1980Mooney

The second one is dramatically less because it says it is non-TSO’d and for Experimental aircraft.

Has someone set you down and had "The Talk"?! Old airplanes, just like classic cars, are money pits. You can spend a ton of money on modifications and refurbishing - but you are not going to get it all back. Not even in this crazy market which is going through a cycle and softening. Look at Controller - there is a 1993 M20J that has the Missile Conversion by Rocket Engineering. (300 hp IO-550 transplant - a "mid body Ovation") - that was a $60 AMU mod 23 years ago - includes cowl but not painting so add more. Today it would start at 120 AMU - maybe more like 150 AMU if it were available. The plane has speed brakes, long range tanks, GNS530W, KAP150 autopilot and the engine is a little less than 1,500 hours. - they are asking $185,000 1993 MOONEY M20J 201 MISSILE For Sale in Underwood, North Dakota | Controller.com And there is a 1987 M20J also with speed brakes, a GNS430 (no "W"). a KAP100 autopilot, and the engine has a little more than 1,600 hours. - they are asking $155,000 1987 MOONEY M20J 201 For Sale in Clayton, North Carolina | Controller.com The condition and equipment of the 2 planes is pretty comparable but the Missile converted J model has a better Navigator (530W). about 1,000 fewer hours on the airframe, better interior. As you can see the plane with the Missile mod/conversion won't get 50% of the 25 year old cost of the mod. (and nowhere near the current cost of the mod if it could be had - a small fraction) If you buy a plane and make a mod and then have to sell, don't expect to get more than 50% for the mod investment (just like classic cars...) You are better off buying a plane that is basically the way you want it - and then just spend a ton of money every year maintaining (easily $100/hours and climbing), insuring and hangaring it....oh and flying it (80 hours per year at 10 gallon per hour - nationwide 100LL averages $6.40 - that's another $5 AMU per year - don't forget oil changes, database and software subscriptions.....) AirNav: Fuel Price Report Here is a recent topic where someone bought a plane in 2021, spent a lot of money on paint, avionics, interior in the past year on an E but now has to sell. I seriously doubt he will get what he invested. And BTW "10s of AMUs on Garmin Goodies." doesn't buy much fully installed nowadays - don't forget that they have to be installed at $100+/hour.

Are you asking for valuation purposes?

I would get the lighter cover - it will help keep rain out of the cabin if you have any unknown leaks (esp around windows which an contribute to corrosion on the cabin steel frame). And it will reduce the thermal and UV deterioration in the interior. It should last easily for a few months and you can always use it again. Cowl plugs help reduce moisture blowing through the engine area while it sits outside (rain or condensation). I never did anything about the cowl flaps. But I would put a tennis ball in the exhaust if it were sitting for a while. Some have said they put painters tape over the fuel cap to reduce water leaking in when sitting out in the rain. Regardless be sure to rock the wings and sump the fuel tanks well before flight if you have it sitting out for a couple months. (and purge the gascolator unlike N2543L https://mooneyspace.com/topic/32909-n2953l-off-runway-at-fort-meade-md/?do=findComment&comment=791443)

Agreed - I was surprised that he is reducing power, both RPM and MAP at 500 ft. AGL - well below and only half of pattern altitude. You develop "muscle memory" and that is a bad habit to get into. One day high density altitude, high GW, wind changes, unexpected obstacles or terrain will bite you - you may be too late to put the full power back in when situational awareness kicks your habit out of "muscle memory"...

It appears that you are flying out of KSGR. I think there was only one time in 20 years that Sugar Land had any issue with water in the fuel. And you have it in a hangar. So I would say water is an unlikely culprit. Also some of that dark and red looking debris in your sample cup can also be little bits of tank sealant that has flaked off as noted by @Shadrach and @N201MKTurbo

That is always a good idea. It reduces lead fouling while idling and during taxi. And you will never make the mistake of taking off in an overly lean mixture setting because the engine will stop as soon as you push the throttle firewall forward.

I assume that you read the PIREP from a 5 year owner that was in the link that @ArtVandelay attached. “No appreciable gain in performance (climb or cruise” ”Excessive vibration” And numerous comments that it accelerates case cracking (an existing Lycoming weakness)

Final is out. Lots of water in the tanks. Although they sumped the tanks, they did not drain the gascolator. Water found in lines and 5 oz of water in carburetor bowl. Engine sputter on takeoff and nosedive crash landing into end of runway which collapsed nose gear and bent left wing, prop, engine sudden stop, etc. Great pics of bubble testing in the NTSB "Docket". O rings leaking and doublers around fuel filler openings on wings were all leaking. It has never flown again so probably scrapped. Go to NTSB Carol -N2953L - look at Docket and Final. I have run out of file space on MS From witness: 12:47 PM -2953L begins to throttle forward for takeoff. Approximately 100 feet down runway 33 you could it sounded like the engine was not at full power. As 2953L continued rolling down runway 33, about Y down the runway he is directly center to the building and you can hear what sounds like him throttling down. About 100 ft. passed the midway point 29S3L becomes airborne and is about 20ft off the ground. Engine sounds like its struggling, as the pilot continues to pull upward to continue his take off. 12:48 PM -2953L begins to nosedive and eventually hit the runway at about the displaced threshold of runway 15. Engine still did not sound like it was running at its fullest capacity From FINAL REPORT - Go to NTSB Carol -N2953L - look at Docket and Final. I have run out of file space on MS On April 3, 2021, about 1248 eastern daylight time, a Mooney M20C, N2953L, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near College Park, Maryland. The private pilot was not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. The pilot stated that he intended to perform a recreational flight lasting 2 hours or less and during his preflight inspection he found, “a bunch of water” in the left fuel tank, which was he sampled five times before he got all the water out of it. He then dried his collection tube and sampled it twice more reporting the sample was clear with no water. He did not drain the selector valve sump drain as part of his inspection. The pilot selected the left fuel tank for takeoff and performed an engine run-up before departure, noting the only discrepancy was related to the auxiliary fuel pump, which was left off for takeoff. During takeoff he rotated at 83 mph and when over the runway the engine began to “cough/sputter.” He looked to his left but continued straight ahead. The next thing he remembered was hearing a loud sound from ground contact. The airplane came to rest upright near the departure end of the runway. A pilot-rated witness at the airport reported the engine was “really running rough” when the airplane was still on the ground about ½ way down the runway. He clarified that the engine was rapidly losing power, running rough, and surging to higher rpm. He then noticed the elevator made a nose-up deflection after the abnormal engine sound occurred. A video of the accident flight provided by the airport manager depicted the airplane over the runway in a slight nose up attitude less than a wingspan high. The main landing gear were extended. The airplane continued over the runway gaining altitude slightly. The airplane then began to descend and while at an altitude less than a wingspan above the runway, the left wing dropped. The airplane descended in a nose low attitude with the left wing impacting the runway. The airplane then rotated clockwise coming to rest upright. Examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the left wing. Following recovery of the airplane from the runway, 8 ounces of water were drained from the left fuel tank, and water was detected in the flexible fuel hose from the firewall fitting to the engine-driven fuel pump inlet. Additionally, about 5 ounces of fluid containing equal parts of fuel and water were drained from the carburetor bowl. An on-wing pressure check of the fuel caps performed using a maintenance procedure for later models of the airplane revealed large bubbles around the outer perimeter of the left fuel cap and small bubbles on the aft side of the right fuel cap near the lever; no bubbles were noted around the axle for either fuel cap. The outer perimeter of both fuel tank access panels were tested and no leaks were noted. The fuel caps were then sent to the manufacturer’s facility for testing. Examination of the fuel caps at the manufacturer’s facility revealed both had loose handles and exhibited very little resistance and no audible snap when the handle was closed and locked. Testing of the left fuel cap could not be completed because of the extensive leakage, while the right fuel cap failed the pressure testing. Both caps were completely disassembled revealing both contained unapproved, modified, and/or missing parts. Both fuel caps were reassembled with new hardware as required and passed the acceptance testing which included pressure testing to 25 psig. The fuel caps were returned to the salvage facility to repeat the on wing testing, which revealed leaks from both caps. Each wing plate with attached doubler, adapter, and fuel cap were then sent to the fuel cap manufacturer’s facility for further testing to determine the source of the leakage. Following manufacturing of a fixture, no leakage was noted between either fuel cap and its mating adapter, but leakage was noted between the adapter and the doubler of each assembly at low pressures (.45 psi and .28 psi) which increased in intensity as the pressure increased. Post accident examination of the fuel tanks in accordance with Mooney Service Bulletin M20-230 revealed no anomalies; all drain holes were open. Additionally, the fuel tank drain valves were correct. Thus, there was no capability for trapped water. Airworthiness Directive (AD) 85-24-03, with an effective date of January 6, 1986, applicable to the accident make and model airplane required in part an inspection of the fuel tank bays and ribs, but only a visual inspection of the fuel caps in accordance with Mooney Service Bulletin (SB) M20-229, dated February 12, 1986. Service Bulletin M20-229A specified not only a visual inspection of the fuel caps but also pressure testing of them by applying .5 psi to the fuel vent line and check for leaks around the fuel cap. The mechanic who performed the airplane’s last annual inspection in July 2020 stated that he did comply with AD 85-24-03, and as part of his compliance he applied a window cleaning solution to the top of the wing in the fuel cap area and blew into the vent tube by mouth pressure then looked for bubbles; no bubbles were noted. One co-owner stated that on February 4, 2021, he and the other co-owner replaced the o-rings of each fuel cap as part of preventative maintenance because of water in the fuel tanks. He reported their maintenance actions to the fuel caps seemed to diminish the water infiltration during rain events. An additional measure to reduce water infiltration into the fuel tanks was to install covers over the wings when the airplane was on the ramp, but they did not entirely stop the water infiltration and those covers were off when the pilot arrived at the airplane for his intended flight. The mechanic who serviced the airplane was not contacted by the owners regarding the fuel tank water issues. A review of the NTSB database for accidents and incidents of Mooney airplanes from 1982 to June 15, 2021, revealed a total of 1,351 investigations, which included foreign investigations. From 1982 to January 6, 1986 (effective date of AD 85-24-03), there were a total of 228 investigations, of which cases with the probable cause published, 4 cited water contamination. From January 6, 1986 (effective date of AD 85-24-03) through June 15, 2021, there were 1,123 investigations, of which cases with the probable cause published, 24 cited water contamination.

Correct

How is this different from current terrain awareness in any navigator box? - in the event someone hits something that wasn’t in the database? Or didn’t show up properly. I am fairly certain it has happened. There must be a disclaimer. And think about Autoland. - that takes it up to a higher degree. What if the plane doesn’t land perfectly in every situation.

Isn’t the GTN Calculating winds all the time at the plane’s current position by using airspeed, heading and gps ground track ? Then it also has the forecast wins at lower altitudes.from FIS-B. The Smart Glide logic has everything that it needs to conservatively calculate glide to destination. What am I missing?

Doesn’t the GTNx50Xi get winds from FIS-B constantly?

Right. That seems to be a major benefit. If it’s programmed for worst case prop pitch and it tells you that can make an airport during an emergency, then you can concentrate more on potential emergency on it in plane - smoke or fire in cabin, oil on windscreen, panicked passengers, etc -and you can then focus on runway layout, length, conditions etc. in order to maximize a successful touchdown.

But if it’s constantly doing that calculation behind the scene while you are flying, and at the moment of engine failure, it tells you that you can make a suitable airport, then you should be able to make it. I don’t understand your point. It is not moot.

Which point is moot? The prop could be stationary, it could be windmilling, it could be pulled as far back as possible with least resistance, it could be pushed all the way forward (flatest pitch) with maximum resistance or pitch could be stuck where you had it during cruise which might be somewhere in between. I don't know the inputs for the Smart Glide algorithms but when programming, if you input the "best glide speeds varying by GW" for worst case - a windmilling prop with prop most flat (all the way in) - then it will calculate and guide to (if you have a GFC500) reachable airports under the worst conditions. If your prop is stationary and pulled back with least resistance, then that is all gravy . You will have more altitude (energy) to work with when you are 2 nm. from the airport and have to turn off the autopilot.

Cost and weight that far forward of the datum line. Rocket Engineering installed a Hartzell Full Feathering PHC-C3YF-2UF/ FC7382 Scimitar 3 Blade prop as a part of the M20J Missile conversion to an IO-550A. It has an accumulator on the nose of the prop which adds weight. See 3rd pic of similar PHC-C3YF-2UF Hartzell 3 Blade Propeller W/ Logs (TT: 768.9) (baspartsales.com) And the cost is incredible. Ottosen Propeller has one for sale for $31,200. I don't think that includes the 2 Piece Spinner which is about $4,300 at Ottesen. C3F00250 - HARTZELL PROPELLER - PHC-C3YF-2UF/FC7382/SM6 - Ottosen Propeller D-3273-2P - HARTZELL SPINNER ASSEMBLY (POLISHED) - Ottosen Propeller

Good point. I corrected my post and changed that VFR statement to "Transponder". My point is that it is done by avionics shop usually separate from the A&E Annual. Even if the Annual shop says "you need a transponder Certification" the owner may forget to follow up. Or the A&E shop may not highlight it. A VFR only pilot usually is not going to spend as much money and time with his avionics shop - probably only when something critical fails - and therefore there may not be as many checks and balances reminding the owner as much about the transponder certification expiration.

I wonder what percentage of IFR flights by GA aircraft are made every day with expired Pitot/Static Transponder ADSB certification - either knowingly or unknowingly because they haven't reviewed their maintenance logs? I bet it is more than 5% - maybe my estimate is low. And I wonder what percentage of VFR only pilots that own planes never think much about the 24 month transponder certification. I would be willing to bet that lots of those planes go 3-4-5 years without a Pitot/Static certification. And I bet that they fly into Class B and Class C airspace with high frequency. Like much of aviation these endless rules only serve to keep the honest (and the knowing), honest.

When you say "it won't help much if the engine failure involves oil splattering the windscreen." do you mean it doesn't help much in the event that you only have a GTN750xi or GTN650xi without a GFC500 autopilot? If you have a GFC500 it will fly you to within 2 miles of the airport. At that point you disengage the GFC500 and you can fly the magenta line on moving map and maintain control with the AH augmented by vision out the side windows. You may also have Synthetic Vision on your pad. When it comes to landing and touchdown you just have to do it like Lindbergh.... And if you don't have a GFC500, isn't an obstructed windscreen similar to flying IFR? Assuming you are IFR rated you can still fly by the instruments plus you have visibility out the side windows. Still seems like it would help a lot. What am I missing?

The Missile conversion also has a full feathering prop.

You will find that your urologist advises the same procedure - catch your sample “midstream”….also known as the “clean catch method”. Age has its benefits…

The OP bought the GTN directly from "Joe Blow" "Purchased GTN650xi directly from the manager" The OP did not buy the GTN directly from Garmin The OP did not buy the GTN from an Authorized Garmin Dealer There is no sales receipt from Garmin or the Authorized Garmin Dealer If there is any sales record it will be: A $10K check to the personal account of "Joe Blow" A $10K Venmo or Zelle transfer to the personal account of "Joe Blow" Alternatively it may have just been a bag of cash..... And no one has mentioned "Where is and who paid the sales tax due to the State and City"? AOPA notes that there is a 4% State and 1-4% Local tax on the sale of Aviation Products in Georgia The State of Georgia and Local City have been defrauded out of $500-800 The more this “Discount Scheme” is discussed the worse it looks for the OP. Unwitting or intentional it puts the OP in a bad light and raises the question that the OP could be part of the scheme - taking it to court could bring all this to the attention of a Judge raising the question of not only highlighting the crime of the Service Manager but also the intention and possible participation of the OP. - and could result in 2 charges Georgia Code §16-8-7(a) - Theft by receiving stolen property Failure to pay taxes

I contemplated this about 23 years ago on my J. The engine runs higher compression pistons. - 10 to 1. Maybe with the new GAMI G100UL it will be safe to boost compression on all engines but at the time I was concerned about detonation on 100LL.. As a result I went with the Missile 300 HP conversion. From the sales brochure: The H.P. increase is accomplished by the installation of Lycoming built pistons for the 360 engine that raise the compression ratio from the stock 8.7:1, to 10.0:1.

There is no appearance of double dipping by the shop. There is no indication that the shop failed to tell the insurance company that the OP paid the MSC in full. Why even intimate that “. If the shop took money from the insurance for that claim and has NOW taken money from the OP, as well, it would seem the shop is flirting with insurance fraud: ”