1980Mooney

But @hais did say 300 kts.

The simple answer is NO. 1 million new pilots will not go through the grief of being instrument rated and the recurrent training to being proficient /current in a pressurized turboprop. Oh and remaining drug free. They will be killing innocent people in droves.

I think we need a turbine for 300 kts…call P&W

For $80k?! Alchemy? Perpetual motion engines?! Ok.

Well you are partially right. Mooney is selling what they want regardless of what the broader market wants. Cirrus is selling what the broader market wants. That is why Cirrus sells over 500 SEP per year and why Mooney is no longer selling aircraft. YES -There are a few that value and want what Mooney has to offer. Just like the 3 that value and purchased a new G36 Bonanza this year. But Mooney isn’t selling hundreds of other planes per year like Cessna such that they could spread/share the manufacturing costs on a few marginally profitable planes. Mooney would just lose more cash cost per plane.

Spot on. The idea that an ever more expensive “GA” plane can attract an ever more wealthy customer base is delusional. As if a slightly cheaper, smaller Epic E1000 or TBM 960 will attract a “cost conscious “ multimillionaire is a joke. As you go higher in wealth, this “target market “ can more afford to hire a charter - Netjets, etc. They can enjoy the flight with a drink. How many wealthy really want to stay current in a pressurized turboprop? Get real. BTW - if they have actually created wealth their lawyers will be advising them and their family to NOT PILOT A PLANE. And if they inherited it they may be happy taking the risk - but more likely want to enjoy the flight with a drink….

The number of students in flight schools is increasing because they want to fly for airlines – not own an airplane. They are reading about the salaries, and the big raises that the pilots at the majors are getting. They want to fly the new commercial iron that basically flies itself - so they can just sit in front of the computer screens monitoring the magenta line.

I would say that the trust was effectively gone in October 2021 when it became known that behind the scenes and “trust talk” they had been peddling the company for sale again. It showed up on BizQuest, the business broker of last chance – the craigslist of business brokers. https://flyer.co.uk/mooney-aircraft-company-up-for-sale/

Don Maxwell has been reported to be part of the U.S. Financial ownership group. Perhaps someone should ask him - about the other 20% owner, presumably Meijing, and the status of all the announced plans to redesign landing gear, increase MGW, and upgrade the G1000 among other things.

The ownership is a bit of a mystery. On 1 September 2020, Jonny Pollack announced to several aviation publications that 80% of the company was taken over by a new ownership group under US Financial, LLC. Apparently Meijing Group still owns 20%. Little is known about US Financial, based in Wyoming. I would assume that Meijing converted much of their reported $200 mil. investment into debt which they hold over the owners. It is understandable why they have no cash and are unable to build inventory. I am surprised that no-one had pressed Jonny at MooneyMax regarding the 20% and Meijing. Based upon the “Legendary Aircraft Business For Sale” PowerPoint that we saw floated in Oct. 2021, (BizQuest - which failed) I suspect that US Financial invested no money in Mooney and their plan was to flip the company getting both them and Meijing out. “A consortium of pilots and owners has taken over Mooney International after taking an 80% stake in the company formerly owned and controlled by Chinese interests.” https://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/pilots-and-owners-buy-out-mooney-international https://saflyer.com/mooney-changes-ownership/amp/ https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_wy/2020-000916521

I was following your plight which you posted in the Bravo Forum. There is a topic here somewhere showing the parts in the wing sight gauge. Can't find it now. The panel can be installed (rotated 180 degrees) with the gauge outboard or inboard. It should be inboard so it is easiest to read from inside the cockpit. Seems like a rookie mistake for the shop to install one inboard and one outboard. (and to not remember how it was when you delivered it to them) Were they accurate before you took the plane to WetWingologists? They should pay your local shop to fix their screwup and get the gauges installed correctly. VISUAL FUEL INDICATOR KIT - 940043-503 — LASAR ACCESS COVER PANEL - 210099-505 — LASAR

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.