1980Mooney

Once again I will point out the the Acclaim Ultra does not "cost less" than the Cirrus....It was "Priced Less". The new management/owners admitted that the company lost money on every one of these planes sold.

It is not the aluminum itself - it is the many parts, complexity and 10's of thousands of rivets and screws that make an aluminum plane very labor intensive. The design is complex. Labor is cost. Mooney's seeming to be "cheaper" is an illusion. The company admitted that they lost money on every plane built in the last years of production. You are mixing "price" with "cost'. Any viable company will price accordingly to pass the cost ("profits problem") to the buyer. If Mooney's were substantially cheaper to manufacture than Cirrus or others then the new owners would be selling product as fast as possible. Instead they are giving up and and selling the company (again) This is like the E-Type Jaguar of the 60's. Aluminum, largely handmade and labor intensive. It is fast and efficient with just enough room to fit - not a family hauler.... If you park it on the ramp everyone will admire it. But could you make it the same way profitably today? - no. And would anyone buy it? - ok a few maybe out of nostalgia. But the market has moved on to more capable products that better meet the market needs with acceptable cost. BTW - Textron has not sold any Bonanza's this year either per GAMA

Let's use 2021 sales data from GAMA for the first half of the year. In the first six months of 2021 Cirrus sold 172 SEP and Cessna/Beech sold 104. In 2020 Cirrus sold 128 SEP in the first half and Cessna/Beech sold 114. So Cirrus is pulling away with an increase of 34% over last year. Cessna/Beech is falling behind rapidly with a decline of 10% in sales vs. last year. Textron sold zero Bonanza's and Baron's in the first half of 2021 so it really is all Cessna. 74 of Cessna sales were 172's....70% of their sales going to trainers. Aluminum continues to lose ground - but it is not just because they are aluminum - it is because the entire design and features are not competitive for the price

Do you also feel that Garmin Autoland, Safe Glide, Electronic Stability and Protection, Emergency Descent Mode and Smart Rudder Bias are just astute marketing of "being a passenger of an unguided soon to be wreckage"?

Great analogy. Chevy sold 20,368 Corvettes in the world in 2020 out of total worldwide sales of 6.83 million vehicles. That is less than 0.3% of their sales. In reality very few people want to buy a Corvette. Cirrus sold 347 piston singles in 2020. 0.3% of 347 is 1.....1 (One) Mooney for every 347 Cirrus. Yes I agree that Mooney could sell one plane per year.

Now historically they relied on low labor costs in sleepy Kerrville to keep costs down - maybe only pay $50k - 60k/year all in (benefits, vacation, holidays etc). The problem is the labor intensity - that the design does not allow for much more automation than they already have. Low labor cost in the Texas hill country is not that easy to find any more. That is why in many past topics there was always the suggestion to move manufacturing to really low labor cost countries. So if you do the math. If skilled manufacturing employees cost Mooney fully burdened with benefits now cost $80k/year then that is $400,000 in direct labor cost....at $60k/year average fully burdened labor cost then that is still $300,000. Add the cost for the engine, prop, avionics, tires, Lord disks, batteries, wiring, landing gear motor/system, all parts and materials, paint, etc. - $250k for an Ovation?, $325k for an Acclaim?...More? Then add Mooney Corp overhead - all that management, accounting, insurance, Kerrville lease, marketing and of course Legal. It is easy to see why they were losing money (actually negative cashflowing) on every plane.

He is one of the Sellers. He is not going to say anything in public (I.e. here on MS in print) that contradicts any of the rosy projections they have made to prospective Buyers in private presentations. He is going to avoid us like the Plague…..err Covid!

There seems to be a big misconception by many here. The "$15 Million Asking Price" is to buy the equity of Jonny, the other clowns at US Financial and the Chinese Meijing Group which are still minority partners. Anything paid for equity GOES INTO THEIR POCKETS. NOTHING - NADA- ZIP - ZERO DOLLARS GOES INTO THE MOONEY COMPANY. Mooney Corp will still be starved of cash to support daily operations. It will need cash for the many years of development of a clean sheet plastic airplane before the first is ever sold. The PDF attachment appears designed to raise money for the COMPANY and Not the Owners. The "bizquest" for sale ad is designed to raise money for the Owners and NOT THE COMPANY> You would get nothing. - It needs more cash to survive. Exactly True - just like the Bonanza - they could sell a few a year just like Textron does. Raise the price like them. There is a market for nostalgia for what is essentially 1960's performance. Like Morgan motor cars of the UK or the people that make aluminum body AC Cobra replicas, they continue to sell a few a year I think it was a big mistake to stop production. They could have created some cashflow. Revenue of $1 million for parts doesn't support much. True - as a guide how much did Mooney lose on the development of the failed M10T composite development.? Maybe Chinoguy knows. $30 million? $40 million? ..More? Composite...overweight...handling issues...etc. And it was NEVER CERTIFIED. It just takes knowhow, time and MONEY. Really? A pressurized composite turboprop...essentially a shorter, smaller, cheaper EPIC 1000 with fewer seats.... "The US Federal Aviation Administration awarded the E1000 its type certification in November 2019. The certification effort had been initially estimated by King to take three years and cost US$20M, but took seven years and about US$200M." OK - I will be optimistic and cut it in half to $100 million....which is exactly what Bentonck speculated.

True. More than 20 years ago I took my J to Rocket Engineering and had the 300 HP IO550A installed per the Missile conversion. I get about the same real world performance as carusoam quotes for an O1. What you currently have is a J at the top of its class - it is in the real sweet spot of performance, economy, efficiency and UL. You have invested a ton in it (which you will not entirely recoup if you sell). If you go and buy an Ovation it may or may not make book numbers...every plane is essentially handmade and has variation. Yes you will get some more speed but you will also get a lot more fuel burn. You might buy one with AC or FIKI which you do not have on a J. You will get more kneeroom in the back seat and more space for luggage....but you may actually get less UL. You will have a plane with more weight on the nose gear than the J which is really bad news on soft taxiways or strips. You will have 2 more cylinders to maintain and more maintenance cost. If you go the Acclaim turbo route yes you will have even more speed up higher and even more fuel burn and more maintenance. And more uncertainty of Mooney Corp support for unique factory only parts. If money is no object then go for it - Ovation or Acclaim. (Actually buy 2 so you have one that you can quickly strip parts off of!) Personally, if you dump your J and buy an R or TN ...or U or V...., I think that you will look back and wish that you never sold the particular J that you have today. (but the flip side is that you will make some new buyer very happy!)

Similar topic from earlier this year if you had not seen…

You may have missed my reply above - Buried in page 26 they Spec out "Project Phoenix" to "Cruise 30K feet". I didn't think that the FAA would certify a GA plane to fly passengers above 25,000 ft without pressurization. I assumed it had to be pressurized to cruise at 30K ft. because you are unconscious in less than a minute. Maybe I am wrong.

The "Mooney Future" Powerpoint Dec 2020 seems clear to me: Page 11 - US Financial acquires "A MAJORITY STAKE" - As I suspected all along the CHINESE STILL OWN PART OF MOONEY Page 10 - "The Kerrville Factory sits on over 25 acres" - But what it doesn't say is that the FACTORY BUILDINGS AND LAND ARE OWNED BY THE CITY OF KERRVILLE They are in a 20 year lease which is more of a liability than an asset. The leasehold improvements are only of value if Mooney stays there- it is not like something that they own and can move. Mooney International gets new airport lease | News | dailytimes.com Page 12 - Mooney part sales in 2020 were projected to be $1.0 million....ONLY $1 MILLION PER YEAR. Even at 50% or 70% margin on the parts that doesn't even cover overhead for that plant in a year. Now you know why Mooney has to mark everything up about 3 times more than you would pay elsewhere. Page 17 - They point out that the problem is that they have stuck with aluminum and steel too long - "Slow to adopt new materials"....Or as they said to Benjamin in the Graduate - "One word: Plastics" (Actually Jonny Pollack says it in Slide 19) Too much vertical integration, making too much themselves, too much employee turnover in an manhour intensive build process Page 20 - They think by widening cabin, increasing load, adding CAPS/BRS and Autoland and more speed they will "crush" the competition But in reality that is just playing "Catch-Up" Page 21 - They propose to ditch what we consider to be a Mooney and go All Composite.... and later slides with a turboprop or turbine Page 24 - It seems to signal that they consider the market for current legacy aluminum Mooney's to be: $1 million 4 seat planes for millionaires. They see a gap in the market for $1.5-2 million 4 seat planes (jets and turboprops) for multi-millionaires They see the market for 6+ seat jets and turboprops for the uber-rich to be already addressed by others. Page 26 - A Carbon empennage being manufactured next year (2022) for Ovation and Acclaim - sounds like they are ditching the hallmark articulating tail and probably going with a solid tail. So the strategy is to go way upscale but way cheaper than others have been able to deliver. They are going to go "me too" into plastics....composites....just later than the others. "Me too" in wider cabin, CAPS/BRS. And "Me Too" with Piper Meridian in small pressurized turboprops. Like Eclipse was supposed to be to small jets, Mooney will be to small turboprops. A better Piper Meridian M500 minus 2 seats - $500k cheaper, 50 knots faster, and 500 lbs more payload full fuel. Mooney will do what Cirrus, Diamond, Pipistrel and Piper can't do - and quicker and cheaper. A "poor mulit-millionaire's" smaller EPIC E1000. And a product in 2023. Pressurization knowhow from the 1964-70 M22 Mustang?...structural composite knowhow from the 2014-2017 failed M10T?....right.

Page 26 specs "Project Phoenix" to "Cruise 30K feet" in 2023.....how do you do that without a pressure vessel?

Interesting point. But every Mooney ever built is a potential lawsuit. The 2004 bankruptcy only swept away lawsuits that existed at the time. It does not stop future product liability from planes built before 2004. Nor will a bankruptcy filing in 2021. The Art of the (Bad) Deal: Successor Liability in M&A Transactions | Insights | Ballard Spahr courts have also imposed liability in certain other circumstances that include the following: the buyer continues the same product line of the seller The recent Bravo crash that killed the doctors highlights the problem. Everyone agrees that the wings folded up (not arguing what put the forces on the wings but they did fold to everyone's surprise). It is a 1992 model. One person on Beechtalk says that he has parted out many Mooney's and has seen numerous cases of intergranular corrosion on the spar cap doublers. He suspects "defective heat treatment process (during manufacturing)." You know the lawyers will be all over this. And if the FAA finds it to be true then there will be a wing AD and game over for Mooney. There is a lot of "potential" liability that won't be resolved for a year or two. What buyer wants that exposure?

Only problem is that Mooney does not own the factory or warehouse at the field. It is owned by the City of Kerrville. They have a long term lease with Mooney. That could be viewed as a liability rather than an asset if they want to move or shrink. They have $2.8 million in Leasehold Improvements that they have made on the building that they don't own. That is not worth anything to Mooney if they leave the building. Probably the only way to break the lease it is by filing bankruptcy. Additionally the Kerr County Central Appraisal District shows that Mooney International and Mooney Aircraft Company legal entities OWN NO LAND OR BUILDINGS IN KERRVILLE OR KERR COUNTY Mooney International gets new airport lease | News | dailytimes.com Kerrville-Kerr County Airport Mulls New Lease Agreements | Aviation Pros

That presentation was designed to raise money so that they could do something. Note that they project parts sales of ONLY $1.0 million for 2020. That is their entire revenue. No plane sales. That is revenue, not contribution (gross margin) after direct costs. I bet their legal fees, insurance and Kerrvile rent and utilities exceed whatever small gross margin comes from parts. Their minority partner, the Chinese (who had been infusing cash to cover the negative cash flow/bleeding), have dried up. No Cash = No Development. i suspect that they attracted no investment and that’s why they are trying to sell the bones of the carcass that is left.

Maybe I missed it but where is his (the commercial pilot) own insurance? Shouldn’t it cover the damage? Also long part availability and repair times are the norm now. I don’t believe for a minute that Continental will remanufacture in “weeks”. It took Rocket Engineering 3 months including shipping time to repair my engine mount. Now I am waiting for Areo Structural to get sealant for my tanks. They say all their sealant orders are delayed.

This is an internet pic of a J. (I would look at mine but it is still in the annual from hell) It looks like it might be rubbing also. However yours looks like the rudder deflected further allowing the control rod end to hang up on the edge of the aluminum. Is it possible that your rudder has too much deflection and the limits are out of adjustment? The J and K set-ups are the same and deflection is limited to 23 degrees by rudder stops. Your rudder stops may be out of spec. But if you have greater deflection due to a bent/crushed truss in your nose gear then you have big problems because it has pushed over-limit through the control tubes. m20k - Service manual.pdf

Spot on. Exactly This is why you should practice Touch & Goes frequently - half flaps, full flaps, no flaps. You won't be startled. You won't be running the trim rapidly down and up. If landing full flaps you will get comfortable with quickly pulling out a bit of flap rather than fighting the yoke or trim.

What sort of information are you looking for? .... performance of the specific plane at the time is was previously owned by a MS member? Nothing wrong asking peoples' recollection about performance - but expect to get a lot of "fish stories". It will just be recollections - some tend to grow with time, important details get lost. Now if you are asking about a specific plane that is currently for sale which was previously owned by someone on MS, then don't expect to get an answer. (Things like aspects of condition - that specific plane's condition, flight characteristics or quirks such as oil consumption, corrosion issues, hard landings, tank leaks, hangar rash or other incidences, or occasional quirks, anomalies or intermittent issues with instruments, flight controls, gear, starting, engine operation, etc. ?) If I had previously sold a plane I would never interfere in the current owners attempt to sell that same plane. I would never contradict any representation which the current owner is making regarding condition I would never put my opinion of past condition (which happens to be the condition it was when I sold it to the current owner) in writing And I would certainly never put my opinion of past condition IN WRITING IN PUBLIC ON MS. Once a sale is closed there is no benefit to the seller to further comment - Only potential liability You just open yourself up to potential allegations that you did not disclose something or that you mischaracterized something. And it only comes up when something breaks or deteriorates and a lot of money is involved. Just my opinion

Maybe I am missing your point but the original poster needs to assume that he is dealing with alclad skins. And if as you say “the corrosive attack extends beyond the clad layer”, physical means of cleaning, regardless how “gentle” the abrasion, may tend to remove more of the compromised clad. That is why small spots need to be treated and stopped before they get too large. Otherwise you are just chasing your tail. Sitting in Florida or along the coast you may see the corrosion reappear fairly rapidly once the clad is materially damaged/breached/removed. https://www.avweb.com/ownership/the-savvy-aviator-19-thwarting-corrosion/ https://www.experimentalaircraft.info/articles/aircraft-aluminum.php

Yeah - at your "hypothetical" 4250lbs that would be quite a pig. High density altitude take-offs would be a real scream. Reminds me of the Extra 400 with less power.

It sounds like you have a gem of an Archer. I would not count on 160 kts in the typical J that you might be able to purchase - more like 155. And it sounds like you have the perfect ownership situation - the plane costs you almost nothing. Your plane is dead simple and rugged with the O-360. The Mooney is going to need more maintenance. You mention that there is little maintenance on your field. A Mooney that is waiting for a mechanic or at a remote field to be maintained will not be faster than your Archer that is always ready to go..... You mention the double cost of insurance. You will be paying all the cost of the Mooney and maintenance where your Archer is currently basically free. Annuals will be more because of the gear, etc. Expect to deal with wing fuel tank leaks on the Mooney at some point - costly and a pain. Now on that hypothetical 500 nm flight, your Archer will only take about 45 minutes more than the typical J. The cost and all the extra time and effort to have a Mooney properly maintained at a limited service airport may be worth it to you. It just depends upon your mission. Now 20 years ago I took a J and added 300 hp. IO-550 - I got speed for cross country flights. I got higher fuel consumption. I got higher Annual costs and higher maintenance. I also got a plane that has limited prop clearance, a lot of weight on the nose gear. It fit my mission for the time. But that time may be coming to a close.

Same. Precise Flight 4 person system with Oyxmizer cannulas for about 20 years. The only problem I have is that some FBO or maintenance shops don't have the right size adapter to fit my bottle. Agree on your suggestion to keep it simple. I also suggest you get a system in which each user can adjust flow. Supplemental oxygen can be useful on long flights and night flights even below 10,000. You may find that you are more alert and less fatigued.

A sobering and lucid assessment of the current situation. Like the canary in a coal mine.