LANCECASPER

There is none.

A few times I've heard of Lycoming accepting a core and giving full credit when it didn't exactly fall under what's usually acceptable. That may make the price of an exchange a lot closer to what you'd pay when you factor in a new crank and camshaft and case or whatever else they find. Of course Lycoming's timetable may be too far out for you.

I would ask them when it was deemed unairworthy - 43 years ago when they tested the hardness? Obviously it passed the test or they wouldn't have installed it in your engine. Or is it now unairworthy since it has seen the light of day? The engine was still airworthy when it was removed, right? Would another overhaul shop see it the same way?

One thing I’ve learned over the years is that if I pay someone for their time to do a pre-buy I’m going to direct what they do, and I want to be there for it. A lot of A & Ps don’t fly so they aren’t up on avionics, so I’m the one that is checking all of that out while they are doing something else. But I agreed ahead of time on the time I want them to spend and I give them a list of what I want looked over, with the deal-breakers at the beginning so if we find something early we can stop and they’ll get paid for their time plus the minimum time we agreed on so they feel it was worth it and I do too. Corrosion being at the top of the list of potential deal breakers. I never blame them for something they didn’t find since I’m the one that made the list and I always ask them, “What else should we be looking for?” so that they can give me input, which has been helpful.

+1 for going with GLAP and sending them the old lens and having them cut it to size. Every time I've done it on a Mooney, it has made for a great fit every time.

Robert at Aero Accessories in Van Nuys has done mags and alternators for me. His shop is highly recommended and fair in their pricing and the turn-around has always been excellent.

Sounds like a leak. If you're planning long term on resurrecting the PC system and having vacuum instruments it's probably a good idea just to plan on replacing all of the vacuum lines if they are 60 years old. But if you're not planning on using the PC system, it might be a good time to think about what autopilot you will have in the future and just putting the labor of replacing vacuum lines toward replacing the AI and DG with electric options (G5? AV-30?). This would eliminate the need for the vacuum system. Too late now, but many times avionics are not looked at closely enough in a pre-buy. That would have been the best time to have catch this, since the seller may have been responsible to get this figured out.

AutoZone has had that loan-a-tool program for years since it sells a lot of parts for them. It makes good business sense. Completely different than what the person was suggesting be done at Walmart, where they don’t have that program that helps them sell auto parts.

I remember . . . . . that's the one I asked if I could buy when you were ready to sell it for my nephew to train in.

Part 91 allows the nap on shag carpet to be used as a back up attitude indicator if the primary fails . . . lol

Thankfully he's not a member of the Mooney community - just a low life thief that enjoys stirring up controversy on on-line forums. Not that AI is always correct on technical items, but on something as simple as this it's usually right on. When googling "Is buying an item, using it and returning it ethical?" - here's what AI says: Buying an item, using it, and returning it is generally considered unethical if done with the intent to use it once (like "wardrobing" or using a ladder for a single task) because it's essentially free rental and can be costly for retailers, but it's acceptable if the item is genuinely defective, doesn't fit, or wasn't as described, as that's within reasonable return policy use. The ethics hinge on your intention and the retailer's policy, but abusing liberal policies to treat items as single-use rentals is seen as exploiting the system, which can raise prices for others and harm businesses. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] When it's generally unethical (Intentional abuse) "Wardrobing": Buying an outfit for a single event, wearing it, and returning it. Single-use tasks: Purchasing a tool, using it once (e.g., a ladder), and returning it. Fraudulent returns: Returning items damaged by the consumer or returning used items as new. [4, 5, 6, 7] When it's generally acceptable (Legitimate reasons) Defective products: The item breaks or doesn't work as expected. Poor fit/appearance: Clothes don't fit or look right after trying them on at home (not wearing out). Changed mind: You genuinely decide you don't want or need it within the return period. Explicit business models: If a store promotes "try-it-at-home" models where returns are expected. [1, 3, 4, 7, 8] Why it's a moral issue It's like theft: Intentionally using an item and returning it for a full refund is seen as borrowing for free, which is a form of theft. Cost to businesses: Retailers incur costs from processing returns, which can lead to higher prices for all customers. Abuse of policy: Liberal return policies exist for customer satisfaction, but widespread abuse undermines the system for everyone. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8] AI responses may include mistakes. [1] https://www.quora.com/Is-it-ethical-to-return-something-to-a-store-after-you-have-used-it [2] https://www.facebook.com/LasVegasParentZone/posts/whats-your-thoughts-with-people-using-return-policies-for-when-items-are-just-us/1265986425159594/ [3] https://www.quora.com/Is-buying-something-using-it-for-a-few-days-and-then-returning-it-immoral [4] https://www.quora.com/Is-it-unethical-to-buy-clothing-electronics-with-the-intention-of-returning-it-later-1 [5] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0969698921003453 [6] https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/family-finance/articles/what-is-viral-wardrobing-and-why-shouldnt-you-practice-it [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1hv7ek/reddit_is_it_morally_okay_to_buy_something_from/ [8] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/magazine/return-policy-ethics.html - - - - - Since the person we’re referring to is amoral - he won't have the moral capacity to understand this and will continue to dispute it.

A person who buys tools to use and return is a thief. Whether someone respects the retailer or not is just a flimsy justification for theft. My older brother worked in loss prevention at Walmart for a few years, and back then on items less than $100, by the time they added in their administrative costs of paying employees to process the return, it was less expensive if someone stole the item from the store than bought it and returned it. Over 90% of returned items never hit the shelves again, they were wholesaled out or thrown away. There are valid reasons for returning something. Using the item for its intended purpose and then returning it is not one of them. The only reason Walmart tolerated it was that people came back every week to buy something else. Plus they just raised the prices for the honest people to cover all of the dishonest people. But to take pride and brag about buying something, using it and then returning it explains everything about character, or complete lack thereof. That isn't who we are on this forum.

He broke the hinge or the spring?

@donkaye, MCFI weighed in on this subject a few years back: https://www.mooneyevents.com/spins.html