Sabremech Posted yesterday at 01:39 PM Report Posted yesterday at 01:39 PM 38 minutes ago, Pinecone said: You have to be very careful with making more than a part for YOUR airplane. They group that tried this with the J bar locks ran into issues. Yes and no. There’s issues between FSDO’s and MIDO on this. To this day, FSDO’s are saying at IA renewal clinics that owners can get together to share in the cost of making the same unavailable part as a group. So, do we need to ask every FSDO and every MIDO if they agree on this or just the one covering the geographical area you are in? All communications with the FAA in regards to parts should be recorded or in e-mail format only because it’s likely you’ll need to remind them of what they said! 2
1980Mooney Posted yesterday at 02:29 PM Report Posted yesterday at 02:29 PM 1 hour ago, Paul Thomas said: You'd think it would be easy to sell the most in demand parts that have long lead times, like an intake boot... I just don't think Mooney/LASAR have it as easy as people think. While it appears from the outside they could be managed better, I also believe that they have people who are doing the best they can. Mooney doesn't make the Intake Boot. They buy it from a third party supplier "Aeroduct".. This has nothing to do with the Factory. It is just a matter of placing an order.
1980Mooney Posted 22 hours ago Report Posted 22 hours ago 19 hours ago, Fritz1 said: If the installed base is 7500 airplanes and each is worth $100k that makes an installed base worth $750M. What percentage of the base does it take to fix the problem? 1%? 2%? The financials indicate that a solution will be found that keeps the fleet in the air 4 hours ago, Paul Thomas said: You'd think it would be easy to sell the most in demand parts that have long lead times, like an intake boot... I just don't think Mooney/LASAR have it as easy as people think. While it appears from the outside they could be managed better, I also believe that they have people who are doing the best they can. Good point. I searched the US, Canada and Australian Registries. There are 6,823 Mooney's registered in those 3 countries. Obviously there are a few more in Europe and with less in South America and Africa. 159 are not M20 - they are the Mooney version of Ercoupe, A10's, M18's and M22's 96 are wood wing M20 and M20A 2,431 are Short Body 116 M20B 1.351 M20C 88 M20D 876 M20E 3,212 are Mid Body 770 M20F 126 M20G 1,492 M20J 824 M20K Only 925 are Long Body 17 M20L 263 M20M 427 M20R 60 M20S 128 M20TN 12 M20U 18 M20V So it seems logical that the greatest number with the greatest need should get priority attention if funds are made available. Luckily there is some commonality of parts "in the fleet". If you look at wing and tail assembly part numbers on the Long Bodies, you can see the M and early R's have many exactly the same part numbers and the later R's and TN seem to share the same part numbers. Of course the engine mounts are unique to each model. Maybe some things can be made in larger quantities and put on the shelf. But with only 128 Acclaims in the world (maybe a few more in Europe, etc) for instance, why would Mooney/LASAR build Acclaim engine mounts in advance?. They might sit forever. Seems better to build to order on demand. I suspect that there is more commonality amongst the Mid Bodies as a group and also amongst the Short Bodies as a group. Combined with the much greater numbers in the fleet, it would seem that these groups need immediate attention. @Fritz1 is hopeful that a $900K infusion by Owners or some other "financial solution" will put parts for his Bravo on the shelf, but the need for the rest of the fleet is as great or greater. @Paul Thomas is likely right "I just don't think Mooney/LASAR have it as easy as people think".
Recommended Posts