1980Mooney

I see that you have been flying out of Hooks, Houston Southwest and Pearland. I am based at Sugar Land. First, transitioning to a Mooney as a low time pilot is not difficult with a good instructor. I bought a J model at the same time I got my PPL. I immediately went from a C-172 to the Mooney. Landing is all about managing and bleeding off the energy of the Mooney as it translates into rate of descent and speed. And I used it for my IFR training and at the same time underwent a 300 hp Missile conversion by Rocket Engineering. Second, I am surprised that no-one has asked you what you think your mission is - fly fast? fly high? how many seats do you need to fill? is high density altitude capability in the middle of a hot summer day a must have? do you have an operating cost max range? The concerns that you have mentioned are insurance availability (at any cost?), $200K limit all in cost with repairs, quality of pre-buy and a good IFR platform. Are you going to fly mainly out of and around Texas? - Gulf coast? Or are you planning to fly in the Rockies a lot? Are you planning to typically fly alone or with passengers? max number? What distance do you think the typical trip will be? if you are flying typically below 10,000 ft. then a K isn't really much faster than a J. Granted you get a better rate of climb as the altitude increases. And the turbocharged engine of the K can better handle high density altitude takeoffs but the wing and propeller still suffer the same as the J. But where we are on the Texas Gulf Coast, that high density altitude capability is of no real benefit. The K really shines at high altitude - mask wearing oxygen altitude. But funny thing if you look at a lot of flight history for unpressurized planes with high altitude capability, flights are predominantly below 12,000 ft. Why? - because many passengers don't like the hassle of oxygen and few like wearing full masks. Some are ok - it is just a choice. And if you don't carry passengers then it is no problem. The tradeoff for the benefits of the K are complexity and cost. Also fuel burn and useful load. A turbocharged 6 cylinder Continental will require more engine management and is less forgiving than the 4 cylinder Lycoming that you are used to. When you are learning IFR and building experience you may become consumed with basics and may not be able to pay as much attention to the engine settings as some. Yes it is safe but you may just run it hotter - you will be more likely to cook some cylinders or the turbo over its life. Annuals for a turbocharged 6 will be more than a 4 cylinder Lycoming. Overhauls will be eyewatering. More parts, more complexity, more tightly packed and more shop hours at about $100/hour anywhere around Houston. Some here will say you can dial back the boost and the engine to manage fuel burn - that means fly it like a J. The K that you are looking at has a Useful Load of 797 lbs. and 106 gal fuel tanks. Let's say you are planning a trip with IFR reserves and you plan for 80 gallons. Let's say you have 10 lbs of junk on your hat rack, a 15 lb flight bag, 30 lbs of luggage/bags and 5 lbs of water/drinks/food. That leaves 257 lbs. total for you and passengers. No passengers then no problem. Maybe you are skinny with a very skinny passenger. Third - have you looked at the logs posted on the for sale website? The logs posted don't appear to be complete but what is there shows that this plane has experienced a lot of corrosion repairs. It looks like it led a hard life early on in Canada. 1998 NTSB reported " DURING ANNUAL INSPECTION NOTED AILERON ROD RUSTY. UPON FURTHER INSPECTION, FOUND ROD RUSTED TO THE EXTENT IT COULD BE SEPARATED IN TWO WITH LIGHT HAND PRESSURE. SUBMITTER RECOMMENDED INSPECTING AT EACH ANNUAL." If you look at the maintenance logs all they say is both aileron tubes were replaced. There are numerous log entries where they have treated corrosion over time. Lots of re-riveting Corrosion is bad news and hard to stop. If it is one place then the entire plane has been subject to it. You will definitely need a very thorough pre-buy opening all the panels and pulling rear seats to look at the spar. Also the interior panels to look at the steel frame for corrosion. Also the "New" engine is from 2008 - a Mod Works 262 conversion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heYy6dI4TOk The price has been dropping https://plane-sale.com/en/search_aircraft/single_engine/mooney/231_(m20k)_w__252_fwf_engine_upgrade!/73030 The avionics were upgraded because much was INOP. Looks like they took the radar out - and the UL is still only 797 lbs. From just before the upgrade in the past year. You can see the old panel. https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/151753529/n261cb-1980-mooney-m20k-231 This could be the plane you want and all repaired properly but it needs to be priced right. get more complexity and cost with some other tradeoffs.

How do you conclude "The center section of the spar was most certainly compromised by the impact"? If you believe that the wings folded up vertically outboard of the main landing gear before impact then they were no longer placing any load (or minimal at best) upon the center section of the main spar at the moment of impact. With no loading or levering of the wings transmitted to and upon the center of the spar at the moment of impact, it does not seem reasonable that the impact alone would cause "The main and rear wings spars were highly fragmented in the center of the airplane between the separated left and right wings."

That is one lucky high school!

I believe that Mooney switched from zinc chromate to epoxy on the steel bits/frame starting in 1986. Raymond J highlights the connections of dissimilar steel to aluminum. In BeechTalk Norman Earle highlights that he has seen intergranular corrosion on the wing spar caps and doublers when parting out Mooneys. He said he suspects poor heat treatment of the alloys rendering it a quality control issue that does not necessarily effect the entire fleet. Intergranular Corrosion in aluminum from Materials Science and Materials Engineering 2020: "Intergranular corrosion is a special form of microstructurally influenced corrosion, whereby the grain boundary ‘region’ of the alloy is electrochemically different to the bulk or adjacent alloy microstructure. Intergranular corrosion can occur in a variety of aluminum alloys, but is especially prevalent in the heat treatable 2xxx, 6xxx, and 7xxx series. Alloys of the 5xxx series with more than 3.5 wt% magnesium can be sensitized to intergranular corrosion by thermal exposure. 3xxx alloys containing manganese will occasionally exhibit intergranular sensitivity (Colvin, 2001). In aluminum-copper alloys, precipitation of Al2Cu particles at the grain boundaries leaves the adjacent solid solution anodic and more prone to corrosion. With aluminum-magnesium alloys the opposite situation occurs, since the precipitated phase Mg2Al3 is less noble than the solid solution. Serious intergranular attack in these alloys may however be avoided, provided that correct manufacturing and heat treatment conditions are observed. " I can find nothing in the manuals about the alloys used in the many many pieces (as highlighted above by M20Doc) that make up the so called "one piece" wing spar. Does anyone know? If it turns out that corrosion did play a role in the wing spar failure, even secondary to an instrument upset/pilot spatial disorientation, this will be bad news for both owners and Mooney. Could be a Spar AD coming. If so and caused by years of spilled drinks and water leaks then there will be many Mooneys retired. If caused by poor material specs or poor QA/QC during manufacture then many Mooneys retired and many lawsuits. I don't think insurance covers any of this.....

"... it's very likely you'll fly more than 80 hours per year"....or not. Every situation is different. You mention "bride" so you are embarking on a new family life of some kind. Some spouses are crazy about it, some support it, some tolerate and some hate it. Sometimes the situation is supportive until first bad flight in terrible IFR. And family and job demands sometimes get in the way of the best flying intentions as time goes by. I don't want to get into Canadian Matrimonial law and Matrimonial property rights, but philosophically your new bride will be owning half and half of that $20-30K you spend every year on the plane is hers. This is no longer an individual decision - it is a shared decision. She may or may not feel that the plane is delivering that level of value equal to the spending. You are right to include the opportunity cost or cost of capital. It is like the cost of interest if you borrowed money to finance the plane entirely. And that is because, after spending available funds on the plane, you may need to borrow more elsewhere to fund the acquisition of the home you and your bride want or maybe kids educations, etc (borrow an amount equal to the cash funds that you spent on the plane). Some here in other topics/threads joke about keeping the plane and getting a divorce after unanticipated incidents and high costs.. Just remember that the pilots commenting here have either supportive/tolerant families or no families that influence their individual thinking and decision-making. Those pilots/owners whose families did not support the spending, in general, are not commenting because they sold their planes and have no reason to spend time on this site. I suggest that you continue to rent for the time being. See how your new bride takes to flying via General Aviation. If she remains excited then maybe it makes sense to think about buying.

I recommend trying to preserve/repair the existing Royalite headliner. The holes are drilled in the right places - it is trimmed to fit. All the duct fittings are attached. Look at this past topic for pictures of a J model of that basic vintage. It is the same as the K. Replacing the plastic panels or headliner with new plastic increases your work by about a factor of 10 in my experience. The parts manual is not a big help because it does not show any screws or fastening points.

Yes - according to the FAA Accident/Incident report N4328H had the magneto refurbished during Annual 5 weeks before it fell off. Maybe that is why it was economic to salvage a 1978 J model by helicopter - the shop was paying for the entire debacle. It looks like the top cowling is off and they lifted the front by the hook on the engine thereby avoiding crushing the aluminum fuselage in front of the wing root like the other lifts. Flightaware shows that it is still flying.

That looks like a quick drain fitting. I have one just like that Rocket Engineering added to the IO550 in my Missile conversion. You should have another aluminum tube with a matching female fitting and a hose attached.

Not knowing more about your plane it sounds like it is a great starter plane for someone on a budget and less of a project plane. Having no corrosion is a huge plus - that is the sort of thing that is usually not economically repairable. As you say "pretty good paint and glass" is perfect for a first time buyer. So what if the interior is dated but good shape - most people buy Mooney's to fly, not to just look at. You haven't said anything about the condition of the tanks (tight or leaking) so I will assume they are good. That model has manual gear I believe - so a buyer gets the speed benefit of gear retraction with simplicity. It sounds like you have the landing gear suspension, fuel and ignition system operating properly and brittle/deteriorating parts replaced. It has a fuel flow computer which is a nice option. And it is running. It is airworthy. It is flyable. So now you are concerned about the long term viability of the engine and the dated panel (no ADSB-out I assume) and inop auto pilot. Let the prospective Buyer deal with that. Once it is airworthy don't spend any more on it. You won't get additional spending back. With all the options in avionics now an entry buyer on a budget may like the "blank canvas". And if your conscience is bothering you regarding watching a buyer fly off with that engine, consider offering to refund in the prebuy (if they purchase) the cost of borescoping the cylinders and valves and cost to pull a jug to look at the cam. That way, as you say, nothing is hidden and all parties know. And who knows - although a lot of people get their panties in a wad hearing the age and hours, there may be some life left in that rugged Lycoming. I have no idea on valve but the pool of low cost entry level certified planes with that combination of performance and payload is shrinking. There seems to be a lot of market interest.

Except that is not what the NTSB has said. They said "portions of the left elevator and left horizontal stabilizer" were found 2 blocks away. They did not clarify what "portion" of the left stabilizer or left elevator departed...a "portion" implies part but not all. That also implies that the right stabilizer was attached and intact with elevator. When pressed the NTSB spokesman said that an airplane is not controllable without an elevator and stabilizer. He was clear that he was not going to comment on the specific causes (the "why" as he put it) of the N9156Z crash. I took his comment as a generic response to the loss of an entire horizontal stabilizer and not the consequences of losing "a portion" of the left stabilizer in this particular case. I think we have to be careful and stay factual. Others are now commenting on the loss and consequences of the entire horizontal stabilizer when that is not the case in this accident. Additionally if you think about it, the loss of part or all of the left horizontal stabilizer will create a clockwise roll force . The horizontal stabilizer is an inverted wing that pulls down slightly. If left and right horizontal stabilizers were there there the left and right side pull down with equal force imparting a stress on the airframe - at the point of attachment on the airframe the right h-stab transmits that force as a lever and creates a clockwise force. and the left creates counterclockwise . The twisting forces cancel and the result is just a downward force. The loss of part or all of the left stab only will unbalance the forces creating a roll. The loss of the entire horizontal stabilizer results in loss of pitch control. Reacting to an uncommanded or uncontrollable roll is different than reacting to the loss of pitch control.

I have been in recent contact with Rocket multiple times. They have been in possession of my engine mount 6 weeks as of today and have been repairing some corrosion. I pray that they ship it tomorrow. For quickest response call 509-535-6445 or 509-534-2025 between 8 AM -12 PM Spokane time (PDT) The recording says they are only there Monday - Thursday but they are frequently there on Fridays. I have left messages and sometimes they call back but don't expect a quick response. I generally keep calling until Darwin Conrad (owner) or someone named Doug answers. I have not had any luck getting them to answer the phone after 12 PM (PDT). I have previously emailed them at Rocket@icehouse.net but quite frankly never got a response. There may be some history between Rocket and your MSC. I suggest that you call Rocket yourself. They continue to support the Missile and Rocket conversions but things move at a slower pace now days.

Perhaps a typo?

Tight is right. When you say "I absolutely have to be out there on the 7th" do you mean September 7? If so it sounds like you will be flying over the holiday weekend. And so when you say "the plane goes into annual about a week and a half before I would need to leave" do you mean drop it off on August 25 and hope to have it done, ready to pick up on Friday September 3? There have been comments online in MS and I have experienced firsthand here in this part of Texas that there is a tendency for A&Ps "drop off" dates to slip because they are behind on completing existing planes. And many A&P's, on a first annual for a new customer, tend to find numerous examples/problems from poor prior work in addition to current squawks especially in a 40+ year old plane. Just hope that none or your A&P staff are taking that last vacation before school starts. Also hope that they don't find anything that needs to be sent out for IRAN or OH. It will never come back in time for reassembly. Everyone will be rushed. And echoing the last comment to "do not push yourself because of your time constraints." any slip in the Annual schedule will make you feel rushed. It's not a good situation in your first trans- continental experience. Given flexibility of time, this is a great journey. Also - have you given any thought about how your might deal with a breakdown along the way? You will not find a mechanic on the Labor Day weekend even for something minor. I would seriously have your "plan B" commercial tickets reserved and handy.

You are touching on "marginal value" pricing vs. "marginal cost" pricing. Yes, the critical parts keep the plane flying as you highlight, ....so if your plane is worth $100,000 airworthy and only worth $30,000 scrap value then we should be prepared to pay something approaching $70,000 for any major part that is critical to keep it airworthy...right? That makes this $1,900 single part for only one seat look like a bargain. However, Mooney made thousands of planes with the same basic seat design so you would think that they have the drawings, dies and the welding jigs. And one would think that the marginal cost for material, set up and labor should result in a reasonable price around $500 even with 100% mark-up or so for lawyers. If on the other hand Mooney tossed all the jigs and dies and manufacturing drawings for the legacy fleet, as some have claimed in past posts, then "reinventing the wheel" on these parts is expensive and takes time (if Mooney wants to supply at all). It is no wonder that many MSer's, in order to keep their plane affordable, are motivated to think long and hard about parts as pieces metal that "someone" can build "in their garage" or else scavenge from dead Mooney's. Another active MSer summed it up well last year - "if original parts are available, my AI has insisted that they be used...when original parts are not available, my AI has allowed me to make or modify my own parts (as it makes sense). Factory parts cost about 4 to 5 times what they are worth."

I am still stunned that Mooney wants $1,900 for that small rather simple piece of steel and yet apparently there isn’t enough profit in it to motivate them to actually manufacture any. But I shouldn’t be - that’s why they are not making planes.

Doesn't a Progressive Inspection, over the course of a year, entail exactly the same level of inspection, the same depth, cover the same completeness and thoroughness as an Annual Inspection? Isn't the Progressive just breaking the process up into several segments of shorter duration rather than occurring all at one time? Therefore, everything "comprising" the airplane still needs and gets an "annual" inspection.

I am puzzled by your comment that "The Mooney doesn't need annuals anymore". Can you elaborate? I thought that every plane has to undergo an annual inspection in order to be legally airworthy. Maybe I am missing your point.

Well with Mooney that is likely true. And if you look at the FAA Prelim Incident and Accident Report (ASIAS) Mooney's are grinding into the ground regularly every week. There are 4 on the 10 day list - 2 gear up/collapse and 2 off field crash landings. 2 weeks ago there were 5 on the list. And then there are the hangar queens just rotting away. Most will be scrapped or just sit around and never fly again like the subject of this thread. The pool is shrinking. And if you want to qualify it as "nobody builds new affordable GA airplanes" I think that is true. The 70's are long gone. The FAA, in their latest Aerospace Forecast 2020-2040, predicts that the US fleet of fixed wing piston general aviation planes will drop from about 140,000 in 2020 to about 115,000 in 2040. "The largest segment of the fleet, fixed wing piston aircraft, is predicted to shrink over the forecast period (2020-2040) by 26,365 aircraft (an average annual rate of -1.0 percent).

I assume that your lawyer does not work for free so I assume you are out even more money plus time in court. Sounds like "lose-lose" or "only the attorney wins"

Jetman - you show up on Mooneyspace as a "Newbie". Are you new to flying, new to owning and maintaining any type/brand of plane or new to flying/owning/maintaining a Mooney? How long ago did your partner acquire the Ovation and has it gone through an Annual since he bought it? How do you know the condition?.. the "Garmin that needs $5,500"? Is he showing you the Pre-Purchase Inspection (PPI) that he paid for prior to acquiring the plane? Or is he simply informing you? The first Annual after purchase the PPI can be 2 different things. The first Annual after purchase can be shockingly high. First the Annual will be more thorough - there will likely be more disassembly and inspection than the PPI that he paid for. You will do oil analysis. Your A&P will likely point out things that, although "airworthy" should be replaced (or will not likely last until next Annual) while you have the plane apart (belly off, inspection ports open, etc.). Your A&P with the plane apart will likely spend more time looking for corrosion or other points of wear or stress. It is 22 years old and 1,450 hours - has the engine and prop been overhauled? You could easily spend $40,000 on an engine overhaul. Prop overhaul can cost you $3,000 - 4,000 Seemingly small things like the "starter adapter" on the big Continental engine can cost you $2,000 - 3,000 for repair and overhaul. That's about 66 hours per year on average - if you look at the maintenance logs, has it been flown regularly each of the last few years? (i.e. - 60 - 100 hours per year?) Or has it been more idle the last 2 years? - A regularly flown plane will be in better condition usually. The reason I ask is although tires, batteries and the landing gear disks may have passed the PPI ("it is ready to go"), these things will fail with age - and idleness seems to exacerbate. Look at the logs and see when they were replaced. You will spend $1000's. Good tires can cost over $200 each and good Michelin tubes can cost $100 each. I assume you know that regular "Massive electrode" spark plugs cost about $30 each times 12 plugs and "fine wire" plugs cost about $110 each times 12 plugs. Have the fuel tanks been resealed? - any sign or leakage? You can spend many $1,000's chasing fuel tank leaks (as much as $11,000 for complete reseal) . One Bravo owner commented here " 1999 was not a great year for tank sealing at Mooney, I hear." Search "mooney fuel tank leaks" If you trust your partner and the PPI that he paid for, you can use it Otherwise as said above pay for your own PPI I would budget $6,000 ($3,000 for you) for the first Annual in addition to your Avionics issues. All the seemingly little stuff adds up fast. As said above "Must have money to support a big flying habit." Warning: This advice is worth what you paid for it....

I would guess that most Mooney admirers/owners are programmed to believe that faster is always better...

This is what Garmin, Aspen, Avidyne and BendixKing and others have us doing…

One price that is not dropping is the price of data bases and updates. And those that said the price of SV hardware is dropping are probably right. It's like the market evolution of TVs. Think of the current version of SV as "SD"...Standard Definition. I bet someone will soon be introducing a version of enhanced SV...think of it as "HD". And it will require you to buy a larger more costly data base to drive it. And after you spend your wad on "HD" then there will be 2K and 4K and 8K and ..... each enhancement like a siren song inviting you to spend a pile on. And each one requiring more and more data that you must purchase. And as each enhanced version/new design is introduced the price of current model equipment drops. This isn't like the old days where you could spend a lot on a King Silver Crown stack and expect that it would last the life of the plane without further investment (only repair).