Transport a plane to a shop after 10 years in a hanger

[Ivan]

Good day guys! Would appreciate your opinion on the question below.

Considering buying a Mooney that has been sitting in a hanger for 10 years. Let’s say I found a mechanic to do an annual at the home airport. After that I would need to transport it to a shop for engine overhaul/change.

How safe is to transport it to a shop?

[Mooney Dog]

It totally depends on the airplane. Think of it like playing the lotto. You might win, you might lose. There's way to many factors to say if it is ready to go flying.

 

By truck it would probably be a whole lot easier but would involve a bit of work as well. 

[67 m20F chump]

If your that worried about the engine why not overhaul it where it sits?  
with that said It’s hard to find a project cheap enough to be worth it.  

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Ivan said:

Good day guys! Would appreciate your opinion on the question below.

Considering buying a Mooney that has been sitting in a hanger for 10 years. Let’s say I found a mechanic to do an annual at the home airport. After that I would need to transport it to a shop for engine overhaul/change.

How safe is to transport it to a shop?

Why not take over the hangar rent, then remove the engine and send it for overhaul.  While the engine is off for overhaul do the Annual inspection.

Clarence

[A64Pilot]

While probably not the ideal answer, but are you sure it needs an overhaul? I’ve seen engines sit that long that were OK, I’ve seen some that had rust on a cylinder or two, and some that were seized it was so bad, but you may get lucky, depending a lot on where in the world this hangar is.

Two houses down a Lady finally sold her Husband’s twin Comanche, it had been sitting in a hangar in Florida for almost a decade, the people who bought it were A&P’s, I assume to sell it of course, but the left engine needed two cylinders and the right was fine, they ran them for an hour or so after they did the Annual and flew it away.

And this was Florida.

Edited August 9, 2021 by A64Pilot

[FloridaMan]

If the tanks were left empty, expect them to need a reseal. Also, ensure fuel vents are clear: fuel tank vents clogged by insect activity have killed more than one capable pilot. 

[Mooney Dog]

3 hours ago, 67 m20F chump said:

If your that worried about the engine why not overhaul it where it sits?  
with that said It’s hard to find a project cheap enough to be worth it.  

Again, there are many factors that can play into it. Is the engine okay, is there any rust/corrosion, are their bugs in the air vents, can i get new tires on the plane, etc... 

 

Sadly with airplanes i have found that "project" planes are a very fine line between good value and lots of money and time. Now if you're willing to dump a whole lot of money into it you can fix anything! 

16 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

While probably not the ideal answer, but are you sure it needs an overhaul? I’ve seen engines sit that long that were OK, I’ve seen some that had rust on a cylinder or two, and some that were seized it was so bad, but you may get lucky, depending a lot on where in the world this hangar is.

Two houses down a Lady finally sold her Husband’s twin Comanche, it had been sitting in a hangar in Florida for almost a decade, the people who bought it were A&P’s, I assume to sell it of course, but the left engine needed two cylinders and the right was fine, they ran them for an hour or so after they did the Annual and flew it away.

And this was Florida.

This is what happened with mine. The body of the plane itself had signs of corrosion, but when we inspected the internals and spar, it was perfect. Hell you could barely tell the engine had an hour on it when we took the jugs off. If it wasnt for the engine being good, we wouldnt have restored my plane. 

[EricJ]

If I understand correctly you're saying it will get an annual where it currently is?   If it passes the annual it has been determined to be safe to fly, to a shop or wherever you want.

I wouldn't assume the engine needs changed just because it has been sitting.  Do you know something about it that makes you think it needs overhaul?   See what turns up during the annual first.

 

 

[chriscalandro]

The odds of it needing an overhaul are 50/50. No need to do unnecessary work. 
 

check it out, do a good annual, see where you end up. 

[carusoam]

Ivan,

Where has this plane been stored?

You can read up on PPIs to see how people de-risked buying an engine that has sat for a long time…

Cylinder surfaces, cams, cam followers… are good topics to read about…

Pre-oiling the engine may be a really good idea…

PP thoughts only, not a mechanic…

Getting a good Mooney mechanic to get the annual done…  You can be financially ahead…

Starting it up like an ordinary day… you might need a new cam in a few months…

Think defensively… 

Best regards,

 -a-

[steingar]

Don't know how many times I have to say this:

Repeat after me: There are no bargains in aviation.  There are no bargains in aviation.

[JWJR]

I’ve seen numerous planes go from long term hanger hibernation to regular use or back to life. If your mechanic is going to sign off the inspection then you should discuss with him this question you asked.Typically it’s many labor hours ( days) and numerous new parts prior to the first flight. A large percentage of personal aircraft flying have sat for extended periods at one point in time or another. Just expect some expense for things like a new battery, tires, hoses ,brake fluid, oil change, and on and on before the sign off. Assuming your having a prebuy done get the list of the discrepancies. It will be a long one for sure. However you won’t be the first one to fly a plane that sat for a decade or longer.More of them are returned to the air than declared junk and parted out. Your question was not is this a good deal , good value for a first plane so I won’t go down that road here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sleeper-319]

Recently went through this, but sitting 5 years rather than 10: long story short, you can annual it where it sits, or have an IA to an inspection and get a ferry permit.

There are pros and cons to either approach. To get a ferry permit, you’ll need an IA to go where the plane is and do an inspection to determine if it in a condition to safely conduct the ferry flight. It’s up to the IA to determine what they need to inspect to determine safety for the intended ferry flight. You can probably expect it to be less than an annual, but not trivial, and of course it could reveal squawks that cause the IA from approving it for flight. 

The benefit of doing the annual where it sits is that you can negotiate any airworthiness issues before you buy. If you and the seller don’t agree, you put it back together and move on. The downside to doing it where it sits is that you don’t necessarily get your A&P or IA of choice. You get who can be there to do it. In my case, I had an IA do the inspection for the ferry permit, and ferried it to my field for the annual. Happy to answer other questions if I can be of help. 

 

[A64Pilot]

I believe just an A&P can obtain a ferry permit, IA not necessary, it may save a few bucks.

https://resources.savvyaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/articles_eaa/EAA_2014-04_ferry-permits.pdf

personally I’d borscope the cylinders, pull two jugs to inspect cam and pre-oil liberally before starting. I’d then run it for a few minutes cycling prop, mag checks etc. then drain the old oil and cut open and inspect the filter to ensure no metal, then do the ferry flight.

Of course if possible it’s best to delay purchase until successful completion of pre-buy/ annual if possible, maybe a large sum in escrow may help there and you purchasing ferry insurence, so your going to have some money into this, but be careful of the sunk cost fallacy, because it is a fallacy.

‘I’ve seen both astonishing great buys and of course the opposite, it’s corrosion that is the real aircraft killer, paint, windows, interior, avionics etc can be dealt with at your leisure or as you can afford it.

Edited August 11, 2021 by A64Pilot

[GeeBee]

On 8/9/2021 at 8:26 AM, A64Pilot said:

While probably not the ideal answer, but are you sure it needs an overhaul? I’ve seen engines sit that long that were OK, I’ve seen some that had rust on a cylinder or two, and some that were seized it was so bad, but you may get lucky, depending a lot on where in the world this hangar is.

Two houses down a Lady finally sold her Husband’s twin Comanche, it had been sitting in a hangar in Florida for almost a decade, the people who bought it were A&P’s, I assume to sell it of course, but the left engine needed two cylinders and the right was fine, they ran them for an hour or so after they did the Annual and flew it away.

And this was Florida.

Unless you could show me scope pictures of the cams and every lobe, no way I would buy that airplane without an overhaul priced into it.

 

[N201MKTurbo]

It only asks for the aircraft owner. 

The FSDO here requires a mechanic to make a logbook entry that the aircraft is airworthy for flight.

8130-6_20240706.pdf

[sleeper-319]

17 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I believe just an A&P can obtain a ferry permit, IA not necessary, it may save a few bucks.

You might be right.  

16 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

It only asks for the aircraft owner. 

The FSDO here requires a mechanic to make a logbook entry that the aircraft is airworthy for flight.

Correct. The owner is the one that has to apply for the permit, and the mechanic has to sign the logbook entry with specific language.

And as an FYI, while you can still use the paper/pdf application, the FSDO recommends using the FAA AWC website. That website auto generates the same PDF application and routes it to the right FSDO & ASI. They told me the AWC website is about a month faster than mailing an old school paper form.

When the FAA folks started working from home, enough changed with the permitting process that all of the info I was getting from non-FAA folks outdated.

Also, it might be really hard to get insurance for a ferry flight on a plane that far out of annual. 

 

[N201MKTurbo]

5 hours ago, sleeper-319 said:

You might be right.  

Correct. The owner is the one that has to apply for the permit, and the mechanic has to sign the logbook entry with specific language.

And as an FYI, while you can still use the paper/pdf application, the FSDO recommends using the FAA AWC website. That website auto generates the same PDF application and routes it to the right FSDO & ASI. They told me the AWC website is about a month faster than mailing an old school paper form.

When the FAA folks started working from home, enough changed with the permitting process that all of the info I was getting from non-FAA folks outdated.

Also, it might be really hard to get insurance for a ferry flight on a plane that far out of annual. 

 

I ferried a Cessna that was 8 years out of annual Last year. I called the insurance company and had insurance 4 hours later for $650.

[A64Pilot]

22 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Unless you could show me scope pictures of the cams and every lobe, no way I would buy that airplane without an overhaul priced into it.

 

But your not everyone. Many will buy a good looking flyable airplane if the price is right, and after some number of hours, I’d say after about 25 hours the risk of failure drops back to about what it is normally anyway.

‘I believe that even being able to see it, isn’t a guarantee.  You can still lose a cam. But honestly I believe we all live with that possibility, you can fly often and use whatever oil additive, and still lose a cam, and of course trip an overhaul, or an extensive Iran if you go that way.

For some, reason that I don’t know, but it seems newer cams are more likely to fail than older ones. Perhaps that’s incorrect or perhaps it’s just that the ones likely to fail and don’t get old?

But finally, if the price is low enough it’s worth the risk, at least that’s I’m sure what they buyers thought, one was an A&P, the other an IA. One had just very recently got his Multi, I think to fly this airplane. Maybe they intended to keep it.

I assume the price as low enough so that they could overhaul and still make money, an airplane with two fresh overhauls is worth considerably more too.

An A&P should be able to make money off of an overhaul.

[Shadrach]

22 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Unless you could show me scope pictures of the cams and every lobe, no way I would buy that airplane without an overhaul priced into it.

 

It appears that the overhaul has already been priced into the deal. The OP is merely looking for a onetime transport of the aircraft to his preferred location where he can begin the restoration.

[A64Pilot]

FAA is way FUBAR, my 140 comes up for registration renewal in Oct, I’ve sent in the form by mail in Feb. and about a month ago sent it in via both fax numbers and still nothing.

‘I can’t figure out how to call them, I can’t get through the automated nonsense, and it says they are current processing requests from May.

Then you wouldn’t believe the nonsense I went through getting permission to test for my IA, and finally when it’s all done I sent the test results to the Inspector t3o wells ago, nothing, so I sent her an Email and she said she would get the yellow card in the mail, but it’s going to be a hand written one so I’ll have to get it replaced with forst renewal.

They can’t print from home?

 

Anyone know a way to speak to someone in the Registration branch? The current registration address won’t forward the mail to me.

Edited August 12, 2021 by A64Pilot

[A64Pilot]

5 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

It appears that the overhaul has already been priced into the deal. The OP is merely looking for a onetime transport of the aircraft to his preferred location where he can begin the restoration.

Since he quoted me, I think he was speaking of the twin Comanche, but surely that price was good enough for the ones that bought it.

Engine overhauls are easy, and they are a known price. it’s corrosion that’s the gotcha.

[Shadrach]

3 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

But your not everyone. Many will buy a good looking flyable airplane if the price is right, and after some number of hours, I’d say after about 25 hours the risk of failure drops back to about what it is normally anyway.

‘I believe that even being able to see it, isn’t a guarantee.  You can still lose a cam. But honestly I believe we all live with that possibility, you can fly often and use whatever oil additive, and still lose a cam, and of course trip an overhaul, or an extensive Iran if you go that way.

For some, reason that I don’t know, but it seems newer cams are more likely to fail than older ones. Perhaps that’s incorrect or perhaps it’s just that the ones likely to fail and don’t get old?

But finally, if the price is low enough it’s worth the risk, at least that’s I’m sure what they buyers thought, one was an A&P, the other an IA. One had just very recently got his Multi, I think to fly this airplane. Maybe they intended to keep it.

I assume the price as low enough so that they could overhaul and still make money, an airplane with two fresh overhauls is worth considerably more too.

An A&P should be able to make money off of an overhaul.

Agreed. The conventional wisdom that an unused aircraft deteriorates is most certainly true. However, well-maintained airplane that has been stored indoors does not just turn into an albatross simply because it was taken out of service. Engines are a crapshoot. I’ve seen engines That I’ve had little to no use in the preceding five years put back into service with little more than an oil change and an inspection.  I’ve also seen engines that were run 30-50 hours a year die young from lifter disintegration and cam spalling.

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

It appears that the overhaul has already been priced into the deal. The OP is merely looking for a onetime transport of the aircraft to his preferred location where he can begin the restoration.

I was not talking about the OP, I was talking about the twin Comanche

 

[A64Pilot]

Just from a glance at that twin Comanche, it was a time capsule, very low time, TT less than 2,000 and appeared to be at first look to have been completely gone through  prior to the Gentleman passing away. Old avionics of course but I don’t see anything wrong with old avionics myself, they work just as well as they did when I trained on them, especially if they were new old avionics.

These types of aircraft aren’t really all that uncommon in places where a lot of people retire, often a retiree will buy that airplane they have always wanted. You ought to see the cars in the Village, 1960’s Vette’s and early 70’s Chevelle’s and GTO’s and other classic cars are all over the place, because he always wanted one and now that he’s Retired and the kids grown and gone etc, he says to heck with it and buys one, because he knows that it’s now or never, he may be dead in ten years or unable to drive. People do the same with airplanes, for the same reason.

V tail Bonanza’s are common in my neighborhood, several of them, but what’s funny is that there isn’t a single Cirrus. Us old guys don’t seem to be as impressed with plastic as the younger crowd. There are two Mooney’s now.

The two A&P’s that bought it seemed very pleased, I’m relatively certain that even if they have to overhaul both motors and props that they will either make money on it, or if they bought it to keep, they will have a nearly perfect airplane. Anytime an A&P overhauls an engine they should make money on it, or what’s the point?

Now I realize that it’s very likely that someone who can’t do their own maintenance can easily get in way over their head with a “project” but an A&P should know better.

Some may open a barn and find a 57 Chevy under a blanket that has 10,000 miles on the odometer and think they have found a Gem, other like me realize that a 57 Chevy even in perfect shape is uncomfortable, noisy, swallows gas like it was free, drives and handles like a farm truck etc.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

A neighbor has this as one of his aircraft, beautiful airplane, not really useful. But I love seeing it