DaV8or

Quote: FlyFstr RE: "they can't do any of this until the give up on the dream of building airplanes and stop looking for a buyer" Dave, Please re-think this comment. Patrick

Quote: Magnum I don't understand why they closed the maintenance shop. They should have been able to make a some money with it, at least they'd have kept some trained employees in the company. IMHO a new start is not easy now after all the good workers found other jobs.

Quote: Parker_Woodruff They need to get rid of that huge facility to start.

Quote: allsmiles They cannot only sell long bodies. They need the J. Why? Should they bring back the C too? Again, as I pointed out earlier, Mooney stopped selling the J when people stopped buying it, not the other way around. After a point, when MAC was still selling planes, the choice among buyers was almost 100% long body. Anything else is wishful thinking. That's what we're doing here. Wishful thinking. Mooney will not be building anymore airplanes and they need to wake up, restructure for parts and support before they go completely bankrupt.

Quote: Lood First off, I'd like to apologise for not keeping my promise regarding the pictures. I fell critically ill, without warning and have been out of action for about 10 days. Needless to say that my intented flight also never took place. I went to take a picture today and I've added it below. It is clear that they did drill a new hole through the shaft - horisontal for the 201 vs vertical on the original yoke. However, as you can see, they covered even the back, where the shaft enters the yoke, in leather. So, I'm not sure what they did to solve the size difference. I'm pretty sure that they used some sort of insert or bush. I'll send my AME an e-mail and ask him exactly how the made it fit. It is rock solid with no play whatsoever.

Quote: jetdriven

We may never know why on this one. With smoking wreckage like that, it has to be pretty tough to piece it back together.

Quote: jetdriven That Ravin 500 looks like a fine aircraft, but it is a Comanche in shape only. The entire aircraft is composite. Mooney would have to build a composite kit for an M20. I just don't see it happening. Why not? If the M20J needs to be all composite, (I personally don't think it would have to be all composite) so be it. It's about making Mooney profitable, not clinging to the past. Time to think outside the hangar. UPDATE:, the Ravin N913RA that is listed in their photo gallery has crashed and killed the two occupants moments after reporting smoke in the cockpit. http://www.thekathrynreport.com/2011/05/ravin-500-n913ra-2-people-killed-in.html Keep this in mind when comparing certfied aircraft to experimentals. You don't have the protection of al the regulations and FAA mandates. Asinine or not, their job as regulators is safety. True. This is always the trade off for experimental planes and some choose not to take the risk. The kit 201 idea is just an option for Mooney to make money and stay in business. It's also the only viable case for new build 201s I can see. This crash was caused by the automotive power plant though, a Chevy LS1 V8 I believe. The specs for construction by Ravin calls for a traditional IO-540. I do not believe the airframe was at fault.

Here's an idea I've never seen before; how about chrome plate the gear? That would be wild.

Quote: jetdriven At 3,800$ for an aileronetc. , an M20J "kit" would be 3 million dollars.

Quote: allsmiles I respectfully disagree. For the simple question: How do you support M20 parts inventory for a used fleet with no new production aircraft? I don't see how Mooney would maintain parts just for used airplanes. Umm... You just make the parts and then price them to make a profit. Just like they do with vintage car parts. You only inventory the ones that are needed all the time. One off airframe parts, like say a cowl deck or something, are made by hand to that order and priced accordingly. MAC would become a much smaller company, but more profitable. In other words, their big hangar factory would be replaced by a small hangar factory. As for the J I don't think it's a dream. I think it can be done. Which aircraft would you chose if Mooney put out a brand new J for 200K?? I know I would chose the J. There is no other aircraft out there in the Mooney J class. Ofcourse the used values would decline so it's probably good that they don't! Come on now, if you're going to put out there the idea of a brand new $200,000 M20J with a straight face, at least fill us in on how in the world that would ever be possible in the US. The basic, simple little Liberty XL-2 is over $200,000. I've inspected the plane. Not a lot of frills there.

Quote: jetdriven I miss my 1982 Z-28 but I know Chevrolet isnt going to build them again.

I enjoyed the video. Thanks for posting. I don't give a rat's ass that it was on Aljazeera's website. I watched the whole thing and managed not to kill any Jews or burn an American flag. It didn't seem to inspire me to make an effegy of George Bush either. In fact, here a day later, I can safely say that what ever propaganda was inbedded in that video or on that site had no influence on me at all. They will have to try harder. Alternative points of view are always welcome in my opinion. I listen to Fox news and NPR. It was a video about flying DC-3s in Columbia. That's it. If it had been a video about how to turn 172s into flying bombs to kill the infidels, well, that might have annoyed me.

Quote: ChrisH I wonder if Mooney could find a market re-opening as an experimental aircraft, ala Lancair. I know the FAA is looking into the 51% claim of Lancair, and putting a chill in the market. But, could take a lot of the liability costs and parts uncertainity out of the market.

Quote: 201guy Is there any restriction from powder coating the gear legs? Changing the donuts, so going to refinish the gear legs as well.

Quote: N4352H Tort reform......not to get political..........GA would survive, meidcal insurance would survive...everything would be better off. A new GA aircraft costs twice its intended price for fear of product liability. Don't get me wrong, lawyers deserve to make a good living, but the trial lawyers association is out of hand. GA has been phasing itself out for 30 years directly the result of legal laibility. It's tort reform.

Quote: allsmiles What got Mooney in trouble is that they produced bigger much less efficient airframes in a hostile fuel cost environment. They stopped the venerable 201. The epitomy of efficiency and speed in the whole entire GA!! This one airplane they stopped producing!

Quote: GeorgePerry Unfortunately, when it comes to working with General Aviation businesses and fostering industry growth, the FAA is often an impediment to progress. The FAA places the safety of inaction ahead of the public and business interests they should be serving. This needs to change. The FAA should proactively work with industry to streamline and simplify TSO / Certification processes. Meaningful reform would help quickly bring new and innovative aviation products to market in a safe, cost effective way.

Quote: jbreda There is nothing wrong with upgrading the F. I would do the major J model mods if you can.

I wonder if some are owners concered about future parts availability? Some may be using the current problems with Mooney as a reason to trade or hang it up. They may not be wrong because it won't be too long before prospective buyers will be getting "expert" advise like, "You can't get parts for 'em anymore."

How does a poker run with airplanes work? Does it mean you have to fly to and land at five different airports?

Quote: jbreda Guys: LP Aero Plastics sells the 201 windshield. In fact, they even sold the STC for the 1/4" thick version. That was sold for Mod Works so it may not be an option anymore now that Mods Works is no longer. I think LASAR still sells the STC but they may have difficulty getting cowl decks (which is a factory part for their STC). I have a 201 cowl deck that could be used if anyone is interested in it.

Quote: aerobat95 What needs to happen is Mooney needs to start making planes again.....

I also was kind of wondering on how often should I change my tubes. My tires look good, but when I have them filled at the recommend 30 psi they look way low. I always keep them filled at 35 psi and visually they look a lot better. I've never had a problem I've always thought maybe I need to replace my tubes and perhaps my tires also. Any Thoughts? Dave, I've noticed when I post from my work computer your name and picture comes up. When I post from my home computer I don't have this problem. Sorry, I don't know why this happens. Kerry

Double post----