1980Mooney

It’s a pipe dream for a different reason. I suspect going forward there is going to be a major effort to NOT provide anything for “free”. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear a proposal for ATC User Fees (again).

If a new buyer of Jepp raises prices significantly in order to earn a return on an inflated price that they pay Boeing, I hope you don’t seriously believe that Garmin will just sit on their hands and hold prices steady. Monopoly or duopoly -there is no competition. I would expect Garmin to do the same thing. If you look at McCullough propeller prices you will find that they have increased just as much as Hartzell. When Arcline//Hartzell jammed through big price increases, they “raised the umbrella” for everyone else to raise prices.

I am with @A64Pilot. This entire classification criteria seems ridiculous. “Greater than 3/16 inch” is a “chunk”. That means a piece 3/16 inch even is a “chip”. So if your engine is making metal and you only find a single “chip”, less than 5 metal particles on EVERY panel/pleat of your oil filter or less than a 1/4 teaspoon of metal the you are “OK” …. Remember that these will be the pieces that you find - what about the ones that you don’t find. - the ones that gravity traps and are lodged in the case.

BTW - The NTSB has indicated that it will investigate. Preliminary Report number: ERA24LA317 https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/194743/pdf Also: https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=ab3366&lat=41.086&lon=-71.913&zoom=14.2&showTrace=2024-07-14&trackLabels&timestamp=1720982044

Accident Mooney M20J N8201R, Sunday 14 July 2024 (flightsafety.org) Aircraft landed hard and departed side of runway and into bushes. If you look at ADSBExchange, it was quite slow on Final. His last recorded Groundspeed was 57 kts flying into a 10/16 kts 60 degree crosswind. The aircraft sustained damage to the engine and propeller from the blade strikes and will require an engine teardown inspection. Additionally, damage was sustained to the empennage, both main landing gear, the wing on both sides, the step, and belly skins. If you look at the pictures, both main landing gear have been punched through the wings. It could be a stall a few feet above the runway followed by departure or shearing forces on the main landing gear after sliding off the runway. Sadly (or interestingly to a buyer especially in this Lycoming starved environment): The engine only had 66 hours on it since Overhaul. The nose gear did not collapse, and the blades don't look bent in the pics so the prop strike might have just been with bushes rather than runway. The airframe only had 1,910 hours on it although it is much more mangled. Microsoft Word - Nasso - AIRCRAFT SALVAGE Sheet (tmhcc.com) Bids Due Nov. 15

Torque Capital acquired Cablecraft and a couple other companies in 2021 and combined them. Torque's "investment criteria" is clear - "Typically control equity investments where we can actively partner with management to maximize returns". Partner with?...post Private Equity acquisition, the former company management is just a dog on a leash. http://torquecap.com/investment-criteria Vance Street Capital acquired McFarlane and a number of other aircraft part suppliers. When they acquired McFarlane they also announced that they were "partnering with" their target - complete BS - more like slavemaster and slave "partnership". https://vancestreetcapital.com/news/2021/10/vance-street-capital-partners-with-leading-general-aviation-pma-manufacturer-mcfarlane-aviation/ They formed Victor Sierra Aviation Holdings LLC (“VS Aviation”) to market them. They have 14 companies so far. https://victor-sierra.com/news-insights/

Also when you remove exhaust hardware that has not been removed in a long time, you may find more problems that require more work - slip joints, flanges, - or corrosion may conspire to induce problems like breaking a stud.

In his Accident Report (he added a wandering typed six (6) page "explanation" to the Report). He provided an "Assessment" of the day of his accident. (The following is a direct quote from what he wrote to the FAA/NTSB). He said that he, as a careful pilot, can: A. Be an Idiot B. Experience temporary "insanity" C. Experience a form of "Getthereitis". (Mine was with fuel). D. Be overtaken with "Confirmation bias" He went on to state: "If you want me to get into my metaphysical answers, my spit balling: A demon clouded my brain and wanted to kill me God, who knew I never wanted to sell the plane, was "herding" me to a different life. Why? Because having a plane is a "rich man's game". If I am going to retire in the next 5-10 years, the plane was costing me too much. I never would have sold it to get ready for being a "non-earner" in retirement. So God "arranged" me to be separated from the plane without injuring anyone. HOWEVER, I may try to rebuild N38RK if I can. As I said, I am "spit balling" with the metaphysical answers. I am sure there are other, more interesting metaphysical "reasons" for this accident, subliminal, subconscious, whatever." To answer @Echo, the current owner has owned it for 14 years, there does not appear to be a change in ownership, and it has not appeared on any aircraft salvage/auction site yet. However as @kortopates highlights that he may be "now uninsurable even with training wheels" - although a well meaning pilot/owner there may be several issues preventing him from getting this plane back into the air.

Correct - the Final said he is 58 but they misread his handwriting on the Accident Report - He is 68 per all other internet sources.

You are probably not 82 yet…..

This reminds me of the late '60s commercial: On August 8, 2024 the new owner of N4248H, a 1978 M20J, moved his plane from the seller in Kokomo, IN to his base KHAO, Hamilton, OH. On October 24, someone flying the plane was practicing Touch & Go's. One, two, three, five....ten! On the tenth (10th) "Touch & Go" it did not "Go"..... The registered owner appears to be 82 years old per internet. FAA Airman shows him with a Private Pilot license dated 12/14/2022 but no Medical The cryptic report says "Veered off runway" and "Main gear collapsed". Perhaps when it shows up at a salvage auction more can be learned of the real order/circumstances https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:96:10092349662185::::P96_ENTRY_DATE,P96_MAKE_NAME,P96_FATAL_FLG:04-NOV-24,MOONEY https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/234670793/n4248h-1978-mooney-m20j-201 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N4248H https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a50df3&lat=39.370&lon=-84.511&zoom=14.3&showTrace=2024-10-24&trackLabels&timestamp=1729806383

First of all the next Faa Re-authorization Bill is in 5 years. That train just left the station and this issue was not in it. Second I think you have it backwards. Historically the FAA had the willingness. As @Pinecone highlights above, the Supreme Court's "Chevron Defense" ruling effectively gives the Courts more say over the FAA decisions. Now the FAA will have to contend with ignorant judges that have to be educated (and will be swayed by counsel seeking alternate interpretations). Of course no-one at the FAA now wants to stick their neck out for anything controversial even if it makes sense. People want it both ways. When it suits their personal best interests, they want the FAA to make broad sweeping decisions for the sake of efficiency and speed. And when the same people disagree with anything not in their personal best interest they want to be able to force it out of the FAA and back into the Courts mucking decisions up into long drawn out legal affairs. https://mooneyspace.com/topic/48867-the-earth-shook-a-little/

I bet if the Commercial Pilot/CFI had just told the FAA that "I forgot to put the gear down", that this probably would not have turned into a NTSB Investigation. It probably would have just been a fleeting posting without any detail in the FAA ASIAS (Preliminary Accident and Incident Reports). His identity would remain anonymous. It would be between him and his insurance company. If any of you have searched the FAA "Accident and Incident Report" database you know that the FAA stopped providing any information after December 2019. https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:12:::::: There are 3,394 Mooney accidents and incidents in the database from January 1, 1978 to December 31, 2019. The last Mooney incident listed is December 30, 2019. https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:18:::NO::AP_BRIEF_RPT_VAR:20191230019769I There is nothing after that for any brand of GA aircraft. Instead, everyone now knows he screwed up. His name is shown in the Accident Report in the NTSB Docket.

Final is out on N3777, a 1985 M20K. The report shows that it was converted by Rocket Engineering to a Rocket 305 with the TSIO-520. The written Accident Report notes that the plane had just completed Annual after having been idle for a long time. The last shown flight on FlightAware is in April, 2021. On May 3, 2024 the 4,850 hour pilot (75 hours in an M20K) flew the plane for the first time after the Annual as a test flight at Conway Horry, SC (KHYW). On approach to land he told the investigators that he landed "with both the flaps and landing gear extended". "A post-accident examination of the airplane revealed minor damage to the nose landing gear door and no damage to the main landing gear doors. The landing gear was subsequently cycled several times using both normal and emergency methods. No evidence of any pre-impact mechanical malfunctions or failures were noted that would have precluded normal operation of the landing gear system. Based on this information, it is most likely that the pilot landed the airplane with the landing gear still retracted." Probable Cause and Findings The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be: The pilot’s failure to extend the landing gear before landing. Findings Aircraft Gear extension and retract sys - Not used/operated Personnel issues Forgotten action/omission - Pilot https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/194268/pdf The steel frame, lower tubular is nearly ground through. You don't usually see that. He must have landed really hot in order to grind completely through the belly skins.

Not much to learn here except that the pilot/long-time owner somehow thought 1/4 tank of fuel in one wing was equal to 20 gallons. In his Accident Report, he told the NTSB that he thought that should have lasted 1.5 hours (his other tank was on Empty and the Low Fuel light was lit). The pilot stated that he is risk averse, and conservative in nature and has never departed with the low fuel light on before but, he surmised, the cheaper fuel at the destination likely influenced his decision to proceed with the flight. https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/193957/pdf Per Final: The pilot reported that he intended to service the airplane with fuel at the destination airport, which had cheaper fuel and was a short distance away. During the preflight inspection he observed that the low fuel indicator was illuminated for one tank, and the panel gauge for the other indicated it was ¼ full, which he estimated would equate to about 20 about gallons. He cross-checked the levels with the airplanes fuel totalizer system, which indicated 20 gallons of fuel remained. While enroute, the pilot noticed the fuel gauge level dropping faster than he anticipated, and a short time later the engine lost all power due to fuel exhaustion. The pilot performed a forced landing onto a dirt road in farmland, after maneuvering the airplane under a power line. The airplane struck fence on roll-out and sustained substantial damage to both wings. The pilot and passenger were not injured. The pilot reported there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The airplanes low fuel indicators illuminate when about 2 ½ gallons of fuel remain in their respective tanks. Each tank holds about 9 gallons of fuel when ¼ full, rather than the 20 gallons the pilot had estimated. The pilot stated that he had mistakenly used the airplanes total fuel capacity of about 76 gallons when making that calculation, rather than half the value that a single tank could hold. He also stated that he may not have properly adjusted the totalizer the last time he serviced the airplane with fuel, hence its reading was not accurate. He stated that because the totalizer and fuel tank gauge readings were similar, due to confirmation bias he concluded that sufficient fuel remained. Landed through a fence and wire:

I liked these quotes: On the ground "run ups", the prototypes could reportedly be heard 25 miles (40 km) away. The shock wave was actually powerful enough to knock a man down; an unfortunate crew chief who was inside a nearby C-47 was severely incapacitated during a 30-minute ground run. Coupled with the already considerable noise from the subsonic aspect of the propeller and the T40's dual turbine sections, the aircraft was notorious for inducing severe nausea and headaches among ground crews. In one report, a Republic engineer suffered a seizure after close range exposure to the shock waves emanating from a powered-up XF-84H.

That is a Dukes actuator on the '77 M20J - right? If it is more than just the motor then Don Maxwell or Lasar AD 75-23-04: SB M20-190 | Mysite (donmaxwell.com)

As @A64Pilot points out the turbo and intercooler increase charge density. The intercooler has the added benefit of reducing charge temperature which helps control engine temperature, TIT and detonation. But as he also points out more charge means more fuel. And while more charge density will produce more HP and will deliver a higher critical altitude, the OP wants only to fly at 11-12,000 ft. And he wants a bit more speed (165 kn) while burning a bit less fuel (12.0 gph). I am not sure that the added weight, cost and complexity of the intercoolers alone will actually deliver higher engine efficiency at 11,000 - 12,000 ft. (he is getting an overhaul, discussing LOP which may in themselves deliver the efficiency - he won't be able to tell the effect of the intercooler on fuel consumption). This might be a case of the wrong plane for the owner's primary mission. @T. Peterson previously posted that an exchange engine from Western Skyways was $55,000. When you add in shipping, engine mount possible repair, mounts, accessories not included in O/H like fuel pump, new fuel lines, prop O/H, installation, maybe tax plus the cost of intercooler kit and install plus cutting lower cowl and paint, I bet that you will be close to $100,000. You might be better served to sell your plane as is, take the proceeds and that additional $100,000 and buy an Ovation. The Ovation will meet and exceed your requirements with greater simplicity and likely lower maintenance costs. And you will get more space. The original Ovation is perfect for what you want. The Ovation2 is better. Original Ovation Ovation2

I suspect that there is damage to the belly. You just need to look more closely. That looks like the typical damage when landing a Mooney fully gear up. If the nose gear linkage breaks due to a massive porpoise then the bottom of the cowl is scraped and the propellor much more bent. And it would not be sitting on its nose gear. I know someone who landed his J fully gear up twice. If you do it with half flaps and land level and straight it tears up the prop, nose gear door, the belly and usually rides on the flap hinges. And usually the step snaps off or is ground down. If it is with full flaps, then the flaps are usually damaged. In most Mooney cases, when they lift the plane, the gear can be lowered normally. The stories of "gear collapsed on touchdown" are usually BS for Mooneys - they are more common for Cessna, Beech and Piper. Look at these Underwriters Salvage Company - N201JW - 1976 Mooney M20J Underwriters Salvage Company - N201BH - 1976 Mooney M20J Here is one where the nose gear linkage broke.

It is not just a prop strike. It is a classic gear-up landing while conducting "touch and goes". N10WN, a 1990 M20J, registered to a long time owner. Yes it is a later model, Serial No. 24-3203, sold as a MSE. His first touch and go was a straight in approach. If you look at his second pass (when he geared up) he was slower than the first pass. He must have thought his gear were down (and slowing him down). There is no way for one landing gear to collapse independently of the others without breaking or bending the tubular rod linkages and/or tearing apart the turnbuckles. It would be a mangled mess under the belly skins and there is no way it would be sitting on its landing gear now. Watch the YouTube below. Link from Aviaton Safety Network post: Gear-up landing Incident Mooney M20J N10WN, Monday 2 September 2024 (flightsafety.org) Per FAA ASIAS "Narrative: The Mooney M20J landed gear up while conducting touch-and-goes." N10WN Flight Tracking and History 02-Sep-2024 (KADS-KSWI) - FlightAware https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a0045c&lat=33.607&lon=-96.588&zoom=15.4&showTrace=2024-09-02&trackLabels&timestamp=1635703215

Is this a temporary move where you return to Minnesota in 2026 or are you permanently leaving, giving up your current hangar in Minn., establishing residency in Florida etc? If temporary I assume you will be paying to keep your current hangar in order to avoid being unable to find a hangar back at your home drone upon return.

Uhhh.....you might want to check your sources.

You just made the case for Lasar to raise the price even more. Heck it would still be a bargain at $6,000 or even $12,000 for the spring given the price to repair or replace the geared up Mooney. But that logic and reality is exactly what is driving Private Equity to buy up general aviation suppliers. and raise prices. Hartzell/Arcline Investment acquisition and price increase has been discussed here. Vance Street Capital Partners bought McFarlane, Tempest, Marvel-Schebler, AirForms, PMA Parts, Precision Airmotive, Alcor, CFS Fuel Systems, etc and call is VS Victor Sierra Aviation Holdings. Lesser know is Warburg Pincus's early move to acquire and consolidate aviation avionics suppliers primarily to the Department of Defense - it is called Extant Aerospace and now owned by TransDigm. They bought the old Goodrich/L3 Harris line for instance. They are not shy about jacking prices and screwing everyone including the DOD. If you have a WX-500 for instance, they are now selling it for $23,000.

This raises a couple points. In "the good old days" (before ADS-B), sellers could be more "creative" in describing where their planes were located during their life. Maintenance log entries and the Seller's FAA Registration address were about all you had. Now a perspective buyer can fairly easily search the location history. At some airports, ADS-B tracks are so good that you can trace the taxi to a hangar building vs. a tie down area. And while the OP has focused on finding a tie down/hangar, he needs to be asking about finding an A&P for his next Annual. He said he would be there all of 2025 and maybe more. Registration shows that he is an almost 2 decade long term owner. I bet he has been using the same A&P at his home drome for years. Finding a new A&P for an Annual can be traumatic. Also a "new set of eyes" could result in an "Annual from Hell".

There are four (4) cases of NBS No-back Spring failure in the FAA ASIAS database. M20J Sept. 15, 1991 M20R July 5, 2003 M20S Oct. 30, 2002 M20J May 15, 2005 The problem is that it does not distinguish Plessey actuator failures from Eaton actuator failures. The Eaton actuator NBS is the subject of this topic. As you all know the Plessey actuator is on longer supported. Tom Rouch, in the same Mooney Flyer article said: "I have dealt with planes that have a broken no-back clutch spring. Most of these had Plessey actuators, which were used in the late 90s. These use a slightly different spring from all other actuators. The Plesseys are now obsolete and their no-back clutch springs are not available." https://themooneyflyer.com/issues/2017-AugTMF.pdf p. 17-19 FAA ASIAS NBS Failures https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:18:::NO::AP_BRIEF_RPT_VAR:19910915046159I https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:18:::NO::AP_BRIEF_RPT_VAR:20030705013639I https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:18:::NO::AP_BRIEF_RPT_VAR:20031030030799I https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:18:::NO::AP_BRIEF_RPT_VAR:20050515016429I