NEW NEWS FROM LASAR AND MOONEY AS OF 10/2/2025

[Rick Junkin]

56 minutes ago, hazek said:

How can it be so difficult to transfer manufacturing to modern practices? Are regulations really that stiff and the process to obtain approval that cumbersome and slow? I'm pretty sure any decent shop manufacturing parts could manufacture any part for our planes. Where's the catch? And why doesn't someone just do this?

If you do an internet search on "what does it take to receive FAA PMA authority" you'll find the information and reference data that will help answer your questions.

In addition to cumbersome and slow, the process is expensive, especially for a shop that doesn't already have a documented formal quality assurance program. And that assumes the shop can obtain the production engineering data from the original manufacturer, or have the capability to reverse engineer the data to the FAA's satisfaction.

Then there is the cost/benefit analysis that accompanies any business decision. Economy of scale is difficult or impossible to realize in our niche market, so a business needs to recoup all of the administrative, testing, tooling and setup costs in the price they charge for the limited quantity of end product. This price needs to allow the manufacturer to be profitable while remaining affordable for the end customer. We've just seen this with new production of no-back springs for the gear actuators. Affordability is in the eye of the consumer. And altruism isn't a trait commonly found in significant measure in a successful business, so if in the C&B analysis the part(s) can't be produced at a cost that allows for an affordable price, it doesn't get produced.

 

[1980Mooney]

3 hours ago, Schllc said:

…..and a 30% across the board raise in prices, is barely even keeping up with the inflation we have seen the last several years. 

That sounds exactly like what Arcline/Hartzell and other various Private Equity that are consolidating General Aviation businesses & FBO’s think and say….

Edited Sunday at 02:57 PM by 1980Mooney

[WheelPantsOff]

Parts support, combined with the aging out of the ownership population, will be the death of this brand.

[hazek]

48 minutes ago, Rick Junkin said:

so if in the C&B analysis the part(s) can't be produced at a cost that allows for an affordable price, it doesn't get produced.

Sure that makes sense.

49 minutes ago, Rick Junkin said:

If you do an internet search on "what does it take to receive FAA PMA authority" you'll find the information and reference data that will help answer your questions.

In addition to cumbersome and slow, the process is expensive

This less so. In today's age with computers, especially now with quite useful AI this paperwork stuff should be an easy problem. Perhaps it's not attempted by people who excel in this sort of stuff but by people that are savvy in other relevant areas. Hopefully Lasar knows how to get these steps done cheaply enough so that the manufacturing process itself can be feasible. This parts problem is another huge concern of mine regarding the future, like AVGAS phase out, that makes me very motivated to only think about how I should find a way to drive a turbine Piper asap.

[Rick Junkin]

15 minutes ago, hazek said:

This less so. In today's age with computers, especially now with quite useful AI this paperwork stuff should be an easy problem. Perhaps it's not attempted by people who excel in this sort of stuff but by people that are savvy in other relevant areas.

Once you take the time to research the process, and the FAA requirements and involvement, it will make more sense to you. What "should/could be" and what "is" are two completely different things. Change/streamlining of the FAA process will not happen quickly or through actions or abilities of the users of the system. Until the FAA formally changes the PMA requirements and approval process, no amount of technical savvy on the part of an applicant will make any difference in the time or expense required to accomplish the process.

[Fritz1]

during annual in March we discovered a small elevator bellcrank that caused excessive play between the elevator halves, small handmade part riveted together from three sheet metal plates, bushing, bearing the whole thing about 4" long. As a quick and legal fix we replaced the loose hylock fastenters with monel rivets. Consensus was that this part would be $2500 to replace if it were a Beechcraft part. The Mooney part had a lead time of 13 weeks and a price of $800. When I got the part I was amazed, Mooney had re-engineered the part to be integrally milled in one piece. No doubt they lost money on that part.

Soo, parts prices will go up because they have to.

About the same time I was approached by an MSC wondering if I was ready to fund parts production at Mooney with a fixed amount per year, lots of questions, nothing ever came of it and now Lasar stepped in.

Problem still remains, parts production needs to be funded to build up inventory, by how much? probably by the amount of 6 months of parts sales.

So, instead of moping, who is ready to step in? 300 owners at $3000 a pop makes $900k, enough the get things moving funds to be released to Lasar and/or Mooney for inventory buildup by a board of the the 3 largest donors? The whole thing blows up, guess what fonds perdu as the French say.

In the end gotta pay the piper!

Whoever is interested in being part of the solution, please pm me. 

 

[hazek]

24 minutes ago, Fritz1 said:

So, instead of moping, who is ready to step in? 300 owners at $3000 a pop makes $900k, enough the get things moving funds to be released to Lasar and/or Mooney for inventory buildup by a board of the the 3 largest donors?

If this would guarantee me parts when I need them, no problem! Sign me up.

30 minutes ago, Rick Junkin said:

Change/streamlining of the FAA process will not happen quickly or through actions or abilities of the users of the system.

I wonder if this is a factual statement. Perhaps it matters how documentation is submitted. I have no idea but just going off of my personal anecdotal experience in life that when I need to pass through a bureaucratic process I seem to have less difficulty than others when I come with well prepared documentation. Perhaps this is an exception but, like I say, I wonder if that's really true.

[Schllc]

3 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

That sounds exactly like what Arcline/Hartzell and other various Private Equity that are consolidating General Aviation businesses & FBO’s think and say….

What isn’t 30% more expensive that it was in 2020?

Most things are a lot more than 30%!  
Everything in the grocery store is double or more, and they have cut portion sizes. 
 

[jetdriven]

But the prices have gone up 40% since pre-Covid so I’m not totally sold on this. I guess when the door seal gets to be $500 we can talk about it again. All of the price increases by the Hartzell family of companies (Arcline) was not related to supply and demand. 

[Paul Thomas]

5 hours ago, Sabremech said:

@cliffy ruddervator skins are now available for V-tail Bonanzas from SRS Aviation. They are also selling them for LESS than when they were last available from Beechcraft. Hmmm??  
What? Less? How can that be? 

Beechcraft has a better owner group than we do. They are organized and pooled their money to offer over $500,000 to a company could would produce new ruddervator below certain price point. 

[MikeOH]

Well, I don't know about better, but there are nearly twice as many Bonanzas as M20s...I would think that fact alone helps with the economics of part production!

[Sabremech]

2 hours ago, Paul Thomas said:

Beechcraft has a better owner group than we do. They are organized and pooled their money to offer over $500,000 to a company could would produce new ruddervator below certain price point. 

Once $28K came from ABS. The other $500K came from an estate specifically for overcoming the ruddervator skin issue.

Maybe we need to form the American Mooney Society and as a group of owners and maintainers tackle our most pressing problems. Have the AMS work the parts that are needed and not available at true cost to the members. It could be setup as a not for profit entity for the benefit of its members.

@cliffy  Care to try something different than the promises generated by AI from LASAR? 

[LANCECASPER]

6 hours ago, WheelPantsOff said:

Parts support, combined with the aging out of the ownership population, will be the death of this brand.

There are a lot of salvage Mooneys for donor parts - crashed airplanes and neglected airplanes. 

[IvanP]

8 hours ago, hazek said:

Sure that makes sense.

 This parts problem is another huge concern of mine regarding the future, like AVGAS phase out, that makes me very motivated to only think about how I should find a way to drive a turbine Piper asap.

That is easy...just write a big check. We are complaining about part costs...how about replacing hot section of turbine  

[Hank]

12 minutes ago, IvanP said:

We are complaining about part costs...how about replacing hot section of turbine  

That's a lot easier than buying the whole turbine to begin with, isn't it?

[cliffy]

5 hours ago, Sabremech said:

Once $28K came from ABS. The other $500K came from an estate specifically for overcoming the ruddervator skin issue.

Maybe we need to form the American Mooney Society and as a group of owners and maintainers tackle our most pressing problems. Have the AMS work the parts that are needed and not available at true cost to the members. It could be setup as a not for profit entity for the benefit of its members.

@cliffy  Care to try something different than the promises generated by AI from LASAR? 

Not really.  Just the start up costs to set up the PMA system and then engineer the parts from scratch, as we wouldn't have access to the original drawings, would negate any profitability even before the first part was started, with, in reality, what would be a market of something less than 7000 (because not every Mooney will need every part)-  And, even a non-profit has to cover expenses

Besides I'm way too old to start something like that.

It is what it is. Pay the piper or sell out and buy a  Piper (or Cirrus) :-)   There are no viable alternatives

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, cliffy said:

It is what it is. Pay the piper or sell out and buy a  Piper (or Cirrus) :-)   There are no viable alternatives

WOW!  And I thought I was the cynic!

There are plenty of alternatives, they are just ones that have not previously made economic sense when Mooney was an actual factory and going business concern.  Now that it is not, and the fleet is shrinking to a volume level that will no longer support factory parts without actual aircraft production those alternatives will become more common.  Namely, salvage and OPP.  Some simpler parts may see PMA, but only those with low engineering and production cost.

I predict that the Mooney owner market will bifurcate into those with enough money to 'pay the piper' (LASAR) and those who will shift to salvage/OPP.  Some will, as you allude, just sell and move to another better supported aircraft.  This is not an unprecedented progression in the life of any product; especially one that has been around for over six decades!  Eventually, like other now 'rare' makes, there will remain only a few airworthy 'museum pieces'.  How many Beech Staggerwings remain?  Yet, those that do still manage to 'find' parts, one way or another.

[TaildraggerPilot]

On 10/4/2025 at 10:54 PM, cliffy said:

I have a question- WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE?

Here we have a company that can produce any part we need for an orphaned line of airplanes-Mooney

There are only about 7,000 of them left (and we kill dozens every year shrinking that field)

We have another company stepping in to help US get the parts WE need from the sole supplier

And all we do is bitch about it!  SO, JUST WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?   

Provide a viable LEGAL solution Don't just bitch about it!

What if we CAN'T  ever get any more parts? What do we do then?????

Its a very small consumer base needing parts whose construction is tightly controlled by an 

outside agency- the FAA  That equals $$$$$$$$$$

To make every part for every Mooney ever made TAKES THE ENTIRE ACTORY less the assembly line

That takes money to support- more $$$$$$$

Have any of you actually seen the production facility in production? Minus the assembly line?

Either you make parts there or you move it somewhere else - at what cost?    More $$$$$$$

ALL airplane parts are priced at today's cost to produce a new airplane - NOT 50 years ago.

Priced any new Beech parts lately?  How many Bonanzas are sitting because of bad ruddervator skins? 

They can't get them. 

Our Mooneys will be paper weights or boat anchors if we can't  get the parts we need 

The days of being Cheap Bastards is over. You want to fly a Mooney (or any other airplane) pony up to the

bar and pay the bill.

As I have said several times- we are flying antiques! They will eventually die a lingering death

But without parts it becomes genocide!!!

Suck it up folks - there is no alternative except to buy a different make airplane that is in production 

Sorry for the attitude but this bitching does nothing constructive for the situation we are in. 

Here, f’n here. Exactly. So many on here think lift is what makes an aircraft fly. It ain’t lift. It’s MONEY. You gotta pay to play people. 

[Paul Thomas]

15 hours ago, Sabremech said:

Once $28K came from ABS. The other $500K came from an estate specifically for overcoming the ruddervator skin issue.

Thank you for that titbit; I didn't know a single source had raised that much.

[DCarlton]

One other factor for me in this discussion...  I look at airplane ads all the time just like every other pilot.  I can't find anything under $250K that I'd rather fly than a Mooney.  I don't want an experimental unless it's built by a highly reputable professional builder and it's a fully tricked out award winner.  An RV would be fun but would it feel like a toy after a while?  What about a fixed gear Velocity; would I have engine cooling and engine maintenance issues?  Not crazy about doors that can't be opened if the plane is upside down either (happen to a Velocity at our airport; flipped over by a jet).  What about a fixed gear Glasair; a Sportsman might be nice but a II or III is 25 years old now.  A Cessna or Piper would probably feel like a let down; just another utility vehicle.  Don't really want an older beat up Cirrus at that price; may not want a Cirrus at all; never flown one.  What else is there?  A Flying Legend Tucano?  A SLING?  Hum...  Mooneys still rock.  

[FlyingDude]

10 hours ago, MikeOH said:

pay the piper' (LASAR) and those who will shift to salvage/OPP.  

Is OPP allowed when PMA parts are available? Asking for a friend. 

[MikeOH]

39 minutes ago, FlyingDude said:

Is OPP allowed when PMA parts are available? Asking for a friend. 

I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, and did NOT stay in a Holiday Inn Express (ever!).

So, with that disclaimer, my understanding is that, yes, OPP is allowed even if PMA parts are available.  Thus, usurious pricing is a perfectly fine reason to go to OPP.  I think there are four criteria to be legal: Properly designed (e.g. may have to use a DER), proof of conformity to that design, adequate documentation, and QA (ongoing, in some cases).  Here is the cite: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/january/09/aircraft-maintenance-owner-produced-parts

 

[FlyingDude]

20 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

proof of conformity

How do you guarantee this, for example, for a push rod, without having the factory blueprints?

[MikeOH]

Just now, FlyingDude said:

How do you guarantee this, for example, for a push rod, without having the factory blueprints?

It is proof of conformity to the step one 'design', NOT necessarily to the original manufacturer's blueprints.  This may well require a DER.  I.e., it is legal for a part to be 'reverse engineered'; you just need to prove conformity to the 'new' design.

[cliffy]

10 hours ago, MikeOH said:

WOW!  And I thought I was the cynic!

There are plenty of alternatives, they are just ones that have not previously made economic sense when Mooney was an actual factory and going business concern.  Now that it is not, and the fleet is shrinking to a volume level that will no longer support factory parts without actual aircraft production those alternatives will become more common.  Namely, salvage and OPP.  Some simpler parts may see PMA, but only those with low engineering and production cost.

I predict that the Mooney owner market will bifurcate into those with enough money to 'pay the piper' (LASAR) and those who will shift to salvage/OPP.  Some will, as you allude, just sell and move to another better supported aircraft.  This is not an unprecedented progression in the life of any product; especially one that has been around for over six decades!  Eventually, like other now 'rare' makes, there will remain only a few airworthy 'museum pieces'.  How many Beech Staggerwings remain?  Yet, those that do still manage to 'find' parts, one way or another.

As I said- Mooneys will die a lingering death as the supply of USED parts dries up. We are talkin about an entity willing to make ANY part we need NEW and keep the fleet alive. Used parts have always been in the mix Just not new parts that can keep the AOGs down. That doesn't take into account used parts that may not be viable like the rubber bellows between the carb and cowl. Ho many of those USED will be a reasonable replacement part? If not available the airplane is a paper weight until one is found that can be used - and at what cost? 

18 minutes ago, FlyingDude said:

Is OPP allowed when PMA parts are available? Asking for a friend. 

You still need some sort of Approved Drawings to go OPP. You just can't go out and make anything you want anyway you want. Manufacturers drawings, DER approval of design or, reference to some other "approved data" 

This is the area that is the biggest hurdle to OPP   - the data to make the part to. 

Below I have attached an article written by Bill OBrien (long deceased)  He was the FAA go to on many things OPP

This article is somewhat dated but still the guidance is good

Bill O’Brien, NRS

Along with the pilot shortage and mechanic shortage there is also a parts shortage that plagues the general aviation industry. Because supply and demand are out of balance the cost of new and used parts seem to increase every day. Let’s examine the reasons why this is so.

First, we have an old fleet. The average general aviation single engine airplane is approximately 32 years old. The average age of GA multi-engine reciprocating aircraft is close to 27 years old. The average age for the turbine powered multi-engine propeller driven aircraft average out around 19 years of age. So do to long term wear and tear the demand for replacement parts and large sub-assemblies is much greater today than it was even 10 years ago.

The second reason is our General Aviation fleet has been well maintained over the years. So well maintained in fact, the average GA aircraft with a mid time engine and decent avionics has appreciated to two or three times it’s original purchase price and is still climbing. Yet even in that land of many zeros the older aircraft are still substantially lower in price than the cost of brand new aircraft with similar performance numbers and equipment. So the value of older aircraft in good shape are proven investments that over time has beat the DOW JONES average. So we have an economic imperative on the part of the owners to keep maintaining older aircraft in flying condition which increases the demand for replacement parts.

The third reason is the increasing production costs to make a part. Today aircraft manufacturers are not making makes and models of aircraft in the same quantity they made them back in the seventies. So the production runs for parts are not as frequent and not as many parts are produced. In addition it is not cost effective for a manufacturer to make a lot of parts even if the unit price for each part is out of this world because taxes on maintaining a large inventory of parts would eat all of the profits. This low parts production keeps the supply of replacement parts low.

The fourth reason is that some manufacturers would prefer that their older makes and model aircraft that they made a million years ago would quietly disappear from the aircraft registry. This retroactive birth control on the part of the manufacturers may seem not to make any sense until you look at aircraft market dynamics of creating demand and reducing costs. First , each older aircraft that is no longer in service creates a demand for a new, more expensive aircraft to take its place. Second, despite some tort claim relief granted to GA manufacturers in the early nineties, the fewer older aircraft there are in service, the manufacturers of those aircraft enjoy reduced overall liability claims and ever decreasing continuing airworthiness responsibilities.

So how are we going to maintain these older aircraft with an ever dwindling parts supply when Part 21, section 21.303 Replacement and modification of parts requires us to use the Parts Manufactured Approval (PMA) parts on a type certificated product? Well, the same rule grants four exemptions to the PMA requirement.

1. You can use parts produced under a type or production certificate such as a Piper Cessna, or Mooney produced part;

2. A owner or operator produced part to maintain or alter their own product;

3. Parts produced under a Technical Standard Order (TSO) such as radios, life vest and rafts, and GPS; or,

4. A standard aviation part such as fasteners, washers, or safety wire.

Before I segue into the subject of “owner produced parts” as called out in section 21.303 which is the purpose of this article. I would like to create a small uproar with this statement: “ FAA Airframe and Powerplant rated mechanics can maintain, repair, and modify parts, but they cannot make a brand new part and call it a repair.” Before you accuse me of losing dendrites by the minute, check out section 65.81 General privileges and limitations. The section talks to maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations but not to manufacturing of parts. Nor is it implied privilege in Part 65, because Part 21 section 21.303 says “NO PERSON” may make a REPLACEMENT part for a TC product unless that person has a PMA, etc.

While I write this I can remember 25 pounds ago and when I had hair, I worked in the real world and I specialized in making engine baffles for Lycoming engines. Before someone accuses me of bureaucratic ventriloquism which is roughly translated as “talking out of both sides of my mouth.” My weak defense is, I made the parts because I thought I could.” It never dawned on me that I could not legally make a part. Some of you may be astounded that I make this confession freely. Its no big thing because I know the statue of limitations has run out years ago and a jury of my peers would never look me in the eye and convict me.

So here is our problem that we must solve. Since mechanics cannot legally make parts for aircraft and aircraft need replacement parts, how are we going to keep the fleet flying?

If we cannot find PMA, TSO, standard, or production holder replacement parts, we are left to make the part under the owner produced option under section 21.303(b)(2). However, we must remember that the part is for the owner/operator’s aircraft only and is not manufacturered for sale to other TC aircraft.

To get through confusing regulatory policy with our pride intact, lets try the question and answer routine. (Note: This policy is taken from FAA ‘s AGC-200 policy memorandum to AFS-300 on the definition of “Owner Produced Parts” dated August 5, 1993)
 

Question 1: Does the owner have to manufacturer the part himself in order to meet the intent of the rule?

Answer 1: No, the owner does not have to make the part himself. However to be considered a producer of the part he must have participated in controlling the design, manufacturer, or quality of the part such as:

1. provide the manufacturer with the design or performance data from which to make the part, or

2. provide the manufacturer with the materials to make the part or,

3. provide the manufacturer with fabrication processes or assembly methods to make the part or,

4. provide the quality control procedures to make the part or’

5. personally supervised the manufacturer of the part.

Question 2: Can the owner contract out for the manufacturer of the part and still have a part that is considered, “owner produced?”

Answer 2: Yes, as long as the owner participated in one of the five functions listed in

answer 1.

Question 3: Can the owner contract out the manufacturer of the part to a non-certificated person and still have a part that is considered “owner produced.”

Answer 3: Yes, as long as the owner participated in one of the five functions listed in

answer 1.

Question 4: If a mechanic manufactuered parts for an owner is he considered in violation of section 21.303(b)(2)?

Answer 4: The answer would be no if it was found that the owner participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of the part. The mechanic would be considered the producer and would not be in violation of section 21.303(a). On the other hand if the owner did not play a part in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of the part the mechanic runs a good chance of being in violation of section 21.303 (b)(2).

Question 5: What kind of advice you can give on how a mechanic can avoid even the appearance of violating section 21.303(b)(2)?

Answer: First, a mechanic should never make a logbook or maintenance entry saying that he made a part under his certificate number. This foopah will send up a flare and get you undue attention from your local FAA inspector which you could do without. However, the mechanic can say on the work order that he helped manufacturer an owner produced part under 21.303 (b)(2).

Second, the owner or operator should be encouraged to make a log book entry that is similar to section 43.9 maintenance entry that states: The part is identified as an owner produced part under section 21.303 (b)(2). The part was manufacturered in accordance with approved data. The owner/operator’s participation in the manufacturer of the part is identified such as quality control. The owner must declare that the part is airworthy and sign and date the entry.

Question 6: Is there anything else a mechanic must do?

Answer 6: The mechanic must ensure that the owner produced part meets form, fit, and function, and within reasonable limits, ensure that the part does meet its approved type design (e.g. like looking at the approved data used to make the part). Then the mechanic installs the part on the aircraft, makes an operational check if applicable and signs off the required section 43.9 maintenance entry.

Question 7: What is the owner responsible for, and what is the mechanic responsible for, concerning owner produced parts?

Answer 7: The owner is responsible that the part meets type design and is in a condition for safe operation. The mechanic is responsible for the installation of the owner-produced part is correct, the installation is airworthy, and a maintenance record for installing the part is made.

 

Question 8: How does the owner or operator get the approved data to make a part if the manufacturer and other sources are no longer in business?

Answer 8: For aircraft that the manufacturer is no longer supporting the continuing airworthiness of then the owner or operator can petition the FAA Aircraft Certification Directorate under the Freedom of Information Act for the data on how the part was made. Or the owner or operator can reverse engineer the part and have the data approved under a FAA field approval or if it is a real complicated part, have the data approved by a FAA engineer or FAA Designated Engineering Representative.

Question 9: What happens to the owner produced part on the aircraft if the original owner sells the aircraft?

Answer 9: Unless the part is no longer airworthy, the original owner produced part stays on the aircraft.

I hope that I spread some light on the murky subject of owner produced parts so the next time instead of saying to the owner of an broke aircraft: “Sure, “I” can make that part”, you will now say “Sure, “WE” can make that part.”