Looked at the site. To me it screamed “desperately seeking investors” in every sentence and every word.
Unlike Continental who get along with their own capital… oh wait.
Funny you should ask that 
After this thread I emailed Socata for a confirmation. Initially they denied it totally (denied Achim’s report of his factory visit, posted here) and I am waiting for a reply to a supplementary question. I mention this because the existence (or not) of the tooling for the sheet metal parts is central to the question.
I cannot imagine they destroyed the tooling. I have seen it on my several visits to Tarbes and it would be easily stored in one small room. It is also extremely valuable because it enables you to convert a €200 sheet of aluminium into a part you get €5000 for and which lists for €7000 + VAT. The TB airframe parts business must be worth millions (to somebody who actually wants to run it).
I can show you photos I made when I visited Mooney in Kerrville, TX. in 2000 … There was only about 10 people there then … and i saw those incredibly expensive tools, jugs, fixtures etc. all rust outside.
I wonder how complicated it would be to get such a spare part production going. But imagine one could actually buy those tool, bring them to the Czech Republic. … there’s many companies here who could build these parts …. (like the guys at Vodochody who build many of the kitplane parts, and stuff for Boeing)
Given how many people have tried this, my guess is that there is some big reason why Socata don’t want to part with the business. I don’t know what it is.
Obviously anybody wanting to restart the TB line (let’s forget the debate about whether it would sell today, for now) would 100% definitely want to acquire the parts business, because that is a 100% guaranteed income of (my guess) €1-2M a year, which is great beer money and would pay for propping up a basic FAA 145 & EASA 145 setup (necessary to operate the laser printer on which 8130-3 and EASA-1 forms are printed ).
One possibility is that the parts business is in Socata’s accounts at some inflated figure and they do not want to face the writedown which would happen if they sold it. For example some years ago they had 14 IO540 engines on the shelf, obviously totally rusted up, but they would not sell me one for any money (there was a route, pre-2009, via which such an engine was valuable but now they are worthless).
Peter wrote:
which is great beer money and would pay for propping up a basic FAA 145 & EASA 145 setup (necessary to operate the laser printer on which 8130-3 and EASA-1 forms are printed ).
Part 145 is for maintenance only. For this, you would need a Part 21 (Design and production approval, or soley an production approval if you would just do the production).
Let’s say you get a no-cert firm (say, one making homebuilt parts) to make the parts, and you just inspect them and print off the forms. Do you need a Part 21 for that?
The parts are made to an existing design, certified under the TB Type Cert.
Peter wrote:
Let’s say you get a no-cert firm (say, one making homebuilt parts) to make the parts, and you just inspect them and print off the forms. Do you need a Part 21 for that?The parts are made to an existing design, certified under the TB Type Cert.
There are several option. One is to use standard parts (pumps, valve’s, knobbs, etc) The manufacture can certify these products as part of the aircraft, and issue an Form 1 for these parts afterwards. Socata has used this route a lot.
As manufacturer, they however are responsible for the design. So they will also need to check of all items meet that design. This is difficult, in general most will have an agreement, that the part remains unchanged, or when it is changed, that get notified on that.
This is part of the DOA (Design Organisation) part of Part 21.
A product designed by DOA can also be produced by a third party. That thirdth party would have to be a Part 21 POA (Production Organisation). They don’t have to be the same. Most manufacturers are both DOA and POA, but this doesn’t always have to be the case.
For example wiringlooms (for commerical aviation) are often designed by the aircraft manufacturer DOA, but produced by a thirdth party POA. Both are Part 21 companies. This wiring loom will be delivered with an EASA Form 1.
As a Part 145 one can never issue an EASA Form 1 for parts that orginally where not with an EASA Form 1. This is a bit tricky. For example, I would be able to test a Flarm device. Yet this device is never deliverd with an EASA Form 1. I would not be able to test it, AND issue an EASA Form 1. So I could just test it and inform you on that basis.
There are some difficulties with these, especially with custom made systems, which often made without EASA Form 1. Some companies always require an EASA Form 1 for a repair. Yet it is often impossible to repair these AND issue and EASA Form 1. Examples are custom camera systems, transceivers on non aviation frequencies, research equipment etc.
This DOA/POA nonsense was the reason Cessna stopped marketing the Skycatcher around here (before it became obvious that the market would reject it anyway).
