Leaderboard

@jiritico (as “Anonymous”) posted a longer version of the above criticism on Kathryn’s Report here: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2019/06/mooney-m20v-acclaim-ultra-n576cm.html?showComment=1560481914801&m=1#c7719649681294912541. This was posted in response: I read with interest the contribution by “Anonymous” of August 20, 2019. As the former Director of Engineering at Mooney, working there for almost 20 years, and in Aerospace for 45, it reminded me of how many “experts” there are in this industry. With so many educated opinions floating around, especially those that were not around at the inset of the Ultra project, it would be easy to be misled by their armchair quarterbacking. Therefore, it is incumbent upon me to set this record straight.While he is a Structures Engineer, he was in no way a Certification Engineer, which is glaringly obvious in his diatribe. Actually, he came to Mooney Kerrville with another group of Engineers from our CA. facility, and was on the team that produced the M10 he refers to as being un-airworthy. And in that respect, he is correct. That airplane that they designed will never see the sky again. Mooney does not certify junk.Citing “FAR”23.601; The suitability of each questionable design detail and part having an important bearing on safety in operations, must be established by tests…, I guess “Anonymous” wants all to believe that we just slapped a bunch of parts together, called in the FAA, slipped them their bribe money, and started selling planes. Actually, it was a 4+ year development project that not only included hundreds of hours of static testing, all the way to structural failure, but FLAMMABILITY testing to the FAA’s own criteria. We used intumescent paint, designed to swell up and form a fire-break when exposed to flame. The melting point of aluminum is less than 1300ºF. On the Ultra, firewall testing was accomplished to a flame temperature of 2500ºF. His reference to “FAR” 23.2270(a)(c), that rule didn’t even exist at the time of Ultra Certification, and is not part of the M20U/V Certification Basis. A Certification Engineer would know this, and understand what a Certification Basis is, and what it defines. Mooney’s safety record over a 60+ year span is envied by all GA manufacturers, even those using Ballistic Parachute systems. Mooney’s Certification Basis has served them, and the flying public, quite well.The M20’s steel safety cage is, in a way, a giant spring, designed to “bend” under crash loads. Static pull tests beyond Ultimate Load forces can bend the cage up to 15”, then returns to its basic shape when the load is relaxed. This simulates forces experienced in a crash. It deforms the hard riveted aluminum structure. The composite shell, however, simply cracks and buckles. At crash forces producing this effect, the chance of “shards flying around” is remote, and quite frankly, not your major problem.It is truly horrific what happened to Mr. Brandemuehl. My thoughts and prayers are with him and his family. However, from looking at the post-crash photos and reading the initial NTSB report and eyewitness accounts, the impact was violent. He would probably not have survived at all in another airplane. Unfortunately, the shearing of a wing will always result in fuel (100LL) being thrown around, just waiting for a spark to ignite it, and the resulting fire, no matter the aircraft, is the primary source of injury or death. Anonymous’s claims of a giant conspiracy are rather sad, as are his references to people, their nationalities and their motives.

Summary... 1) People have purchased Mooneys before, during, and after factory shut downs... 2) Most wear parts are not made by Mooney... 3) The Mooney specific parts I needed to source while the factory was closed... engine mounts and gear donuts... all made by a third party... 4) Big fear may come to mind when thinking about damaged sheet metal... how often have you dented the plane? We have insurance for that... 5) Stay calm... 6) Life is a long road... 7) No need to bash ‘the Chinese’ this is not ever going to be helpful... it takes extra effort to be clear about your thoughts... 8) Expect to learn more about the situation with time... 9) it’s not quite time to bring up everything you didn’t like about the Mooney aircraft company... 10) it is completely improper to speculate on the causes of Mark’s accident. That won’t help at all. Stay cool... We are all in this together... We will get through this one like we did all the others... together... Best regards, -a-

Don’t take this the wrong way. But as a long time owner (28 years and counting), I don’t get the fear about the Mooney situation. In those 28 years, I’ve been through numerous Mooney ownerships/bankruptcies and during that time frame have yet to experience the inability to get a part. Yeah, sometimes it may require an owner produced part and other times, the services of one of the Reapers. But in the end, a solution was available. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Sad but not unsurprising. Back in 2014, I was working for Cirrus but had been a long time Mooney owner. That year at AirVenture in Oshkosh, I made a point to stop by the Mooney tent and found the CEO. I asked him, if there were any plans to put a parachute system in the Ovation / Acclaim and pursue a gross weight increase. He said they were working on other things (Trainer, two doors, carbon fiber shell etc) and didn't see the need to do all the testing and engineering required to install a BRS. I told him politely, but bluntly, that I thought he was making a mistake and that Cirrus with its SR22 & CAPs were going to put Mooney out of business in under 5 years. At the time Cirrus was out selling Mooney 30 to 1 annually. I explained to him that while speed & efficiency are important selling points, wives don't care about that, they care about safety. And convincing wives to "sign off" on the purchase of a plane was the only way to sell $600K+ SE piston airplanes. He was polite but unreceptive. He responded by saying that Mooney's speed and efficiency had always been its best selling points and was confident that when all the "improvements" they were working on and the trainer come to market, they'd be in good shape going forward and able to compete. I can only imagine how successful Mooney would have been with a 1200 lb useful load and a BRS. But we'll never know. As it turns out I wasn't too far off from my insolvency date estimate. No doubt, GA is a tough market place and the road to success is paved with the carcasses of literally hundreds of dreamers, ideas and companies that just never make it or can't sustain over the long haul. Innovation and evolution are important but giving the customers what they (really their wives) want is the most important factor to sustainability. Unfortunately Mooney has learned that again the hard way.

And to all who are wondering, yes, we still plan to hold Mooney Summit VIII in Tampa regardless of the factory status. The meeting is for the owners and operators of our beloved Mooney Aircraft! See you in Tampa! -Seth

I think this may be the key for all of us- that we, as a community (owners, MSCs, MAPA, etc.), need to be responsible for our parts availability. Paul Loewen and LASAR have made great inroads into ensuring PMA'ed parts such as bushings and aftermarket parts are available to us. Other MSCs are legendary in removing corrosion and/or rebuilding wings and the like. It isn't impossible to fabricate a control pushrod as a one-off and have it be legal; with enough demand, an MSC could receive a PMA if we give them our loyalty and make it financially beneficial to them. And A&Ps like me will buy from them to install on customers' airplanes. I'm sad that the factory might close. But like Chris, I'm not afraid for our future.

Read my post again. The folks who are posting are not in the know and those in the know are not posting. Therefore I will wait until Mooney is ready to talk. I doubt that will be very long for numerous obvious reasons.

Need control surfaces , Rods , I have a wing too

The aviation section at Lowe’s has them. I don’t remember the size though. Lee https://www.lowes.com/search?searchTerm=plastic+hole+plugs

I am in the process of buying an 1985 J and this changes nothing for me. People still buy and fly Piper Comanches that have not had factory support for a long time. The newest ones are almost 50 years old yet are kept flying.

Did you see the recent test flight of the DA50 retractible. Composite, diesel engine, under 10 GPH, 20,000 feet, nice big fuselage. Performance - I'd settle for a real 180 or 200kts with range and payload. Manufacturers track record. Incremental change to product line. That is how successful manufacturers go about their business. Aerodon

I picked up my 1965 Mooney M20C today from Morganton, NC. It was at AGL for a prebuy and then they completed the annual. I flew to Charlotte yesterday on the 6am flight from Philly and then took an Uber to Morganton. Lynn met me at the airport and jacked up the plane so I could practice with the J-Bar. Then, I flew with a local instructor and completed airwork. This morning, we did a bunch of landings, a few go arounds, and engine outs. It was relatively cool and the plane was pretty consistently in the air at the 1000 foot marker. I flew back to KPNE without issue. Kept my speed on point for landing and had no problems making the first turn off. Planning on working with a safety pilot and some instruction before I would take it IFR. But, it was a long but fun weekend and I'm happy to have it home. Definitely recommend AGL for a prebuy as well

As a current F model owner, $1M dollars. [emoji15] Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Yes, I thought the same.

When three existing threads just aren’t enough...

Speaking from experience, if your climb and speed are suddenly in the toilet, you might want to double check your gear position. Adopting a check at the top of a climb (and 1000 agl) also helps find this problem. On the other hand, N22NS may have had other good reasons for flying with the gear down. Maybe the alternator was in-op? Or maybe they were reminiscing about flying a M20D?

I’ve seen this plane before. The paint Scheme looks Familiar...

Looks like it's gonna be made in China now. GA is gonna take off in Asia with more and more countries approving airspace for GA crafts. And they don't care about the having to sell with back to Americans yet because of the trade war with Trump. I heard that Mooney's past failures are due to bad marketing and I totally agree. You can have one of the best product out there but if it's not marketed properly you'll lose market share.... I still think mooney should have signed a deal with RR for their engines.

This Sunday I flew an hour each way to try them out. Well worth the flight. But that’s not saying much when it comes to the love of flight. It wasn’t worth stabbing someone or waiting in line for an hour but good. You should open a Popeyes in John Day.... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Eh, you're gonna need a max gross weight increase for that (or put the whole airframe on a diet)... 124 horsepower for 45 minutes would be 256 MJ of energy usage. Our best battery tech for weight & volume (Li-ion) will weigh as much as the TSIO-550-G you're replacing, and fill more than just the engine compartment in the process. Dino-juice really is quite incredible as an energy-storage medium, even with the terrible thermal efficiency of the Otto cycle.

Yes, Hank wants to fly the Missile!! But I've never met your wife . . . . .

Except for the ones made of wood.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/mooney-shut-down-employees-furloughed/ Sad, true, but not unsurprising. Back in 2014, I was working for Cirrus but had been a long time Mooney owner. That year at AirVenture in Oshkosh, I made a point to stop by the Mooney tent and found the CEO. I asked him, if there were any plans to put a parachute system in the Ovation / Acclaim and pursue a gross weight increase. He said they were working on other things (Trainer, two doors, carbon fiber shell etc) and didn't see the need to do all the testing and engineering required to install a BRS. I told him politely, but bluntly, that I thought he was making a mistake and that Cirrus with its SR22 & CAPs were going to put Mooney out of business in under 5 years. At the time Cirrus was out selling Mooney 30 to 1 annually. I explained to him that while speed & efficiency are important selling points, wives don't care about that, they care about safety. And convincing wives to "sign off" on the purchase of a plane was the only way to sell $600K+ SE piston airplanes. He was polite but unreceptive. He responded by saying that Mooney's speed and efficiency had always been its best selling points and was confident that when all the "improvements" they were working on and the trainer come to market, they'd be in good shape going forward and able to compete. I can only imagine how successful Mooney would have been with a 1200 lb useful load and a BRS. But we'll never know. As it turns out I wasn't too far off from my insolvency date estimate. No doubt, GA is a tough market place and the road to success is paved with the carcasses of literally hundreds of dreamers, ideas and companies that just never make it or can't sustain over the long haul. Innovation and evolution are important but giving the customers what they (really their wives) want is the most important factor to sustainability. Unfortunately Mooney has learned that again the hard way.

Most of the MSCs have some level of stock for the Mooney specific parts. As well, many of these parts are cross overs from other manufacturers. Like the Cleveland wheels, Heim joints, engine components, etc. There are also a number of aftermarket manufacturers for plastics and windows. What you are left with are the parts that you either need to produce yourself, find it from a Reaper or have it rebuilt. There really isn’t a lot left other than those components that you truly need a factory produced part. And those needs are usually tied to something significant. Like taxiing your wing into a pole. Even then, the Reapers can find stuff for you. Here is an example of an owner produced part. A visor. Also had a new mixture control knob machined. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

One idea..... A checklist is not a 'do' list for commonly done items (walkaround inspection, start, stop, runup). Memorize these. Or maybe make them separate and file them once you have everything memorized and you are proficient. Your checklist will then grow to be much, much smaller, and contain only the most critical things that you might want to double-check you've done. Save the read-and-do stuff for emergency items that are seldom done in case you forget something.

Not a chance! In almost 13 years of ownership I've not needed a factory part. I came close last summer with a main gear door, but their new pricing structure made me find an alternate solution. Textron is similar with their parts pricing and availability. I've said it before... They want nothing to do with making and/or supporting piston planes. Go shop for new spare parts for any of their legacy products and be sitting down when you get cost and lead time quotes. There could be a reasonable business supporting the fleet... But not by charging 10-100x costs on spare parts or interior upgrades, as an example. Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

It seems like the biggest compelling value Moony offers to the current market is in used aircraft that, at a given price point, compete favorably against most certified options for those looking at a comparatively 1) lower entry price 2) lower payload, 3) longer distance XC and 4)high-efficiency mission. That was me, and I think this requirement list may account for the vast majority (>95+%?) of Mooney ownership on this forum and in the market. A new Mooney fails item #1 and seems to be relegating itself to a small, shrinking, boutique market. Putting on my product strategy hat, an investor would likely look at the Mooney situation through goggles that look something like : Mission 1 = creating and executing a profitable and sustainable business model is a financial/business mandate and essential outcome. Optional outcome 2 = Keeping the Mooney brand, M20 line and factory employees going; this is an emotive mission. An investor is likely only interested in it mission number 1 because they see outcome 2 as a luxury afforded by a successful mission 1... and may not even be interested in all or part of outcome 2. While it is true, 2 may have some assets to leverage in 1, it will also present risk (possibly significant and lethal) via inertia to Mission 1. It sounds like this has been the outcome in the last few attempts in resurrecting the Mooney factory. According to wikipedia, there are about 7128 Mooney's registered worldwide, a number of those obviously are non-flying. Just guess here, but whatever the active number, the number of new aircraft entering that pool annually is probably somewhere around a 1% " rounding error" (compared to the active fleet) and fewer than the airframes falling out of active use ...resulting in a shrinking fleet. So, if someone wanted to "save" the Mooney brand (meaning create a sustainable business model), they would probably be well advised to take a cue from tennis and stay at the base line - i.e go conservative an align the organization to serve the current used fleet market ......or go to the net - i.e execute an innovation/disruption play that would require procuring committed high 9 to 10 figure funding and market a blank-sheet design optimized to the center of mass of the market demand and mass production efficiency. Hybrid strategies (apparently the current business strategy) end up in a "no man's land" that dies a death of lack of focus, excessive inertia, resource starvation (human and capital), lack of "runway" (time) and lack of resulting compelling & differential feature distinction according to the masses in the market. Regarding the last aspect, trying to "evolve" the M20 line does not create net market competitive advantage because competitors are evolving as fast (or faster). By the time the M20 is evolved, competition has set a higher bar than the evolution targeted. So, if you want to make an innovation based play, you need to aim waaay ahead of the market to give you development time to market a sufficiently disruptive technology that will command market attention and buying $$. But... you have competition doing the same, so you must win in both design and ... more importantly ...in demonstrating amazing execution capability. It is almost always easier and lower risk to execute a successful innovation play by growing from a small, core team and organically expanding it with high-fit/value team members. Trying to do an innovation play by re-tooling an existing larger organization is typically far higher risk and usually doesn't work, especially when you are starting behind in the market. So.... Mooney may want to take a very hard look at profitability/sustainability of a scaled-down structure that exists to support the existing M20 fleet and does not manufacture new airframes.

For those of you with Facebook:

I think the reason that some of us have been silent is to let the process play out and perhaps not to dissuade potential buyers. My heart is with the men and women who make those airplanes. The problem, in my opinion, has never really been with the workmanship, it has been in the management, development [of new models] and the marketing. In September I was able to tour Pilatus in Stans, Switzerland and meet with the Vice President of General Aviation. He told me stories of how in the very lean years after the 2nd world war, Pilatus manufactured mattresses and bed frames to keep the lights on. Non-aviation contract work is what saved their company. I am not saying that is what is happening at Mooney, but just an example of how you need to do what you need to do, sometimes. My hope is one of the two potential buyers is a good fit for our beloved airplane company. In the meantime, if you are inclined, say a prayer or send a good thought to those who won't be paid past last Friday and who aren't sure what it is going to happen next.

Go read about Tesla's Model 3 production ramp up. Unless we are talking about producing 500 Mooney per week, automation is out of the question. If GA industry wants that kind of demand, a new aircraft need to start around $100k, not $500k. There is one of the reasons why experimental is one of that fastest growing sector in GA. $35k will get you a airplane that will do 165 knots. $100k will get you a nice RV-10 that is large enough to take the family.

I’d rather be a mess than Frank...speaking Frankly.

But youll have a very nice M20F. Plane give or take 20k. Engine Overhaul - 35k Wings - 8k Avionincs - 30k (dual G5's, GNX375, PMA8000, GNC255, GTR225) Interior - 7k Squaks - 10k All in - 110K That would be a very nice F model though. If its your forever plane then Id say go from the ground up and build it exactly how you want. In the end it will be a wonderful airplane.

I would expect, and believe discretion is warranted in this situation and for respect of those at the factory directly affected by this.

I understand your thinking being new to the plane and wanting to strictly adhere to the POH. However, you will find that there are often better ways of doing things than what is in the POH and that sometimes the POH is just flat out wrong. For instance, the POH says as soon as the airplane is airborne and under good control, press the brakes, retract the gear, and reduce RPM to 2550 - 2600. Is it really a good idea to reduce RPM and thus power as soon as the airplane is airborne? Similarly, the fuel management guidelines in the POH are downright deadly. It says to take off with both tanks full, run one tank for an hour, start a timer and run the other tank dry. Remaining fuel is the time it took to run the second tank dry minus one hour. Good luck with that! For a really long thread, try convincing everyone on here that best economy (25 degrees ROP) as described by the POH is really the best setting for the most economical flight. I won't attempt to tell you how to run your plane, but read a lot, learn a lot, and make good decisions. All the info you need (and a lot you don't need) can all be found on Mooney Space!

Eman, We have a few choices... Did you really want to say... ‘real pilots don’t use check lists...’ that can set us back decades. Or did you mean... you have done this so many times, you have it memorized? Some checklists are more complex than others... some pilot’s memory is not as strong as others... Some pilots have real word things weighing on their minds... Following the logic you have written... we shouldn’t have any GU landings... but we still do... Find the threads where many complain ‘you raised my insurance rate’ why didn’t you use a check list...? So... Around here people use a check list... Often after following a flow... It is not a to do list... it is not a how to list... It is not a crutch... When I was young, I thought check lists were for inferior pilots... just used for training... The older I got the more obvious cognitive errors, like distraction are understood... Lastly, Everyone that wants to avoid cognitive errors uses a check list... Is that what you meant? PP thoughts only, not a CFI... Best regards, -a-

I have mine fitted into 2 pages, so only 1 sheet to deal with. I customized it from standard POH. Examples are: Removed Ram air, because I removed it. Add “fuel receipt” to beginning of hot start procedure. Check emergency release on the landing gear I removed “turn and push ignition key to start” ...I figure I won’t forget that, if I do I will figure it out, if not, I shouldn’t be flying. Tom

I wish the 229!families of the laid off workers luck. It’s terrible. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"The company, which is owned by the Chinese investment company Soaring American Corporation, says the move is “temporary” and that it will restart production when the market for its singles returns..." Sadly there will never be a robust market for a blazingly fast, beautiful, agile piston single with limited useful load and no chute at the 800k pricepoint. I am sure that is not lost on the owners. The poor execution of the M10 program spelled their doom. I wonder how many partly complete Mooneys were abandoned on the line. I know the new inventory was sold out a while back but presumably those 200+ workers were still making planes. I wonder what the remaining 90 workers are doing. That is far more than the skeleton crew that kept the lights on during the last shut down.

Id like to book an appointment with the "Queen"

I think the sad truth is that most of us fly Mooneys because they are efficient. What is more efficient than a nice used Mooney M20M for about $200K? Certainly not a brand new $800k Acclaim. It might sound great to buy a brand new M20J or M20K for $650,000, but nobody would- you can buy a cream puff for about $150,000. At the end of the day, we're all CBs at heart, and that won't keep the factory open. At least, not when that factory is a one-trick pony.

An IA is required to sign off the form 337 for return to service for anything that is a major repair or alteration. There is not tight agreement on what that means, and it has even been officially opined by FAA legal that STCs that aren't major alterations don't require a 337. Avionics changes generally don't fall under the description of major alterations or repairs in FAR 43 App A, and fit the TSO-for-TSO description of allowed changes, but most folks still use a 337 for them. Opinions vary. All that being said, the only thing the IA is really needed for is to sign off the 337 authorizing return to service. An A&P can do the work sign it off for conformity and an IA sign if off for return to service, and there are even separate places on the form for the A&P and the IA to sign it. So your A&P with available time can do the work and sign it, and the IA with less time can sign off the return to service. This might be tricky if they don't like each other or something, but it's a possible strategy.

This thread reminds me of a bunch of drunk old men at a bar in New Orleans at 2 pm on a Thursday, each pontificating over how to save the world from the younger generation....in a good way, of course :-).

Can't answer with a simple yes or no. I think the concept was initially created by an inexperienced crew, and once Mooney started down that road, there was no time to stop and do it right as the ownership was demanding speed. There was no understanding why building a plane from scratch takes longer than building giant commercial buildings in China... And asking permission to slow down was not in the cards. Eventually there were experienced/good people in Chino, but too late to fix everything that was cast in the initial design. I think the POC was 300 or 400 lbs overweight... Can't recover from that big of miss. I suspect if the M10 program started with a few excellent GA engineers and some patience, it would've been very successful. The market really wants trainers today and Mooney could've been making hundreds per year right now in the US, and working on the M20 replacement. Perhaps even more could be made in China too. Instead they burned through xx or xxx millions of dollars and have little of value to show for it. Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

Not a lot of time for flying as we are in the home stretch of marching band season for my youngest son. One more week and we get our Saturday's back... For those of you that are freezing, it was a cool 60°F here this morning. We wanted to get in an early flight before it got too warm, topped out at 90°F today. A short little hop from KFUL to KRAL for some breakfast and 100LL that was 50 cents a gallon less than my home base. We did enjoy our meal outside on the patio where even though it was in the shade it was still comfortable.

Change the four gaskets annually. Adjust the caps to be properly tight. Make sure caps are not cocked. Sump your tanks. This gadget is NOT necessary. Compressed air. Funny. Just be a little careful when removing cap after outside. MAAN-Much ado about nothing...