Am I right to be concerned?

[Red Leader]

I am the proud owner of a really nice, upgraded 231 but have always wanted an M20M. Recently, on Trade-a-Plane, I came across a 1991 Bravo at a very good price. According to the listing, it sat inside a hangar for 6 years and the new owner found corrosion inside one of the cylinder heads. Here is the listing:

1991 MOONEY M20M TLS BRAVO Single Engine Piston for sale - 2450926

Am I right to be concerned? No original logs - according to the ad, they have been reconstructed. Corrosion already in once cylinder suggests corrosion in all of them but I suspect they didn't look in others for fear of what they might find (hence the good price?). I recently missed another Bravo (22HM) a couple of years ago when the owner, after making a deal with me, ended up giving it to the shop for outstanding fees. It, too, had corrosion inside the engine and needed an overhaul. 

In spite of the good price and (seemingly) good condition of the airframe, I am worried that it may be a major can of worms - the engine may be just waiting to fail and reveal all sorts of mess inside. I know a thorough prebuy would reveal (or put to rest) all concerns, however, I believe the wise course of action would be to pass on this plane. Thoughts?

[Fritz1]

Very careful, this looks like a project plane, can make sense if you are retired, A&P, work on it for a year and buy it close to salvage, BAS can tell you on Monday what salvage is for a early 90s Bravo, factory reman engine with hoses probably is close to $130k, a decent overhaul with new cylinders at least $80k, downtime will tremendous either way, there are other Bravos out there that you can get going for les money with less pain, they typically run between $200k and $300k  

[N201MKTurbo]

If you don’t buy it somebody else will soon. Is it ADS-B compliant?

[Jackk]

Real world  it ether sat or it was high time, if it’s a 90s plane with under 10k hrs it “sat”  not really a issue outside of sitting on a  ramp in S FL

 

logs, if it’s airworthy that’s that, but for resale to dentists and accountants having full logs is a factor, worth busting his chops on value 

[Jackk]

3 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

If you don’t buy it somebody else will soon. Is it ADS-B compliant?

 Is ADSB trackers a plus in value?

[N201MKTurbo]

2 minutes ago, Jackk said:

 Is ADSB trackers a plus in value?

Required since 2020

[Ragsf15e]

29 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Required since 2020

Especially for a Bravo… who wants to fly that below 10k?!

[LANCECASPER]

3 hours ago, Red Leader said:

I am the proud owner of a really nice, upgraded 231 but have always wanted an M20M. Recently, on Trade-a-Plane, I came across a 1991 Bravo at a very good price. According to the listing, it sat inside a hangar for 6 years and the new owner found corrosion inside one of the cylinder heads. Here is the listing:

1991 MOONEY M20M TLS BRAVO Single Engine Piston for sale - 2450926

Am I right to be concerned? No original logs - according to the ad, they have been reconstructed. Corrosion already in once cylinder suggests corrosion in all of them but I suspect they didn't look in others for fear of what they might find (hence the good price?). I recently missed another Bravo (22HM) a couple of years ago when the owner, after making a deal with me, ended up giving it to the shop for outstanding fees. It, too, had corrosion inside the engine and needed an overhaul. 

In spite of the good price and (seemingly) good condition of the airframe, I am worried that it may be a major can of worms - the engine may be just waiting to fail and reveal all sorts of mess inside. I know a thorough prebuy would reveal (or put to rest) all concerns, however, I believe the wise course of action would be to pass on this plane. Thoughts?

First of all there's no proof at this point that it's a Bravo. The ad lists a TIO-540-AF1A engine, which was an original engine without the Bravo conversion. The only way to get a Bravo engine now for this airplane is to do a factory exchange (they will take an -AF1A  as core credit on a -AF1B). By the time you do that with installation, etc, etc that will be an extra $100,000.

Also this is serial number 27-0088, so it's before the dual puck brakes, which means no gross weight increase.

It probably has the original landing gear motor, budget $15,000-$20,000 for the updated gear motor.

These items are just scratching the surface. 35 year old paint, interior, panel, no ads-b, fuel tanks?, etc, etc.

If he gave it to you free and you put in $275,000 you could have an airplane worth $250,000 - $275,000 ..  maybe, but no logs.

If the seller gets $125,000 he will be doing very well on this airplane. I wouldn't trust the engine that's on that airplane.

 

 

[Red Leader]

Wow, that is even worse than I thought. As much as I want a Bravo, I don't need one - my 231 is plenty fast and very efficient. Also, mine has most of the upgrades I want. This plane, even if the engine was good, has the original interior, no GPS, I don't see any ADS-B but I have not contacted the seller to ask. The fact that he is selling after having for only a little while suggests an awareness that there is much more to be done to make it reliable, but again, I have not spoken with him and after this information, I don't believe I will. Thank you all!

[Jackk]

12 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Required since 2020

 Uhh no it’s not 

 

 It’s required in some airspace, though there are tools to get exemptions.

[IvanP]

16 hours ago, Red Leader said:

I. I recently missed another Bravo (22HM) a couple of years ago when the owner, after making a deal with me, ended up giving it to the shop for outstanding fees. It, too, had corrosion inside the engine and needed an overhaul. 

 

Would you mind elaborating a bit on the issues you found with N22HM? I bought that plane in 2023 with new engine and paint. Did not find any hidden issues so far (just finished 3rd annual), but would be curious if you had any knwowledge on point.  

[Jackk]

48 minutes ago, IvanP said:

Would you mind elaborating a bit on the issues you found with N22HM? I bought that plane in 2023 with new engine and paint. Did not find any hidden issues so far (just finished 3rd annual), but would be curious if you had any knwowledge on point.  

 Could also be a shop taking him for a ride

 

 It takes a rather bad location and normally outside kept plane  to actually rust out a engine to the point it needs anything other than to be run and some more oil changes early on.

 

 Looks like it was registered in AZ before, seeing AZ has sales/use tax I’d think it also lived in AZ, so rust and all, kinda leaning towards a shop taking someone for a ride, though it was owned by a trust for a bit, but still Arizona is kinda a desert

Edited January 3 by Jackk

[Red Leader]

2 hours ago, IvanP said:

Would you mind elaborating a bit on the issues you found with N22HM? I bought that plane in 2023 with new engine and paint. Did not find any hidden issues so far (just finished 3rd annual), but would be curious if you had any knwowledge on point.  

I had arranged to purchase 22HM from the previous owner, having been directed to him by a friend who had a prebuy performed on it. During the inspection, it was found the engine was corroded from disuse and required an overhaul. My friend did not purchase this plane but gave me the contact number of the owner. I personally never visited the aircraft so I cannot elaborate on the problems other than the issue with the engine. I thought the paint scheme was attractive and in good condition from the pictures I had but there could have been corrosion - IDK.

Edited January 3 by Red Leader
Too elaborate with more info than requested

[Rick Junkin]

16 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Also this is serial number 27-0088, so it's before the dual puck brakes, which means no gross weight increase.

A bit of thread drift.

@LANCECASPER I have single puck brakes on my airplane (27-0019) and also have SB M20-248 incorporated for the takeoff weight increase to 3368#. There is no mention of the brakes in the SB, and the landing weight limit is still 3200#. Do you know what changed after serial number 27-0052? You've got me curious to know more about the weight limits within the M20M production run.

[IvanP]

4 hours ago, Red Leader said:

I had arranged to purchase 22HM from the previous owner, having been directed to him by a friend who had a prebuy performed on it. During the inspection, it was found the engine was corroded from disuse and required an overhaul. My friend did not purchase this plane but gave me the contact number of the owner. I personally never visited the aircraft so I cannot elaborate on the problems other than the issue with the engine. I thought the paint scheme was attractive and in good condition from the pictures I had but there could have been corrosion - IDK.

Thank you for the response. 

[IvanP]

2 hours ago, Rick Junkin said:

A bit of thread drift.

@LANCECASPER I have single puck brakes on my airplane (27-0019) and also have SB M20-248 incorporated for the takeoff weight increase to 3368#. There is no mention of the brakes in the SB, and the landing weight limit is still 3200#. Do you know what changed after serial number 27-0052? You've got me curious to know more about the weight limits within the M20M production run.

My plane has the SB 248 incorporated and dual puck brake kit STC installed, but I did not see anything about the GW increase beyond the 3368# MGTOW and 3200 MLW. Does the dual puck brake kit STC change the GW limitation?

[LANCECASPER]

3 hours ago, Rick Junkin said:

A bit of thread drift.

@LANCECASPER I have single puck brakes on my airplane (27-0019) and also have SB M20-248 incorporated for the takeoff weight increase to 3368#. There is no mention of the brakes in the SB, and the landing weight limit is still 3200#. Do you know what changed after serial number 27-0052? You've got me curious to know more about the weight limits within the M20M production run.

My mistake you are absolutely correct. 

In my mind I was crossing the gross weight increase for the Encore, which does require dual puck brakes, with the gross weight increase for the M20M. My apologies.

[Shadrach]

10 hours ago, Jackk said:

 Uhh no it’s not 

 

 It’s required in some airspace, though there are tools to get exemptions.

Practically speaking, operating a non ADSB equipped, turbocharged, Mooney is kind of like driving a lifted, SUV with a snorkel but never leaving pavement.

Visual aid below to help illustrate why. I wouldn’t want to be limited to 10,000’ in my naturally aspirated F model much less in any of the turbos.

 

[Jackk]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Practically speaking, operating a non ADSB equipped, turbocharged, Mooney is kind of like driving a lifted, SUV with a snorkel but never leaving pavement.

Visual aid below to help illustrate why. I wouldn’t want to be limited to 10,000’ in my naturally aspirated F model much less in any of the turbos.

 

 Honestly unless you’re pressurized, I don’t ram plastic up my nose, below 10k is the best place.  For my GA ops I am normally under 1k AGL, for IFR under 8k  

[Ragsf15e]

16 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

My mistake you are absolutely correct. 

In my mind I was crossing the gross weight increase for the Encore, which does require dual puck brakes, with the gross weight increase for the M20M. My apologies.

Not if you ask Maxwells… I’m not saying they’re right or anything, and I’m sort of being cheeky, but they say, “we talked to the Mooney chief engineer and he said it’s ok, so it’s ok.”  Unfortunately they have no documentation and the person has since died…

[ragedracer1977]

17 hours ago, Jackk said:

 Honestly unless you’re pressurized, I don’t ram plastic up my nose, below 10k is the best place.  For my GA ops I am normally under 1k AGL, for IFR under 8k  

If you live on the east coast or the plains and never use your Mooney as intended, that makes a lot of sense.

 

 

[LANCECASPER]

4 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

Not if you ask Maxwells… I’m not saying they’re right or anything, and I’m sort of being cheeky, but they say, “we talked to the Mooney chief engineer and he said it’s ok, so it’s ok.”  Unfortunately they have no documentation and the person has since died…

So they're saying that the M20M needs dual puck brakes for the Gross Weight increase or the Encore doesn't need it?

[Ragsf15e]

1 minute ago, LANCECASPER said:

So they're saying that the M20M needs dual puck brakes for the Gross Weight increase or the Encore doesn't need it?

They said the 252 to Encore doesn’t need them.  They did a few airplanes that way when they didn’t have access to the brakes/gear doors and signed them off as “Single puck conversion”.  They said “Mooney approved it”.  However that feels a bit shady considering there’s no documentation…

[LANCECASPER]

11 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

They said the 252 to Encore doesn’t need them.  They did a few airplanes that way when they didn’t have access to the brakes/gear doors and signed them off as “Single puck conversion”.  They said “Mooney approved it”.  However that feels a bit shady considering there’s no documentation…

Exactly

[Shadrach]

The dual puck upgrade seems like it might improve feel and provide longer pad life. I dubious that it makes a lot of difference in actual brake performance. For that to be true, the stock rotors would have to have ample margin for heat dissipation beyond what the stock pads and calipers can generate.