1980Mooney

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.

Also...

The Toyota ones fit but are heavier than the stock Mooney - the rods are solid steel rather than tubular as in the OEM Mooney. Look at M20K Illustrated Parts Catalog - Sect. 25-00-02. There are 3 different kinds of headrests depending on serial number. But the tubular centers and diameters may be the same and interchangeable.

Really? Looking up country consumptions on a daily basis: Aviation gasoline is a pitifully small market....Auto Gas is about 900 times greater, Milk is about 140 times bigger, Jet A is about 100 times greater, Beer is 37 times bigger, even Orange Juice is double in size.... Canada Aviation gasoline - 47,000 gallons per day - about 3 small to medium backyard swimming pools Jet A - 2,740,000 gallons per day Automobile gasoline - 33,600,000 gallons per day USA Aviation gasoline - 412,000 gallons per day - about 27 small to medium backyard swimming pools About half a backyard swimming pool per state per day - you could fill with a measly hose during the day... Jet A - 45,200,000 gallons per day Automobile gasoline - 369,400,000 gallons per day Milk production - 57,500,000 gallons per day Beer production - 15,373,000 gallons per day Orange juice production - 874,000 gallons per day

"Blended by anyone"...I think you are dreaming. More "local suppliers" means more potential quality control issues for Avfuel and GAMI. They are not going to want to deal with a lot of mom and pops on start up of a nationwide distribution plan. And if there is one, even one, quality issue in the rollout and expansion because of a small/local "blender" it will be a disaster. - i.e. Chevron, Mobil, etc. I bet that Avfuel and GAMI stick with larger more reputable chemical suppliers with track records and deep pockets initially even if it means the cost is higher. What do they care if the cost is more? - they have no competition for now. At this point in their business plan, they need to grab market share as fast as possible. They need to reliably deliver perfect quality product while dominating most of the distribution and market. Then and only when (if?) Swift delivers an approved 100R - then Avfuel/GAMI can work on driving cost down with cheaper suppliers. - further undercutting Swift competitiveness.

Geez - and I thought I had problems years ago when during a significant panel upgrade, the Avionics shop I was using was sold. The new shop owner immediately started "remodeling" before my plane was finished and misplaced my log books. I had to search the premises and luckily found them. Wish you good luck in this unfortunate situation.

Once G100LL rolls out (as Flying says will start in California in the next 2-3 months) isn't it really "Game Over" for Swift 100R which is not yet even approved? Why would pilot/owners want to buy 2 STC's so that they can potentially run either GAMI or Swift 100UL? What airports are going to spend material capital investment on additional fuel trucks and additional tanks and pumps so that owners have the luxury of choosing between 2 different "100UL" avgas? This creates even worse manufacturing and distribution costs by splitting a relatively small market into smaller pieces. Perhaps the best that Swift can do is once Swift 100R is approved (if ever) and available then likely they will convert their 94UL distribution and the existing FBO fuel trucks, tanks and pumps to 100R - and just stop selling 94UL and just sell one grade (100R UL). Then you will might have the choice to 2 competing 100UL at some airports.

I have an M20J Illustrated Parts Catalog dated January 1989. It has an "Optional Equipment Group" and that is where the Rotating Beacon is listed (Section 110). Later IPC's that are online (1998 and 2003) don't show an "optional equipment group". Instead, the rotating beacon is with the Lights Group - Section 33 (33-40-04). It appears this light was an option and not required. My 1980 M20J never came with a rotating beacon. If it is a not required then it seems like a mechanic should be able to remove it and remove or "inop" the switch with a simple log book entry.

You would not have guessed it because it is not true. Since the OP is interested in the Ovation: The original Ovation had a 3 blade McCaulley - 73" The Ovation 2 came with a 2 blade McCaulley - 76" The Ovation 3 and Ultra came with a Hartzell Scimitar 3 blade - 76" These are the OEM props for the Ovation.

It has never "popped open" in flight. It was not closed properly once. One thing to watch out for however is sometimes passengers or mechanics will grab the top of the open door and lean on it or push against it when it is open for some reason. A bad gust of wind from behind the plane can wrench the door open hard too. This can flex the door and the hinges slightly (even bend the hinges some). If it is leaned upon then the top clamshell will contact before the center striker. You can probably pull the center strap getting everything flush to close the handle. But if the top is flexed outward (flexed forward when open from someone pushing/leaning against it when open or bent by a high gust of wind) then the center strike lines up but the clamshell doesn't grab the cone tip in the pic properly - sometimes right on the edge (it is spring loaded so it adjusts to what it is grabbing) - and the suction in flight pulls it open. Mooney door adjustment is an art - you have to look at any flex in the door, especially the hinges, make sure all the links and springs are lubed, make sure all your gaskets are smooth and properly placed and then adjust the cone tip length that contacts the clamshell

Isn’t every engine certified in the STC? Once distribution starts at those airports it’s just a matter of paying for the STC. Right?

Exactly and you have overlooked the additional cost of litigation which continuing manufacturers and distributors of leaded gas will face. As said before leaded avgas is a boutique fuel which has to be produced in refineries. Batch runs at refineries will get smaller and economics will suffer. Quantities are too small and contamination too great to ship by pipeline - everything has to be by truck. Distribution economics will get worse and worse. There will be out-of-state litigation against those companies, still producing and distributing leaded avgas. He’s generally large corporations that won’t want the liability and hassle. And then think of the potential liability that a pilot faces if he flies a plane (with leaded Avgas in the tanks) into a state that has banned leaded Avgas. If for any reason the tanks need to be defueled by a mechanic or an airport. I bet the pilot/owner will face big hazardous waste, cleanup, cost, and potential fines.

Timely article in Flying online. Some new information: ”Early estimates show a March or April initial rollout focused on a limited number of airports in California. GAMI intends to utilize the existing distribution network. Avfuel and GAMI will issue a license to produce G100UL. Production and distribution will be in multiple locations based on demand.” https://www.flyingmag.com/g100ul-avgas-replacement-set-to-soon-hit-pumps/