1980Mooney

@LANCECASPER posted it 2 years ago via Dropbox. (See below) Here is an old link without pictures https://web.archive.org/web/20190207032717/http:/donmaxwell.com/aligning-your-engine-using-shims/

Educated guess that they owe Meijing. Meijing had the money - not Soaring America. Like I said the Chinese may have been dumb to invest in Mooney but they are not Stupid…

Per AI: In October 2013, Soaring America Corporation, acting as a front for or subsidiary of the Chinese real estate developer Meijing Group, acquired the Mooney Aviation Company. Aviation Week Network +2 Investment: The acquisition reportedly involved a $100 million payment, with an additional $1 billion investment plan aimed at expanding operations and establishing a manufacturing presence in China. Current Status: Meijing Group remained the majority shareholder until September 2020, when a group of U.S. financial investors, led by US Financial, LLC, purchased the majority share from Soaring America to return the company to American ownership. Aviation Week Network +6 Mooney continues to operate as a corporate entity focused on supporting its existing fleet and maintaining its FAA production certificate.

Except that Stokes signed it as CEO LASAR. And not Mooney. They are different legal entities with different liabilities. Now he shows up as CEO Mooney. The memo shows their intent but it just muddles what is actually happening.

Bingo. You understand it well. That is exactly what happened at Vans Aircraft. The founders, the VanGrunsven family, held notes (debt) from Vans Aircraft. Most of the notes were secured by the assets of Vans Aircraft company as collateral. Then VanGrunsven “sold” a majority of Vans Aircraft to the Employees (an ESOP). But when Vans Aircraft got into financial trouble the VanGrunsven wound up owning 100% of Vans again and the Employees got wiped out. VanGrunsven ultimately pulled all the strings even when he sold the company. When you invest cash in a company, you can do it two ways - in the form of equity and/or in the form of debt. Debt can be secured or have conversion features (to turn it into equity). Equity holders control it day to day. But when things get into trouble, the note and debt holders wind up controlling the company (it comes back like a yo-yo). Meijing (Soaring America) likely holds big notes against Mooney Int’l Corp (those notes likely represent much of the $millions that they invested). The Chinese may have been dumb to invest so much into Mooney but that doesn’t mean they are stupid…)

Yup

I happened to look at the Mooney International Corporation website. I noticed the leadership change. There is no news announcement on the Mooney site. And no announcement on Facebook on Mooney International Corporation, LASAR or Mooney Pilots pages. I have not yet searched the Texas Secretary of State website Corporation Database for changes in ownership to Texas registered companies (which Mooney is). Did the owners/investors at US Financial Group LLC (Wyoming) bail out ?- the "Jonny Group" that announced that they owned 80% of Mooney in 2020 Anyone know?....

Ironic

There are 10 on eBay in the US in various condition- 2 are for parts - prices down to $45-$60 plus shipping on the low end. BAS has one INOP Core for $115 and both Dodson and Texas Air Salvage say to call for Quotes. They are probably selling these things for the copper salvage value.

I am surprised no one has conducted a poll of the number of hangar leases that prohibit leaving a battery charger plugged in while the hangar is unattended. Here is one that does not even allow charging a plane within the hangar unless pre-approved and does not allow unattended charging. LINCOLN AIRPORT AUTHORITY And Phoenix is interesting. It allows unattended battery charging but you cannot use an extension cord. If your charger doesn't reach from the hangar wall outlet you are SOL. ga-handbook_signed-2021.pdf

I will send you a PM.

Yep - https://cdck-file-uploads-global.s3.dualstack.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/copa/original/3X/e/f/efe6330f2455e8a867edb919d0a7ae7f428baff5.pdf

Have you read your Insurance Policy or spoken with your Agent? My USAIG Policy says that it covers me as long as I am holding a Private with Instrument Rating or Commercial Rating. Further, it will cover any other pilot acting as Pilot In Command as long as they hold a Private with Instrument Rating or Commercial Rating w/ minimum 750 hours total PIC, 100 hours Retract PIC and 25 hours PIC in a Mooney. Now my policy has been written that way and has been the same for a long time - before MOSAIC. And since my CAS vs1 is above 59kcas, flying with Sport Pilot privilege is not a possibility. But I bet USAIG has the same language in M20C policies which could operate with Sport Pilot privileges. @Parker_Woodruff - any insight would be appreciated. Is this something that is insurance company specific? In this case the OP is proposing to exercise Sport Pilot temporarily There will be more and more cases where Mooney pilot/owners, due to age or health, make a permanent transition from Private+Instrument to Sport Pilot permanently. How do the Insurance companies treat current Mooney pilot/owner policyholders (already owning a "sport pilot friendly Mooney model like the OP) with Private+Instrument who downgrade to Sport Pilot midway during the Policy Term? Do the Insurers just let it slide and address it next Term renewal? Or is the Policy void at the time of the Pilot/Owner license downgrade and a new Policy written, possibly with new rates (no night flights, no Instrument, pax limit)? One last case - consider an Ovation owner (Private+Instrument) that decides to drop to Sport Pilot only. And he trades the Ovation for a "Sport pilot friendly" M20C. Do you anticipate any difficulty for such a pilot/owner getting a new policy (liability and hull)? - will new rates likely be higher or lower (adjusted for Hull value)?

Doesn't look like it has flown since August 10 when it made one loop in the pattern at Lincolnton in NC. Gear-up?.... https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a637fe&lat=35.558&lon=-81.088&zoom=10.6&showTrace=2025-08-10&trackLabels

This should serve as clear evidence that forces within the Administration or Duffy or both are pushing for privatization of the ATC. If there was no discussion nor push by the Administration for privatization, then no one in Congress would be spending time or effort on adding language to temporarily stop it advancing. This Bill is only effective through September – it’s a “spending/budget Band-Aid”. So I would not take a lot of comfort in it. The problem is that Duffy is asking for $32 billion for ATC modernization (and I’ll bet you it cost double or more before it’s done.) I can imagine the conversation in the Administration – “why should we pay for it? - we don’t want to pay for it –let’s get somebody else to pay for it like the companies that use it or the contractors that will build it or private equity …” and “ we can get rid of a lot more Federal Employees that way too…” If you think the push to privatize ATC is going away, I think you’re going to be sadly disappointed. It’s not a matter of “if” it’s only a matter of “when“ .