Factory Closed Down?

[DXB]

"The company, which is owned by the Chinese investment company Soaring American Corporation, says the move is “temporary” and that it will restart production when the market for its singles returns..."   Sadly there will never be a robust market for a blazingly fast, beautiful, agile piston single with limited useful load and no chute at the 800k pricepoint. I am sure that is not lost on the owners. The poor execution of the M10 program spelled their doom.

I wonder how many partly complete Mooneys were abandoned on the line.  I know the new inventory was sold out a while back but presumably those 200+ workers were still making planes. I wonder what the remaining 90 workers are doing. That is far more than the skeleton crew that kept the lights on during the last shut down.  

[MooneyMitch]

6 minutes ago, DXB said:

. I wonder what the remaining 90 workers are doing. That is far more than the skeleton crew that kept the lights on during the last shut down.  

If history repeats itself, stand by for that number to sadly diminish.  

[KSMooniac]

Exactly what I was thinking.

Hydrogen fuel cells are intriguing as well. Too bad Mooney is unlikely to get into some of these new exciting developments.

The logical first step would've been high tech composite production with the M10...

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[jiritico]

1 hour ago, KSMooniac said:

If I had a time machine, I'd try to get the M10 program on the right track from day 1 so that Mooney could be enjoying modern serial production today, and hopefully funding development of planes like the DA50 or Pipistrel Panthera... Which seem poised to carry the mantel of efficient speed into the next few decades.

As recently as a year or two ago I laughed at the potential of electric propulsion, but it is coming. Perhaps first with hybrid arrangements until battery tech makes a few more leaps. There are still innovations coming in our corner of the aviation universe! I really want Mooney to be in the game.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

The composite Mooney POC M10 practically disintegrated (delamination, disbond) after 130 hrs testing. Yet the plane duringits test flights never exceeded 2g's down. The wing assembly was BONDED to the fuselage shell (no any mechanical hardware connecting the wing assembly to the fuselage was present), and during the NDT ultrasound inspection in January 2017, after 130 hrs of testing, was found to be disbond.

As a structures/stress engineer I objected this nonsense from very beginning, being fired from Kerrville in March 2019. My second concern not liked by the Chinese owners was in emergency landing condition untested fiberglass shell on M20. Mark Brandemuehl was the first who tested this impact in his brand new Acclaim on 6/11/19, after incredible 4 months suffering he died on 10/20/19 ..

[MooneyMitch]

“My second concern not liked by the Chinese owners was in emergency landing condition untested fiberglass shell on M20. Mark Brandemuehl was the first who tested this impact in his brand new Acclaim on 6/11/19, after incredible 4 months suffering he died on 10/20/19 ..”

 

Expand on this please!

[GeorgePerry]

Sad but not unsurprising.  Back in 2014, I was working for Cirrus but had been a long time Mooney owner.  That year at AirVenture in Oshkosh, I made a point to stop by the Mooney tent and found the CEO.  I asked him, if there were any plans to put a parachute system in the Ovation / Acclaim and pursue a gross weight increase.  He said they were working on other things (Trainer, two doors, carbon fiber shell etc) and didn't see the need to do all the testing and engineering required to install a BRS.  

I told him politely, but bluntly, that I thought he was making a mistake and that Cirrus with its SR22 & CAPs were going to put Mooney out of business in under 5 years.   At the time Cirrus was out selling Mooney 30 to 1 annually.  I explained to him that while speed & efficiency are important selling points, wives don't care about that, they care about safety.  And convincing wives to "sign off" on the purchase of a plane was the only way to sell $600K+ SE piston airplanes.  

He was polite but unreceptive.  He responded by saying that Mooney's speed and efficiency had always been its best selling points and was confident that when all the "improvements" they were working on and the trainer come to market, they'd be in good shape going forward and able to compete.  I can only imagine how successful Mooney would have been with a 1200 lb useful load and a BRS.  But we'll never know.

As it turns out I wasn't too far off from my insolvency date estimate.  No doubt, GA is a tough market place and the road to success is paved with the carcasses of literally hundreds of dreamers, ideas and companies that just never make it or can't sustain over the long haul.  Innovation and evolution are important but giving the customers what they (really their wives) want is the most important factor to sustainability.  Unfortunately Mooney has learned that again the hard way. 

 

Edited November 13, 2019 by GeorgePerry

[jiritico]

All earlier M20's were fully metallic. The roll cage was covered by a ductile metallic skin, and well proven to be saving the lives in the crash like no other planes in its class. However, there is a difference between a ductile (energy absorbing) metallic construction, and a brittle and FLAMMABLE (the epoxy burns like hell) construction. I suggested to some people at Mooney: Place a beer can on the table, pound it with your fist. The impact will squash it, no sweat. But now I'll give you same size can, made of the fiberglass. Pound on it! Will you? Plus, the metal will not burn with same intensity as the E-glass (epoxy) does. That's my opinion. I may be wrong, but no any emergency landing/crash tests on Ultra models were performed to prove that such construction is safety wise comparable to earlier fully metallic M20's. 

It was a big mistake that the proven fully metallic construction was changed to a fiberglass shell over the roll cage (to save money, probably the Chinese, the "experts" in plastics thought that they may produce this "condom" in China, ship it to Kerrville, slip it on, and "here we go baby"!).

This Ultra model has NOT been tested in the impact, yet approved by FAA, and claimed by Mooney to be same or even better than the earlier fully metallic models.  From number of reasons I am the supporter of fully metallic Mooney construction. The composite is POC (Piece Of Crap), such as the shameful M10 was.

 

[GeorgePerry]

2 minutes ago, jiritico said:

All earlier M20's were fully metallic. The roll cage was covered by a ductile metallic skin, and well proven to be saving the lives in the crash like no other planes in its class. However, there is a difference between a ductile (energy absorbing) metallic construction, and a brittle and FLAMMABLE (the epoxy burns like hell) construction. I suggested to some people at Mooney: Place a beer can on the table, pound it with your fist. The impact will squash it, no sweat. But now I'll give you same size can, made of the fiberglass. Pound on it! Will you? Plus, the metal will not burn with same intensity as the E-glass (epoxy) does. That's my opinion. I may be wrong, but no any emergency landing/crash tests on Ultra models were performed to prove that such construction is safety wise comparable to earlier fully metallic M20's. 

It was a big mistake that the proven fully metallic construction was changed to a fiberglass shell over the roll cage (to save money, probably the Chinese, the "experts" in plastics thought that they may produce this "condom" in China, ship it to Kerrville, slip it on, and "here we go baby"!).

This Ultra model has NOT been tested in the impact, yet approved by FAA, and claimed by Mooney to be same or even better than the earlier fully metallic models.  From number of reasons I am the supporter of fully metallic Mooney construction. The composite is POC (Piece Of Crap), such as the shameful M10 was.

 

Sorry but this is emotional hyperbole not backed up by NTSB safety statistics.  Nor is it commensurate with proven business and sales results.  https://gama.aero/facts-and-statistics/quarterly-shipments-and-billings/

Mooney is faster and more efficient than Cirrus SR22, but the Cirrus has outsold the Ovation and Acclaim and Ultra 30-40 to 1.  

[Jerry 5TJ]

5 minutes ago, jiritico said:

All earlier M20's were fully metallic

Except for the ones made of wood.  

[jiritico]

1 minute ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Except for the ones made of wood.  

True.

[philiplane]

Mooney delivered only 40 airplanes in the five model years (2014-2018) since restarting production, against 1660 by Cirrus in the same period. 

Beech even sold 108 Bonanzas in the same time frame, making Mooney the lowest volume of the group by a wide margin. 

And so they have to turn the lights off in Kerrville yet again.

 

[Tim Jodice]

5 hours ago, daytonabch04 said:

Will this cause anyone to think of selling their Mooney in the near future??

I am in the process of buying an 1985 J and this changes nothing for me.

People still buy and fly Piper Comanches that have not had factory support for a long time. The newest ones are almost 50 years old yet are kept flying. 

 

[jiritico]

1985 M20J - a great plane! Anything prior the acquisition by the Chinese is good. Great proven engineering, fully metallic construction.

[afward]

1 hour ago, Andy95W said:

I’d like to see an M20 TE- Turbine Electric. A micro turbine engine in the tail burning Jet-A, coupled to a good sized generator. Propelled by a big-ass electric motor in the nose. Throw in just enough battery capacity for 45 minutes at about 40% power for reserve and I think you’d have something. 

Eh, you're gonna need a max gross weight increase for that (or put the whole airframe on a diet)...  124 horsepower for 45 minutes would be 256 MJ of energy usage.  Our best battery tech for weight & volume (Li-ion) will weigh as much as the TSIO-550-G you're replacing, and fill more than just the engine compartment in the process.  Dino-juice really is quite incredible as an energy-storage medium, even with the terrible thermal efficiency of the Otto cycle.

[hindsight2020]

1 hour ago, airtim said:

I am in the process of buying an 1985 J and this changes nothing for me.

People still buy and fly Piper Comanches that have not had factory support for a long time. The newest ones are almost 50 years old yet are kept flying. 

 

I'm not persuaded by the use of that example. Comanches are often pencil whipped to a fault, especially on the gear support. Transmissions, conduit lead times for replacement, the horn repetitive inspections, then the other thousand odd parts compared to simpler Vero Beach Piper offerings. Webco is not gonna be able to keep the line up forever, just like FletchAir for Grummans et al. These things are certainly a labor of love, ditto for the current bonanza V-tail magnesium fiasco. 182RGs and their actuators and pivots, think Textron is doing them any favors? Again, reference the V-tail case study for how they feel about the high wing cessna parts support side of the house. They'll all getting stabbed in the back by the OEMs. Writing's on the wall.

The problem is that people are really emotionally tied to their model loyalty, to make an objective assessment that any one significant ground rash incident or unobtanium part procurement can take your entire CAPEX load to the trash can along with all the overpriced avionics right with it. That's why these things should have been moved to primary non-commercial, if it wasn't for the FAA snuffing said category. Clutching defeat from the jaws of victory. That's why I don't invest any more on certified (Arrow in my case, but it could have just as well have been a 20F if the seating ergonomics had not been a non-starter for me) than I do. If the situation I had with my Arrow (FBO dropped a snap on toolbox on the wing rear spar and aileron from a second story!) had occurred to a comanche, it would have been an AOG total loss by virtue of lack of replacement salvage parts that don't exceed the hull value. I'm just not gonna invest in a CAPEX-sink that can do that to me. 50K is still an object in my life, and as a family man I have competing interests. I'm trying to participate meaningfully in the avocation, but it's proving hostile to my demographic. Gentrification abounds.

And again, just like many on here, I only begrudgingly own a factory built airplane because the 4-seat experimental I rather have simply doesn't exist in my price point. When I'm an empty nester I'm going so fast to an RV all you'll see is my Wiley Coyote dust silhouette. But that's me as an under-40 owner. I understand that folks with less than 15 years of active flying left might be able to ride their medicals out on these increasingly unsupported cans. And that's just as fine an answer for those for whom it works. To each their own.

 

Edited November 13, 2019 by hindsight2020

[HRM]

[aviatoreb]

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/mooney-shut-down-employees-furloughed/

[Tim Jodice]

15 minutes ago, hindsight2020 said:

I'm not persuaded by the use of that example. Comanches are often pencil whipped to a fault, especially on the gear support. Transmissions, conduit lead times for replacement, the horn repetitive inspections, then the other thousand odd parts compared to simpler Vero Beach Piper offerings. Webco is not gonna be able to keep the line up forever, just like FletchAir for Grummans et al. These things are certainly a labor of love, ditto for the current bonanza V-tail magnesium fiasco. 182RGs and their actuators and pivots, think Textron is doing them any favors? Again, reference the V-tail case study for how they feel about the high wing cessna parts support side of the house. They'll all getting stabbed in the back by the OEMs. Writing's on the wall.

The problem is that people are really emotionally tied to their model loyalty, to make an objective assessment that any one significant ground rash incident or unobtanium part procurement can take your entire CAPEX load to the trash can along with all the overpriced avionics right with it. That's why these things should have been moved to primary non-commercial, if it wasn't for the FAA snuffing said category. Clutching defeat from the jaws of victory. That's why I don't invest any more on certified (Arrow in my case, but it could have just as well have been a 20F if the seating ergonomics had not been a non-starter for me) than I do. If the situation I had with my Arrow (FBO dropped a snap on toolbox on the wing rear spar and aileron from a second story!) had occurred to a comanche, it would have been an AOG total loss by virtue of lack of replacement salvage parts that don't exceed the hull value. I'm just not gonna invest in a CAPEX-sink that can do that to me. 50K is still an object in my life, and as a family man I have competing interests. I'm trying to participate meaningfully in the avocation, but it's proving hostile to my demographic. Gentrification abounds.

And again, just like many on here, I only begrudgingly own a factory built airplane because the 4-seat experimental I rather have simply doesn't exist in my price point. When I'm an empty nester I'm going so fast to an RV all you'll see is my Wiley Coyote dust silhouette. But that's me as an under-40 owner. I understand that folks with less than 15 years of active flying left might be able to ride their medicals out on these increasingly unsupported cans. And that's just as fine an answer for those for whom it works. To each their own.

 

I agree with you on everything especially that some people do very poor inspections and repairs on there aircraft.

I brought it up because even if Mooney go out it will be a long time before there will be no way to properly maintain a Mooney. 

[carusoam]

Summary...

1) People have purchased Mooneys before, during, and after factory shut downs...

2) Most wear parts are not made by Mooney...

3) The Mooney specific parts I needed to source while the factory was closed... engine mounts and gear donuts... all made by a third party...

4) Big fear may come to mind when thinking about damaged sheet metal... how often have you dented the plane? We have insurance for that...

5) Stay calm...

6) Life is a long road...

7) No need to bash ‘the Chinese’ this is not ever going to be helpful... it takes extra effort to be clear about your thoughts...

8) Expect to learn more about the situation with time...

9) it’s not quite time to bring up everything you didn’t like about the Mooney aircraft company...

10) it is completely improper to speculate on the causes of Mark’s accident.  That won’t help at all.

Stay cool...

We are all in this together...

We will get through this one like we did all the others... together...

Best regards,

 -a-

 

[GDGR]

6 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Summary...

1) People have purchased Mooneys before, during, and after factory shut downs...

2) Most wear parts are not made by Mooney...

3) The Mooney specific parts I needed to source while the factory was closed... engine mounts and gear donuts... all made by a third party...

4) Big fear may come to mind when thinking about damaged sheet metal... how often have you dented the plane? We have insurance for that...

5) Stay calm...

6) Life is a long road...

7) No need to bash ‘the Chinese’ this is not ever going to be helpful... it takes extra effort to be clear about your thoughts...

8) Expect to learn more about the situation with time...

9) it’s not quite time to bring up everything you didn’t like about the Mooney aircraft company...

10) it is completely improper to speculate on the causes of Mark’s accident.  That won’t help at all.

Stay cool...

We are all in this together...

We will get through this one like we did all the others... together...

Best regards,

 -a-

 

So..... “just fly the aircraft”?

[carusoam]

GLJA,

you might do things differently for different reasons...

I fly the plane the same way the best I can...

In this case... It is just a machine...

And my 1995 firebird doesn’t have new parts either... hey Pontiac isn’t around anymore either...

Some people have acquired spare Mooneys that they keep at the back of the hangar...   

Other people know a list of Reapers...  need the list?

You can always check with your maintainer... see what he/she is thinking?

My local MSC is pretty helpful for this as well... they always had a complete wing on hand... and other near complete Mooney projects...

You can always check with your insurance person... that may change how an accident gets settled... Bend enough sheet metal to total the plane...

Now that I think about it... I have two pontiacs and the company ceased operations in 2010... they are still running...

PP thoughts only, not a mechanic or old junk heap whisperer...

Best regards,

-a-

[ArtVandelay]

I’ve never seen the reapers advertise control surfaces or rods...they seem to focus on avionics. I guess sheet can be fabricated, but that level of skill and machinery probably not available to small AP shops.


Tom

[mike_elliott]

11 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

Amazing.  Obviously you will now have to book an appointment to speak to me,   

uhh...where is the Mooney Summit's royalty check, Andrew

 

[Jim Peace]

Maybe if Mooney answered the phone once in a while this would not have happened. 

[Deb]

10 hours ago, jiritico said:

[...]

As a structures/stress engineer I objected this nonsense from very beginning, being fired from Kerrville in March 2019. My second concern not liked by the Chinese owners was in emergency landing condition untested fiberglass shell on M20. 

[...]

@jiritico (as “Anonymous”) posted a longer version of the above criticism on Kathryn’s Report here: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2019/06/mooney-m20v-acclaim-ultra-n576cm.html?showComment=1560481914801&m=1#c7719649681294912541.

This was posted in response:

I read with interest the contribution by “Anonymous” of August 20, 2019. As the former Director of Engineering at Mooney, working there for almost 20 years, and in Aerospace for 45, it reminded me of how many “experts” there are in this industry. With so many educated opinions floating around, especially those that were not around at the inset of the Ultra project, it would be easy to be misled by their armchair quarterbacking. Therefore, it is incumbent upon me to set this record straight.
While he is a Structures Engineer, he was in no way a Certification Engineer, which is glaringly obvious in his diatribe. Actually, he came to Mooney Kerrville with another group of Engineers from our CA. facility, and was on the team that produced the M10 he refers to as being un-airworthy. And in that respect, he is correct. That airplane that they designed will never see the sky again. Mooney does not certify junk.
Citing “FAR”23.601; The suitability of each questionable design detail and part having an important bearing on safety in operations, must be established by tests…, I guess “Anonymous” wants all to believe that we just slapped a bunch of parts together, called in the FAA, slipped them their bribe money, and started selling planes. Actually, it was a 4+ year development project that not only included hundreds of hours of static testing, all the way to structural failure, but FLAMMABILITY testing to the FAA’s own criteria. We used intumescent paint, designed to swell up and form a fire-break when exposed to flame. The melting point of aluminum is less than 1300ºF. On the Ultra, firewall testing was accomplished to a flame temperature of 2500ºF. 
His reference to “FAR” 23.2270(a)(c), that rule didn’t even exist at the time of Ultra Certification, and is not part of the M20U/V Certification Basis. A Certification Engineer would know this, and understand what a Certification Basis is, and what it defines. Mooney’s safety record over a 60+ year span is envied by all GA manufacturers, even those using Ballistic Parachute systems. Mooney’s Certification Basis has served them, and the flying public, quite well.
The M20’s steel safety cage is, in a way, a giant spring, designed to “bend” under crash loads. Static pull tests beyond Ultimate Load forces can bend the cage up to 15”, then returns to its basic shape when the load is relaxed. This simulates forces experienced in a crash. It deforms the hard riveted aluminum structure. The composite shell, however, simply cracks and buckles. At crash forces producing this effect, the chance of “shards flying around” is remote, and quite frankly, not your major problem.
It is truly horrific what happened to Mr. Brandemuehl. My thoughts and prayers are with him and his family. However, from looking at the post-crash photos and reading the initial NTSB report and eyewitness accounts, the impact was violent. He would probably not have survived at all in another airplane. Unfortunately, the shearing of a wing will always result in fuel (100LL) being thrown around, just waiting for a spark to ignite it, and the resulting fire, no matter the aircraft, is the primary source of injury or death. 
Anonymous’s claims of a giant conspiracy are rather sad, as are his references to people, their nationalities and their motives.