I am starting to wonder if this has to do with the crash of a brand new Acclaim this summer, which ultimately claimed the life of it’s owner.
If what I hear is correct, the timing for the shutdown is rather weird. They had quite a few airplanes in production, of which several in near completed state, expecting to deliver them to customers these days. Also what was said was that the production capacity of about 14 planes a year was sold out currently. There is also no sign of financial troubles (eg. chapter 11 application or anything like that). Crossreading the various comments, something really fishy is going on here.
Bosco is right and that is a question which is asked across the boards: Who are those 90 people and what are they doing? And why could they not even have someone keep the phones open? Because they would not know what to say?
Something is rather strange about this. And the notion that the reason may be totally different than “normal” demises of companies may well have merit.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I am starting to wonder if this has to do with the crash of a brand new Acclaim this summer, which ultimately claimed the life of it’s owner.
I read about that crash and it is obvious that a BRS would have provided a very different outcome and I think that people has simply become more risk adverse over the years – they obviously rather get to the destination a little later in a Cirrus.
Yes, Peter, that is the one. Quite obviously an engine problem which turned into an emergency landing when the pilot realized he could not make his chosen airfield.
There are two remarkable posts in the comments of that article, one of which I had already seen before. One “former employee”, structural engineer, basically explains why the M10 was stopped cold, this is not contested by the 2nd poster who claims to have been the former director of engineering at Mooney.
According to the first poster, the M10 was stopped because
on the composite M10 POC Mooney BONDED the wing assembly to the fuselage, after 130 hrs the NDT inspection found a disbond. Little more time, and when airborne, the wings would be ripped off!
He goes on to claim that he informed the FAA about similar concerns for the cabin of the Ultra, however the FAA dismissed his report. The 2nd poster goes on to explain the certification base for the Ultra and that according to what is known, the cabin with its steel tubing and fiberglass shell appears to have held during the crash of the Ultra, which, while trying to land on a highway it banked in order to avoid powerlines and hit several light poles, which caused one wing to separate. The cabin then cartwheeled over the road and impacted a solid barrier, where fire broke out due to the broken wings. The pilot however initially survived (which is a testament to the solidity of the cabin imho) but died of his burns a few months after the accident.
The obvious and factually correct claim sprung up, that with a ballistic parashute system, nothing would have happened.
I would not be surprised however if this accident could have a connection with the closing down of the factory right now, i.e if it caused clients to jump ship or if the investigation brought up some surprising new facts.
I would expect Continental to have some explaining to do instead of Mooney. Unless there was a serious problem with fuel feeding.
I have asked myself a few times, what the Chinese companies, usually hanging off of the Chinese government, saw in Mooney, Diamond, Cirrus, and Continental. It can only be part of Made in China 2025 initiative, which includes the aviation sector. I get Cirrus with the Vision Jet, but Continental?
Oshkosh China Booth 2018:
It may be a part of a grand strategy, or it may just be easy availability of Chinese govt money.
Here in the EU, lots of “less than obviously useful” projects are done because there is a large army of people who live off research income (this has always been the case) and because money is made available for “curently fashionable” areas.
China does the same, but perhaps with less vetting. One example is DJI – the world leader in drones. The company in China is utterly incredibly arrogant and useless in their customer service. I could tell amazing stories and know someone who would totally astound you with these. As far as business practices go they are not even on the same solar system. But they spend a fortune on R&D, product design, and astronomical amounts on injection moulding and diecast tooling. They get the money from their govt. Some huge number of millions a year. It is just poured in. Beautiful tooling made to the highest standards.
Lucius wrote:
Oshkosh China Booth 2018
Judging by that banner, a marketing design consultant would be more urgently needed.
Yes, MS Comic Sans is a crime against something…
Personally I think the whole hype about China and their masses of possible GA clients is a hot air balloon which is about to burst.
The Chinsese investments were targetet on a market they imagined would open once China opens to market economy, namely that there are people who would like to fly. Only, it is not happening. Apart from a few schools, all state owned, China is still a country where GA is largely inexistent.
Once the investors will realize that there will not be any money pot for them in China, they will collapse the whole US aviation industry.
