1980Mooney

Check with @Alan Fox Also BAS has one https://baspartsales.com/550032-011-mooney-m20k-nose-gear-door-assembly-rh-damage-and-dents/

And replacement of all the yokes with new parts that don’t exist….Yikes is right.

Actually, if Mooney only wanted to be a parts supplier and nothing more with no dream of ever building a plane again, then the best thing would be to file bankruptcy. There would be a "sale of assets" of the engineering drawings, IP, certificates which would go to a new Parts Building Only company. The New Parts Company would right size to less overhead, smaller facility, All the liabilities related to building planes would stay behind in the bankrupt legal entity. All the overhead costs for legal and insurance related to full aircraft manufacturing would be gone. The 3rd party supplier agreements would be gone but the 3rd party suppliers would still need to abide by the Intellectual Property rights that the New Parts Company would own. But everyone overlooks the fact that the Chinese Meijing Group still owns 20% of Mooney Corp. We can say that Meijing was dumb for dumping $100+ millions into Mooney but I doubt that they are stupid. Most likely the money that Meijing put into Mooney is in the form of loans that are secured by the assets of the company including the IP, engineering drawings, certificates, etc. That means that Jonny cannot sell or give away or release any engineering data like on the simple 20 and 40 gears. There is no indication that Jonny and Wyoming LLC US Financial came with bags of money to buy out Meijing or make them whole. Look at what the VanGrunsven family did in the Vans Aircraft bankruptcy. Founder VanGrunsven had been selling his ownership in the company off to the employees (who had no real significant money to put into the company - which sounds like US Financial at Mooney to me). However, VanGrunsven had secured all the assets of Vans with loans to the company in his family name. When Vans filed bankruptcy, VanGrunsven was on both sides of the settlement. It was 'win-win" for VanGrunsven regardless of whether it was a Chapter 7 liquidation or Chapter 11 reorganization. He had every outcome covered. If it went Chapter 7, he could jerk all the designs, engineering, certificates back he was secured. (also all the machine tools). In Chapter 11 (which is the way it went), he is the biggest creditor and wound up with 100% of the stock. VanGrunsven was the "puppet master" in the entire settlement. The employee stockholders got hosed.

Why do you believe that the engineering data would be put in the public domain? The company could go inactive or dormant and still hold all their intellectual property. If they have debts which force them into bankruptcy, then there will likely be a Chapter 7 liquidation. The assets will be sold. Someone will likely buy the intellectual property/engineering data assets.

You are quoting the total number built over 70 years. The Mooney Company website quotes about 7,000 still in the US and about 1,000 outside the US. That number has been posted for a long time and the fleet shrinks every year. Doing a quick search I find about 6,700 registered in the US.

If you search on Google and type "site:mooneyspace.com annual cost", you will get 2-3 pages of MooneySpace topics on Annual Cost and then followed by about another 5 pages of MooneySpace topics on Operating Cost.

When you say $5-8 K, is that in Canadian dollars? That is $3.75 - 6 K in the US. 25-27 shop hours is pretty standard for the basic Annual. Shop rates are easily $100/hour - some more. And then you have materials, filters, oil, and something usually needs adjustment or repair. And there may be taxes. If your number is CAD then it seems in range. I forget what you previously flew but retractable gear Mooney increases the Annual about $1K compared to a fixed gear 4-cly Cessna.

Here is the Lycoming approved list of fuel by engine. It includes Automotive Fuels by octane (along with Vapor Pressure and maximum oxygenate specs). Unlike the Peterson STC list it approves unleaded Automotive fuel in certain Injected engines including some IO-360 and some IO-540. No turbocharged engines and no IO-390. Service Instruction No. 1070 AB | Lycoming DATE: (lycoming.com)

Interesting comment. We should all be clamoring for unleaded avgas.

It’s in the very first post on page 1.

It never sold. Same owner listed since 2021. What a surprise..... https://www.flightaware.com/resources/registration/N3716H https://www.hangar67.com/aircraft/1979-mooney-m20j-201/29948

You didn't mention if you tried your other radio when you lost volume. You mentioned changing headphones and jacks. If the problem was exactly the same with both radios I would also suspect the audio panel. You just need an 3/32 allen wrench. https://www.csobeech.com/files/KMA-24Install.pdf

If the owner is hoping to sell the plane for a super premium above any comparable model, then you would think that he or the broker would be a bit more forthcoming and transparent about the engine history. In 2020 when he purchased it, the J was a "Turbo Bullet" conversion. This was an early troubled conversion by Aircraft Design, Incorporated in Spoke (started by Darwin Conrad - yes the same Darwin Conrad that went on to start successful Rocket Engineering). This was not Darwin Conrad's finest hour. The STC was originally an over-boosted Lycoming fitted with low compression pistons, fixed wastegate and intercooler. It ran at 38.5 inches but RPM was limited to 2,575. Due to failures it led to an Airworthiness Directive in 1993 that limited boost to 33.0 inches and still limited RPM. to 2,575. https://www.aeroresourcesinc.com/uploads/199010-1988 Mooney M20J 201SE Turbo Conversion.pdf The 2020 advertisement said: "This is a LYCOMING IO-360 conversion. It is not a turbo normalizer with a fourth turbo control. It is a true turbo with the turbo integrated into the throttle and the engine is designed to run at higher manifold pressures. " The current ad says " Turbo Normalized- ...Complete overhaul fire wall forward, engine, turbo, propeller work done in 2022" OK - something more had to have been done to turn this into a "Turbo-Normalized" IO-360. Something significant - more than an overhaul. Maybe original pistons, but what type of Turbo Normalizer control was added? https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/191422791/n4064h-1981-mooney-m20j-201

Since you reference an IO-550A, it sounds like you are considering a M20J with a Missile conversion by Rocket Engineering. Real world you will fly 20 kn faster than a stock J. But you will never see 10 gph unless you fly slower than the original J as @Bolter highlights. Remember that you are dragging around an extra 350 lbs over the original J not including the extra fuel that you need. It has 2 batteries in the tail plus more Charlie weights to offset the 550 and full feathering prop. The Missile is slightly less fast/efficient than an Ovation. At 13,500 you might see 11.5-12 gph at 170 kn. at MGW of 3,200 lbs if everything is perfect. But I always plan trips for 15 gph. Operating cost firewall forward is probably 50% more. You have 50% more jugs, plugs, injectors, exhaust risers/joints, propeller blades. Oil fill on the IO-550A is 12 qts. The engine mount is complex, susceptible to corrosion due to proximity to high temp exhaust and expensive to repair. The starter adapter on Continentals is also expensive if it fails vs Lyc 4. - lightweight starters will kill it. The full feathering Scimitar prop is a beast - maintenance is key - new replacement is over $30K now. The operating cost for the rest of the plane is about the same. Exceptions. Double cost of batteries. You have 300 extra pounds on the nose gear vs a standard J - maintenance and lubrication of linkages is critical.

As long as your IA signs offs on your Annual then your plane is Airworthy. Airworthy is Airworthy - regardless of 2,500 hours on your engine or only 100 hours. Some would argue that a newly broken in engine is a higher risk than one near TBO due to infant mortality. However, people have posted here that a buyer cannot get financing on a plane with an engine over book TBO. I don't know if that is true in all cases.

A few C’s have been converted to fuel injection by replacing the entire engine to an IO-360 by STC. As stated you need to look at the ad listing. Given the cost and importance of the engine, virtually every ad will provide some engine detail beyond hours if there has been a modification.

I’ve had a plane in Texas for about the same period of time. I have never registered my plane with the state, county or city yet it appears on the county Central Appraisal District property listing. It’s been there on the county CAD list pre-Internet and pre-ADS – B. It doesn’t make much sense to blame ADS-B when the real issue is that you don’t like your local tax rate.

"I gather the Mooney factory and their FAA production certificate are assets that Mooney Aircraft Corp is trying to leverage to salvage the company or to sell." The Factory is an "asset" when operating but not one that Mooney can technically sell. Mooney leases the facility from the Kerrville -Kerr County Airport. In 2004 Mooney entered into a 30 year lease that escalates. In 2014 it was revisited, the lease was raised to $6K per month rising with the CPI for the remaining 20 years to 2034. With current inflation it is probably $8K/month. As long as Mooney is manufacturing and the lease is appropriately priced, the company's "manufacturing capability" is an asset. But if a lot of it is idle and unused then it is a liability. In the past there were comments that the Chinese owners made investment in the plant building like improved lighting. Well although all those improvements were paid for by Mooney and its Chinese owners, they are now owned by the Lessor - Kerrville-Kerr County Airport, since the are part of the building (leasehold improvements). If someone buys the stock of Mooney Co. then they can continue to take advantage of or "leverage" (as you said) the "manufacturing capability" but Mooney Co. cannot sell the factory facility. https://www.aero-news.net/FullsizeImage.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=60120554-46DA-4B3B-9570-3455356CD184 https://dailytimes.com/news/article_76d3f886-3def-11e4-8961-c733c636b59f.html Saying it a different way - Mooney could remove all the machines and fixtures from the Factory and move somewhere else but they would still be paying the Lease for the empty Factory facility. That outcome is most likely worthless.

Well you are right, logically it doesn't do anything for those that don't visit this site. Just an observation but it appears that: Only a minority of Mooney owners join MS as members. Only a minority of MS members are frequent visitors to MS. Only a minority of MS frequent visitors post or respond to anything. Only a minority of those posting and responding come to the Safety and Accident Discussion Forum (look at the number of posts and the number of views and responses as compared to General, Modern or Vintage Forums. - easily an order of magnitude less. And it is like frozen in time with the first four (4) topics posted in 2019 -2021 and no responses since then.) Of those few MS members that respond on Safety and Accident Discussion, some only do it to complain either they are offended, that it just points out misfortune, that it is really just a way to complain about insurance, that is not constructive or useful and one even said it was voyeuristic. And some of those are vocal that we, like good children, should just keep our mouths shut, sit on our hands and wait for the NTSB Final to come out in a couple years (which rarely has any bearing on the epidemic of Mooney landing incidents). Of course when the Final does come out most have forgotten, moved on and have little to no interest at that point. So you are right. Few are interested and it doesn't do much if anything. It is not really worth the effort. Might as well just delete the entire Forum.

You may have noticed that this post by "Aviationist" is gone (actually all of his posts are gone). His profile says that deleted his 76 posts about 45 minutes ago. I wonder if he is one of the MS members with multiple screen names.

Aside from Mooney and most Beech (and a few percent of Piper and Cessna), the majority of SEP flying are fixed gear. And turboprops like the large number of Caravans are fixed. Saying that to every plane would sound ludicrous. Alternatively they would need to quiz many planes - "Beech 24, Cessna 210, Cessna 182, PA-28, PA-32, etc.. Are you fixed or retract?!). I suspect they would consider it a waste of time and distraction. And a large portion of the rest are pro pilots. I don't recall any tower tell a jet, turboprop or commercial to "Check your gear" as a normal reminder while cleared to land or on Final - perhaps it happens but seems unlikely.

Lesson #1 - Get ready to spend lots of $$$$…..

A New Encore Continental TSIO-360-SB at only $100k seems like a bargain compared to a new Bravo Lycoming TIO-540-AF1B at $175K (75% more). It seems odd that the Rebuilt Encore Continental is so high at $88K. All these prices are after providing a usable Core. Without a Core, the New Lycoming for the Bravo costs $216K ! More and more, when you buy a used GA plane you are paying for Avionics and the Engine/Prop and the rest of the plane is thrown in for free....

So that was back in mid July - $101K for a Factory Rebuilt. That same Lycoming TIO-540 engine for a Bravo now costs $111K for a Factory Rebuilt. Up 10% in two (2) months.

Watch both of these videos. See the second one at 3:30 min and 5:00 min