66 M20E on Controller

[mason]

Hi All.  What do you think about this:
https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/205425031/1966-mooney-m20e-piston-single-aircraft

 

It had its engine rebuilt in 95, and in the past 21 years it has only put on 250 hours.  It looks like it would go several years with only a couple of hours.  I also see that over the last 2 annuals, cylinder 4's compression test results dropped from 73 to 65.

 

It's an inexpensive E model, but I am worried about the engine.  Thanks!

[201er]

The engine is past TBO. Lycoming recommends 2000 hours or 12 years whichever comes first. It will likely get a few hundred hours before it start making metal as the cam or lifters go bad from corrosion. You gotta accept it as a run out engine and take any time you get on it as a bonus.

 

”All Lycoming Engines have a recommended calendar overhaul of 12 years regardless of the time on the engine. The recommended time to overhaul is important for a couple of reasons: engines that operate infrequently often have a much higher chance of corrosion forming on parts exposed to the environment, and the engine uses composite gaskets and rubber hoses that degrade over time and could affect the reliability of your engine.”

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1009BE TBO Schedule.pdf

[mason]

31 minutes ago, 201er said:

The engine is past TBO. Lycoming recommends 2000 hours or 12 years whichever comes first. It will likely get a few hundred hours before it start making metal as the cam or lifters go bad from corrosion. You gotta accept it as a run out engine and take any time you get on it as a bonus.

 

”All Lycoming Engines have a recommended calendar overhaul of 12 years regardless of the time on the engine. The recommended time to overhaul is important for a couple of reasons: engines that operate infrequently often have a much higher chance of corrosion forming on parts exposed to the environment, and the engine uses composite gaskets and rubber hoses that degrade over time and could affect the reliability of your engine.”

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1009BE TBO Schedule.pdf

That sounds bad!  I think I'll skip this plane.  Thanks for the info.

[smwash02]

12 minutes ago, mason said:

That sounds bad!  I think I'll skip this plane.  Thanks for the info.

@201eris correct it is beyond TBO, but if a within calendar year TBO were a strict requirement you'll probably cut 70% of the planes from the choices. 

250 hours over 26 years would be my primary concern. Hoses and most gaskets are economically solvable problems. Pitted cranks less so. 

[mason]

7 minutes ago, smwash02 said:

@201eris correct it is beyond TBO, but if a within calendar year TBO were a strict requirement you'll probably cut 70% of the planes from the choices. 

250 hours over 26 years would be my primary concern. Hoses and most gaskets are economically solvable problems. Pitted cranks less so. 

Yeah, that plane worries me a bit too much.  Trying to find a cheap plane doesn't seem like a great idea.  Thanks!

[A64Pilot]

All Engines and props have a calendar limit, many assume and they may be correct that it stems from gaskets and oil seals etc.

‘But any engine that’s not in warranty is a crap shoot, we do the best we can and hope for the best, most of us that is.

‘I have a C-85 that’s got maybe 100 hours on new cylinders and new mags, but was overhauled last in the 1970’s, now that’s excessive, and it does leak oil pretty badly, but runs like a top.

‘I keep telling myself that I need to overhaul it, but just haven’t yet, afraid that I’ll find the crank worn behind limits etc, and there are no cranks, yes you can put 0-200 internals in it, but that is expensive, so I’ve just kept flying it.

 

 

[smwash02]

1 hour ago, mason said:

Yeah, that plane worries me a bit too much.  Trying to find a cheap plane doesn't seem like a great idea.  Thanks!

Cheap anything, from my School of Hard Knox experience, are more expensive when it's said and done.

Best of luck in your search!

[Bartman]

@gsxrpilotalways states the advise very well. If you want a project then that one is a project, but if you want to fly that is not the one. 

[0TreeLemur]

Wow, that thing has an OLD panel.  Decades of non upgrades.

[NJMac]

If that's listed at 50, then mine at 68 looks like a hell of a deal. Mine's under contract but I suppose anything can happen until the purchase closes

[Guest]

4 hours ago, mason said:

Yeah, that plane worries me a bit too much.  Trying to find a cheap plane doesn't seem like a great idea.  Thanks!

Make a cash offer priced with the expectation of replacing the engine right away.  Any additional time you get is a bonus.

Clarence

[mason]

10 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Make a cash offer priced with the expectation of replacing the engine right away.  Any additional time you get is a bonus.

Clarence

I tried.  They didn't seem interested at all.  Sadly, in this crazy market, I'm sure it will sell in no time.

[Shadrach]

5 hours ago, mason said:

That sounds bad!  I think I'll skip this plane.  Thanks for the info.

Most GA aircraft engines will be operated beyond calendar TBO. This engine may or may not give another 20 years of service. The comp reading does not tell you a lot. It not uncommon for a dormant engine with diminished comp readings to have them come back into the mid to high 70s with regular use.  The future of the engine is in question, its value is not. It should be priced as run out. This plane is flyable but it needs panel work.  It could be a nice purchase for the right person at the right price but that person is probably not a first time Mooney buyer.

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Yep. Also, when was the last time you saw a vintage Mooney with the nose gear shock absorber still installed?  Just more indicia of neglect as far as I’m concerned.  And the scuff and spray paint job.  I’m not sure this would be a good deal at half the price.  And I like projects.  

I regret losing mine when we installed a LASAR truss. 

[Shadrach]

5 hours ago, smwash02 said:

@201eris correct it is beyond TBO, but if a within calendar year TBO were a strict requirement you'll probably cut 70% of the planes from the choices. 

250 hours over 26 years would be my primary concern. Hoses and most gaskets are economically solvable problems. Pitted cranks less so. 

If I were a betting man, my money would be on that crank measuring at new limits.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Shadrach

[A64Pilot]

It’s not common for sitting to get a crank. it is common for cylinder rust to occur and the dreaded cam issue.

‘Very often on aircraft that sit a lot the cylinders will form some rust on them, it’s very quickly cleaned off the next flight, repeat that enough times and you’ll have what’s called  polished bores, once polished the cross hatching is gone and the cylinder doesn’t hold a film of oil, you get a lot of blow by which makes the oil turn black fast and the oil runs hot too, as blow by gasses are hot. Due to their not being much oil, piston ring wear is rapid.

In other words time for a cylinder overhaul although I have seen them be honed and new rings put in with a good success rate.

Cylinders are easy, I don’t understand why a person who won’t blink an eye dropping 20 grand into avionics blanches at the thought of having to have cylinders overhauled or replaced

[Guest]

The prop overhaul is even older, why is no one complaining about that?

Clarence

[Shadrach]

9 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Hi, Ross.  Really?  Why?   
 

Jim

This may seem silly but I use a parksmart mat like the one pictured below. Ever since removing the dampener strut, the nose gear extension pulling over the hump is kind of violent. I’m pulling forward and up when I remove the plane from the hangar so some of the weight is off the nose wheel. The gear extends to full travel abruptly and audibly as it clears the bump.  It did not do that when it had the dampener. Does it make a difference? I have no idea, but it seems less refined without the dampener.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Shadrach

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, M20Doc said:

The prop overhaul is even older, why is no one complaining about that?

Clarence

Probably because no one perceives props to be time perishable if they are indoors. I don’t.  If it holds grease, show no signs of corrosion and the blades only have 650 hours of wear, I would probably fly it for quite a while.  I like old machinery more than most.  I have seen a lot of old engines fire up and run beautifully with little more than fresh hoses, fuel and oil.

[carusoam]

Mason,

The basic rule for first plane ownership...

Find a plane that is busy flying....

Somewhere between 50 and 100 hours each year will keep things working as expected...

If it has less hours, make sure they are evenly spread throughout the year...

Hangar queens have surprises waiting for you at the end of year one... they appear in the first annual...

Some planes are better for other people to own...

Even the report regarding the quality of the newish paint job says keep walking...

 

If you are interested in a project... this one is a basic mostly unmolested M20E...

Too bad they put a mediocre paint job on it...   the price is going to reflect the new paint unfairly to the buyer...

Other oddities...  there are simple upgrades that this plane didn’t get...  and the description includes a chromed spinner...   which probably doesn’t have any chrome on it...

Makes you want to double check their facts...

Most, not all, of the mini shock absorbers failed to work years ago... and have since been removed...  cylinder cooling is Improved with a simple mod at the front of the cowling...

It looks like the windshield is clearer than the other windows...  Why would they keep the two piece windshield when a one piece brings things into the modern world...  not a 201 sloped windshield... just a one piece...

Somebody liked this in its original style...

Best regards,

-a-

[Shadrach]

6 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Interesting.  OK. I get it.  To be honest it has been so long since we removed ours I don’t even remember the cons that came with it.  I am grateful for the 2.125 pounds of useful load that I only recently recovered from it’s removal, though.  Maybe just use chocks instead?  

Jim

Ha! My point was lost in translation. I was attempting to point out how my now undampemed suspension responds to surface irregularities but it reads like I’m complaining about how my Plane comes out of the hangar. To be clear, I think the nose gear suspension was better when dampened. However, if the plane is landed properly at well a maintained airport it’s likely not very noticeable. I understand why they did it. Given how most Mooneys are operated, the difference  under most conditions is so marginal as to not be noticeable. I go into grass from time to time and land on less than great private strips. I think that I perceive a difference but it could be psychosomatic.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Shadrach

[A64Pilot]

Some people did chrome spinners, and I think there may even be an AD about that, but maybe not, I remember asking my PMI once about it and he said unequivocally no, don’t do it, but I didn’t ask for chapt and verse.

‘Some people polish props too. and that makes all but one unairworthy as all but one require paint in their manual, Hamilton Standard may be the one that allows polishing?

Edited June 12, 2021 by A64Pilot

[RJBrown]

Most “chromed” spinners are polished aluminum with a protective clear coat.