the logs). I've seen an IA come to the local airport with his truck and trailer and annual two C-172s and a piper arrow in one day. The owners brag of a $600 annual and nothing wrong, but I have never seen a gear swing test done without jacks, but somehow he did. hmmm That's the stuff you want to stay away from, their deferment becomes your detriment costly in $ and potentially life. Does it have ADSB? Static system check and IFR certified? I know the market is more volatile today than when I bought my C 2 years ago, but I only paid a couple grand more and got WAAS, ADSB transponder, two G5s, new prop, all AD's complied with and SB's, no corrosion, etc. If you belong to AOPA, you can use Vref for free and get an estimate on value, to give you a ballpark. I'm not an expert but price seems steep for what you are getting and the number of question marks. Next insurance. I don't know your experience and flight times, but check that out upfront. It's a rough market for new pilots and low retractable time pilots and if you can even get insurance, it will be steep, potentially north of $2500 per year. The insurance may also give you an idea of hull value as well. Last, if you do proceed, insurance will require a checkout and a certain number of hours in type. The less experience you have today, the more insurance will require. Don't be in a hurry and skimp on who checks you out. Find someone reputable with considerable and recent time in a C. Mooneys are nice flying planes, they have a few nuances to know about that will make transition easier and knowing how to manage certain things properly will save you heartache and money. Buying a plane is always a gamble. Some argue you always lose, it's just how much or little determines a good day or not. Either way, good luck and I look forward to learning how things progress for you.

This may be a strange question or maybe I'm making too much of it, since for probably the first 5 decades of my 1963's life no one could see outside what the cowl flaps were doing in flight. Occasionally using a friend's GoPro cam mounted externally and I've noticed the cowl flaps never close even though I've selected them to do so. In January the cable broke, I got a replacement from McFarlane Aviation (great people), the wire a little thicker and stiffer. The A&P braced it well all the way to where it exits the sheath, and when the flaps are closed only about an inch of wire is extended from the sheath. I could feel a noticable and positive difference when operating the system in the hangar. I was smooth but could also hear the flaps shut. This weekend my friend brought his camera, and watched real time on a cool day, just before leveling off I did as A&P recommended, close the cowl flaps as you're about to level, so you have less airspeed. Sure enough, thump I saw them close and kind of felt it in the floor. 20 seconds later I see them starting open a little, but the control had not moved at all. Based on the video they were almost fully open at high cruise. Nothing I tried shut them. I do not have the cowl enclosure, so maybe that huge opening is letting so much air in it has to go somewhere and it forces the cowl flaps open and this is normal? I'm also wondering if the long thin spring that helps keep them closed has become aged and weak, perhaps something stronger would help? Maybe it's normal and not a problem, however, it does explain my low CHT's in cruise. I read about people being careful with leaning because of CHT, yet in the summer all 4 in cruise are low 300's and in winter 255-285. Even last year with new engine/cylinders, everyone said watch the CHT like a hawk but never anywhere near raising an eyebrow. Anyone else mess with this issue, or is the answer, "leave the darn camera home"? :-) Thanks

You have a very studious C model that obviously read the POH and does as expected rather than wait for an all knowing pilot to claim they make it better with their golden touch. :-) To one of your points I recently compared my 1963 POH to a 1965 and 1970 and found the 63 and 65 performance charts with few differences but some substantial ones between the 1970 and the earlier ones. The 1970 has lower TAS and fuel burns. However the 1970 talks about taking into consideration the climb and descent portion of flight. So I am interpreting the 1970 to be more of a flight planning model, where the other two our performance charts for once you're at altitude, power set and stabilized? Speed/efficiency can be largely impacted plus or minus by control surface rigging and as I learned engine alignment. Last annual, per Don Maxwell article the A&P took great care to shim the engine accordingly. It actually had a fairly significant improvement in speed and CHT's came down a bit, but more importantly all 4 are pretty similar in CHT in all phases of flight

Quite a coincidence I noticed this topic since this weekend I did some testing. 1963 D/C one piece windshield, new scimitar 2 blade prop, 100hrs on Penn Yan OH to new. The day was 2 degrees C above standard, flying at 75% power or as close as possible and 25-50 degrees rich of peak. I don't have a nice new engine monitor, so who knows how accurate the MP guage and FF are, but I know RPM and Static are dead on. Just me and full fuel, so around 2100lbs 7500' 22.5"/2300 TAS 149kts/172mph 8.8 gph 7500' 22.0"/2400 TAS 151kts/174mph 9.2 gph 5000' 23.0"/2300 TAS 146kts/168mph 9.4 gph 10,000 WOT 20.5"/2500 TAS 153kts/176mph 8.7 gph I need to have the MP overhauled, since on the ground it reads about 2" lower than it should. Engine running it seems to be within 1/2" and the performance and fuel burn numbers confirm that. A new JPI would be going in next month at annual, but the IRS is going to take those dollars instead. Errr

As a D converted to C owner, I can give a thumbs up to the model. Considering what I paid for it a couple of years ago for mid-time engine, new prop, GNS430 two G5's and ADSB, the $50,000 asking price for the one you're looking at is more like the price of what you need to put into it. An engine at TBO that has not run or run much in 10 years is a gamble I would not be willing to take. If I would take the gamble I would never fly it at night, in IFR or put my family in it. If REALLY wanted it, I would be offering in the $20 to $25K range and planning on ordering a factory reman or having the current engine overhauled by a reputable shop, but chances are they are going to find corrosion inside. So there goes around $25K for the engine. If the prop needs significant work, might as well replace to not have the recurrent AD, that's $9-$12K depending on what you choose. Then there are things like the sealant in the tanks to worry about and if that needs redone, $7,400, all the accessories, etc. Plan on a reserve of $5 to 10K to have on hand for the incidental aged and unused items that will likely break. I think you can see where the "needs $50K of work" comes from. Sure, there is a chance the engine runs fine with little issue for another 500 hours. There's also a chance a rich old woman with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel falls in love with me and gives me a TBM 950 for my birthday. LOL Seriously, when I looked at a few similar planes, my A&P advised, "why should you finance someone elses risk? He thinks it's worth $50K make them prove it, give him three months to get if airworthy and tell him you want him to put 50 hours on it and you want to see the oil analysis reports from the two oil changes during the 50 hours, then we'll talk $50K, otherwise it's $20K and I will take the risks and you walk away. If lucky you have a plane and a hell of a lot of gas an reserve money, if not lucky you will have a very nice airworthy airplane and no gas money". I actually tried that tactic and the owner of the "other than Mooney" took it as a challenge and going to show me, so he accepted. Eight hours in, the engine came apart and safely deadsticked back to the airport, no deal. The A&P may have saved my life, that could have been me on the way home with it. Buying a plane is just another aviation lesson in identifying the mission and managing risk. Do you want to get in and fly for hundreds of hours, or do you want to take the time and money to personalize everything to your personal taste, realizing you'll never get the full amount back? As for risk.... let's face it there are many NTSB reports of brand new engines with few hours on them coming apart too. All up to you and what you're up for. But if you pay the guy $50,000 for the plane as you described it, he owes you big time.

Converted to flat panel. No problem seeing the instruments on the right and a little easier getting to switches, breakers, etc.

Maybe he was about to do his instructor checkride and he asked you the 10,000 questions so he could have answers for his ride. :-)

Same here

Pretty cool. Did he make the travel boards or purchased?

Probably a dumb question, but after reading the thread and appreciating Carusoam's comments, I'm wondering if maybe my MP gauge does not need overhaul but perhaps a line issue? Description of the problem.... when sitting on the ground without engine running, the altimeter setting is 30.41" but the MP is reading around 27". In flight at 9,500' density altitude, per the POH, WOT and 2400 rpm should yield 20.2" for 69% power, but the MP is showing a max of 18". Fuel Flow and TAS however, at this setting are in agreement with the POH. On landing for example, when I pull power back to the point the MP needle is pointing straight down at 10" I have more throttle travel and the engine reduces power and RPM further. So it seems no matter what my gauge is reading about 2-2.5" lower than what is really going on. The previous owner placed in the POH a nice cheat sheet on power settings to enter the pattern, fly ILS, etc. When I set to these setting the plane is always substantially faster than he states (such as gear extension). If I subtract about 2" from those settings, speed is right on. So does this sound like a gauge issue, or could there be simpler things like the line to check, before we pull the MP/FP gauge out and send it out for Overhaul. btw 1963 M20D converted to C Thanks

Who did your MP gauge overhaul work? I need to do mine. Thanks.