Leaderboard

What do you mean they are not? Just what do you think this is? Rumor is that mgmt has been monitoring Mooneyspace and they realize based on the vast expertise expounded here that the only way to win new sales is to bring back the $7,000 M20 wood plane.

I have a different take on this and could be way off... but from the little bit I know... I don't think the Meijing group ever intended to run Mooney as a profitable business. It's just a rounding error on her balance sheet. I expect when the trade wars with China are over, they'll start back up and go on as if nothing happened. The Meijing group is required to be in the aviation business by Chinese regulations. So they are. But with the ongoing trade war, they've been given the green light to shut it down for the time being. And with no loyalty to the brand, the employees, or even the profit that would come from a properly run enterprise, they've just turned off the switch until they need to turn it back on. So I don't think this has anything to do with the balance sheet at Mooney.

George, your rationalizing again...You should have just got an Aztek and kept 300K in your pocket, or maybe a Commanche 400 like Clarence. No fancy "shoot" to blow, however, but you wouldnt look like a dork with the wheels hanging down all the time Oh wait...it has a 4 blade prop! Never mind...

Toto, See if this is what you had in mind... Shortage of cash... Survival will be the primary objective... Pick something that has a short time period for bringing cash in over the transom... Staying focused on the things that bring in money is important... Selling Mooneys sounds like a good place to stay focused... picking long term, pie in the Sky ideas, won’t have enough time for the needed pay back... there has been no home-runs for years... it is not time to swing for the fences... keep the focus on everything that brings in dough now... Do not, for once, ever drop the ball on quality... Take no short cuts... Communicate both directions... top-down, and bottom-up... Identifying where the ship is leaking from, takes all hands on deck... 24/7 Stop the leaks... then put a serious financial plan together... The people that need to be impressed with the plan are the same people somebody was complaining about yesterday... Stay focused! Ever struggle and fight to keep a business afloat? Fortunately, the economy is as strong as ever... it’s not 2007. The product is great! Go sell it. Communicate... prospective customers Existing Customers suppliers existing owners know where you are going drive/fly the shortest, straightest path to get there... Know that miracles happen, it may take some luck... the harder everyone works as a team... they luckier they will be... Hope and wishful thinking are not part of a successful flight plan. Or did you want a wish list... turbine pressurized low cost composite Best regards, -a-

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

I always look like a dork, regardless of where my wheels are hanging!

This is my last post and them I promise to drift back into obscurity again. I initially commented because I was so disappointed with Mooney's leadership back in 2014 when they were flush with Chinese cash that they didn't do the thing that would have almost certainly made them competitive again; Increase useful load and install a BRS. Instead the CEO dismissed my counsel and went a different direction. I am largely lamenting at what "could have been" if he'd only listened. Sucks b/c I'd loved it if Mooney could have evolved into a competitive manufacturer that could compete head to head with Cirrus. They didn't and the rest is history. Now Cirrus is the only "real" choice in the HP SE piston market place. I'm I in love with its looks...No. Am I in love with the way it "hand" flys...No. Is is the best option when weighing a variety of factors (Safety, Speed, UL, Price, Supportability, Comfort, Spouse peace of mind) Yep. All that being said, I wish Mooney had gotten their act together so "some day" I might have the option to come back to the brand. With this weeks announcement chances are that'll never happen.

There is a movie that has Kevin B getting run over by a mob as he says “Remain calm”... Chillax. Plane in the hanger. Check Maintenance provider at the ready. Check. Would you feel better if a bunch of SB’s came out? ”Remain Caaaaaaaalm.......” (Mob overtakes and crushes “uninformed”) Fade to black.

Seems like a pretty broad differential for a skilled A&P to sort out. Could be fuel (e.g. partially plugged injector) or spark (seems less likely with new plugs, harness, mags but not impossible). This is basic engine work - you don't need a Mooney Service Center for it. Borescope and compressions were unlikely to give insight here, and it would not have been my first thought to do those checks. I'm sure someone will say it, but this problem would be MUCH easier to diagnose with a data-logging engine monitor in place.

Well, the fact of the matter is, that in the current market it will be VERY difficult to sell any airplane without a shute. Rationalizing or not, it is a very sad fact that with huge probability several of the Mooney friends we lost to engine failures recently, including the loss of the Ultra, would have been perfectly survivable. So SEP's without a shute will become a no go for most people who are looking to buy new and quite a few flying partners or wives will insist on it. Hell, even single jets get it these days. As much as I love my Mooney and as much as I like the performance of the current line (the Ovation in particular including the range), if I were in the new market or in the market for a comparable plane, I could not justify to my family NOT going for a BRS equipped plane. As much as nobody buys cars without airbags these days or safety belts for that matter. When I was small, nobody heard of children seats either (never had one myself). Times have changed in that regard. And I am afraid to say, Mooney missed the bus badly on this, not that they are the only ones though. The training market is different, that is why Piper and Cessna still can sell basic airframes as they are. Mooneys however are the Ferrari/Lamborghini class of GA and it that class, you can't really be second best in anything, least of all in the public's perception of safety. If I bought a plane for myself with a goal in mind such as a long range travel trip, such as some single travel, I would still look very favorably at my personal dream plane of the Ovation with LR tanks (and I would have to fly it alone too due to it's payload) but for family travel, family guys also rather buy a crash proof Volvo to a sports car.

I have seen the G500/600 Txi screen powered up and the clarity is brilliant to say the least. I'm sure it is mostly touch screen which could make it difficult in turbulence. This problem does not exist with the G3X. One of the features I like about my IFD's is the choice of button usage when in turbulence vs the GTN navigators.

I’m not optimistic that we will ever see the production of a new Mooney aircraft ever again. However there is most definitely money to be made making and selling the parts. I can’t imagine a scenario where someone doesn’t pick that part of the business up if the current owner doesn’t do it.

Just an update. Picked up tonight. mfd and PFD upgrade. Charged 3 hrs labor plus $79 shipping. Part of labor was installing audio wire to my PMA450.

They need to get the cost below $600 and increase the useful load by 300lbsTheir sales would skyrocket. Not saying it’s easy, it close to a million for what is effectively a 2 person aircraft severely limits the pool of buyers. Full disclaimer, I’ve owned two mooneys and I’m still going to buy another one, regardless of what they decide It’s a wonderful aircraft and short of damage, there is very little in the way of parts that couldn’t be obtained. it’s time they exploited the part 23 rewrite and mades some real changes to make the product more attractive to non mooniancs

@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.

It wouldn't be impossible to make mid body Mooneys again, but as debated ad nauseum, they would only cost a few thousand less to build versus an Ovation or Acclaim. Very marginally less raw material, a few less rivets, engine and prop that only cost 10-15k less than the 550's... You get the idea. So a J or K at 750000 vs 800k or whatever won't sell. At the stratospheric prices we have today, buyers opt for loaded and more powerful... That's why the J and K went out of production 20 years ago. That's why the Eagle didn't sell well. That's why the stripped-down J models didn't sell well. It's just where we are, and no amount of wishing that a new J be made and sold for half the price of an Ovation will make it possible. Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

I don't like the added cost and extra weight of the parachute, but my next plane will have one for sure... If you don't believe me, just ask my wife. Driver

George, Richard's engine issue on short final would have not been mitigated by pulling a chute. It may have resulted in a whole new series of injuries and possibly more damage to bystanders property, instead of just a boat. Yes, Richard did suffer some bruises on his chest, but was manning the Mooney booth at SNF that day. The chute has its value, especially if it breaks up on you and there is something left to hold the chute on. A new Ultra Acclaim was chosen recently over a SR22T because the SR22T couldnt make it from Miami to san Juan PR without stopping for fuel, so range is a consideration that leans heavily in the Mooney's favor. Another astute owner chose an Ultra over "the Cirrus Experience" because he inquired what it would cost if someone backed into his wing, like what happened to him on a previous cherokee. He really didnt like the answer he got for a cost to repair a damaged Cirrus wing. Each plane has its strengths and merits. One is a pilot's plane, one is a family truckster. Just as I love Porsche's, and have driven a 906 competitively, I also know its not the car for me as a 68 year old retired engineer. I submit to driving an SUV now (never mind that it's 0-60 time is 2.7 seconds :)) because it is more practical EDIT: RICHARD DID suffer a couple of broken ribs and hit his head. The AmSaFE seatbelts did not deploy, apparently the G's to activate were not enough. I stand corrected and owe George a public apology.

Whenever we look at the risks per 100k I think about walking in to buy life insurance. When asked what do you do for fun? Well I ride my motorcycle to the airport, jump into my Mooney headed to a remote island, and hire a skiff for some afternoon diving. Is that going to help my monthly rates ?

George you are speaking like a sales person selling Cirrus parachutes. You speak in statistics on one hand and then in anecdote you say ask that guy what he thinks on the other. Knock on wood and I hope to not repeat this again...but I myself and one of those "ask that guy what he thinks"...I did once have an engine out and it did scare the crap out of me - complete engine failure with a dead stick landing. I was at 16000 ft enroute and I fly high as a rule since I don't have a parachute, and by grace of luck and training I managed to land at an airport - no claim I could pull that off again. That day I was glad I did not have a parachute since I would have pulled it for sure and who knows what would have happened. Instead I rode out the 12 minutes or so of very scary airmanship, but I very much held it together all the way to the landing, finding an airport, commercial spiral, terminated with a lovely landing on a runway, no damage to me most important, and no damage to the airplane. Who knows what would have been the outcome with a parachute. I might have been flying at night feeling safe with my parachute, low altitude over a city and landed in front of a bus. But seriously I don't believe in individual anecdotes when making statistical decision making - and I do believe in incorporating prior beliefs into my rough conditional decision making - call me a believer in Bayesian -all your statistics and all your prior beliefs must be combined to build an appropriate posterior to make your best decision. I repeat the principle I said above last post "Anyway this falls under a technical phrase from psychology of risk called "risk compensation, " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation and note in particular Pelztmen effect from economics to explain " regulation has not decreased highway deaths"." If I am at 800 ft in a crowed environment engine out I want a parachute. If I am at night with a parachute I would rather be on the ground without a parachute waiting for the sunshine since I fly in the day without a parachute. However if you want to speak statistically about the low altitude scenario, please do it right and I wonder if there are statistics available regarding the outcomes with and without parachutes stratified for below 400 ft, 400-800 ft, 800 ft and up to say 1500 ft engine outs, and then up, and then most important, that window where parachutes work - how many total saves are there - is this a vanishingly small fraction or is it a large fraction of the incidents. Are they engine out on take off? Or are they stall spin base to final turns. If the latter would I be better off buying a Garmin GFC500 with envelope protection to improve my safety statistics?

The Mooney factory was shut down when I was looking at the different brands, but a Mooney was still on the top of my list. There is very little if nothing that can’t be done with either salvage parts or fabrication of new by a good metal guy or several of the well known MSC around the country. I hate to see Mooney shut down, and hopefully they will be back, but either way most all of the fleet is fine for many years to come. Too many other things to focus on other than the factory

I hope you are right, Paul

Agreed and well thought out summary - as always. One tuning that I would offer to the above guidance is to focus on bringing in GP, not revenue. It is amazing how many business that I coach get those two confused with each widget they sell getting them further and further in debt, or more insidiously, make them grow their volume on razor thin margins so that a minor market speed bump takes them out because they lack the reserves/competencies etc to pivot. I try to remind them that in a viable, sustainable business (not artificially sustained by constant investment) we are forced to spend revenue on COGS and profit is the only thing is available to spend on things you want and need. That is why I was armchair pontificating in the other thread that Mooney may want to strongly consider how they may be able re-aim the organization to serve, and enhance the existing fleet. That is out of the box and a big slice of humble pie for a once great manufacturer but it may be a way to stabilize cash flow/markets and then expand. That said, an existing-fleet only model may not be easy, obvious ....or even turn out to be feasible, but it is something worth seriously considering because it uses "what is on the truck". Just off the cuff brainstorming here, but in addition to optimizing the parts business, perhaps mods to increase the utility, usability, sustainability of the existing fleet may be one place to start. Maybe replacements with lighter components accompanied with STC's for better UL (this company is redoing the Glasair III in carbon fiber: https://advanced-aero.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/G3-Brochure-2018-small.pdf), VG's etc? Perhaps a highly streamlined windshield/cowl (license Saber Cowl!) replacement program done at the factory and in an assembly line like fashion to create a compelling offering. It would revolutionize everything M20F and older.... maybe offer airframe-secured financing program with it to remove financial barriers and bring in additional GP. Lets say you could send your F, C, E in and 25-35K later come out with a new cowl, windscreen, better induction and possible useful load and other restriction improvements. Again, totally spitballing a minimum viable bootstrap scenario but we all want them to succeed. Anyway @carusoam as I said, solid thoughts, I always look forward to your viewpoint

Have you driven a "modern" 991 or 992 (911) Porsche? They have become big GT cars. The days of a small, light sports car are gone. The 997 model (2005-2012) was Porsche's last true "sports car" and every 911 produced after that is a glorified GT car. I've owned 14 different 911s and my last was a 2013 991. It was big, fat, and had lots of "modern" stuff that annoyed me more than anything...but its what consumers wanted. Porsche (and Cirrus) have evolved to meet consumer demand. Mooney didn't. Porsche (and Cirrus) are still in business...Mooney isn't.

Might look at @AGL Aviation. They are active on here and have had several of their customers give PIREPs on their service - always good responses.

I agree MT four blade props are beautiful - smoother - save weight on the nose - better ground clearance - ... Someone should put one on a Mooney. TKS is nice too. ...alas no AC and you defn beat my useful load on that slow plain white airplane of yours. Ok - smack aside - a nice paint job is fun - why do you have a plain white plane? (a plain plane).

Um NO , I have seen your "Size and Build" ……. Perhaps we inherited ours , from you guys back in the 1700s ??

Where und wann happened Second fatal Acclaim Ultra Accident-? At https://aviation-safety.net/ there is only one, that from 11.6.2019 Thanks. Just curious.

Short hops probably dont warrant the extra expense of the Bravo. I use my Bravo for 500-800 mi trips and I go high almost always. I file IFR and I get GPS direct quite a bit because not a lot of civilian traffic in the teens. I don't have a specific target altitude. I fly at the best alt for winds. However, it usually ends up being: Going East - 16k-FL210. West - 8-14k. Fly Safe, Safety Forum Mod

mid body... Short bodies are the A, B, C, D, E... because they are the shortest of the Mooneys... F, G, J, K, including Missile and Rocket are the mid bodies... Best regards, -a-

Two rules to live by in business: Sell What's On The Truck Don't Run Out of Money If you can't do those, you don't have a business; you have an idea.

One or both of the antennas has probably been replaced at one time or other with whatever was thought to be the best choice at the time. Performance differences between radios can be due to the antennas, corrosion in the connections, old cabling in bad condition (kinks, crimps, crushes, splits, etc.), or just differences in the radios themselves, or even the audio panel. So it's hard to pin down without doing some sleuthing. Cables and connectors sometimes reveal problems just by visual inspection, so that's not a bad place to start. If the two radios are the same kind, you can try swapping their positions and see if the trouble follows the radio or the slot.

Each comm radio has a separate antenna, and the second two antennas you show are the two VHF comm radio antennas. The VOR/localizer/GS antenna is usually the whiskers at the top of the tail. You probably don't want to remove that. If you still have a marker antenna it will probably be on the belly, maybe a "skid" type or a flat antenna.

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

You just rose from the mire to cast clouds of doom and gloom upon all that dwell within. Such a pity. I say “Talk to the hand my depressed/depressing donkey with a tacked on tale.” “We’re all doomed” is one way to go, but I will choose to keep supporting my passion for as long as my body allows. Agendas and propaganda are everywhere. They definitely come out of the crypt here on Mooneyspace. The pox to ‘em all.

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.

Not me - I like used airplanes. If I wanted a Cirrus I would buy a used Cirrus. If I had $300k for a used airplane I might buy a used newer best at price point Mooney but if I wanted a Cirrus I would buy the best at price point Cirrus. But I would buy a Mooney. But if I had $800k budget I would buy best at price point available used TBM or maybe PA46. Seems like 800k is used turbine money. But that is me. Many people like new - or business want new. Anyway then new pistons in this class are 800k. If that is it I would have wanted a new Ultra. Or I would be dreaming of 4M for a new TBM. ...but if I had 4M I would be buying a used Phenom.

Thank for all the comments. I'm glad to trigger this discussion. Regarding the format I also try the booklet version if someone wish to have it contact me with PM. For what matters I update my profile. I've been engaged with mooney because it looks to me it's the GA plane which has laminar flow wings and control rods as my almost 40years flying passion.

Page 11 on one of several threads... I am going to wait until someone from Mooney speaks. While each event is has unique contexts, ISTM we've been here several times since I checked got out in a M20E in 1969. I note those closest to this story are mum for the moment and much posted here does sound like Andrew Hyett's pub prognosticators. Wouldn't it be nice to be introduced to the new head of Mooney with a free hand to do what's needed... a Lee Iacocca, a Roy Lopresti, a Bob Iger...

I’m hoping to make it available in the first quarter of 2020 to anyone who wants to install it with a 337 Field approval with their FSDO. That will depend on my ability to get baffling sets made up along with induction systems. As for the spinner, you’ll need a 201 style spinner, p/n A2295-5(P) for those with a 2 blade Hartzell propeller. Oil cooler relocation can be done using LASAR’s STC as long as it fits your model airplane. I have no intention of including ram air as testing has found it to be not nearly as effective with the air filter inlet moved inside the cowling for pressurized air. The cost to include it outweighed the benefit. No idea on price yet as I don’t know what they will cost me. I will be installing the cowling on Marauders F model hopefully soon but now I’m beyond when I thought I’d be ready once again and into the crappy weather season. I’ve also decided that I need to install it on my C to get the remaining installation data I need for the C & G model airplanes. Thanks, David

Not many, GPS pucks are pretty small and maybe an inch tall. It will save drilling another hole in the roof . . . . .

Not sure why everybody focuses on the BRS/CAPS as though it were the only differentiator between manufacturers or purchase experiences and decisions. Obviously Cirrus hypes it up, because it is a differentiator that is easy to point to that people can understand, but it's clearly not the only one. I don't personally think BRS would have made a lot more Mooney sales. There's probably a lot more in the formula (e.g., sales and marketing and management) that affected it.

Here's where the old school Beechtalk-style emojis would best convey my emotions.

I replaced my 17 years old Lords with Barrys last month. They work as expected.

Just to muddy the water.... The back up Dynon D10A AI also has autopilot functions in it. For the HDX install it is just a dummy AI speed and altitude. Doubt that Dynon would get it certified for the AP or maybe in 10 years when they are done with other stuff. That said the "engine motioning" is more than just the engine. You can monitor the gear, fuel levels, Landing light, trim, flaps and pretty much whatever you can think of. As far as single point of failure. Adding a 7" HDX screen and then 10" HDX adds redundancy that you don't currently have with a single engine monitor screen. Now add in the Dynon D10 for flight instruments redundancy and you have triangulated your redundancy.

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.

Yes, lots of things to consider regarding selling new Mooney airplanes. The product, marketing [or lack thereof], the market for them, management [lack thereof], the competition, and the list goes on. As I've said about Harley Davidson motorcycles over the years..........HD is really great at building antique motorcycles. Does the current market love the tried and true Harley Davidson [a dying image, product]? Obviously not. Mooney is really great at building antique airplanes! Does the current market love the M20? NO! Blame it on management, blame it on marketing? Yes, probably! Blame it on the antiquity? Yes, probably. The overall answer? Heck, I have no idea. Maybe all the above and more. As we continue to offer our ideas and opinions on what Mooney [who are they, anyway?] should do to make Mooney airplanes and sell lots of them, the reality is, in its current configuration, it is an antique airplane...........a great one indeed! Do we love the M20? No doubt! Will this thread continue ad nauseam? Yes, probably.

Landing is really about energy management. Engine thrust and airspeed are two forms of energy that you have control over. To fly a constant descent angle to the runway at a constant airspeed (neglecting for the moment destabilizing atmospheric forces such as wind shear and thermals) you need a constant power setting. Entering ground effect tilts the lift vector forward and increases lift and reduces induced drag. But, flaring increases angle of attack which increases induced drag. It also increases lift, but the airspeed is decreasing which decreases lift so if you get the flare right, one effect will counteract the other. So as you flare, lift is constant, drag is increasing, and the airspeed is decreasing. Reducing power to idle at this point hurries up the process and touchdown happens soon afterwards. Notice how an airliner lands next time you are unfortunate enough to be crammed in the back of one. For a jet, pretty much every landing is a short field landing. If you are floating a lot, you are too fast. The problem with reducing power at 100 feet is that reducing power causes pitch down moment that you have to counteract with elevator which complicates the whole process by destabilizing the approach. The only reason to do this is having too much energy (speed + power) so you reduce the form of energy most readily controllable (power). Try flying the final slower with constant power (varied only to compensate for wind shear or thermals) and doing a coordinated flare and power reduction and see if it doesn’t work for you. There’s nothing magic about it - it’s just physics. Cheers, Skip

I didn’t know we were arguing…I thought this was a discussion! I took your post about speed control in “all aircraft” as an equivocation. I don’t think Mooney’s are as forgiving as a Bonanza or a high wing Cessna or Piper Lance or the Grumman Tiger or any of the other 15 airplanes in which I have time(admittedly moderate amounts). It seems we’re in agreement. I don’t think Mooney’s require any special skill to land, but they do require some. The discussion about getting too slow irks me a bit because I have flown with many Mooney pilots. I have never flown with one that flies too slow in the pattern. I have flown with and seen many who fly too fast. YouTube is full of Mooney approaches with surplus speed (Piper Painter excluded). Some have been posted here with folks crossing the threshold in excess of 100MIAS. Three of the local fields near me have had multiple Mooneys depart the runway’s end over the last several decades. We’ve had members suffer the consequences of RLOC where speed was most certainly a factor. Many are speculating that an ATP and his passenger came to grief in WV because he just wasn’t flying fast enough. That may be true, but it doesn’t change my observation that a majority of mooney pilots with an airspeed issue have the opposite problem.

I managed to remove the lower cowling, as well as the generator. As stated by geoff, removing the ram air related components was the hardest part and pretty frustrating. Anyways, it turned out that the brushes were worn, one of them to failure. The generator looked generally good, bearings ran smooth, since removing it is such a major pain, I however decided to still have it overhauled. I should have it back by tomorrow. It turned out the the rubber duct between the throttle body and the cowling also has some holes in it, I therefore ordered a new one from Southwest Texas Aviation. Superfriendly lady, excellent service but $294, incl. 3-day shipping! Yikes! Thanks again for your help!