1980Mooney

In 24 years they have sold about 9,000 SEP planes. That averages 375/year. Last year they sold 539 SEP - they are growing and accelerating. People here have reported that Cirrus has a large order backlog - more than a year or two. There are 248 Cirrus SEP for sale on Controller (less than Piper SEP or Cessna SEP BTW) - that isn't even 3% of the Cirrus fleet. It doesn't seem excessive.

Good point. Cirrus, along with Diamond, Piper and Cessna, have proven that you don't need retractable gear to train professional pilots. Apparently, they want fixed gear - less cost, less weight, more robust and less insurance. Everyone talks about Mooney needing to "do something different" than they are currently yet most lose their mind at the suggestion of any change.

That wasn't the issue - the issue is a clean sheet pressurized carbon fiber design. Just look at Cessna. They announced the start of "new clean sheet Denali" in 2015. Late last year they announced that they delayed certification yet again another year into 2023. Cessna, an established manufacturer of pressurized "aluminum" airplanes with all the technology and resources in aviation is taking at least 8 years. "First announced in 2015 by Textron Aviation as the Cessna Denali and Model 220 at the EAA AirVenture Oshkosh, the Beechcraft Denali features a completely new design to compete with single-engine turboprops (SETP) including the with Pilatus PC-12 and Daher-Socata TBM." Beechcraft Denali Certification Extended by a Year | Business Aviation News: Aviation International News (ainonline.com)

The idea of building a "cheaper" Piper M600 SLS or smaller/cheaper Epic E1000 for the market of "poorer" multimillionaires that can't afford a real Epic E1000 or TBM 960 has been discussed. Epic started with the kit based Epic 1000LT and it still took 7 years and $200 million to get it certified.

All 3 of them.....

Revised If you combine the first 2 pages of the database and filter it to show Mooney, Mooney Airplane Co and Mooney Aircraft Co There were 212 Mooney accidents investigated by the NTSB. 60 of the accidents were shown as Fatal Only one accident outside the USA is listed which is not accurate (for instance nothing shown for Canada) Aviation Safety Network database which includes international shows 74 Fatal Mooney accidents. The FAA keeps a list of incidents/accidents that are not fatal in the USA. These accidents are investigated but with much less rigor and effort than the NTSB. (ASIAS database). They are Not included in the NTSB Accident data - there is no overlap. There were 519 Mooney incidents/accidents listed by the FAA in addition to the NTSB 212. 731 Mooney incidents and accidents in total involving damage. Not all gear up landings are known to or recorded by the FAA so the true number is higher. Most of the FAA ASIAS incidents/accidents were in the Landing Phase (gear ups) but there are some engine outs and take off incidents. 285 Landing Phase: Touchdown 65 Landing Phase: Rollout An additional 48 of the NTSB Mooney accidents were in the Landing Phase (they are separate because they resulted in injury or greater damage) Statistics outside the US will drive all these numbers higher

Yes you are right - I didn't capture the name changes - 212. However it shows only one accident outside the US which is not accurate. Fatalities are now 60 which is still well short of the global numbers on Aviation Safety Network.

Correct - there are many more. If you combine the first 2 pages of the database and filter it to show only Mooney There were 183 Mooney accidents investigated by the NTSB. 56 of the accidents were shown as Fatal No accidents outside the USA are listed Aviation Safety Network database which includes international shows 74 fatal Mooney accidents. The FAA keeps a list of incidents/accidents that are not fatal in the USA. These accidents are investigated but with much less rigor and effort than the NTSB. (ASIAS database) There were 519 incidents/accidents listed by the FAA Most were in the Landing Phase (gear ups) but there are some engine outs and take off incidents. 285 Landing Phase: Touchdown 65 Laning Phase: Rollout I would attach the files but it won't let me.

Yup. New owner hired them to do a pre-buy inspection. He bought the plane December 20, 2021. He asked the same MSC to continue the pre-buy into an Annual. 20 days after doing the pre-buy the same MSC comes back and says that the Lower cap on RH wing stub spar assembly inside inspection panel area directly behind RH gear wheel well has heavy intergranular defoliation corrosion. Metal has flaked away. He asked the MSC how come that they didn't find this on the prebuy, he said that is not something common for a prebuy inspection, 14 months after the corrosion was discovered, I think it is still being worked on by a different shop although they may be close to finishing - AFIK the owner has not yet been able to fly the plane since purchase in December 2021.

Too busy posting Mooney's that are landing gear-up or otherwise crash-landing.....When it comes to grinding aluminum into the runway, no one can say that we Mooney owners are laggards in this dubious category. Who needs "Professionals" to grind aluminum and drive up insurance rates when you can count on us Mooney owners to always be "trying it at home"?! BTW - just posted another gear-up landing in the Safety and Accident Discussion Forum

Good point. Under CAR 3.757 the White and Green Arc’s or marking’s are required to be airworthy. So - no latitude - you must adjust your new higher Vs0 and Vs1 at MGW on your glass ASI

Here @Denis Mexted

The more I look at the regs the more I agree with you. There used to be Airworthiness Standard § 23.1545 "Airspeed indicator." but it is gone. It has been replaced with § 23.2610 "Instrument markings, control markings, and placards.". It is very general with latitude that by default delegates the decision to the manufacturer or the IA. - "display in a conspicuous manner any placard and instrument marking necessary for operation" § 23.1545 Airspeed indicator. (Has been replaced) (a) Each airspeed indicator must be marked as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, with the marks located at the corresponding indicated airspeeds. (b) The following markings must be made: (1) For the never-exceed speed VNE, a radial red line. (2) For the caution range, a yellow arc extending from the red line specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section to the upper limit of the green arc specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. (3) For the normal operating range, a green arc with the lower limit at VS1with maximum weight and with landing gear and wing flaps retracted, and the upper limit at the maximum structural cruising speed VNO established under §23.1505(b). (4) For the flap operating range, a white arc with the lower limit at VS0 at the maximum weight, and the upper limit at the flaps-extended speed VFE established under §23.1511. § 23.2610 Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. (Current regulation) (a) Each airplane must display in a conspicuous manner any placard and instrument marking necessary for operation. (b) The design must clearly indicate the function of each cockpit control, other than primary flight controls. (c) The applicant must include instrument marking and placard information in the Airplane Flight Manual.

You need to program your “glass” ASI display to reflect the changes in increased stall speed at the new higher MGW for the white arc and green arc. That is a primary flight instrument and your plane is not airworthy without making the changes. Sounds pretty simple - easier and cheaper than changing an analog gauge.

If the prior owners retained the paperwork, you should have a 60+ page binder from Monroy Aerospace with the STC, installation instructions and drawings. You can see that the tubing connecting the long range tanks to the mains are only about 3/8 in. ID. There is only a few inches of head pushing the avgas from the Aux to the Main - however you are filling the Aux with an approx 1 inch hose under pressure at about 15-20 GPM. If you have the Aux empty and fill the Mains to the lip and wait the level will drop slowly as the head pushes some fuel to the Aux. So if you then fill the Aux to the lip it, being higher, will push the fuel slowly back to the Main. Also when you stick the Aux tank, where do you position the tube relative to the tank opening? - the bottom of the tank (the wing) slopes - so you will get a different level depending on where the stick rests. Do you center the stick in the tank opening or align it adjacent one side or the other?

You missed my point. I believe that Timothy Theodore Coons and Lisa Coons and their heirs can be found and contacted. It is totally the decision of the Coon's (and not the FAA) regarding disposition of their valid current STC's. If the Coons want to sit on their owned STC's as "current" but not sell any new STC certificates to plane owners, then that is their decision and theirs alone - that is a "business decision". We don't know the details - it might trigger an old claim, perhaps maybe there is a nasty divorce, and it is jointly owned with neither partner wanting to accommodate the other - it doesn't really matter why. The FAA cannot force people or companies to sell product if they don't want to. And the FAA cannot steal "intellectual property" from existing people or entitles that want to retain it, just so the FAA can give it away free to people asking that it be declared abandoned. The Coons can decide if they want to retain the STCs as "current" of alternately "surrender" the STCs to the FAA. See https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/8110.120.pdf From 8110.120 Page 18. It is very clear - if you find the holder then the request to abandon is "NO". No means No - Not abandoned. The end of the request. @MisfitSELF makes a good point - try to contact Timothy T. Coons - see his pilot credentials below. Online searches show he is 62 with addresses and phone in Florida.

Exactly - this STC is not “Abandoned”. It is still “Current” although the company is inactive and the owner apparently is not interested in conducting any business. However it is still intellectual property owned by ModWorks and hence Tim/Lisa Coons. Your mechanic may figure out how to install these gear doors but you/he still need the Coon’s approval to utilize their intellectual property in order to properly install the modified gear doors. @LANCECASPER has been very passionate in other posts about the unapproved use of STC intellectual property as being theft.

Except in this case this particular STC has not been declared abandoned. Per 8110.120 an STC can only be declared abandoned three (3) years AFTER formal request is made in writing. And that is after the FAA has searched for the owner or heirs. If the FAA finds any owner or heir the “abandonment process” is stopped. - ie the STC is Not Abandoned. https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/8110.120.pdf The FAA lists 35 STC's currently owned by Mod Works and they are all listed as "Current". Mod Works Inc. exists legally as an "inactive" company. An "inactive" company means that it still exists in the eyes of the law but that it has no activity taking place. Until the company is dissolved, it will still exist. An inactive company still owns its assets (STC's in this case) until dissolved. Tim Coons is listed as the Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer and Agent. Lisa Coons is also listed as a Secretary. - see Florida Sec of State or OpenCorporates. You can find either Tim Coons or Lisa Coons on the internet. If we can find them then the FAA will find them. And if they pass then the FAA must and will find their heirs. At that point the STC is NOT ABANDONED.

I believe you are correct. And you previously asked him if he has a copy of the STC and AML but I don’t see any response. Presumably he has the parts (some or all) but no paperwork- no copy of STC, no AML, no drawings and no instructions.

But isn’t that true with the market shift and introduction of any new technology? We tend to favor what we know and are familiar with. In the early 1960s American television manufacturers with large service infrastructure of repairman that knew and were most comfortable with vacuum tubes. They were slow to change as the Japanese took the market with transistors. Every technology shift is littered with companies that are slow to change because they are comfortable doing what they currently do. Kodak missing out in digital imaging, Corning being the premier CRT glass manufacturer as the world went digital flat screen. GE dominance in incandescent and fluorescent lighting as the world goes to LED’s, etc.

@damcmurt Here is a “not so much” And

I fail to understand why you think this would be any different from how any ongoing airplane manufacturer makes decisions about product support for legacy aircraft. For example, how is the risk different from fretting about Textron supporting the original 1956 Skyhawk 172? In 2007 Cirrus introduced the G3 with an improved electronic CAPS rocket ignition. All prior models have been upgraded at time of chute repack. Improvements continue with a focus on compatibility. In 2017 Cirrus set a goal to produce 1,000 aircraft per year by 2027. They produced the 8,000 plane in 2021. Using your "60 year old Cirrus" example, your question is will Cirrus be supporting 2000 era planes in 2060. Conservatively projecting that they will aveage about 750 planes delivered per year over the next 40 years then the fleet will be over 35,000 planes including attrition. I would ask the question "why wouldn't parts be available?" Of course if they are like Mooney and go bankrupt a few times as well as cease manufacturing complete aircraft a few times and now likely permanently then all bets are off. Cirrus-Aircraft-The-History.pdf (steelaviation.com)

It is probably because she stays abreast of all the GA aviation forums and reviews the comments in MS about Cirrus, composite planes and CAPS/BRS. I am sure that she knows that the Mooney owners that tend to speak out on this forum are in general haters of all things composite, anything with a chute and anything with fixed gear. If they are sold out for 3 years as @jetdriven posted, then why would she waste time and energy on the mind numbing task of trying to change minds of Mooney owners in person or here and dispel old wives tales on MS? If some Mooney owners want to believe and propagate the baseless notion that the CAPS/BRS can't be repacked and pyrotechnics won't be supported in the future then there is no point arguing emotion vs. reality. It is the same with composites. If you are driving by looking in the rear view mirror, then yes composites have experienced growing pains. It was harder than Beech thought with the Starship. Boeing had a harder time with the Dreamliner than planned but they prevailed. The technology of fasteners is different and bonding technology has advanced. But once gotten right, like the Epic 1000, the 787, etc it is superior and the future. Boeing gets 25% more cycles (and hours of life) out of the 787 than the 747 at 8% higher cabin pressure with greater UL per pound of structure. People here are "suspicious" about aging composite airframes but seem to have no issue with composite props..... A big issue was made about the 12,000 hour known life (and likely greater actual). If you look at Controller there are only 4 Mooneys over 6,000 hours. A 1963, a 1974 and a 1975 with 6,400-6,500 hours. There is a J that Korean Airlines flew the hell out of with 10,000 hours as a trainer. There are 2 37 year old planes with 4,900 hours. There are many planes that are 30+ years old with 2,000 - 3,500 hours. With the exception of the trainer, Mooneys will need to fly nearly or in most cases over 100 years to make 12,000 hours. Fixed gear seems to be an especially emotional issue. Cirrus has gained market dominance for a reason. I suspect that they are not sitting on their hands. AINonline says Cirrus added 450 employees in 2021 and another 400 in 2022. I wonder what they are working on for the next generation of SEL - most likely it will distance itself even further ahead of the aging "beer can" designs - maybe with bullet proof automatic retractable landing gear and greater performance. Any potential investor in Mooney likely is thinking about the same thing.

It looks like there are 4 different basic sizes and shapes. However, there are a lot of differences within the same size/shape. Look at all the different part numbers in your parts manual. Sometimes the LH and RH wing application are slightly different with different part numbers. An example of RH and LH being different on early J models is #12 - which is in the panel in the picture with the weep hole. It is just another thing adding complexity to an already complex wing

You are correct- that line of rivets aft of the panel is the front bulkhead for the main tank. If the seam on the bulkhead leaks avgas will find its way out that hole near the root and forward cavity in the wing.