Recommended Posts

So lets pose a hypothetical here.  Let's say you fly 200 hrs a year and trade in for a zero time factory overhaul every 10 years for 40 years.  My understanding is that they use some parts from cores they recieve, but you get a new log book every time as it's a Zero time engine.  Lets assume there are many people that do thr same as you.  You could potentially have a component in your engine that is 40 years old, but there is no way to know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

Engine manufacturers never provide a parts list or build record for the engine.  The log book is a joke with no info other than a blanket statement that the engine was overhauled or rebuilt on whatever day. No previous history is present.

Clarence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's my point.  The factory is crazy to put calender year limits on the core exchange.  You could have someone who bought a brand new mooney in 1977 and flew 1 hour every weekend around Arizona.  You can take another person who installed a factory overhaul in 1987, flew 2000 hours in the first ten years, then let it sit outside in Miami, FL tell now.  Which engine would you rather have as a donor for your factory overhaul?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They scrap all the top ends and they only reuse the case and everything in it. But roller tappet motors have a different case so they scrap those too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm just really obtuse when it comes to engine overhauls and TBO times. Clearly the time is recommended. An engine is a mechanical object made of parts, parts fail. If you take care of your motor then you will reap the benefits, but if you want to run on low oil, old oil, shock cool, extreme climbs, then obviously you'll lose benefits over time. 

Everyone gets wraps around the axle about 2000 hours or frankenstein engines. Factory O/H engines are merely parts that meet the design spec, meaning they didn't fail and have the same tolerances as new. So, if you think about it, you buy a REMAN engine, that had a crank from another engine with 3000 hours, that crank didn't shave metal, didn't expose fatigue during NDI, and meets all the specs of a NEW one then these parts are designed to continue until abused. 

 

I don't see people freaking out about their cars seeing 100k miles on it. I am also willing to bet most people don't change their timing at 75k (some models). Or water pump at 120k, wheel bearings, ball joints until they FAIL!

 

You can argue, "well you cant pull over on a cloud". You are correct, but you as an owner SHOULD be doing oil analysis and monitoring the health of your engine and conducting preventative maintenance as required. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 7:36 AM, aaronk25 said:

 

 

 

 


Yep running great. 1qt In first 15 hours after oil change and another in about 10 hours. Strongly recommend as it's a father son shop and all Sam Jewell does is pretty much an assembly line of engines non stop. It will be a shame when he retires in a couple years. There price list is on their website. What I like the best is they don't push you to replace good working parts. His engine overhauls make the full next TBO time as long as their flown regularly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Has he said he was going to retire soon? I have an engine pushing 2000 hours, O-360 on my C model. He seems to be the one I want to do the overhaul, but shes still running good. How much time do you think I have? May just fly it until he's close to retirement and get him to do the job. Also, may I ask what your price was out the door? Was it close to the price list?

 

THANKS!
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Supercop0184 said:

Has he said he was going to retire soon? I have an engine pushing 2000 hours, O-360 on my C model. He seems to be the one I want to do the overhaul, but shes still running good. How much time do you think I have? May just fly it until he's close to retirement and get him to do the job. Also, may I ask what your price was out the door? Was it close to the price list?

 

THANKS!
 

When I was at KTKX on Tuesday to leave 87Q for an annual, Sam was wrenching on a rebuild in their engine room.  David also mentioned that they've bought a 231, which will be for sale after they finish that rebuild.  I have no idea how long Sam will be at it, but might (or might not) ask when I'm up there after my annual is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, neilpilot said:

When I was at KTKX on Tuesday to leave 87Q for an annual, Sam was wrenching on a rebuild in their engine room.  David also mentioned that they've bought a 231, which will be for sale after they finish that rebuild.  I have no idea how long Sam will be at it, but might (or might not) ask when I'm up there after my annual is done.

Well if you find out would you please let me know - might be easy for you while in conversation. He might think I am a wack job if I call out of the blue and say " HEY MAN ive heard so many great things about you - when are you retiring?" HAHAHA! :lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like I'm joining this conversation a little late. What are y'all paying to replace 1-2 cylinders on the o-360? And then how desirable is a M20C with and engine at 2000 hrs? I might have a local opportunity for one but I'm trying to be realistic about the purchase price of the plane with a worn out engine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tx_Aggie said:

What are y'all paying to replace 1-2 cylinders on the o-360?

After my bent rod on exhaust #2, Gibson's found a crack in the exhaust port. Replacement cylinder goes in this week--about .660 AMU. Includes a new rocker that got degraded from the bent pushrod. This is an IO-360, the O- might be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TSMOH is very misunderstood.  From a legal perspective the engine is 1800 SMOH.  From reality it is not because the bottom was done and I am guessing some cylinder work was done during this time as well.

My engine had 1 cylinder with 50hrs on it and 1 cylinder with 4hrs on it (both brand new).  I did the case and the other 2 cylinders.  Because I did not replace exhaust valves on 2 of the cylinders it is not a major it is a repair and return. 

Odds are I will never major my engine and it will be 1000’s of hours past TBO.  But in reality I have a 2600hr engine that is 400hrs old.  My logbook though reflects all the work, part/serial numbers, etc. 

TSMOH is largely meaningless it is the details in the logbook that actually matter. I don’t know the details on the plane you are looking at but make your decision out of a logbook inspection and not an arbitrary number. 

Edited by M20F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tx_aggie, that term wore our bugs me a bit. Yes beyond mfg. recommended overhaul but I’d put a Ben Franklin on it that the engine on a dyno would put out similar power to a fresh overhaul engine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2017 at 7:42 AM, Tx_Aggie said:

Looks like I'm joining this conversation a little late. What are y'all paying to replace 1-2 cylinders on the o-360? And then how desirable is a M20C with and engine at 2000 hrs? I might have a local opportunity for one but I'm trying to be realistic about the purchase price of the plane with a worn out engine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You ask a great question here. I think that most buyers would naturally assume that with a 2,000 engine they are facing a major overhaul in their near future. Then it isn’t just the cost of the overhaul quoted by the engine shop. There are the “incedental” expenses as well. These include things like removal, shipping and installation costs, the overhaul or replacement of accessories like your carburetor. Your engine mount should be removed and sent out for a dye penetrant / x-ray type inspection to look for any stress cracks or internal rust inside the steel tubes. What about the baffles? Will they need to be repaired or replaced? How old is your oil cooler? That is another single point failure item that can ruin your whole day. (I had one blow on my airplane while checking for leaks during a ground run-up following an oil change. I was lucky! Couldn’t have happened at a better time!)

So the true cost of an engine job involves more than what price the engine shop quotes. What does their quote include versus what all really needs to be done to do the job right?

Then to take your question one step further with regards to the purchase price of a C model...or any airplane...needing an overhaul, what is the condition of the rest of the airplane? Looking at the “big bills”, avionics, paint and interior, what will it take financially to make the airplane the way you want it? If the plane needs everything done to it, the seller could literally hand you the plane for free (he won’t) and you will still end up putting more money it than you are ever likely to get out of it.

As a potential buyer, you are asking the right kinds of questions. Take your time shopping, be patient and think it through carefully. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, M20F said:

TSMOH is very misunderstood.  From a legal perspective the engine is 1800 SMOH.  From reality it is not because the bottom was done and I am guessing some cylinder work was done during this time as well.

My engine had 1 cylinder with 50hrs on it and 1 cylinder with 4hrs on it (both brand new).  I did the case and the other 2 cylinders.  Because I did not replace exhaust valves on 2 of the cylinders it is not a major it is a repair and return. 

Odds are I will never major my engine and it will be 1000’s of hours past TBO.  But in reality I have a 2600hr engine that is 400hrs old.  My logbook though reflects all the work, part/serial numbers, etc. 

TSMOH is largely meaningless it is the details in the logbook that actually matter. I don’t know the details on the plane you are looking at but make your decision out of a logbook inspection and not an arbitrary number. 

I'm in the same boat.  My TSMOH is 1480 hrs.  However, the bottom end was redone 510 hours ago because of a case issue (can't recall exactly what right now).  Brand new case, new parts to factory specs.  Top end was replace 160 hours ago.  All brand new cylinders.  

But, by the 'book' I have just over 500 hours to recommended overhaul.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2017 at 7:42 AM, Tx_Aggie said:

how desirable is a M20C with and engine at 2000 hrs? I might have a local opportunity for one but I'm trying to be realistic about the purchase price of the plane with a worn out engine.
 

Congrats on finding a plane that is in one of the most desired states for an experienced owner...

The plane will be priced with the run-out engine already. Check the logs... the starter, alternator, carb, VR, gov, and ignition system are probably ready for OH, upgrade, or some form of replacement.

Needing new cylinders often comes from not having a modern engine monitor to go with the doghouse air cooling system...

If your looking for a bargain, flying machine, this won't be it...

If your looking for a bargain, ready to be tailored to your specs, flying machine... you are in the right spot...

Don't skip the PPI to save money...

If you buy it hoping everything will stay together for a decade/1000 hrs... you may get lucky.  My M20C was at the halfway point when I acquired it... all this stuff got swapped out at least once over the next decade...

keep both eyes open. Hope for the best. Expect the worst. You will do OK...   worked for me anyways... :)  call me lucky.  You are responsible enough to know what you need to make you happy...

The other half of the answer... This isn't very desirable if the engine isn't priced in already, the new owner isn't familiar with the OH process, the plane lives outdoors, the full guppy mouth cowl is still there, or skipping an extensive PPI is part of the financial plan...

Good signs... you know the owner, the plane has been hangared, the engine monitor hasn't been erased, you know everything there is to know about the latest cowl mods...

you may be considering a list of hardware somebody posted regarding upgrades to add upon purchase of an old plane, seatbelts, CO detector, carb temp, engine monitor, FF/totalizer... That Stuff....

PP thoughts only, not a plane sales guy yet...

Best regards,

-a-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, carusoam said:

Congrats on finding a plane that is in one of the most desired states for an experienced owner...

The plane will be priced with the run-out engine already. Check the logs... the starter, alternator, carb, VR, gov, and ignition system are probably ready for OH, upgrade, or some form of replacement.

Needing new cylinders often comes from not having a modern engine monitor to go with the doghouse air cooling system...

If your looking for a bargain, flying machine, this won't be it...

If your looking for a bargain, ready to be tailored to your specs, flying machine... you are in the right spot...

Don't skip the PPI to save money...

If you buy it hoping everything will stay together for a decade/1000 hrs... you may get lucky.  My M20C was at the halfway point when I acquired it... all this stuff got swapped out at least once over the next decade...

keep both eyes open. Hope for the best. Expect the worst. You will do OK...   worked for me anyways... :)  call me lucky.  You are responsible enough to know what you need to make you happy...

The other half of the answer... This isn't very desirable if the engine isn't priced in already, the new owner isn't familiar with the OH process, the plane lives outdoors, the full guppy mouth cowl is still there, or skipping an extensive PPI is part of the financial plan...

Good signs... you know the owner, the plane has been hangared, the engine monitor hasn't been erased, you know everything there is to know about the latest cowl mods...

you may be considering a list of hardware somebody posted regarding upgrades to add upon purchase of an old plane, seatbelts, CO detector, carb temp, engine monitor, FF/totalizer... That Stuff....

PP thoughts only, not a plane sales guy yet...

Best regards,

-a-

Plane is a 67' C with the Johnson bar. it has good paint, fair interior (a few rips on the ceiling and a few screws missing in the interior here and there) is priced with a worn out engine. Has decent IFR equipment: STEC 60-2, Apollo GX60 IFR GPS - while it's no WAAS GPS, I can still shoot LNAV GPS approaches with it, and if I need it, fly to the local regional airport and the Stec will capture the glideslope on the ILS. has a JPM-700 engine monitor and has been run at CHT's less than 380* for the last 8 years in dry western Texas. It has the cowl mod that closes up the lower portion of the gaping engine inlet. All things considered, I do think it's a steal. But like a few others in this thread, I actually do use the backseat when I'm flying - about 50% of the time. But the only thing a C's backseat is good for is luggage, not adults - unless you're under 5'. That's my dilemma. Also, I probably won't get an unbiased opinion on a Mooney forum, but how desirable are 50+ year old Mooneys? In the event I buy this and elect to trade up at some point to a longbody, how many people are going to be eager to pony up and buy a (at that point, perhaps 55+ year, ~2500-2800 hrs on a partially rebuilt engine) carbureted airplane? I mean no disrespect at all, and I love how efficient these 4 cylinders were and are, even at 50 years. These are my hangups, if any of you have had the same thoughts but have walked through this, please help me out!!  

Edited by Tx_Aggie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth it.

As for the back seat and adults: @Bob_Belville will post a picture of his short-body with real, adult humans in the backseat.  It's good for 1/2 hour, and okay for 1 hour.  With only one adult in the back seat, sitting kind of sideways, it's perhaps the most comfortable seat in the airplane for any length of flight you'd contemplate.

As for re-sale? You're not going to MAKE money off the airplane, but you will definitely find a buyer for it if it's in decent shape.  And it sounds like it is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The price differential between a C and a long body makes the logic even easier...

The sales tax on the O was close to the sales price of the run out C. The run out C sold for less than 20AMU. The price of an O is around 200AMU

A C with an excellent operational history, an AP and an engine monitor?  That is Paradise!  

Last time I looked most Cs didn't get these beneficial treatments until late in life.  There owners weren't intending to sell either...

Get to know the owner... learn as much as you can about the plane...

The PPI is still important.

Best regards,

-a-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tx_Aggie said:

Plane is a 67' C with the Johnson bar. it has good paint, fair interior (a few rips on the ceiling and a few screws missing in the interior here and there) is priced with a worn out engine. Has decent IFR equipment: STEC 60-2, Apollo GX60 IFR GPS - while it's no WAAS GPS, I can still shoot LNAV GPS approaches with it, and if I need it, fly to the local regional airport and the Stec will capture the glideslope on the ILS. has a JPM-700 engine monitor and has been run at CHT's less than 380* for the last 8 years in dry western Texas. It has the cowl mod that closes up the lower portion of the gaping engine inlet. All things considered, I do think it's a steal. But like a few others in this thread, I actually do use the backseat when I'm flying - about 50% of the time. But the only thing a C's backseat is good for is luggage, not adults - unless you're under 5'. That's my dilemma. Also, I probably won't get an unbiased opinion on a Mooney forum, but how desirable are 50+ year old Mooneys? In the event I buy this and elect to trade up at some point to a longbody, how many people are going to be eager to pony up and buy a (at that point, perhaps 55+ year, ~2500-2800 hrs on a partially rebuilt engine) carbureted airplane? I mean no disrespect at all, and I love how efficient these 4 cylinders were and are, even at 50 years. These are my hangups, if any of you have had the same thoughts but have walked through this, please help me out!!  

I'll speak to a couple of points. I have a short body 1966 M20E, (same cabin as the M20C with a 200 hp IO360).

  • These 50 year old airframes are very salable. Mine, which has quite a few mods and decent avionics, will go on the market for north of $90k when I'm ready to retire from flying unless I get to keep it long enough to run out the engine.
  • And contra Andy's hyperbole, unless the pilot is over 6' tall with a 36" inseam the back seat is at least as comfortable as an airline seat. The pics are not from "30 minute flights" in fact the one with 2 ladies in the back was to Jackson TN, over 3 hours each way. The one with @mooneygirl, and @AGL Aviation's Lynn Mace was from Kerrville to Longview. You'l note that Lynn, a full sized adult, is sitting in complete comfort behind me for a 2+ hours flight. (Al Mooney was tall, particularly for the time he lived. Mooneys are one of the tougher planes in its class to enter and exit but one of the more comfortable once you get in your seat.

IMG_20151030_115458221.jpg

IMG_20160520_150822243.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My theory on engines is:  Keep throwing cylinders at it until it needs to be taken apart.  As far as cylinders cost.   I have a not needed one for an A1A that cost 2 AMU several years ago that is waiting for install, then will rotate them around getting .5 AmU overhauls.   The C uses less AMU per cost cylinders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input, it really is the most economical way to travel at 140 kts.

What does the term IRAN stand for btw?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tx_Aggie said:

Thanks for the input, it really is the most economical way to travel at 140 kts.

What does the term IRAN stand for btw?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IRAN= inspect repair as nessecary 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran can be better than OH for meeting your specific needs... The OH might include things you don't want...

Best regards,

-a-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2017 at 7:23 AM, Bob_Belville said:

I'll speak to a couple of points. I have a short body 1966 M20E, (same cabin as the M20C with a 200 hp IO360).

  • These 50 year old airframes are very salable. Mine, which has quite a few mods and decent avionics, will go on the market for north of $90k when I'm ready to retire from flying unless I get to keep it long enough to run out the engine.
  • And contra Andy's hyperbole, unless the pilot is over 6' tall with a 36" inseam the back seat is at least as comfortable as an airline seat. The pics are not from "30 minute flights" in fact the one with 2 ladies in the back was to Jackson TN, over 3 hours each way. The one with @mooneygirl, and @AGL Aviation's Lynn Mace was from Kerrville to Longview. You'l note that Lynn, a full sized adult, is sitting in complete comfort behind me for a 2+ hours flight. (Al Mooney was tall, particularly for the time he lived. Mooneys are one of the tougher planes in its class to enter and exit but one of the more comfortable once you get in your seat.

IMG_20151030_115458221.jpg

IMG_20160520_150822243.jpg

5’11 first ride of many in a C.  I have also flown in a seat I made out of cardboard boxes on an Antonov.  I preferred the latter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, M20F said:

5’11 first ride of many in a C.  I have also flown in a seat I made out of cardboard boxes on an Antonov.  I preferred the latter. 

To each his own...

IMG_20171121_115237646_HDR[1].jpg

IMG_20171121_105726280[1].jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.