You are correct Paul; "To me, the obvious answer is Jet A options." include Cirrus and Cessna in the China/Continental diesel engine mix. Learning from Cirrus a plastic Mooney could be a probability. However, I am somewhat puzzled by the rapid China business acquisitions - it appears to be a buyers market, but developing a demand in China for aircraft involves growing a large private aviation infrastructure and robust international sales. My guess is that it will take 20 years to mature at the rate they are expanding. This is assuming that their economy does not collapse on the roll. And following on you last remark, I am not OK with the sale to China - I am sure it has to do with national pride. American investors are not interested therefore there goes the industry. Too bad!

The quick buck today kills tomorrow.

I'm not concerned so much with the SALE of American aviation companies to foreign buyers as I am for the lack of willing investors in THIS country. We have ceded production of airplanes and airplane accessories to foreign countries--a field we once dominated and one of the few bright spots in our balance-of-payments.

We should be asking "WHY are foreign nations able to succeed here, when American companies are failing? Is it because we have the highest corporate taxes in the world (hard to compete internationally with that weight dragging you down!)? Is it because we have government certification issues that stifle innovation and make incorporation of new technologies cost-prohibitive?

Is it because American manufacturers are tasked with such a regulatory burden (EPA, Unemployment Insurance, Workers Compensation, Social Security and Medicare taxes, etc. etc. etc.?

Is it because of the American legal system--where every manufacturer has a target on its back--pursued by lawyers in search of a big contingency award check? (Try suing the Chinese!)

The very fact that they are willing to invest in the admittedly old technology of GA says that it is not the PRODUCT that is the difference--it is the ECONOMIC CLIMATE that prevents American companies from being competitive worldwide.

Actually, riveted aluminum aircraft make a great deal of sense for emerging economies. Airframe damage repair is much easier. Construction requires just what they have lots of...skilled low-cost workers.

Why do the Chinese want these companies? For the knowledge. American investors are staring at a flat US market which likely won't turn around until other fundamentals are addressed (another topic and no, it's not corporate income tax) whereas the BRIC markets are so huge that a small uptick means a lot of airplanes. Of course, those planes won't be built here. We should not be surprised to hear that some hand-picked workers from Kerrville are earning great money training workers in China.

Yes, diesel is overdue. A drop in replacement for the 4cyl Lyc and the 6 cyl Conti at comparable weights and lower costs could be part of an American flying renaissance. Obviously not an easy challenge but one worth a lot of thought.

China's domestic market won't go anywhere. Why? They are a totalitarian country at heart, and the concept of free airspace is soooo culturally alien to them. Their hearts and minds are wrapped around control, control, control. (My wife went on a medical service trip to China last year, and her ability to deliver medical services was crippled by government control freaks, doing what petty bureaucrats do best. That same mentality isn't going to embrace Class G airspace anytime soon.)
That said, I remember my old boss's Mooney 231 with great fondness, and hope that the company thrives with this new money.

The Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of National Security and Technology Transfer Controls has intervened in technology exports before. I wonder if they are involved on this now.

I guess we should all be accustomed to "made in China" these days--it seems as if much of what we buy is made there. That in itself isn't so bothersome, except for the political ramifications, and I'm not smart enough to comment on that. So far, though, the Chinese purchasers are indicating that Mooney production will be resumed in Kerrville, not in China.

As for whether it's good for GA for Mooney to resume, who knows? Personally, I love Mooneys. I've flown several, from early Johnson bar and wood-wing models through the Ovation, and they're superb. I've toured the factory in Kerrville when they were still in production, and the construction process, while somewhat tedious, resulted in an amazingly strong airframe. In significant turbulence, I would much rather trust any well-built Mooney than any plastic airframe, with or without a parachute.

As for the question, what does Mooney offer that Cirrus doesn't, a comparably equipped Mooney is faster, can fly more than twice as far with standard tanks, flies higher, etc. Simple. I suggest that with Mooney back in production, a number of well-heeled purchasers who might have been on a Cirrus track will instead opt for Mooney's clear advantages.

While not bound as rigidly as the old Soviet Union's, China economy is still a highly directed one. The edict from on-high that a Chinese general aviation industry is to be created is probably triggering the same sort of investment decisions that in America seem to result from Paul's "brains to mush" syndrome.

The state of our nation being what it is, our best choice is to take the money & force a smile.

Lots of misconceptions about China... haha! Will Mooney have its headquarters next to the Wichita KS town offices selling American know how for a quarter a bag? I frequently find myself double- checking the calendar to make sure its not April Fools day, somewhere. Institutionalized insanity has taken the controls over this country. Allah (or whoever you feel like praying too, if not the mighty Kennedy Half Dollar) have mercy on these poor souls.

My neighbor's sister used to take the money and force a smile.

Don't look this gift horse in the mouth.

In a case like this the key to the sale is terms, not price. It's's safe to assume Mooney's assets were not over-valued and that the Chinese have made an operational commitment and will give this some time. It's a good deal. The SR-22 and the TTx are not lost on the Chinese, who now have a brand from which to launch a high-performance composite single, should they so decide. Whether they do or not, a venerable American airplane is back in production and some Americans are back to work. Yes, they're showing the Chinese how it's done.

Welcome to the 21st century.

The Chinese GA predictions remind me of the post-WWII predictions of every wartime-trained pilot wanting to buy a new GA airplane when he got back home and settled into civilian life. We know how that worked out; nearly every GA manufacturer almost went bust. I'll believe it when it happens.

I had some co-workers visiting from China and told them about the expected GA boom over there. They laughed and said flatly the government will never allow such a thing! People can't just up and fly around over there unless they are connected very high up in the military or political circles. Who would control all that moving around? And even then it takes lots of permits and often bribes to do anything.

APOO will be there to protect the flying privileges of the few rich and proud connected GA people.
I still haven't figured out what the Wichita Town Office will do there. Sell redemption center stickers?
No seriously, I am dumb, help me figure it out.

BAND WAGON EFFECT. It implies that people associate themselves without considering what they associated themselves with. Next Gen, LSA and now China's "all to the wall" move into GA, military and commercial aviation. Less free thinkers in the world?

At the risk of making the Mooney guys mad, I hope the new management will consider moving away from the traditional Mooney look and feel. The straight tail, the odd back windows, the small cabin, the squatty landing gear. I know it's what has traditionally been the look of speed. Today, there is a new definition of that look (Cirrus, Pipestrel Pantera, Cessna TTx). The GA industry is still manufacturing essentially the same airframes from the 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's (I own an A36 Bonanza). What if the car industry did this (I guess Russia still does)? And it's not just the look of the aircraft, but the technology is just as ancient. I believe this is all a moot point. There is never going to be a robust GA market, even on a global scale unless we solve all of the other problems first (100LL, pilot production, FAA certification rules). Good luck Mooney. I'm happy for Kerrville. Here we go again.

Band wagon effect. After all the LSA fanfare and promotion the Skycatcher now Cessba says "it has no future". Those who believed in this were led by the promotion and got hooked. Some of us thought the concept was inappropriate. It looks like the end of the line for the Cessna C162. Not necessarily the end of a futile effort by the LSA concept.

I'm not at all sure that Cessna has any plans to stay in the piston market in any form. While they signed a deal with the Russians for 6 months worth of backlog of 172s, they sold a handful of 172s and other piston airplanes this year. At $ 400,000 a pop for a 50 year old design and with flight schools facing a dwindling pool of people taking up flying, with old fleets with steam gauge planes nobody under 50 wants to learn in, Cessna did almost everything wrong. Everything about the plane is cheap, tacky, flimsy, flies so twitchy as to inspire zero confidence--and who wants to trust their life to something made in China? The hype that is LSA has come home to roost. Whatever happened to the 800 planes "on order?" Piper was they smart one, realizing they were destroying the brand with this class of plane which flight schools wouldn't buy. If the AOPA/EAA "Driver's license" proposals is approved, however unlikely this is under the cowardly. Ga-hating, do-nothing Huerta, the disaster and denouement of LSA will be complete: the only markets surviving are avionics-loaded $200,000+ Planes overwhelmingly bought by pilots who can't pass the 3rd class physical or who are unwilling to lie to the Feds. No, this part of the market which is what's sustaining LSA-land will keep or go back to their 180 hp, 2 person, day flying planes permitted under the AOPA/EAA,,which actually fly like real airplanes instead of enclosed Ultralites.

J

Prior to buying a Mooney 10 years ago I flew the plastic planes of Cirrus, Diamond and Columbia and although some were nice they just didn't inspire me to take the then risk of a plastic plane in a metal world. That said, I found the fit and finish of one not up to the asking price, another more like a glider and the other a bit expensive...

Two of the Companies have had financial woes with one now belonging to a metal plane builder and the other remerging with China investment. So the type of material seems irrelevant to the success. Cirrus flooded the market with their approach of the safety of a parachute and reached a lot of new pilots. But the airframe ain't all that and appears to require the same if not more maintenance then the metal counterparts. Diamond seems to be holding its own, but the former Columbia has had material issues with wings, fuselage, etc. It is my understanding they are not retracts due to the engineering and certification processes.

Mooney may be old school aluminum, but it has a rep and the M-20 has been around longer than the others put together. Kinda like my old Corvette, and they are still building them, oh but that is a plastic car in a still metal auto- world. At the current asking price of 500K and up, old fashion quality over a faster build time may work. As for engines of the future, we all are in that boat waiting for the answer, I bet it will be a Jet-A burner of some sort. Lack of retract time will be a big one with the Insurance Companies for a while. As a whole aviation is a fickle environment for builders...

Paul; Just happened to digest this nice write-up on China's investment in Mooney.
Well articulated! Your opening paragraph sums up MOST, if not ALL, of GA's (business) problems!
I'm the Lone Eagle" Intoxicated; NO - Disciplined- YES!

As you stated on GA, it's EXACTLY why I found myself "Incompatible" (1978) with those that thought "ROI" was some of modified ILS approach!

ANYONE need an aged (off GA 12 step program for decades) "marketing guru"?