Mooney factory for sale

[MikeOH]

5 hours ago, chriscalandro said:

I know of an examiner that died when the wing fell off a piper in the middle of a check ride. 

Poor maintenance is a VERY poor analogy to poor manufacturing!

[1980Mooney]

5 hours ago, chriscalandro said:

I know of an examiner that died when the wing fell off a piper in the middle of a check ride. 

 

7 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Poor maintenance is a VERY poor analogy to poor manufacturing!

This sounds like a manufacturing issue.  Embry Riddle has outstanding maintenance.  I don't follow your comment.

Hangar Talk - Wing comes off a PA28 during a checkride with an examiner (and wing spar structure discussion) (euroga.org)

NTSB Issues Final Report on 2018 Daytona Beach Accident - FLYING Magazine

"The 10-year old aircraft was used only for flight training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and had accumulated approximately 7,600 hours of flight time. “A review of the operator’s airframe discrepancy log for the life of the airplane and flight crew safety reporting system for the 24 months preceding the accident found some reported flap extension overspeed, gear extension overspeed, and hard landing events. In each case, the events resulted in airframe examinations during which no defects were noted by maintenance personnel. Interviews with flight instructors did not yield any safety of flight issues or critical airframe or loading exceedances caused by pilot operation that would be expected to precipitate cracking.”

Piper published a service bulletin in 1987 for a wing spar inspection on the PA-28 series that would not have taken effect on this airplane until it had accumulated almost another 23,000 flight hours."

[MikeOH]

36 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

This sounds like a manufacturing issue.  Embry Riddle has outstanding maintenance.  I don't follow your comment.

Follow along:

1) Someone felt flying exp was dangerous and cited an example accident where the tail fell off. Pretty likely a mfg problem!

2) Chris comes along with an example of a failure on a production aircraft. Pretty unlikely to be a mfg problem given the number PA28s

3) I post that the two are NOT analogous. IOW not a good argument that certified AC are as dangerous as EXP

YOUR knowledge of this particular accident doesn’t change the logic of the general points above.  Further, despite your belief in ER’s ‘perfect’ maintenance, failure to notice the cracking is an inspection issue not a mfg one. As you boldly pointed out, Piper’s fatigue cracking concerns begin at 20,000 hours…reinforcing that THIS particular accident was because the cracks were not seen. That is, absent some evidence the cracks came from the factory it wasn’t a mfg issue!

[aviatoreb]

18 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Follow along:

1) Someone felt flying exp was dangerous and cited an example accident where the tail fell off. Pretty likely a mfg problem!

2) Chris comes along with an example of a failure on a production aircraft. Pretty unlikely to be a mfg problem given the number PA28s

3) I post that the two are NOT analogous. IOW not a good argument that certified AC are as dangerous as EXP

YOUR knowledge of this particular accident doesn’t change the logic of the general points above.  Further, despite your belief in ER’s ‘perfect’ maintenance, failure to notice the cracking is an inspection issue not a mfg one. As you boldly pointed out, Piper’s fatigue cracking concerns begin at 20,000 hours…reinforcing that THIS particular accident was because the cracks were not seen. That is, absent some evidence the cracks came from the factory it wasn’t a mfg issue!

I've of known someone who literally their wheel feel off their car while driving.  Call that a wheel failure?  Call it a mfg error?  Or maintenance error?  Or is it an owner error to comply with recommendation which is to get your AL rims torqued re-checked after 40 miles?

The idea that nothing ever breaks is silly and that flying will be perfect but cars dont need to be cuz they dont scare people. But they should.

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

Follow along:

1) Someone felt flying exp was dangerous and cited an example accident where the tail fell off. Pretty likely a mfg problem!

2) Chris comes along with an example of a failure on a production aircraft. Pretty unlikely to be a mfg problem given the number PA28s

3) I post that the two are NOT analogous. IOW not a good argument that certified AC are as dangerous as EXP

YOUR knowledge of this particular accident doesn’t change the logic of the general points above.  Further, despite your belief in ER’s ‘perfect’ maintenance, failure to notice the cracking is an inspection issue not a mfg one. As you boldly pointed out, Piper’s fatigue cracking concerns begin at 20,000 hours…reinforcing that THIS particular accident was because the cracks were not seen. That is, absent some evidence the cracks came from the factory it wasn’t a mfg issue!

You are too quick to dismiss potential manufacturing anomalies, experimental or Certified.  Two planes manufactured at the same time exhibited the same cracks. Yes they are used for training but the wings should not and usually don't fail.  A small change in manufacturing could have led to a weaker spar.  And unfortunately, as they say on Beechtalk, all the holes in the swiss cheese lined up disastrously.

As pointed out in the Piper Owner Society presentation of the NTSB findings:
"Crack development is a function of many factors, including design of the structure, how severely the aircraft is flown, and manufacturing processes. "

Furthermore "Inspection of another airplane in the same fleet of the accident airplane (manufactured at a similar time and operated in a similar training mission) was also found to have cracking in the wing spar."

Per the European forums:  "It (the Piper spar) really is an odd design that demands perfection in production and fit. What holds it together is not the bolts, but friction due to the torque of the bolts. The typical way to design this is to assure all the forces go through one single bolt, one at the upper and one at the lower, or a series of bolts all taking equal load, either pure shear or pure tension.

The bolt itself is OK, but not the structure around it because that structure is designed with friction in mind. With a perfect fit, the right amount of torque, no corrosion, it probably will be OK and will last for ever. But too much torque will insert too much stress on the structure around the bolt. Too little torque will weaken the friction between the members so too much load is applied to the bolt and the structure around it. A less than perfect fit will weaken it considerably, which could be problematic when changing a wing for instance, unless this is done 100% correct. Also, the condition and fit of the aft spar matters."

Just like the many cylinders, crankshaft and camshaft AD's we have seen, and now the latest Continental FUp, manufactures over time seem to lose their "best practices."  perhaps due to turnover of staff.  It is possible something (or someone) on the assembly line changed.  Although the NTSB did not highlight it, I bet the attorneys for the families of the deceased will be all over it.

And BTW - the cracking was in a hidden area not visible to maintenance personnel.  How many times have you removed your wing spars to check for hidden corrosion or cracks? 

[Guest]

Regarding the Piper wing spar failure and lack of inspection.  Here’s what it looks like, I’m not sure how long it would take for the crack to be visible past the bolt head, and if it would still fly and not fail.

[FloridaMan]

I believe I have the political, engineering and manufacturing resources to make an affordable GA airplane. The value in Mooney is the proven airframe and certifications. 

[rpcc]

Not sure what this means but there is a financial component as well that is significant.

for a laugh google Florida Man and your birth date

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, FloridaMan said:

I believe I have the political, engineering and manufacturing resources to make an affordable GA airplane. The value in Mooney is the proven airframe and certifications. 

Among other things the Mooney airframe is proven the be extremely labor intensive.  The only way to make that go away is a clean sheet design.

The 1963 289 AC Cobra was a great car - like Mooney designed in the slide rule era.  However design and manufacturing technologies have moved on and the "body on frame" (just like Mooney fuselage) no longer makes sense.  GM figured that out with the clean sheet design of the C4 Corvette in 1983.

Edited March 1, 2023 by 1980Mooney

[amillet]

How many Mooneys could Boeing build in a week

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*253A*252F*252Fwww.youtube.com*252Fembed*252FSE71NJl-naY*253Fautoplay*253D1&data=05*257C01*257C*257C21b2a9f7e4034bcd0cea08dadfa6a2f4*257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa*257C1*257C0*257C638068204036854464*257CUnknown*257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*253D*257C3000*257C*257C*257C&sdata=9W0TmWZCmdQtH9zPCRkZQdE1JVBSyWV9V*252FrtMaj*252FoiI*253D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!AAefoq9I!Vy3IB51DCOJT_Ay_-G0XS2NIqSz1WQieklppRxRtBMBTOvE1nwlcOaGmTs1xdz5z2YuWhSRDtU4q7bmg$

 

[toto]

11 minutes ago, amillet said:

How many Mooneys could Boeing build in a week

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*253A*252F*252Fwww.youtube.com*252Fembed*252FSE71NJl-naY*253Fautoplay*253D1&data=05*257C01*257C*257C21b2a9f7e4034bcd0cea08dadfa6a2f4*257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa*257C1*257C0*257C638068204036854464*257CUnknown*257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*253D*257C3000*257C*257C*257C&sdata=9W0TmWZCmdQtH9zPCRkZQdE1JVBSyWV9V*252FrtMaj*252FoiI*253D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!AAefoq9I!Vy3IB51DCOJT_Ay_-G0XS2NIqSz1WQieklppRxRtBMBTOvE1nwlcOaGmTs1xdz5z2YuWhSRDtU4q7bmg$

 

I imagine a lot

That’s one crazy url 

[Mcstealth]

On 2/26/2023 at 1:53 PM, A64Pilot said:

Took me awhile to figure that out, but if your asking which school, it was Central Texas College in Killeen, I was in 6th Cav Stationed at Ft Hood.

That makes sense. 

Dad was First Calvary '56-'58.

[T. Peterson]

Just out of curiosity and a a forlorn hope that Mooney will make a comeback, I have two questions:

Is it possible for Mooney to produce a no frills E, J or K and sell it for 500,000.00?

If it was possible, would there be a market?

By no frills, I mean cloth seats, and basic IFR. Dual Nav Comms and one gps. No deice, air conditioning, parachute, leather wrapped yokes etc.

[donkaye]

59 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

Just out of curiosity and a a forlorn hope that Mooney will make a comeback, I have two questions:

Is it possible for Mooney to produce a no frills E, J or K and sell it for 500,000.00?

If it was possible, would there be a market?

By no frills, I mean cloth seats, and basic IFR. Dual Nav Comms and one gps. No deice, air conditioning, parachute, leather wrapped yokes etc.

At $100,000 for an engine and $150,000 for avionics, that leaves $250,000 for the airframe, labor, and profit.  Bottom line--in my opinion, highly unlikely.

[glbtrottr]

I don’t know that I agree.

If you could duplicate the airframe’s aerodynamics with a different substructure than the steel cage, composite versus aluminum riveting, and Spartan avionics, I don’t see why not. The FAA didn’t always scare everyone trying to get a part 23 manufacturing very.

An engine isn’t 100k - it certainly doesn’t have to be. It all boils down to greed.

Icon aircraft originally had a price of $139k- a 2 seater LSA seaplane. They had some good staff, but Geezus- Chinese money came in, as it has been at a number of aircraft companies, and everything goes to crap. Before you know it the price balloons to $389, the quick and dirty Chinese money demands don’t pan out, and the Chinese prematurely pull out. So icon delivered 90 planes with a laughable 1300 on back order.

I think a mooney can be produced below $500k, but not a steel cage and aluminum airplane with all of Garmin’s overpriced toys


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fly Boomer]

1 minute ago, glbtrottr said:

I think a mooney can be produced below $500k, but not a steel cage and aluminum airplane with all of Garmin’s overpriced toys

So, you're thinking a completely new design and tooling?

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

Is it possible for Mooney to produce a no frills E, J or K and sell it for 500,000.00?

Not a chance. A new Cessna Skyhawk is $500,000 and they have the economy of scale of making a lot of Cessnas and having the capital of Textron behind them.

Mooney hasn't made an E in 50 years. They would have to tool it from scratch.

Mooney hasn't made a J or a K in 25 years and may have some tooling laying around, but unlikely. 

They haven't made an Ultra in 3 years and if they made a new one, my guess is it wouldn't be less than $1.2 million. 

How much less would a mid-body Mooney with the same wing and a $50,000 less expensive engine that's a few feet shorter cost to make?

[1980Mooney]

19 minutes ago, glbtrottr said:

I don’t know that I agree.

If you could duplicate the airframe’s aerodynamics with a different substructure than the steel cage, composite versus aluminum riveting, and Spartan avionics, I don’t see why not. The FAA didn’t always scare everyone trying to get a part 23 manufacturing very.

An engine isn’t 100k - it certainly doesn’t have to be. It all boils down to greed.

Icon aircraft originally had a price of $139k- a 2 seater LSA seaplane. They had some good staff, but Geezus- Chinese money came in, as it has been at a number of aircraft companies, and everything goes to crap. Before you know it the price balloons to $389, the quick and dirty Chinese money demands don’t pan out, and the Chinese prematurely pull out. So icon delivered 90 planes with a laughable 1300 on back order.

I think a mooney can be produced below $500k, but not a steel cage and aluminum airplane with all of Garmin’s overpriced toys


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

17 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

So, you're thinking a completely new design and tooling?

And don’t forget that a new design/material would need to ditch the signature, movable empennage. Way too complex and expensive and probably overly heavy in composite. It will be a Solid tail like everybody else. 
 

And do you really want to stick with the narrow body aerodynamics?  Buyers will want the more generous shoulder room found in the competition.  Aerodynamics will force you into more of a Cirrus/Columbia aerodynamic look.

Complexity, economics and weight will probably force you into fixed gear.

What you will have is a clone of Cirrus.     

 

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

And don’t forget that a new design/material would need to ditch the signature, movable empennage. Way too complex and expensive and probably overly heavy in composite. It will be a Solid tail like everybody else. 
 

And do you really want to stick with the narrow body aerodynamics?  Buyers will want the more generous shoulder room found in the competition.  Aerodynamics will force you into more of a Cirrus/Columbia aerodynamic look.

Complexity, economics and weight will probably force you into fixed gear.

What you will have is a clone of Cirrus.     

 

 

Or they could just buy Cirrus and move it to Texas!

[1980Mooney]

11 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Or they could just buy Cirrus and move it to Texas!

Let’s all remember that Cessna did something similar with the Columbia/Corvallis/TTX - moved it from Oregon to Kansas. We all know how well that worked out.

[toto]

I know that we’ve gone round and round on this topic, but I remain convinced that the M20 line would be viable today if there was demand for it. If Mooney had firm orders for 2-300 airframes, they could negotiate various discounts on components, and if there was a consistent backlog of orders, they could certainly find efficiencies in manufacturing. 

It’s not the case that a metal airframe is impossible to make money on. As mentioned, Cessna failed with the Columbia line, and they’ve succeeded on the old metal type certificates. 

And to be honest, if Mooney were able to *sell* hundreds of airframes, there would be plenty of other companies happy to build them. It’s a sales problem, I’m convinced - not a manufacturing one. 

[Will.iam]

18 minutes ago, toto said:

I know that we’ve gone round and round on this topic, but I remain convinced that the M20 line would be viable today if there was demand for it. If Mooney had firm orders for 2-300 airframes, they could negotiate various discounts on components, and if there was a consistent backlog of orders, they could certainly find efficiencies in manufacturing. 

It’s not the case that a metal airframe is impossible to make money on. As mentioned, Cessna failed with the Columbia line, and they’ve succeeded on the old metal type certificates. 

And to be honest, if Mooney were able to *sell* hundreds of airframes, there would be plenty of other companies happy to build them. It’s a sales problem, I’m convinced - not a manufacturing one. 

Well isn’t that true of all products and businesses? Just look at the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. It worked with basically no product but a great salesman until he got caught. 

[rpcc]

What is the current asking price for this business? 

[toto]

10 minutes ago, rpcc said:

What is the current asking price for this business? 

They were asking 12M two years ago, according to a widely disseminated pitch deck. 

[toto]

11 minutes ago, Will.iam said:

Well isn’t that true of all products and businesses? Just look at the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. It worked with basically no product but a great salesman until he got caught. 

I’m specifically talking about the viability of the M20 airframe. There are many on this board who have made the argument that it’s simply not possible to produce an M20 profitably today, and I’m arguing that the M20 could be manufactured profitably today if there were a market for it with some modest economy of scale.