Possible partnership offered in a 66 M20C

[RobertGary1]

4 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

You gotta read the whole thread.  The $7000 is the cost of the annual, not spent on the engine. And while that's a lot for an M20C, it's understandable for a plane with a lot of deferred maintenance.

No. He said. "

The reason I put $7,000 into a motor that has 2600 hrs is because it starts right up

"

[gsxrpilot]

@RobertGary1

Post #7 - flyhigh603 - "and about $7,000 into the motor she's been a money eater first annual."

Post #16 - gsxrpilot - "I'm gonna guess the $7K was for the annual, not engine work."

Post #17 - flyhigh603 - "Yes $7,000 was for annual including fixing a lot of minor discrepancies."

Post #18 - flyhigh603 - "The reason I put $7,000 into a motor that has 2600 hrs is because it starts right up"

Obviously the "motor" in Post #7 and #18 is referring to the whole airplane. He's stated several times that there is nothing wrong with the engine. And that's why he was willing to put $7000 into the annual of a plane with a 2600 hour engine.

His writing isn't all that clear, and he doesn't have a grasp of the correct terminology. After all, Mooneys don't have motors unless they're electric gear models and then its a fairly small component that moves the landing gear. But as I said, based on the entire conversation here, it's more believable that the OP's terminology is wrong rather than an A&P suckered him into spending $7000 on a 2600 hour, perfectly running engine, but not overhauling it.

A $7000 annual isn't completely out of line and that's what he did. $7000 to repair a 2600 hour engine that is already running perfectly, is lunacy. But that's not what was done here.

[MyNameIsNobody]

I asked for details on the "What" of the annual and there has been crickets...