Input on damage

[MMMooney]

Hello,

I’m looking for input on damage repair to a leading edge of a wing that appears to have bondo as part of the repair. Is this something that is commonly done on repairs?  The repair was done in 1968 and it appears that during the last paint job (1991) they used bondo to smooth over a damaged leading edge. A question I have is if the patch on the wing was put in to repair an existing dent, why does the patch appear to be dented and filled with bondo. There is a 337 filed documenting the repair but something doesn’t feel right. There also seems to be a separation of the splice done.  Although not a big separation but enough that water could be getting in. I’ll attach pictures.

 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2023 by MMMooney

[ArtVandelay]

You may want to remove the closest inspection plate and take a look inside.

[1980Mooney]

12 hours ago, MMMooney said:

Hello,

I’m looking for input on damage repair to a leading edge of a wing that appears to have bondo as part of the repair. Is this something that is commonly done on repairs?  The repair was done in 1968 and it appears that during the last paint job (1991) they used bondo to smooth over a damaged leading edge. A question I have is if the patch on the wing was put in to repair an existing dent, why does the patch appear to be dented and filled with bondo. There is a 337 filed documenting the repair but something doesn’t feel right. There also seems to be a separation of the splice done.  Although not a big separation but enough that water could be getting in. I’ll attach pictures.

 

 

 

Yes Bondo/fillers are used to smooth out surfaces, fill hail dents, etc.  The exception is that Bondo is not allowed on flight control surfaces.

Is that a "new" dent in an area that was previously covered with about 1/8 inch Bondo?  Bird strike?

Here is a 5 year old thread on wing damage.  In the second pic you can see where Bondo cracked open to the right side of the damage.  It looks about the same thickness as yours.

 

 

[EricJ]

If the panel was replaced in 1968 that may be damage done after that.    +1 that bondo is very common in repairs and isn't an issue if done properly.   

Also +1 to check internally for any corrosion or other issues.

What does your IA think?  

[MMMooney]

Thank you. I’ll read over the thread. To answer your question @EricJ…that’s part of my problem.  I hired an A&P with IA to do a pre purchase inspection on this airplane. He didn’t notice this damage and never mentioned it until I questioned him. When I questioned him, he said he hadn’t noticed it which put up a red flag for me because this was the first thing I noticed on the airplane. What else didn’t he “notice”? 

[Andy95W]

2 hours ago, MMMooney said:

When I questioned him, he said he hadn’t noticed it which put up a red flag for me because this was the first thing I noticed on the airplane. What else didn’t he “notice”? 

He did what you hired him to do- look for airworthiness issues.  The pictures you posted show cosmetic damage with an accompanying 337 documenting the repair.  Therefore it becomes your responsibility to notice the damage in order to negotiate the price down.

[MMMooney]

@Andy95W I agree this may have not been an airworthiness issue but when I questioned him on it he said he didn’t even notice it. He asked me for pictures of the damage that I had to send to him. What else didn’t he notice? Several other red flags that came up with the pre purchase inspection. Anyway, ultimately it didn’t work out. Thank you for your input. 

[OR75]

Wondering why that even went to a pre-buy inspection. 
isn’t a visual inspection always the first step ?

[MMMooney]

@OR75 I am in California, the airplane was in Kansas. None of the pictures I saw showed this damage.  I trusted that the pre inspection would make me aware of any damage, particularly in the leading edge of a wing. Although it was determined it wasn’t an un airworthiness issue, should’ve been made known to me. Especially since I noticed it within two minutes of walking into the hangar.  I learned a lot from this experience and unfortunately I trusted too much. 

[LANCECASPER]

3 minutes ago, MMMooney said:

None of the pictures I saw showed this damage. 

I doubt that was unintentional.

[jaylw314]

Why was a 337 filed for the repair unless there had been an airworthiness problem?  Wouldn't that just be a logbook entry for minor repair if it wasn't?  And if it was a major repair noted in the logbooks, I would expect somebody looking for airworthiness issues to review major repairs, right?

[EricJ]

23 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

Why was a 337 filed for the repair unless there had been an airworthiness problem?  Wouldn't that just be a logbook entry for minor repair if it wasn't?  And if it was a major repair noted in the logbooks, I would expect somebody looking for airworthiness issues to review major repairs, right?

Many minor repairs, like changing a tire, can be due to an airworthiness problem, so that's not really part of the criteria for determining whether a repair is major (and requires a 337) or not.

There are two primary places to look for determining whether a repair is major or minor.   The first is the definition of "major repair" in Part 1 of the FARs:

Major repair means a repair:

(1) That, if improperly done, might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness;

or

(2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations.

 The second is Appendix A of Part 43:

(b) Major repairs —

(1) Airframe major repairs. Repairs to the following parts of an airframe and repairs of the following types, involving the strengthening, reinforcing, splicing, and manufacturing of primary structural members or their replacement, when replacement is by fabrication such as riveting or welding, are airframe major repairs.

(i) Box beams.

(ii) Monocoque or semimonocoque wings or control surfaces.

...

(x) Wing main ribs and compression members.

...

(xxii) The repair of damaged areas in metal or plywood stressed covering exceeding six inches in any direction.

...

(xxv) The repair of three or more adjacent wing or control surface ribs or the leading edge of wings and control surfaces, between such adjacent ribs.

...

So there may have been multiple potential reasons to consider the repair "major".   

 

[MMMooney]

So this particular aircraft had been in major incident less than a year after being certified. From what I was able to find out from an NTSB report and the logs, the airplane settled back onto the runway after taking off and putting up the gear and flaps too soon. The aircraft had major repairs consisting of replacing skins on the right wing and repairs to the empennage. That was the first 337 I found and the description of repairs was very generic. I sent the 337 to Mooney to ask if this had been an approved repair. Mooney replied confirming that the repair descriptions of work done to “best practices” and per “FAA Regulations” was generic. The 337 did not reference the Mooney Service Manual at all.  This was not a huge red flag to me because the airplane had been through MANY inspections since then. The red flag that started me down this hole was the A&P telling me he didn’t notice.  After noticing the damage I asked the A&P if there was a way to see the under side of the leading edge to check for possible corrosion from moisture getting though what appeared to be a gap. He said no there wasn’t. It took me two seconds to find an inspection plate almost immediately behind the section. I then asked him if he could bring his borescope to inspect this section. He then said he didn’t use borescopes…THIS was the last straw for me. Not that he didn’t use a borescope but that he had told me he had checked the exhaust valves and cylinders and they all looked fine. This was a specific question I asked before I hired him. He said he did “all that” and when he called me to tell me the inspection was complete, I again asked how the valves, and cylinders looked. He said they all looked fine. I came to find out he did an engine compression check and said he could tell if valves were going bad based on leaking pressures in the cylinder. I’m not an A&P so I won’t question the accuracy of that statement but what bothered me was that I specifically asked for that service and was led to believe that it would be completed. So again, what else didn’t he notice?  
 

I was pressed for time and I didn’t have time to have another A&P look over the airplane. I just walked away. Maybe I walked away from a great airplane because of a bad experience with an A&P? I don’t know. I will be happy to share more details if anyone is interested in this particular airplane send me a message. This was an M20F model in Kansas.

[Guy123]

If you don't mind saying where in KS is the F located??  I am based at KMEJ

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, MMMooney said:

So this particular aircraft had been in major incident less than a year after being certified. From what I was able to find out from an NTSB report and the logs, the airplane settled back onto the runway after taking off and putting up the gear and flaps too soon. The aircraft had major repairs consisting of replacing skins on the right wing and repairs to the empennage. That was the first 337 I found and the description of repairs was very generic. I sent the 337 to Mooney to ask if this had been an approved repair. Mooney replied confirming that the repair descriptions of work done to “best practices” and per “FAA Regulations” was generic. The 337 did not reference the Mooney Service Manual at all.  This was not a huge red flag to me because the airplane had been through MANY inspections since then. The red flag that started me down this hole was the A&P telling me he didn’t notice.  After noticing the damage I asked the A&P if there was a way to see the under side of the leading edge to check for possible corrosion from moisture getting though what appeared to be a gap. He said no there wasn’t. It took me two seconds to find an inspection plate almost immediately behind the section. I then asked him if he could bring his borescope to inspect this section. He then said he didn’t use borescopes…THIS was the last straw for me. Not that he didn’t use a borescope but that he had told me he had checked the exhaust valves and cylinders and they all looked fine. This was a specific question I asked before I hired him. He said he did “all that” and when he called me to tell me the inspection was complete, I again asked how the valves, and cylinders looked. He said they all looked fine. I came to find out he did an engine compression check and said he could tell if valves were going bad based on leaking pressures in the cylinder. I’m not an A&P so I won’t question the accuracy of that statement but what bothered me was that I specifically asked for that service and was led to believe that it would be completed. So again, what else didn’t he notice?  
 

I was pressed for time and I didn’t have time to have another A&P look over the airplane. I just walked away. Maybe I walked away from a great airplane because of a bad experience with an A&P? I don’t know. I will be happy to share more details if anyone is interested in this particular airplane send me a message. This was an M20F model in Kansas.

Sorry this didn't go well, but it sounds like you're still looking and will be a bit better armed in the future for things to look for in both airplanes and mechanics.

FWIW, I suggest asking for borescope inspections and then asking that the pics will be delivered to you after the inspection.   A PPI should (or at least can) have deliverables, like borescope pics, numeric compression results, and pics of anything else of note not already in pics from the seller.   All of that should be agreed to (maybe in writing, even if just an email or text) prior to the inspection.

I think that wing dent had a good chance of not being anything too awful, but losing confidence in the PPI means not having confidence in the condition of the airplane, which is not great.

I did a pre-PPI on a local airplane for an out-of-state friend a couple years ago just to see if the airplane was worth pursuing, which it clearly was.   He had somebody else do the official PPI and then I followed up by getting all the pieces (wheel pants, logbooks, etc.) together for the ferry pilot to take everything away.   When I was doing that I noticed some issues that I'd previously identified that should have been addressed during the PPI but weren't, and found out that the PPI mechanic had not even run it.  I was pretty disappointed with that.   Finding good mechanics, doctors, and lawyers is often critical to the outcome of important events.

[Fly Boomer]

11 hours ago, MMMooney said:

what bothered me was that I specifically asked for that service and was led to believe that it would be completed. So again, what else didn’t he notice?  

I had a similarly disappointing experience with a PPI.  What I now realize is that there is no official definition of a PPI, so you must specify everything you want done.  The list of everything can be long and tedious to prepare, but you have to expect that, unless you specify something, it's not going to get done.  And if you fail to specify something you would think a reasonable person would do without direction, they probably won't do it.

[jlunseth]

20 hours ago, MMMooney said:

@OR75 I am in California, the airplane was in Kansas. None of the pictures I saw showed this damage.  I trusted that the pre inspection would make me aware of any damage, particularly in the leading edge of a wing. Although it was determined it wasn’t an un airworthiness issue, should’ve been made known to me. Especially since I noticed it within two minutes of walking into the hangar.  I learned a lot from this experience and unfortunately I trusted too much. 

Was the "pre-inspection" a pre-buy that you directed and paid for, or was it a seller-paid annual inspection? The seller-paid annual is not for your benefit and is a route to outright fraud. In a pre-buy the A&P doing the inspection doesn't necessarily divide things between airworthiness and nonairworthiness issues, he just identifies issues for you. In the annual the seller pressures the A&P to say that something is not an airworthiness issue, and because of that the seller does not have to make a repair to make the aircraft airworthy for another year.

Edited October 13, 2023 by jlunseth

[1980Mooney]

On 10/10/2023 at 7:23 PM, MMMooney said:

@Andy95W I agree this may have not been an airworthiness issue but when I questioned him on it he said he didn’t even notice it. He asked me for pictures of the damage that I had to send to him. What else didn’t he notice? Several other red flags that came up with the pre purchase inspection. Anyway, ultimately it didn’t work out. Thank you for your input. 

 

21 hours ago, MMMooney said:

@OR75 I am in California, the airplane was in Kansas. None of the pictures I saw showed this damage.  I trusted that the pre inspection would make me aware of any damage, particularly in the leading edge of a wing. Although it was determined it wasn’t an un airworthiness issue, should’ve been made known to me. Especially since I noticed it within two minutes of walking into the hangar.  I learned a lot from this experience and unfortunately I trusted too much. 

 

13 hours ago, MMMooney said:

I was pressed for time and I didn’t have time to have another A&P look over the airplane. I just walked away. Maybe I walked away from a great airplane because of a bad experience with an A&P? I don’t know. I will be happy to share more details if anyone is interested in this particular airplane send me a message. This was an M20F model in Kansas.

Buying a 55 year old plane is a very imperfect process.  These are handmade planes and with time most become more and more bespoke with modifications or unique repairs.  Not everything done to a plane is exhaustively documented.  Every plane has had many owners and the current owner, even someone very honest and trusting, may not know the true history and condition of their plane.  Even if you buy a plane and start working with an A&P to maintain your plane, you will find that it is an imperfect process.  There are many stories here of owners that place "trust" in their maintainers only to be disappointed.

Flying has risk.  Buying and owning a plane has risk.  It takes knowledge, time and money.  It is all about finding the right balance for you.

I sent you a message. 

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by 1980Mooney

[201Mooniac]

2 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

I had a similarly disappointing experience with a PPI.  What I now realize is that there is no official definition of a PPI, so you must specify everything you want done.  The list of everything can be long and tedious to prepare, but you have to expect that, unless you specify something, it's not going to get done.  And if you fail to specify something you would think a reasonable person would do without direction, they probably won't do it.

I have only had one experience 28 years ago when I bought my M20J but I had Top Gun do the pre-purchase inspection and Tom Rouch started the process by telling me that the PPI was not a standard thing and he would do whatever I wanted.  He then walked me through a very thorough list of things he could inspect and asked which I wanted done.  This built incredible trust and I've been going to Top Gun ever since.

[Fly Boomer]

3 minutes ago, 201Mooniac said:

I have only had one experience 28 years ago when I bought my M20J but I had Top Gun do the pre-purchase inspection and Tom Rouch started the process by telling me that the PPI was not a standard thing and he would do whatever I wanted.  He then walked me through a very thorough list of things he could inspect and asked which I wanted done.  This built incredible trust and I've been going to Top Gun ever since.

I can't recall a single bad report on Top Gun.  It's too far for me, but it's reassuring to know that there is still a shop that is so well managed.

[M20F-1968]

Take the airplane to an excellent sheet metal shop.  Beegles of Colorado comes to mind.  Try to work out the dent with one person pushing from the inside and a second person tapping and working the metal from the outside.  Try to get it as close to the correct shape as you can.  It will depend on the nature of the dent.  For this to work the edges of the dent should not have sharp corners and should be gradual.  Find a knowledgeable person to look at it and make an assessment.

John Breda

[A64Pilot]

Bondo is actually not uncommon even on new aircraft from the factory.

A perfect 50 yr old airplane doesn’t exist and the very few that come close are exceptionally rare and most often priced above what most want to pay. Face it, those of us that shop 50 yr old aircraft are doing so because newer ones are out of our budget, or we would be buying newer. 

Most often as an aircraft depreciates due to age it begins to lead a tougher life, more likely to be tied down outside and or repairs and maintenance are more likely to barely meet standards as opposed to “I don’t care what it costs, I want it done right”. Most 50+ yr old aircraft have a history of accidents whether the book reflects that or not.

99% of owners will fight a mechanic that wants to include why the repairs are being made and we now even have experts telling owners to never allow any kind of negative logbook entry, to only allow those entries to be made on stickies that can be conveniently lost or tossed after the min time to keep them has past. So logbooks have to a great extent become worthless where they used to be a biography of the aircraft.