1980Mooney

"leave existing and proven NBC springs in service. " Exactly. What this means is that if your NB spring has not failed by now in the past 20+ years since Service Bulletin SBM20-279C was issued (Revised September 11, 2002) then it is not going to fail. And now we learn that owners which had actuators with perfectly good NB springs, at the cautionary recommendation of the SB, installed (at great expense) potentially defectively manufactured new NB springs from Eaton/Mooney. Apparently through all this Eaton (or its predecessors Eaton/Vickers and Avionic Products) was unable to trace the original 1994 manufacturing defects and is unable to trace and identify (or even recognize defects until others point it out) manufacturing defects in new NB springs that it has been shipping for who knows how long (years?). So now there is a new bad batch of NB springs that have been introduced into the fleet and in service. So that means that @ilovecornfields, or other owners that recently replaced NB springs, may need to "again" replace, as a precaution, the "new" NB spring that he replaced last year as a precaution to begin with...... What a cluster. What a waste of time and money. I have no intention of replacing my NB spring as long as I continue to own this Mooney.

If you were considering changing those dim ineffective incandescent bulbs in the headliner to LEDs, then there is no need to change the switch. The high low dim feature does not work with the LEDs. - they are just on high all the time regardless of whether the switch is set on low or high. Not sure where you could that bezel other than salvage.

More time? More surprises or More price?…or all three?!

True, On one of the other aviation forums there were comments that Garmin bumped prices twice in 2022. They said Garmin typically raises prices in Q1, but the price increase in June caught the dealers totally by surprise. They said the GPS 175 for example went from $4295 at dealers to $4895 during 2022, ~14% more. And there is an expectation that Garmin will raise prices again this quarter. Also shops have raised hourly rates. Per AINonline the Aircraft Electronics Association’s 2022 Rate and Labor Survey in December showed 8% increase on average. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2022-12-01/aea-survey-shows-optimism-increased-cost-business So @PT20J 's avionics upgrade today would probably be closer to $90K.

Also one here on MS in “Downloads” https://mooneyspace.com/files/file/184-1999-m20m-service-manual/

It’s online on Manualslib free scroll down to the second Manual https://www.manualslib.com/products/Mooney-M20m-10443462.html

I thought with the new auto pilot and all the labor to pull the interior, pull all the old wiring out and new wiring to antennas etc. that it would be more. Thanks.

Don't forget shipping w/ insurance both ways.......another $80?...more?!

"Internal Clock Battery Low" warning and slow acquisition Either. Garmin does not want owners changing the battery and the Dealer provided procedures are not exactly easy to find. From our friends at Beechtalk: "My GTN650 was installed in 2013 and has now begun displaying the "Internal Clock Battery Low" warning all the time. Maybe its my imagination, but it also already seems to be a little slower in satellite acquisition on startup. I was surprised when my (small, but busy) avionics shop said "I don't know, I've never replaced one yet" in answer to my inquiries. They are checking with Garmin, but not yet getting any clear info about their ability to do the battery change vs. the need to send it back to Garmin ($1,000 flat repair fee if I'm not mistaken). The ICA states that we should expect around 10 years out of the battery, so that's one surprise. But it also says it can be replaced at an authorized repair shop or the factory. Of more concern is the lack of info I'm finding so far on what should be a routine maintenance item for a very common instrument. ICA also states that 1-2 months will pass after first appearance of the warning message before critical low state exists, and even then operational symptoms will be limited to slow acquisition only." "Dealer GTN 650 Maintenance Manual, 190-01004-01, Rev. 02 (downloaded from Garmin Dealer Resource Center) for full instructions for replacing the battery (page 5-6). The part number for the battery is in the Service Parts List on page 7-1. Only simple tools are required. No soldering." https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=152260

Here is the replacement on a GTN 650. It is larger. http://www.rvplane.com/?categoryid=10000&dayid=1456

The Mooney factory building is leased from Kerr County. In 2014 they entered into a 20 year lease at $6,000/month increased by CPI. It is a long-term liability- a debt. https://dailytimes.com/news/article_76d3f886-3def-11e4-8961-c733c636b59f.html

That looks pretty serious and there are probably other deep areas upon close examination. But the good news is it is repairable. Unfortunately the skin of the fuselage aluminum skin will need to be removed in order to cut and weld full circumference (or weld doublers if allowed). This YouTube shows it opened up. At least with the aluminum skin there is the possibility of repair with the composite shell of the Ultra I doubt it would be repairable.

See Safety and Accident Discussion section

Fill to the bottom of the tab.

"One possible path forward is to convert to a parts and service business similar Cal Pacific Airmotive which owns the type and production certificates for the P-51 and also has a repair station certificate." Maybe I am missing something but how is that effectively different from what they are doing today? All that Mooney Corp really offers today is parts and service. The notion that they will build planes again is just a facade that is burdening them with costs. They continue to carry the overhead and cost of an "airplane building business" that builds no planes. The airframe warranties on the Ultra's have expired but Mooney Corp retains the liability on everything they made in the last 18 years. The carry greater costs for insurance, legal and regulatory. They have a top heavy structure for a company that is really just doing "caretaker engineering" at most. - look at all the fancy titles for "management". They need to file bankruptcy - jettison the past liability (and insurance and legal supporting it)- reduce management to one GM. Maybe they can make money then.

The "effort" is in investing capital (which they don't have) into purchasing and stocking inventory that is unique to Mooney. They weren't (re)selling commodity products. Even if it was a simple as putting an "official" Mooney logo on an otherwise commodity product, Mooney Corp has to pay someone to do that and place pre-orders and hold inventory. More evidence that they are on a "hand to mouth" cashflow basis. We already have witnessed that in their inventory policies on things like "no-back spring" order quantities.

I noticed the same thing last week. It is just another sign of atrophy for a company that still thinks it’s a going concern. They were probably just liquidating old inventory with no cash or means to restock. Have you gone to Mooney’s “Air Traffic” recently? There has not been any response from the company to any question in 18 months. The only activity is two J owners posting pictures of their airplanes and one clueless owner asking if they are going to build new Acclaims.

There has been a lot of discussion about whether this is a minor mod, need a 337, field approval, just a log entry or "the right way to do it". But no one has answered the OP's original question. Is there even a remote chance that these ACS eyeball vents could take the place of the Mooney Wemac vents? The Wemac (pic below from Ebay ad that said it came from a M20E like the OP lists in profile) consists of a eyeball vent in a raised housing that is canted towards the pilot or copilot. It mounts flush against the cabin intake channel. It doesn't protrude out. The interior panel goes over the raised housing it followed by a trim ring. The ACS protrudes out the back of the eyeball by about 1.2 inches. It is not canted - it will be limited in its range to direct airflow on the pilot. It looks like a larger hole will need to be cut in the cabin air intake channel to allow the ACS eyeball housing to mount. Once mounted it will stick out into the air channel - it may block airflow..

Common topic....

Do you have any idea why LASAR has abandoned many of their PMA'd Mooney parts? Their front end cash cost to "reverse engineer" those Mooney parts is already sunk - a one-time fixed cost. Is there some oppressive cash "holding cost" that makes it uneconomical? - insurance? legal/regulatory filings? With the frond-end work done and approved, you would think that they could price accordingly to cover any rising variable costs and still earn a return. Let's face it - if an entity like LASAR can't make a viable return on existing approved fully engineered PMA'd Mooney parts, then no-one can. Certainly seems unlikely that anyone new is going to enter this old Mooney market to pour cash and time into reverse engineering, getting it approved, tooling up and building inventory. We need to stop this dreaming.

Companies use layers of protection to defend their intellectual property. As stated by @PT20J there are no patents but Mooney can use the TCs, Mooney owns some STCs like the 310HP upgrade, they have confidential drawings and specs, they have confidentiality and exclusive contracts with some suppliers (i.e. - Garmin G1000 - although Garmin is capable of upgrading mid 2000 models with G1000 to Nxi, they are prohibited per contract).

True - some PMA'd parts suppliers are better than others.... https://www.flyingmag.com/mandatory-service-bulletin-for-superior-millennium-cylinders/ (BTW - this is a new 2022 SB - not the 2006 Superior cylinder debacle that led to bankruptcy in 2008) https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraft/news/21125014/superior-air-parts-is-paying-5-million-in-engine-lawsuit-after-deadly-2016-crash https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/11/2020-27149/airworthiness-directives-superior-air-parts-inc-engines-and-lycoming-engines-reciprocating-engines https://www.avweb.com/ownership/detonation-concerns-behind-superiors-buyback-of-xp-400-and-xp-382-engines/

In general as you get farther from the OEM there is a natural tendency for specification, quality and especially traceability to suffer. Before everyone blows yes there are great PMA'ed third party suppliers. But OPP is at the other extreme. I understand the FAA Guidelines - I am sure that they keep the "honest pilot/owners honest" (like Basic Med). And an individual may have great skill and is willing to take the risk of a problem from a part that they produced/manufactured that is installed on their own plane. But what about when they sell their plane with OPP? There will be ongoing liability to the former Owner for the OPP part. The traceability will go back to the Owner at the time of the OPP - it has to be logged in the maintenance logs. The attached FAA PowerPoint on OPP has a slide "Making Parts Why Take On That Liability?". There is liability - probably small. If a question of liability does arise, it doesn't sound like the Mooney Factory will have any desire to help you prove you produced an equivalent part to spec and material. As @GeeBee pointed out on the prior page "I asked Jonny at Mooney Max in June 2022 if he was worried PMA manufacturers were going to "pick Mooney's bones". He answered that Mooney owns the drawings and designs and no one can produce them without Mooney's approval" And Jonny, the CEO, is a lawyer so I suspect he knows exactly what he is doing re: PMA and OPP. With an OPP, a new owner of the plane does not know the skill level of the owner that made it, know if the owner had factory drawings/specs or the integrity of whoever signed off on it - it might have been just be a "paperwork" exercise. A buyer might be ok taking that risk but as time goes on these planes with OPP become more "experimental" and less "certified". Price needs to reflect that. https://www.csobeech.com/files/FAA-OwnerProducedParts-DonDodge.pdf

Verification by whom? Are you suggesting that the Mooney factory will be proving certified factory drawings and material specs free as well as verification?

Don't take this personally but if I were buying a Mooney that you or any Owner that has "a TIG welder and (thinks they) know how to use it." went the OPP route to repair, replace or remanufacture any control rod (brakes, flight surfaces or landing gear) I would deduct the cost to properly source and replace (parts and labor) those approved parts from the purchase price. I don't want to be a test pilot for someone's amateur welding ability. If I were wanting to buy amateur built parts/plane I would be going Experimental.