1980Mooney

Apologies - We seem to go round and round on this topic. @LANCECASPER previously posted an article from Flying Magazine 1974 that highlighted that the Mooney was struggling with the high manhours required to build the plane and competiveness back in 1974. Unfortunately not much has changed. Meijing group reportedly spent money trying to make manufacturing of this largely handmade aircraft as efficient as possible. But its design keeps it horribly labor intensive and expensive to manufacture. Here we are again. And other than the initial "transparency" following the latest change in ownership the Company/Factory/CEO have become "radio silence."

For those new to this discussion @LANCECASPER is exactly correct First - think about the difference between a base Mid-body M20J and a base Long-body Ovation M20R - and the differences in manufacturing. 2 cylinders (4 spark plugs, 2 exhaust manifolds, 2 intake manifolds, etc) 1 propeller blade (and maybe not even that depending if J buyer wants a 3 blade) forward the firewall about 9 inches of composite cowl and spinner behind the steel cage about 16 inches of aluminum Everything else is the same - wings, landing gear, flight controls, insulation, seats, doors, hardware, glass, paint, etc. And with the need for IFR capability they will have basically the same panel, avionics and autopilot. How much money do you think a M20J will save over an Ovation? - maybe $50-75k I bet. Maybe not even that. And I am not talking about cheaping the M20J out with "1980's Royalite" interior. Now we know that Mooney could not make a profit when they priced the basic no options Ovation at $800k and the Acclaim at $900K - the little Gross Margin they made on each plane did not cover Overhead. Hence they shut down manufacturing. If they could save $75k on manufacturing a new J they still would not make a profit even if they priced it at $725k The problem is the labor intensity and materials required to build a Mid-body is not hugely less than a Long-body.

You participated in the discussion on this same topic back in June, 2022. In that topic both @GeeBee and @Fly Boomer reported that Jonny Pollack said at MooneyMax 2022 that "Jonny Pollack said at Mooney Max it takes 9000 man hours to create a Mooney. He said it is a very labor intensive airplane to produce" I have to assume that the CEO of Mooney, Jonny Pollack, knows how many man hours it takes to build the plane. It is not in the range that you quote. Perhaps you forgot about this discussion.

"Move the factory somewhere that the workers have no rights"?!.....No need to move it- - Texas is already in the Top 5 in that category. The only states that routinely top it are Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and North Carolina.

There is someone out there smart enough to overcome the obstacles - actually 2. Their name is the Klapmeier brothers, Alan Klapmeier and Dale Klapmeier.

It is not too extreme in my opinion. It is only 8 cam locks to open and lower if I recall correctly He should answer any questions you have.

I understand that your advice has been shaped by the pain that you experienced. However, as an owner, when the day comes that I sell, I will never sign an agreement that obligates me to fix things X months in the future (after the plane is sold and flown and worked on by someone else) that someone else thinks may be an airworthiness issue. Mike Busch and Savvy Aviation have written many times that 2 different IA's may not agree that something is an airworthiness issue. I would never expose myself to an open ended liability when the plane is gone and no longer in my possession. Additionally, I no longer will have insurance on the plane to cover any major expense that a new owner might claim to be caused by a hidden or missed airworthiness issue The Annual Inspection Trap (avweb.com) The recent crash of a 252 at Lakeway Airport is a good example. The owner had just purchased the plane. We don’t know why the engine quit and the NTSB probably won’t have a Final out for 2 years. However the repair cost is going to be enormous if the plane isn’t scrapped. If, for instance, it turns out that the oil hoses to the turbocharger sprung a leak and it could be construed as a hidden split (airworthiness issue) then the former owner, now with no insurance, would be on the hook for the cost of the plane. Clearly not viable.

If you read the MS discussion from 2018 on the same topic you will see the pictures of what it looks like after you pry the old gauge out and clean out the old RTV.

@Fix I see that you are in Sweden and suspect that the prospect planes are far from you. There is a small chance that they have been worked on previously and are listed in the Aircraft Log. I would guess that you already have access to the Logs. If not there, then the owner or broker needs to drop the one piece belly as @PT20J says and take a picture of the actuator data plate.

Hmmm..so you are comparing the cost of a new $1 million SEP (turbocharged top of the line) with the cost of a pressurized turboprop. Sounds like you won't be buying anything new then. $1 million won't get you squat. If you are comparing a new SEP with a new pressurized turboprop then you need another $2-5 million on top of the $1 million that you are willing to pay. And $1 million won't get you anything used - even the old JetProp DLX conversions are more than that.

And partnering with Chinese money is the way with Cirrus Diamond Icon Continental Thielert Centurion Enstrom Helicopter And with the Sutan of Brunei money Piper And with Russian money Epic So what is your point again?!....

You said “It’s not the case that a metal airplane is impossible to make money on”. In SEL it gets harder and harder. Apparently Piper with the Saratoga, Rockwell/Commander with the 114/115, Cessna with the 210 and Mooney were unable to see a way to make money. I bet Textron lost money on the 3 Bonanzas they sold in the last 2 years when you add in all the “marketing “. And there was no lack of marketing for those 4 brands. This notion that “marketing “ is the only reason the sales declined for these historic models is bogus.

I think that was an investment that they were looking for - unknown amount of equity. And the Meijing Group still owns 20% according to the original announcement. And when you buy a company it is Debt + Equity. The Meijing Group invested reportedly about $200 million. I bet they converted about $160 million of their investment to debt.

Let’s all remember that Cessna did something similar with the Columbia/Corvallis/TTX - moved it from Oregon to Kansas. We all know how well that worked out.

And don’t forget that a new design/material would need to ditch the signature, movable empennage. Way too complex and expensive and probably overly heavy in composite. It will be a Solid tail like everybody else. And do you really want to stick with the narrow body aerodynamics? Buyers will want the more generous shoulder room found in the competition. Aerodynamics will force you into more of a Cirrus/Columbia aerodynamic look. Complexity, economics and weight will probably force you into fixed gear. What you will have is a clone of Cirrus.

The "dial" is replaceable. - the plastic face alone is not replaceable. Fuel doesn't usually damage the plastic however acetone does. Some paint waxes/cleaners/sealers will soften the plastic. My A&P did some paint touch up and got some overspray on mine - then he tried to clean it with a solvent used on Imron. That turned it hazy. I polished it clear again with toothpaste. However the rubbing caused it to loosen up and it flew off in flight. Make sure you order the correct dial - see your J Parts Manual which is online and on Mooneyspace. They differ between J, K and long bodies and short bodies due to fuel capacity. DIAL FACE - 880024-005 — LASAR https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=h

I assume you purchased the Mooney specific approximately 45° angle mount that attaches to the center bar. It was likely sent preassembled. Although you can’t see it there is a foam cushion (slightly narrower than a postage stamp) between the center bracket and the bracket attached to the front of the compass. It allows some vibration, but not too much vibration, to shake the compass. Over time, and faster in warm climates, that cushion will compress losing all dampening. With too much vibration, the compass will start to precess. The fix is to replace the cushion which only costs a couple dollars. Over 20+ years, I’ve replaced the cushion twice on my vertical card compass. Luckily for me just went over to the little shop where it is assembled- near the 1940 Hobby Airport Terminal building.

It needs vibration to work. They should have given you a brass flat blade for adjusting. I don't need the balancing balls.

Uh no....no effect upon insurance premiums, but your taxes will go up. What do you think the total tab is? WAG...$112 mil fighter, let's say another $10 mil in damages to the parked fighter, damages to carrier - let's say $5 mil including time in dock, cost of carrier being out of service for repairs (crew time wasted, pilots not current, etc) let's say another $5 mil,, salvage operation cost - let's say $8 mil, injured sailors medical, long term disability, etc - let's say another $5 mil.

There is another simple solution. What is being described here are shops that are overloaded with work - either because of reputation they are attracting work from greater distances, or they are short handed of qualified workers or they lack enough parts for all the planes or because the product is becoming more service prone (Continental AD, Piper wing, Mooney elevator, etc or just accelerated age deterioration of 50-60 year old planes.) Raise shop rates way up - 20%-50% Work sane shop hours so that the shop can communicate with customers. Shops be selective in the work that they accept. That way service "demand" will come into equilibrium with service "supply". Supply meeting Demand. Free Markets. Higher shop rates will drive higher mechanic wages and attract more staff. It may also attract the formation of new shops. Or plane design becomes simpler and more reliable....maybe make them out of "plastic" with fixed gear....?! Isn't that how "Captialism" is supposed to work?.....

Among other things the Mooney airframe is proven the be extremely labor intensive. The only way to make that go away is a clean sheet design. The 1963 289 AC Cobra was a great car - like Mooney designed in the slide rule era. However design and manufacturing technologies have moved on and the "body on frame" (just like Mooney fuselage) no longer makes sense. GM figured that out with the clean sheet design of the C4 Corvette in 1983.

This sounds like “If I can’t find an A&P that I like, then I am going to buy and operate my own”….

Perhaps you didn't read @redbaron1982 PIREP from last Thursday regarding the same shop. The MSC in the Northeast missed the corrosion - he sent it to Longview for repair. They have been working on it 10 months. It sounds like communication is an ongoing issue. "Still waiting on the plane, the shop that is currently working on it email me 2 weeks ago to go and pick it up but three days after they called me to say they have flown the aircraft and it was pulling to the left and they need to check the rigging. Two weeks after that, still radio silence, so I don't know how many weeks, months or years is going to take to rig the airplane. BTW: I'm starting to truly believe that GA industry is totally broken. I'm not talking about parts availability or things that are hard to fix, but customer service is a disaster, my two experience so far, one of which is with a highly renowned shop for Mooneys, is crappy in regards of customer service. Total lack of communication, and I'm not talking about daily communication, I'm talking about not answering emails or not giving an estimate on when a job is going to be finished or even started after they have had my aircraft for 10 months now. My point is that it doesn't cost money to fix customer service, it's just replying an email, having a schedule for the shop and giving precise information."

You are too quick to dismiss potential manufacturing anomalies, experimental or Certified. Two planes manufactured at the same time exhibited the same cracks. Yes they are used for training but the wings should not and usually don't fail. A small change in manufacturing could have led to a weaker spar. And unfortunately, as they say on Beechtalk, all the holes in the swiss cheese lined up disastrously. As pointed out in the Piper Owner Society presentation of the NTSB findings: "Crack development is a function of many factors, including design of the structure, how severely the aircraft is flown, and manufacturing processes. " Furthermore "Inspection of another airplane in the same fleet of the accident airplane (manufactured at a similar time and operated in a similar training mission) was also found to have cracking in the wing spar." Per the European forums: "It (the Piper spar) really is an odd design that demands perfection in production and fit. What holds it together is not the bolts, but friction due to the torque of the bolts. The typical way to design this is to assure all the forces go through one single bolt, one at the upper and one at the lower, or a series of bolts all taking equal load, either pure shear or pure tension. The bolt itself is OK, but not the structure around it because that structure is designed with friction in mind. With a perfect fit, the right amount of torque, no corrosion, it probably will be OK and will last for ever. But too much torque will insert too much stress on the structure around the bolt. Too little torque will weaken the friction between the members so too much load is applied to the bolt and the structure around it. A less than perfect fit will weaken it considerably, which could be problematic when changing a wing for instance, unless this is done 100% correct. Also, the condition and fit of the aft spar matters." Just like the many cylinders, crankshaft and camshaft AD's we have seen, and now the latest Continental FUp, manufactures over time seem to lose their "best practices." perhaps due to turnover of staff. It is possible something (or someone) on the assembly line changed. Although the NTSB did not highlight it, I bet the attorneys for the families of the deceased will be all over it. And BTW - the cracking was in a hidden area not visible to maintenance personnel. How many times have you removed your wing spars to check for hidden corrosion or cracks?

This sounds like a manufacturing issue. Embry Riddle has outstanding maintenance. I don't follow your comment. Hangar Talk - Wing comes off a PA28 during a checkride with an examiner (and wing spar structure discussion) (euroga.org) NTSB Issues Final Report on 2018 Daytona Beach Accident - FLYING Magazine "The 10-year old aircraft was used only for flight training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and had accumulated approximately 7,600 hours of flight time. “A review of the operator’s airframe discrepancy log for the life of the airplane and flight crew safety reporting system for the 24 months preceding the accident found some reported flap extension overspeed, gear extension overspeed, and hard landing events. In each case, the events resulted in airframe examinations during which no defects were noted by maintenance personnel. Interviews with flight instructors did not yield any safety of flight issues or critical airframe or loading exceedances caused by pilot operation that would be expected to precipitate cracking.” Piper published a service bulletin in 1987 for a wing spar inspection on the PA-28 series that would not have taken effect on this airplane until it had accumulated almost another 23,000 flight hours."