1980Mooney

The title of the topic is appropriate. The wish list so far (new “killer trainer”, pressurized Acclaim, redesigned J/K line) will relieve someone of the most part of a $Billion.

Except that is only a thin composite shell over the traditional 1950’s-origin steel tubular load bearing fuselage frame. A true composite cabin is structurally load bearing. The Ultra cabin is really just a “composite facade”.

Knisley Welding is family owned since 1974 and remains independent (for now). I suspect that they are on Arcline’s/Hartzell’s shopping list - just waiting for an heir that wants to cash out. https://knisleyexhaust.com

A lot has changed in the last 7 years. Hartzell bought AWI in Jan 2020 (AWI had already bought Kosola and Associates in Albany, GA back in 2013). In Jan 2021, Hartzell bought Dawley - they shut Dawley down, laid everyone off, moved equipment and consolidated in AWI Minneapolis. In July 2022, they acquired Acorn Welding in Canada. And late last year the venture capital, Arcline Investment Management, bought Hartzell. They have been raising prices across the entire Hartzell product line to get a return for their investors ( including Janitrol Aero, Fuelcraft, Plane-Power, Powerup ignition, Kelly Aero, Sky-Tec and AeroForce Turbocharger Systems- and they just bought Cleveland Wheel and Brake a couple months ago)There is a lot less competition now. It’s all just Hartzell Aerospace Welding now in reality. The notion that they compete against one another is a joke. https://hartzellaerospacewelding.com

Are you in a hangar?

@LANCECASPER is right. The 280 hp STC is still ultimately owned by Bob Minnis. It was first in the name of Minnis Aviation LLC. Then it was in the name of PowerLite LLC. In 2019 PowerLite LLC was changed to AvPower LLC. They are all Minnis. You will see documents in all the names. STC Number: SA02988AT You will need a Hartzell PHC-J3YF-1RF/F7693DF(B) which is the standard 3 blade prop on Cirrus SR-22 and SR-22T. You should be able to find a used or overhauled one easily.

I seriously doubt that any reputable A&P would install a used vacuum pump of unknown condition and sign off ( no way to really know its hours, how long it has been sitting without plugs, maybe a nervous handler has been spinning it backwards, maybe it fell at some point - people are not always careful when handling used parts that are not intended to be installed again, etc.). As highlighted above it might prematurely fail - even on your return trip - and no-one wants that liability. Just get recommendations for a mechanic/A&P at Midland Air Park that has some time open to work on your plane (This may be your biggest delay...). He will order a new or overhauled one. Tempest and Rapco vacuum pumps can be overhauled. Not Airborne. Per Aircraft Spruce re:Tempest "They never re-use carbon vanes or the center stator. All parts are replaced with the possible exception of the end plates. The hard anodize is stripped from the center stator and the stator is inspected for cracks. They then perform a reconditioning of the I.D. After the reconditioning process, each stator is meticulously inspected for proper dimensions. The stator then receives a new hard anodize coating." And your A&P in Midland will need to clean debris from fractured vanes out of hoses (when the vane breaks and releases the vacuum, the airflow goes backwards towards the instruments as pressure equalizes), and install a new filter. When working on an old plane, sometimes the hoses crack when flexing and pulling them off the nipples. So there is likely more than just replacing the pump involved.

Not sure all the whining is warranted either. The biggest cause of seating problems is staring you right in the mirror. The average adult male in the US has gone from 166 lbs. in 1960 to 200+ lbs. in 2020 (self reported in 2020 so reality probably higher...and I bet that the data is skewed low because the really heavy probably don't self report) The average adult female has gone from 140 lbs. in 1960 to 171 lbs. now. (self reported in 2020 so reported probably delusionarily low...and skewed low by the really heavy that are shamed and don't want to self report their obesity.) My memory may be failing but school girls back in the 60's were generally thin as rails. Today out in public they are absolutely huge. I bet Gen Z and Alpha females will average closer to 200 lbs. as mature adults. Go to the grocery meat section and look at 35 lbs. of fatty meat. Or 4 gallon jugs of water. Where does all that fit in your airline seat now days? It's the same problem with legacy aircraft. Mooney was asleep at the wheel when they failed to widen the cabin during the Ultra steel frame redesign for 2 doors. (at least for front seats as a minimum) Maybe Mooney was counting on Wegovy, Ozempic, Zepbound, Mounjaro and Saxenda to solve our nation's obesity problem...

When you say "do I need to worry about water ingress?" do you mean into your fuel tank? Into tank - NO. There is no way for it to get into the tank. The pick-up and sender assembly is built into a solid piece of aluminum which is installed into a wing access pane. The gauge uses a magnetic coupling to the pick-up. But the reason it popped out is most likely because water got behind the dial and into that cavity. Once you get high and hit freezing temps the water froze and expanded loosening the glue joint. Compounding the problem was that the glue was only in contact with part of the back of the dial It probably did it many times until the glue joint failed. It then was sucked off in flight. All that you need to do is get a new dial. You do not need to touch the pick-up/sender or wing access panel. The dial is easy to install but you may have trouble finding a new one. There are different dials for different Mooney models because of different fuel capacities. When I needed one Lasar was out, but I had luck finding it at Don Maxwell's. Clean out that old white latex. Install the new one with RTV. There is a a tang on the back of the dial to insure that you align it properly - It is "fail safe" - there is only one way to put the dial in. You can see the corresponding alignment notch in your picture. Make sure to use enough RTV to completely fill the cavity when the gauge is pressed in without leaving air pockets. The RTV will fully contact the back of the dial for maximum adhesion and not allow any water behind the dial It may be a little trial and error (don't fill the cavity to the top before pressing dial in - try about 2/3) and some excess RTV will likely ooze out, but just wipe it off after fully pressing the dial in. After pressing in hold your thumb on it for a bit - if there is an air bubble compressed in the RTV, it will try to expand and raise the gauge. You can just set something on it like a wrench while it sets. https://lasar.com/gauges/dial-face-880024-009

In theory you are absolutely correct: "all of these decisions could make their way back to the Supreme Court, if they will hear it." Given this Supreme Courts not wanting to get involved, I doubt that they will hear it. They will just reject the appeal and toss it back to the lower Courts. The reality may be that federal circuit courts create a messy hodgepodge of conflicting decisions, with regulations upheld in some areas but overturned elsewhere. - "any of these decisions can be overridden by legislation". Congress cannot over-ride the decision of a Judge. But they can draft a new bill that amends existing law that, if approved by both houses, eliminates the issue and renders the Judge's decision moot. But think about the reality - we are talking about intent of parts of existing legislation that may be mired in technical details (especially with the FAA). Your representative has to build support with other representatives to present it and get it passed. This is the stuff that used to get deferred to the agencies. This sort of thing is unlikely to get much priority in Congress. Yes Congress in the future can write legislation that is clearer but we are talking about the mountain of existing legislation in contention - and any party can more easily challenge now. In the meantime we will be living with more and more influence by the Courts with Judges' sometimes conflicting interpretations of legislation

Perhaps the reality of this ruling is not clear. You say that this "court" has been getting out of the legislative business. In this ruling that may be true for the Supreme Court but only the Supreme Court of the Judiciary. It does exactly the opposite for the lower courts below the Supreme Court. They have dumped this into the lap of lower Courts below the Supreme Court without giving those lower Courts any way out. They are not allowing those Courts to defer to agencies when the legislation is ambiguous (i.e. not allowing the Courts to use the Chevron Doctrine/Deference) These lower Courts will have no choice but get "into the weeds" of the legislation as well as the details of agency application and the lower Courts will render their own opinion of legislative intent. These Courts will likely need to spend more time analyzing and "getting into the weeds" The lower Courts will either affirm the agency interpretation or strike it down It is unlikely that Congress will redraft the details of the legislation being in question. It is more likely that the agency will redraft their interpretation which may lead to more challenges in the Court. These Courts will serve as the final arbiters of statutory legislative interpretation. That puts the Judiciary into the "legislative business" in a much bigger way than the past. Anyone can see that the lower Courts/Judiciary will be forced to " get into the legislative business" rather than deferring to the agencies as in the past. And it will invite more challenges in the Courts clogging the process up even more. Perhaps ultimately the Courts will be so clogged with challenges that they are paralyzed and the agencies can just go about doing their business.

Of course this will put the judiciary in the business of legislation because they will now be interpreting the intent of legislation whenever there is a dispute of intent. The whole purpose of the Chevron Doctrine (or Deference) was to keep the judiciary out of that role. In simple terms the Court decided in 1984 that judges should defer to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous parts of statutes. That has now changed. The Court now requires lower federal courts to uphold an agency's statutory interpretation only if the court is persuaded that it is the best interpretation of the law. That opens the door to anyone wanting to challenge any agency statutory interpretation. The judiciary now has to listen to any dispute or challenge and rule upon by rendering their interpretation of the intent of legislation. The judiciary becomes what I call the "King makers". They can bless the agency interpretation or they can strike it down. If they strike it down, they will render an opinion why. That will form the basis for the next agency statutory interpretation. This becomes an inefficient two step" trial and error" approach to form statutory interpretation. Of course there will be a lot of judge shopping along the way. Now take the whole noise issue. The Journal of Air Law and Commerce states The Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) is significant because it shifts authority for noise abatement away from local governments and airport proprietors and grants the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authority on all noise restrictions on aircraft. Airport operators, airlines, and citizens groups all hope this shift toward a national solution will lead to less litigation. .Some will say that there is no ambiguity in ANCA. I say BS - it mainly specifically refers to Stage 3 aircraft. The FAA has made many statutory interpretations of ANCA which I believe will now be open to challenge by cities or others Not a lawyer but spent a lot of my career finding ambiguity in oilfield service contracts.and merger agreements, Two people can read and interpret even the most carefully written contract differently. Look at Exxon and Hess. They are currently arguing in arbitration over the intent of "right of first refusal" on a Guyana project. If Exxon prevails it will tank Hess's $53 bil. sale to Chevron. Both sides of businessmen and lawyers think that their interpretation of the contract intent is unambiguously correct. Legislation is just another form of a legal contract in my opinion. Admittedly some are very poorly written. I tend to agree that this will clog the judiciary as they play a bigger role in legislative interpretation of intent.

This seems like a big win for cities that are at war with General Aviation or aviation in general. They have been using noise regulations to try to limit or alter flight paths and limit times of operation with curfews. https://www.aspentimes.com/news/faa-tells-pitkin-county-and-airport-that-restrictions-on-safety-and-access-are-not-allowed/ https://www.scottsdale.org/city_news/scottsdale-faa-still-at-war-over-flight-paths/article_1e0abb82-1298-11ed-97e2-afb6da21b2e0.html https://www.malibucity.org/DocumentCenter/View/32569/City_Malibu_Comment_Letter_FAA_Noise_Policy_Review_9-29-2023?bidId= Now, if cities or counties don't like the "autocratic" answer they get from the FAA, they can go to court for "judicial oversight" to try to get the outcome that they hope for. I expect the City of Malibu, Aspen and Scottsdale to be at the front of the line on the court docket. It is like 2 bites at the apple for these cities. Those three cities are pretty well heeled and I suspect that they will throw enough lawyers at it to exhaust all options/angles, wear down and sway the "judicial oversight" in their direction. And if they can do it, others will follow.... Be careful for what you wish. The earth may not shake the way that you expected.

Someone just bid $78,000 for it.....

Too bad you are not a lawyer. This is a godsend for lawyers...like Christmas and your birthday rolled into one. Seriously. This moves many decisions/rulings out of the Executive agencies and into the Judicial agencies. More expensive lawsuits at the Federal level requiring more expensive lawyers. More Govt spending at the Federal level on trials and court cases, more spending on judicial staff. And at the FAA more lawyers and more spending on legal cases. Next they will need larger budgets, more fees and higher taxes to pay for all this! I bet the cost of pilot legal protection plans goes up now. And since the hurdles and costs of enforcement actions will likely now be higher, I also bet the fines set by the FAA escalate. I could be completely wrong but I do know that legal costs for pilot/owners won't be going down as a result of this ruling. BTW - I wonder how the Supreme Court sets aside clear conflicts of interest when they make rulings that create more employment and wealth for all their fellow Judge and former coworker attorney buddies.....

The irony in all this is that the only reason that we have the freedom to fly at all in this country, to fly over private property, to go almost anywhere we want at any time we want is because of the large reach of the Federal Government. Until about 100 years ago, the Ad Coelum Maxim had prevailed for thousands of years regarding land ownership. If you owned the land, you owned everything from "Heaven to Hell". The 1926 Air Commerce Act took away the airspace rights of land owners. It determined a right of freedom of navigation superior to the right of the owner of the subjacent land to use the airspace. And how were the land owners compensated for this?...NADA To add insult to injury, land owners wind up paying taxes in one form or another that in part funds the framework of aviation through their airspace. Some would call that theft or government over-reach....but not pilot/plane owners. Now the Govt could have limited flight to victor flyways and compensated the landowners for the loss of airspace rights (like building a freeway) but no. So in order to allow this free-for-all flying right over private property, there had to be rules and government oversight....hence bureaucracy. We seem to want it both ways. Government over-reach of land owners is fine if it allows us to fly over private property 24/7 but we belly ache about Government "over-reach", bureaucracy and rules related to our freedom to fly. We chafe at cities limiting flight noise. We are irate if a city, county or private airport owner repurposes an airport into something better serves and has higher value to its owner or tax paying citizens. We as GA pilot/owners are not paying our way either. There is no way the meager fuel taxes that we pay fund our share of aviation. City, county and state taxpayers fund the losses of the thousands of airports that are negative cash flowing. Federal funds from taxpayers pay for much of the infrastructure installation or improvement via grants. And commercial aviation knows that GA is not paying for ATC. I suspect, as government spending deficits continue, the subject of GA ATC User Fees and higher airport fees will come up again in the near future. Other countries are less generous to GA pilot/owners than for us here in the US. We have more freedoms and lower costs. There has to be a balance yet we never seem to find one that everyone can be happy with.

Ok took a quick look at the logs. Apparently the Ferry Permit was not issued after they blew up the battery box. The logs say the Rocket was trucked from Florida to Texas to Don Maxwell’s shop for repairs. That is definitely a plus. It was probably better than new after Maxwell finished.

Maybe they’re just greedy and think they can get more in an auction in this environment. I find it curious that they advertise the 2008 gear-up, which apparently was never reported yet they failed to mention the 2014 debacle which one can easily find on ASN. Has anyone seen the logs? I don’t see any mention of availability of the logs in the bid documents.

N231MN April, 1983, when it was only 8 months since factory new, had a gear-up - "NDICATES PILOT INADVERTENTLY RETRACTED THE LANDING GEAR ON LANDING ROLLOUT. NO MECHANICAL MALFUNCTION." 2008 Prop Strike noted in advertisement - Not reported to FAA. The plane was owned in Ohio at the time. As @toto noted, August, 2014 - Pilot drained both batteries (1982 M20K - Rocket conversion is a 12volt system with 2 batteries in parallel in the rear of the tailcone.) Pilot/owner asked FBO to fast charge the batteries. FBO only had 28 volt charger. Pilot confirmed to FBO that the Mooney was 24 volt. Additionally, in the Docket the pilot states that the FBO asked him to sign a waiver before charging the batteries which he did. The batteries blew up. You can see that the battery box lid and perhaps batteries blew upwards hard enough to break the main empennage bulkhead and deform the skin. The airframe had 3,162 hours at the time of the accident. At the end of At the end of November, 2014, 3 1/2 months after the accident, the owner requested a Ferry Permit. Investigation showed that that someone had worked on the damage and installed unapproved batteries. No log entries were made of the accident or the unapproved repairs. AN AIRCRAFT REQUESTED A FERRY PERMIT FOR MAINTENANCE AFTER EXPERIENCING A BATTERY FIRE/EXPLOSION. THE AIRCRAFT HAS SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO THE FUSELAGE FRAME FORWARD OF THE BATTERY COMPARTMENT, THE CABIN AIR TUBE IS DISCONNECTED AS WELL AS CRUSHED. FIRE DAMAGE CAUSED MULTIPLE LINES, CABLES & HOSES TO MELT AND DETERIORATE THEREFORE, NEEDING EVALUATION FOR THEIR SERVICEABILITY AND INTEGRITY. FINALLY IT APPEARS AN ALTERNATE BATTERY WAS INSTALLED WITHOUT PROPER DOCUMENTATION, AS THE LOG BOOKS DO NOT CONTAIN BOTH THE RECENT FIRE DAMAGE THAT OCCURRED AND BATTERY INSTALLATION AND THERE IS EVIDENCE OF EXTERIOR EMPENNAGE DAMAGE ON BOTH SIDES, FORWARD OF THE AIR SCOOP. In February, 2017, the accident pilot/owner (had owned N231MN from April, 2011 to February 2017) sold the plane to an owner in Branson, MO. In May, 2021 it was sold to an owner in Battlefield, MO. In September, 2022 it was sold to an owner in Utah. This appears to be the ad at the time. It had 3,400 hours on the airframe. https://tailwindplanes.com/airplane?listingid=20555&companyid=2413 I agree with @kortopates that if repaired correctly and well, it is fine. Note that the plane was not scrapped and repaired. The doctor that owned it had it repaired and continue to fly it until 2017. This could be a very good plane. I am surprised that there are no bids.

Download the parts catalog below - it covers your plane. Look at pages 186-188 One of the problems is that there isn't a "RH front, cylinder 2". The only way Cylinder 2 can be on the Right side is by looking at it standing in front of the plane looking towards the propeller. Cylinder 2 is on the Pilots Left side when viewed from the cockpit. However, your picture shows the alternator in the background of the cylinder with the exhaust stack removed, so I think you mean RH Front Cylinder 1. The stack for Cylinder 1 also has the more gentle curve which seems to match your stack. The stack for Cylinder 2 has a tighter radius. I think that you are looking for 630053-511. If you can't get it welded as @N201MKTurbo suggests, or if it is too corroded then it is easy to come by either salvage or new. I may be misunderstanding your description but I am sure you can work it out from here. Good luck.

All great suggestions (other than taking him to a bar given his proclivity to abuse alcohol - maybe take him to Starbucks....). But I am confused. Are you the same person that said on page 2: "I'm a CFI and unless I'm being paid to do so, I find it really hard to criticize other people's behaviors unless it's very clearly dangerous." And "I've got a friend whose actions as a pilot make me cringe so much because they are risky, but as far as I know, they are legal.... He loves flying that way, but... Ugh. " You said above "If you don't want to take a risk to save someone's life, that's your decision to make. I am willing to take some personal risk to try to save someone's life. I am inclined to take action to make the world better." It sounds like you are suggesting what you and others ideally should do.....but even you find it hard to do. It doesn't sound like you confronted your friend that conducts risky, but legal, flying actions. I am not criticizing you but just pointing out what appears to be the reality of this difficult situation.

It's not that I believe different. And yes hindsight is perfect 20-20 and yes someone should have stopped him, reported him, etc. from killing himself. Luckily he didn't crash into others. I assume that over 4 years that his family did talk to him. From the Docket and Final, they said that they knew that "he sought medical attention" so they thought he was addressing it. He just didn't tell the FAA or the airlines. As for the morning of the crash, the Docket interviews and Final state "Family members and a friend stated that the pilot had gone to the airport the day of the accident to work on the airplane’s magnetos and did not take his flying gear or indicate that he would fly that day". So if the pilot in the next hangar called the accident pilot's family and said that he seems "impaired", they would likely say "Yes we know - he is just working on the plane today." and maybe "We will come by later". In the meantime, the next door hangar pilot sees the RV fire up and shoot out the ramp between hangars. I have been to Galveston where his hangar was many times and had a friend based there. Even if you called the Tower or FBO, they likely would not come very fast to the hangars if at all. If they did, most likely the accident pilot would probably say, "I am just working on my plane". And they would leave at that point. If the hangar pilot called a second time, they probably would not come. So what would you have done? If you wanted to take a calculated risk, you could park your car/truck in front of his hangar on the assumption that he would not call the police, Tower or FBO since you believed him to be highly impaired. Of course he might damage your vehicle. And if he wasn't impaired, he might make a complaint against you and then there might be charges against you or the FBO/Airport might kick you out of our hangar lease. There is no easy answer. And getting personally involved carries risk.

I understand that you are searching for/soliciting preemptive actions that will enhance safer piloting outcomes. But instead of using your "extreme made-up example", why not use the real example of the pilot/owner of N69HF, an RV-6 that fatally crash in Galveston a few years ago. The owner was an ATP (I think he flew for SW). He had been working on his plane and then took off from the ramp between hangars, buzzed Galveston for about 1 1/2 hours and crashed. He was drunk and on sedating antihistamines. The Factual noted that: Family members and a friend of the pilot told investigators the pilot had been experiencing episodes of unusual behavior for about 4 years, for which the pilot had sought medical evaluation; however, no medical records and no record of treatment or condition were located during the investigation. He reported no issues on his routine First Class Medicals during those 4 yours. One witness talked to the pilot while he was working on the airplane and described him as “distracted,” and the pilot avoided talking to him. The witness further stated that the pilot acted “very distant,” and he thought the pilot may have been impaired. http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2022/09/loss-of-control-in-flight-vans-rv-6.html Clearly the structured oversight by the commercial airlines and the FAA of a "pro pilot" failed. Surely his fellow pilots at the airline noticed something over 4 years. So what was the GA community supposed to do in this case? GA is basically self regulating within set guidelines. Should have his family members and his friend turned him in to the FAA knowing it would be ending his commercial career and likely making them bitter enemies?

You don't mention your age. That seems reasonable to me. I am paying a couple hundred less than your quote. I have a Missile conversion (a "mid body Ovation"). I have similar coverage, $1 mil. liability, no passenger sublimit, but $40K less hull value. As @Jerry 5TJ says "lots of variables". I am IFR but fewer hours and hours in type. On the other hand I have stayed with the same insurer for over 20 years with no claims. I am entering my 7th decade and suspect that I will start seeing increases.

This discussion is getting a little bit crazy. If you do anything, even well meaning, to impede someone’s flight (stay let the air out of the tires, wheel, lock, control, surface lock, chain around the propeller, create an obstacle on the ground, etc.) and it in any way leads to an accident then you become liable. This is a simple reason why nobody wants to get involved.