Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


M20F last won the day on March 1 2016

M20F had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

766 Excellent

About M20F

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
  • Reg #
  • Model
    1967 M20F-TN

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 80hrs to pull and replace the engine seems exceptionally high to me.
  2. I got an icing report at 10,000 today....
  3. You will hear the prop cycle, see oil drop, etc. so even if the tech is bad it is obvious if it is working or not (to trouble shoot, you still need to fix the broken parts). I don’t understand why when it isn’t functioning right you would fly it. I would look for differing CFI’s as well, not clear why they would depart with something amiss but not good judgment on their part. It is a run up item for a reason. I would have it looked at by an A&P/I prior to flying it again.
  4. Keep in mind the engine is 1950. If at some point you elect to do a major overhaul you will need to redo the cylinders again. I did my bottom with 2 new cylinders (one about 100hrs and one about 25). I have a repair return which is every bit as good as a major in purpose. Because I didn’t feel like overhauling 2 new cylinders though it cannot be considered a major. This is fine for my purposes but if you want the words major overhaul in your book keep in mind you might be doing them again sooner than you think.
  5. If you get a new case there is a hole in some for use with a fixed pitch prop. If you do not plug hole you end up with a fixed pitch prop and get to take everything apart again.
  6. So no equipment or anything just a choice? Interesting topic that I never really thought about so curious more than anything as how it is determined who gets a TAF and who doesn’t.
  7. Fraud as you know is very hard to prove. The buyer also selected a party of his choosing to carry out an inspection. I really don’t see how you get anywhere in court on the basis of proving fraud by the seller. They didn’t represent the plane as anything other then for sale and with a fresh annual. If the seller signed the annual him/herself then maybe. Perhaps a case against the AI and certainly the potential threat of certificate action might get some results with him/her. In the end I feel for the buyer but it is more than likely just be an expensive lesson
  8. Thanks not sure what happened there but going to guess some sort of user error.
  9. Clearly some sort of Internet snafu. I deleted them which I would have done sooner with a PM or you could have PM’ed the moderator.
  10. He is using a two way GS calculation “I mean I'll fly one direction, then 180 back and use the average, which works out to usually 138 kts at 75% power“ to determine TAS which Erik or somebody can explain the % of error versus a three way but you can derive TAS through ground speed.
  11. The bill of sale is going to protect the seller in all likelihood. Everyone I have ever seen will have a clause covering this. You then have to prove what would have been reasonable to find on a PPI. The prop governor hose looked good in my cursory inspection. Given it was not an annual inspection, I did not review to the level required of one to note it was an automotive part. This is why several people (and I agree and post this all the time). You always do a pre-purchase annual. You also generally ask the seller to cover airworthy items. AOPA has a sample of this language on their website. Now you know exactly what the reasonable finds were because they are clearly defined under law no less. You also have a signature by a certified AI warranting the inspection. Now you have teeth. So I see little recourse here for the buyers poor decision making. I hope others learn from it, people purchase an asset for $10’s if not $100’s of thousand dollars and can’t be bothered to sink a couple grand into an annual Caveat emptor.