N261TA restoration

[Gubni]

The seller was in no hurry to sell. I wanted to buy it and start working on it so that when I get my PPL I hope to have it airworthy.

[Gubni]

I am not an IA or A&P. In my comments I am making some assumptions. Every detail of why I was told to do something was not explained to me. Also it's possible I forgot to document a step he had me do.

Today we pulled N261TA out of the community hangar and over to the maintenance hangar. One tank had about a gallon of fuel and the other tank had about 4 gallons of fuel. We drained out the old fuel. The hangar IA said he could not sell us fuel due to possible cross contamination. (Huh?) He loaned me some jugs and sent me to another local airport. I bought ten gallons and put 5 gallons in each wing and sloshed it around and drained out a gallon in attempt to clean the tanks. 

The 10 year old battery took a charge. I have a very good charger/maintainer and plugged it up a couple days ago. it showed 14.2 volts which was surprising to me. I could not get the prop to turn at all. Finally we figured out to start we have to turn to start and push in. The prop turned half a turn and the battery was done, lol. My IA brought a used battery which we put in. It worked better, but was weak. I had a portable jump box that was hot so that helped. We pulled the top set of plugs out and turned over the engine for a minute until we saw oil pressure start to build. 

Next he had me turn on the boost pump low pressure and high pressure until we could hear a difference in the pump noise to prime the fuel system. When I first saw boost I thought it was turbo boost, but I had watched a M20K video on YouTube recently that explained it as fuel boost.

We pushed it out of the hangar and attempted to start it. By now my jump box did not have enough charge to start it so I used my jeep and some jumper cables. Even then it cranked over slowly. The IA did get it to start though. It was so cool to see it actually run. He had told me once it's started to disconnect and back the jeep away and check for obvious leaks or other such problems. I checked both sides of the engine and there were no obvious problems, but I could hear it was not running right.

He checked the monitor and side the right side had two cylinders that were not firing properly. He said he feels like those cylinders were not getting enough fuel. It could be a partially clogged injector or maybe the spider. We also noticed oil on the ground near the exhaust. Something is leaking oil at the back of the engine. At this point the hangar IA said it was time to call it a day. We put the cowl back on and left.

I think the next step is to pull the lower cowl and try to find the leak. If an injector is partially gummed up maybe the fresh fuel will clear it out while it sits. If not we will have to pull the injectors and clean them.

It's progress for now. He wants to get the engine running properly before we pull the prop to have it shipped off.

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by Gubni

[Aerodon]

There's fixing, and there's adding value.  I would not fly behind that engine - I have seen a similar prop strike that cracked a TSIO360 with 77 SMOH in 3 places.  And the prop is not likely to make it through an overhaul.

Considering that you got the plane at such a bargain price, pull the engine off, send it for overhaul, buy a new prop.  Change the engine mounts while you are at it, and make the firewall forward perfect.  

Avionics are almost OK, get a WAAS GPS and then either a 330ES, 335 or 345 for ADSB out.

Aerodon

 

 

[LANCECASPER]

4 hours ago, Gubni said:

He wants to get the engine running properly before we pull the prop to have it shipped off.

 

Getting this engine to run at this point is not wise. If you do get it to run what does that prove? It may give a false hope that you don't need to rebuild it. What will that save?  Before sitting for years it was already near TBO. Your life is much more valuable than what it costs to overhaul the engine. The IA may be optimistic that he can get it running, but it's your life that's riding behind that engine, not his.

Just this week a K model Mooney experienced a catastrophic engine failure while flying. The engine had 1225 since overhaul, but had been sitting awhile before its current ownership.

 

You can't pull off to the side of the road when it starts running roughly and get it figured out. You have to find a spot to land as you are losing power and altitude.

Look at the power lines in this picture. So many times a pilot in this situation thinks they've found the perfect spot to land and then at the last moment strikes a power line. Thankfully it looks like this couple didn't and is still alive, although in the hospital. 

With your $10000 investment, let's say you have to borrow $50,000 - $60,000 to have the engine rebuilt. You have $60,000 - $70000 invested in a $150,000 airplane. The person you bought it from wasn't willing to do what you're trying to do. But he also didn't want to take his $100,000+ investment and add another$75,000-$100,000 because he would be upside down in the  investment. 

The engine needs to be rebuilt. You get to decide if you do it (1) before it stops catastrophically and is then much more expensive to rebuild or (2) if you're fortunate enough to survive and  rebuild it and the airplane after it stops in the air and you have to land in a field.

Flying is all about risk management. If you were completely against all risk you would have never taken your first lesson, so we are all willing to accept some risk. But there are many more things to go wrong in flying an airplane than in driving a car. However if you consistently make good decisions you can fly for many years and live to tell about it. But if you have a tendency to be a wishful thinker, thinking it will all work out and then you make decisions reflecting that thinking, the statistics say that it will not work out well for you. If you look at that airplane as trying to kill you in every way possible, you will mitigate that risk by doing everything in your power in maintaining that airplane to make sure that doesn't happen. 

[carusoam]

Cool...

Way to go Gubni...

If nothing else... you are going to learn a lot about props and fuel injection systems... and starters and batteries... and engine instruments....

Sounds like you have had a quick lesson in old fuel, and fuel contamination from the airport...

 

Speaking of spiders... fuel spiders and and fuel injection systems can be cleaned and OH’d...

But, also look for real spiders that can be leaving everywhere... including the fuel tank vents...

See if you can blow out whatever is in the vent line... try not to blow it in, towards the tank...

 

Great mechanic... keeping all valuable things out of harms way...  don’t trust mechanical objects until they are well proven to work...  Having your Jeep in front of the plane... starting it and then finding out the brakes don’t hold so well... would be bad... 

The M20K pic with the hole in the engine is real... this weeks sad news...

 

PP thoughts only... stay encouraged...

Best regards,

-a-

 

[LANCECASPER]

On 5/21/2021 at 7:49 PM, Gubni said:

Someone mentioned a sudden stop on the engine. That was not the case at all. The pilot had no clue there was any damage to the prop. It definitely was not a sudden stop.

The laws of physics say that the energy to bend that prop had to be absorbed by something. Was it the crankshaft? The accessory case?  It's even possible to do internal engine damage without damaging the prop (tall grass or water). 

 

Here is an excerpt from an AvWeb article from 2014 (https://www.avweb.com/ownership/the-prop-strike-sudden-stop/):

Considerations

One of the issues that is particularly hard to quantify if you elect not to tear an engine down, post strike and choose to disregard the fairly specific diagnostic procedures that the engine makers put out is do you have the FAA legal option of ignoring the service directives?

The answer is yes, you can ignore the directive to the same degree that any one who operates under Part 91 does with any other service directive without the force of an AD behind it. In this case however, there is an existing AD for quite a few differentLycoming engines that specifically mentions prop strikes and mandates some degree of tear down, but not necessarily a full tear down, and only if it is a prop strike as opposed to a sudden stoppage. Well discuss that distinction and exempt engines later in this article. The Lycoming information is more complicated and equivocating than the TCM directives in our opinion, as well explain.

There is also a measure of anecdotal evidence in the engine accident/incident statistics that engines that have a prop strike/sudden stoppage and owners who did not follow the manufacturer recommendations such as only checking the crankshaft run-out, have a higher incidence of broken cranks or other engine failures a number of flight hours later.

Its not a smoking gun, but perusing the accident reports makes one wonder about such coincidences. Some reports are quite specific about a recent prop strike in the engines history. Others are not necessarily so forthcoming, so reliable conclusions are difficult to draw.

We have personally seen an instance where a plane lost the entire prop in flight following a so called minor prior strike of hitting a runway light while taxing, but the crank on the IO-520 was only checked for run-out and prop repaired (and this was a Part 135 operated plane).

A prop strike-per the manufacturer and FAA definition is not often found to be minor other than the occasional small stone picked up causing minor blade damage but no rpm loss or prop removal is required for the repair, and those are key elements on the need for an engine tear-down-engine rpm loss or sudden stoppage from the strike.

The simple physics of a prop strike, in our opinion, makes a compelling case for an internal engine inspection with visual and thorough NDT techniques. The engine makers seem to agree quite strongly as does the FAA."

 

[aviatoreb]

33 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

The laws of physics say that the energy to bend that prop had to be absorbed by something. Was it the crankshaft? The accessory case?  It's even possible to do internal engine damage without damaging the prop (tall grass or water). 

 

Here is an excerpt from an AvWeb article from 2014 (https://www.avweb.com/ownership/the-prop-strike-sudden-stop/):

Considerations

One of the issues that is particularly hard to quantify if you elect not to tear an engine down, post strike and choose to disregard the fairly specific diagnostic procedures that the engine makers put out is do you have the FAA legal option of ignoring the service directives?

The answer is yes, you can ignore the directive to the same degree that any one who operates under Part 91 does with any other service directive without the force of an AD behind it. In this case however, there is an existing AD for quite a few differentLycoming engines that specifically mentions prop strikes and mandates some degree of tear down, but not necessarily a full tear down, and only if it is a prop strike as opposed to a sudden stoppage. Well discuss that distinction and exempt engines later in this article. The Lycoming information is more complicated and equivocating than the TCM directives in our opinion, as well explain.

There is also a measure of anecdotal evidence in the engine accident/incident statistics that engines that have a prop strike/sudden stoppage and owners who did not follow the manufacturer recommendations such as only checking the crankshaft run-out, have a higher incidence of broken cranks or other engine failures a number of flight hours later.

Its not a smoking gun, but perusing the accident reports makes one wonder about such coincidences. Some reports are quite specific about a recent prop strike in the engines history. Others are not necessarily so forthcoming, so reliable conclusions are difficult to draw.

We have personally seen an instance where a plane lost the entire prop in flight following a so called minor prior strike of hitting a runway light while taxing, but the crank on the IO-520 was only checked for run-out and prop repaired (and this was a Part 135 operated plane).

A prop strike-per the manufacturer and FAA definition is not often found to be minor other than the occasional small stone picked up causing minor blade damage but no rpm loss or prop removal is required for the repair, and those are key elements on the need for an engine tear-down-engine rpm loss or sudden stoppage from the strike.

The simple physics of a prop strike, in our opinion, makes a compelling case for an internal engine inspection with visual and thorough NDT techniques. The engine makers seem to agree quite strongly as does the FAA."

 

Not saying you are wrong and there sure may well likely be crank problems to be discovered on tear down.

But bending the prop absorbs energy itself.  Not necessarily all the energy but plausibly.

[carusoam]

If the crank run-out exceeds limits... that is an easy move on to step B kind of decision...

unfortunately the engine manufacturers can point to instances of great crank run-out and cracked cranks... so tear down is a good choice...  tear downs and irans are a great money saver when OH is too much of a hurdle...

MS has its own experience of somebody putting a new prop on for ferry purposes, and not getting home... (sad story, years ago)

 

Some mechanics and pro pilots may take on this type of challenge...  to ferry a plane...

 

Do the WnB...

How will the plane fly... Engine out and prop missing?  
 

Does it become instantly tail heavy out the back of the envelope?

If solo and you are in the envelope... that has some survivable risk if you fly in the great open plains....

If fully loaded with friends and family... and the prop separates... and you are out the back of the envelope... then what next?

Somebody bent my prop once... while I was out of town...

I had no plan to fly the engine again without a tear down...

Went with a factory reman and new prop after that...

PP thoughts regarding flyability without a prop... not a CFI or mechanic...

Best regards,

-a-

[M20F-1968]

There are several posts advising that rebuild is recommended (or at least IRAN).  However, given this number of hours and the history of sitting, IMO overhaul is the only choice, along with at least a rebuilt prop, but new preferred, and rebuilt or new accessories.  Check the engine mount for cracks and change the engine mount shock disks.

The only motivation for not doing this now seems to be an attempt to eek-out an additional 300 hours.  This is not a wise choice given even a quick assessment of the risk reward equation of what an accident could look like when unrecognized damage reveals itself.

You were fortunate enough to get the plane cheaply.  Don't be cheap now that it is yours.  Don't allow a great opportunity turn into the worst nightmare you could imagine!

John Breda

[flyboy0681]

11 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

With your $10000 investment, let's say you have to borrow $50,000 - $60,000 to have the engine rebuilt. You have $60,000 - $70000 invested in a $150,000 airplane.
 

This is the way I see it.

Don't hem 'n haw, just do it and enjoy this great flying machine.

[Ron McBride]

2 hours ago, flyboy0681 said:

This is the way I see it.

Don't hem 'n haw, just do it and enjoy this great flying machine.

Pay now or pay later.  Payment later will probably be more expensive, maybe life ending. You’re choice. 
 

[AerostarDriver]

Given the history of that airplane as well as the persistent drum beat of Continental 360s that end up in fields or worst. I would overhaul that engine before I flew it. As a private pilot student, I would look at it from an aeronautical decision making approach, could you justify operating that aircraft to an examiner or worst an NTSB investigator?

Edited May 24, 2021 by AerostarDriver

[Hank]

1 hour ago, AerostarDriver said:

Given the history of that airplane as well as the persistent drum beat of Continental 360s that end up in fields or worst. I overhaul that engine before I flew it. As a private pilot student, I would look at it from an aeronautical decision making approach, could you justify operating that aircraft to an examiner or worst an NTSB investigator?

Maybe the enine OH can be finished around checkride time, then transition into YOUR plane! 

[Gubni]

I spoke to Mike Busch with Savvy Aviation last night for a good while about this. He said that he would not be concerned about the prop strike but more about the airplane sitting. He said it's important to bore scope it and check for rust and the cylinders and the cam. Overall he said there's a really good chance it would be okay. He recommend that I call Don Maxwell and I will be doing that today.

[ArtVandelay]

The yolks (see copilot side in picture) look like they’re rusted....not a good sign.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Gubni said:

I spoke to Mike Busch with Savvy Aviation last night for a good while about this. He said that he would not be concerned about the prop strike but more about the airplane sitting. He said it's important to bore scope it and check for rust and the cylinders and the cam. Overall he said there's a really good chance it would be okay. He recommend that I call Don Maxwell and I will be doing that today.

When he said he was not concerned about the prop strike, did he tell you to remove it for inspection as required by the current engine overhaul manual or the old SB96-11?
 

Clarence

[Gubni]

28 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

When he said he was not concerned about the prop strike, did he tell you to remove it for inspection as required by the current engine overhaul manual or the old SB96-11?
 

Clarence

He told me that it was not required on a continental to do a tear down inspection. You said it was highly recommended but not required and if it was his he would not. He said on a lycoming engine there is an AD that requires it, but not the continental.

Edited May 25, 2021 by Gubni
Typo

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Gubni said:

He told me that it was not required on a continental to do a tear down inspection. You said it was highly recommended but not required and if it was his he would not. He said on a light coming engine there is an AD that requires it, but not the continental.

Wow!

Clarence

[bradp]

Uh oh.  You shoulda seen what happened on the Facebook mooney group when someone said they disagreed with Mike Busch.  
 

See what Don says.  

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, Gubni said:

He told me that it was not required on a continental to do a tear down inspection. You said it was highly recommended but not required and if it was his he would not. He said on a lycoming engine there is an AD that requires it, but not the continental.

We all hear what we want to hear. If an expert says it's highly recommended but not required, we'll pick "not required" over "highly recommended" since we like that part of the sentence best. If this engine had 100 SMOH i could see the benefits of wanting to make it work without the teardown inspection. With over 1500 SMOH to me it's a no-brainer, but whichever way you decide I wish you the best.

[Greg Ellis]

38 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

We all hear what we want to hear. If an expert says it's highly recommended but not required, we'll pick "not required" over "highly recommended" since we like that part of the sentence best. If this engine had 100 SMOH i could see the benefits of wanting to make it work without the teardown inspection. With over 1500 SMOH to me it's a no-brainer, but whichever way you decide I wish you the best.

I agree.  I would take the money that I saved with the purchase and do the overhaul.  I would feel much more confident flying behind the engine once overhauled than one that sat forever, basically left to rot, running or not (evidenced by the fact that you had to hunt the owner down and the plane was not marketed for sale).

[cwaters]

I'm just curious what the insurance cost is for you to be listed on this plane ? As a low time student pilot what did the insurance company say when you asked for a quote? 

 

As for the restoration, you got a killer deal, now just spend the money so it doesn't turn into a Killer deal. Engine first (don't want to fan to go out and you start sweating), ADSB (remove the airspace restrictions), then WAAS (you can still do a lot with non-WAAS and fly IFR). 

Sitting empty you might have some fuel tank issues and since its been in a hangar you may get away with little or no corrosion/rust. 

 

Having recently become a member of the Mooney community, Jan 2021 I got my J, insurance required 10hrs of dual before I could solo it and another 10 hrs of solo before I could take a passenger. It took more than 10 hrs for me to be comfortable in the plane where I wanted to solo it. I did about 15hrs dual before I felt confident to solo. I started transition training with ~110hrs TT mostly in 172s. 

[EricJ]

5 hours ago, Gubni said:

He told me that it was not required on a continental to do a tear down inspection. You said it was highly recommended but not required and if it was his he would not. He said on a lycoming engine there is an AD that requires it, but not the continental.

That is correct.    You and your A&P IA are the guys there on-site actually able to see and inspect and test this engine.   It sounds to me like you're being careful in your due diligence, and your on-site A&P IA will likely have the most relevant advice since he's there with you and the engine.

I agree with Mike Busch that borescope cylinder and internal inspections for rust/corrosion are a good idea.

[0TreeLemur]

11 hours ago, Greg Ellis said:

I agree.  I would take the money that I saved with the purchase and do the overhaul.  I would feel much more confident flying behind the engine once overhauled than one that sat forever, basically left to rot, running or not (evidenced by the fact that you had to hunt the owner down and the plane was not marketed for sale).

Not only that, your $10k investment is essentially a liability given the risk profile of prop-strike plus sitting inactive for 5 years.  Scrap value on the older avionics and airframe with suspect engine might get you to (WAG) $60-$70k?   Spend the money on the overhaul, and your value pops up to $150k while your risk liability drops back down to normal.

Or- flip it and use the proceeds to buy a plane that makes more sense for your skill level.

[Gubni]

Somehow my update from last night is not showing, so here it is again.

Yesterday I worked on this some more. It was not firing on cylinders 1 & 3. We swapped spark plugs side to side and still had the same problem with 1 & 3. We also tested the spark plugs and saw them fire. We cracked the fuel lines at the injectors (when the engine was cold) and had fuel. I suspected it was valves. Last night I checked the last annual compressions and found cylinder 1 & 3 were both 61 and the other cylinders were 67-71. We boroscoped it, but didn't see anything special. 

I spoke with Don Maxwell. He did not have a strong opinion one way or another regarding a rebuild. He said it would probably be fine for 5 hours no matter what. The one thing he really pushed for was a fuel system overhaul. I told him I had slick mags and he went over several reasons to change them. He recommended Jewell for a rebuild if I decided to go that way.

The turbo is producing oil and there are a few other oil leaks. I hate oil leaks. We pulled the prop and attempted to mic the crank, but we were not able to find a good surface for the mag mount and we were running out of time. 

I feel now that I have done a fair amount of studying and here is what I have found. It is high (TBO 1500 of 1800), it had a very minor prop strike, it has sat for 7 years, and it has problems with two cylinders. I needs new mags, and a turbo rebuild. I'm sure other seals are leaking or going to leak soon.

I am going to go ahead and send the prop off for rebuild and I believe I will send the entire firewall forward off to be rebuilt. An experienced pilot might be able to handle an engine failure better than a new pilot so that is a factor for me also. 

I learned yesterday that it's possible in general aviation to fly to Australia from USA. I have a new bucket list item and this is the plane to do that. The speed and efficiency would really help even with the low payload. I might just have to buy and donate clothes along the route. That of course is a year or two in the future, so I will deal with it then. This plane has been to Europe several times and some annuals were done in Europe also.