I’m going to go ahead and put this BS here again

[1980Mooney]

5 hours ago, Igor_U said:

And LASAR is a good example for years selling PMA'd parts that are similar (or even identical) to Mooney OEM parts...

 

4 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Yep, but Superior will sell you a Lycoming connecting rod. And look at how many companies make cylinders.  

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/

 

[Canadian Gal]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

TCs and STCs never expire, though.

My point was that johnny at mooney, shouldn't feel so cocky, because if he thinks that his 50 year old patents are going to make him the only player in this league, he should crack open a book on patent laws sometime.

[PT20J]

9 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

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" 

I was there and in the context of the conversation I believe what Jonny meant is that no one can manufacture the parts using Mooney’s intellectual property without Mooney’s approval. What was left unstated is that for many parts, the cost to reverse engineer them so as not to need Mooney’s IP may well be prohibitive given the small volumes. A lot of LASAR PMA parts are no longer available and the new owner would probably be cranking them out if there were money in it.

[PT20J]

36 minutes ago, Canadian Gal said:

My point was that johnny at mooney, shouldn't feel so cocky, because if he thinks that his 50 year old patents are going to make him the only player in this league, he should crack open a book on patent laws sometime.

Did a quick search and can find no patents ever assigned to Mooney.

[1980Mooney]

3 hours ago, Canadian Gal said:

Way back in this thread someone brought up Mooney.

Patents don't last forever, so even if they once upon a time had a patent on a part, it very likely ended by now since most Mooneys are older.

 

3 hours ago, EricJ said:

TCs and STCs never expire, though.

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).

Edited January 27, 2023 by 1980Mooney

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, PT20J said:

I was there and in the context of the conversation I believe what Jonny meant is that no one can manufacture the parts using Mooney’s intellectual property without Mooney’s approval. What was left unstated is that for many parts, the cost to reverse engineer them so as not to need Mooney’s IP may well be prohibitive given the small volumes. A lot of LASAR PMA parts are no longer available and the new owner would probably be cranking them out if there were money in it.

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.

Edited January 27, 2023 by 1980Mooney

[MB65E]

Great read. Hopefully it was only the FAA responding to a silly complaint. 
I Thank those for their talents and what they can produce. 
-Matt

[PT20J]

8 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

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.

The only part I have personally inquired about was their machined steering horn. Corrine (who has since left the company) told me that they were made by a local machinist that retired and they decided not to pursue another source because they didn’t sell well since they were more expensive than the reconditioned OEM parts.

[EricJ]

11 hours ago, Canadian Gal said:

My point was that johnny at mooney, shouldn't feel so cocky, because if he thinks that his 50 year old patents are going to make him the only player in this league, he should crack open a book on patent laws sometime.

I think he's leaning on the TCs and STCs.   Often aviation manufacturers skip patents and just use TCs and STCs because they don't expire, unlike patents, and they provide the "approved data" that the FAA requires.  The TCs only protect building the airplane, though, not component parts, and the STCs only protect the modification described in the STC.

So it is still a bit of a puzzle if Mooney management wants to use TCs and STCs to block third party part production.   I suspect there may be some friction there.

[PT20J]

I have no idea what Jonny is thinking.  But, it is difficult to see how Mooney could get back into airplane production without a huge investment, and Jonny was pretty clear at MooneyMAX that it's very challenging because every bank and investor asks the same question: Mooney has a long history of going bankrupt every few years; what are you going to do differently?

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. In theory, they could build new mustangs, but they probably never will. Instead, they have a very good business supplying parts and service for the existing fleet. They also rebuild mustangs and modify P-51s to two seat TF-51s.

But, in order to make that work, Jonny would have to hang onto the IP.

Skip

 

[Igor_U]

13 hours ago, PT20J said:

Did a quick search and can find no patents ever assigned to Mooney.

I read they patented the folding entry door on M22 but never checked for that...

[Shadrach]

On 1/26/2023 at 10:53 AM, 1980Mooney said:

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.

You would not be a test pilot. That would require a major alteration. Airworthiness of owner produced parts is determined by the IA involved in the installation, not the owner.  It’s fair game to negotiate to the best of one’s ability. However, actually removing a part from service that is functioning as intended and was properly produced and installed IAW FAR21.303 seems like a “More cents than sense” situation. Perhaps I’m biased because of my exposure to the very active EAA chapter at my airport. I know more than a handful of guys that I would bet could reproduce 90% of the parts on my airplane to standards greater than or equal to the factory. Unfortunately, most of them are going to be gone inside of 20 years.

[A64Pilot]

I was VP of a company with a Production Certificate for 15 years.

There is nothing that kept us from building anyone’s parts anymore than Chevrolet can keep a manufacturer from building parts for their cars. In fact we used to build Beechcraft skins for some models from aluminum that replaced the magnesium ones for someone that held the STC. Not V tails of course, but I don’t know which models.

However it’s sort of a Gentleman’s agreement that one manufacturer won’t build another’s parts and undercut their prices, it’s rarely broken, but I know of one case.

This ability of others producing parts is one of the theoretical checks and balances to keep a manufacturer from price gouging. 

If a manufacturer jacked the price of a part sky high in theory a PMA would start producing and selling them for less and make a profit. What often stops that is volume, even if you made 1000% profit if you only sold three a year it’s not worth it. There is very little work to “reverse engineer” a part, we could tell what alloy of aluminum it was by electrical conductivity. heat treat level by a hardness tester that applied a measured force and how deep the probe penetrated told you hardness.

I have never bought a part for my little Cessna from Cessna and I’ve bought main spar carry throughs and vertical main spars and other major structural parts from PMA manufacturers. Univair mostly.

Browse around you would be surprised how many parts they sell, but as far as I know not Mooney’s

Instand corrected, if you have a Mooney M-10 they have you covered, I assume due to its similarity to an Ercoupe.

https://www.univair.com

While as far as I know there is nothing keeping a TC holder from issuing an STC its illegocial, they hold the TC just amend the TC with a drawing, why go through the STC process? There are a great many Countries that won’t recognize a US STC, but all recognize the TC, so with an STC you can’t sell to those countries, amend the TC and you can.

We bought STC’s and rolled them into the TC, the original turbine was a Serv Air STC that Fred Ayres bought and incorporated into the TC, and the first turbine powered crop duster was born.

[Pinecone]

19 hours ago, PT20J said:

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. In theory, they could build new mustangs, but they probably never will. Instead, they have a very good business supplying parts and service for the existing fleet. They also rebuild mustangs and modify P-51s to two seat TF-51s.

But, in order to make that work, Jonny would have to hang onto the IP.

Skip

 

I think that that path is a good idea to move forward and provide a steady income stream.  If the price the parts reasonably, most people would just order from them.

The P-51 market is a bit different when it comes to "rebuilding" them,  In that world, if you have a data plate and a set of main gear legs, you can "rebuild" the rest of the plane.

[Pinecone]

My point has been, from the original posting, it APPEARED that the parts did not meet the test of OPP.  Based on that, an investigation was warranted.

Further information indicates that the may have meet the test of OPP, but since the FAA has not mandated the removal, it is up in the air.

[PT20J]

3 hours ago, Pinecone said:

The P-51 market is a bit different when it comes to "rebuilding" them,  In that world, if you have a data plate and a set of main gear legs, you can "rebuild" the rest of the plane.

The museum did that for its P-51B which crashed in a bog in the UK during WW II. The data plate is about all that was left. https://historicflight.org/p-51-mustang/

From the FAA’s point of view, the data plate is what defines an airplane. If you have one, you can rebuild it all from new or used parts. But, that’s so expensive that it’s generally only done for rare, high value airplanes. 

Skip

[Sabremech]

3 hours ago, Pinecone said:

My point has been, from the original posting, it APPEARED that the parts did not meet the test of OPP.  Based on that, an investigation was warranted.

Further information indicates that the may have meet the test of OPP, but since the FAA has not mandated the removal, it is up in the air.

 An investigation was launched because an MSC complained, not because it was warranted. 

[A64Pilot]

40 minutes ago, PT20J said:

The museum did that for its P-51B which crashed in a bog in the UK during WW II. The data plate is about all that was left. https://historicflight.org/p-51-mustang/

From the FAA’s point of view, the data plate is what defines an airplane. If you have one, you can rebuild it all from new or used parts. But, that’s so expensive that it’s generally only done for rare, high value airplanes. 

Skip

Data plate and a logbook, but the book can be re-created.

It’s done a lot for Supercubs, and I’m sure there are more Supercubs flying than Piper built.

Guy in my neighborhood comes down from Maine and “rebuilds” a Supercub every year.

They are like exhaust systems or baffling, you send in your for repair and often what you get back is I believe all new.

Friend rebuilt the XP-82 in Douglas Ga., we did all of his heat treating and we supplied a lot of raw material. There isn’t much of any original XP-82 in it.

[Pinecone]

1 hour ago, Sabremech said:

 An investigation was launched because an MSC complained, not because it was warranted. 

But it was suspicious enough to have them continue.

[Sabremech]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

But it was suspicious enough to have them continue.

No, not really. The FAA is like a freight train. They have one track and zero flexibility, even when they’ve found they’re going the wrong direction. It’s full steam ahead. 

[Steve0715]

With this you can rebuild a balloon…crown ring and data plate.

[Schllc]

4 hours ago, PT20J said:

The museum did that for its P-51B which crashed in a bog in the UK during WW II. The data plate is about all that was left. https://historicflight.org/p-51-mustang/

From the FAA’s point of view, the data plate is what defines an airplane. If you have one, you can rebuild it all from new or used parts. But, that’s so expensive that it’s generally only done for rare, high value airplanes. 

Skip

Yep, a relative of mine pulled this out of Malaysia and is restoring.  
this is all there is of the plane  anyone wanna guess what it is?

 

[N201MKTurbo]

19 minutes ago, Schllc said:

Yep, a relative of mine pulled this out of Malaysia and is restoring.  
this is all there is of the plane  anyone wanna guess what it is?

 

A TBM?

[N201MKTurbo]

About 30 years ago I watched a guy make a P51 wing from scratch. He had a left wing and made a right wing, just copying the other wing. He spent about 6 months building a jig for it and about another year on the wing. He said he got paid over 100K for it. It looked beautiful when he was done and I heard the plane flew beautifully too.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, Schllc said:

Yep, a relative of mine pulled this out of Malaysia and is restoring.  
this is all there is of the plane  anyone wanna guess what it is?

 

A6M, Zero?

I’m guessing based on what I think the canopy looks like