1980Mooney

20 years ago Lone Star Aero in San Antonio (which used to specialize in Mooney's) invoiced me 15 hours to replace a M20J windshield. It should be the same as a K.

You make a good point. When I said earlier "You have room to negotiate" after getting the pre-buy I said that assuming that the pre-buy turns up issues that show the condition is not exactly as was claimed. For instance when I did the pre-buy on my M20J many years ago it turned up a dented nose gear truss. Yes that was an airworthiness issue which had to be repaired on the seller's dime before it could be sold. It also turned up some non-airworthiness issues which would require expenditures at some point. There was some modest negotiation/accommodation. If everything turns out to be as claimed then you are exactly correct that there will be no adjustment in price.

I am confused. How can you be a "plausible customer" of the Long Body Gross Weight Increase with a Mid Body? You have a modified K and I have a modified J by Rocket Eng. Mooney has never hinted at anything other than a Long Body. In the fund raising/for sale PowerPoint they limit it to only Ultra's. On the Mooney Corp site, Jonny said they were "working on it" last December. Someone from the company on April 1 said that they were busy with other things and know that it will be a lot of work but would give an update some time "We have been making strides in making parts, answering Tech Support email, phone calls etc. Hope to have some of your answers about GW increase as we get closer (many tests will need to be completed as well as certification items)". Mooney has not updated the GW topic forum in 6 months. As someone said this is probably moot. For Mid and Short body owners it is double moot. For anyone with a Rocket Engineering modification it is probably triple moot. https://www.mooney.com/forums/topic/gross-weight-increase-long-body/

I think you are mixing up "price" with "profit margin to Mooney". If Mooney sells it installed for $50,000 you have to subtract all the direct variable costs they incur in order to determine their payback. Let's assume that there is $25,000 in parts, axles, oleo shocks, assemblies, wheels, tires, etc. Remember that the New Mooney only orders in small quantities as it has line of sight for near term sales so that drives all the prices up (i.e. like no-back springs, etc) And how many shop hours do you think it will need to remove, install and rerig?...100 shop hours...more? At $75 per hour for variable labor, lights, utilities, consumables, shop overhead, etc that is about $7,500. OK so now Mooney has a gross margin of $17,500 per installation. That means that Mooney has to sell 286 to break even before taxes on your assumed $5 million investment. And that is just to break even...no profit on the investment for all the work. Some will likely argue the shop hours are low and the shop cost is low. If these numbers are anywhere close to the cost I bet Mooney prices the mod at about $75,000. Also I wonder with all these changing masses and geometry, will the current beleaguered Eaton and/ or Plessey landing gear actuator be able to do the job and hold up? There were comments in earlier threads that the plane will sit higher which implies a longer radius (not sure how that fits in the current wheel well).

@Nate G I agree - ignore the naysayers. Don't let them rain on your passion. I purchased a J model 2 months before my PPL Checkride in a C172. I was flying the J with a different flight instructor 6 weeks before the Checkride. That was 22 years ago and I still own it. Although some here say otherwise, it was not hard to learn in. I immediately was doing patter work and flying "Touch and Go's" in the J while finishing my PPL in the C172. After you fly the Mooney you will never want to go back to the C172 - if feels like a dog. Although the Lycoming is high time it may still have many hours beyond TBO. I see the tanks were resealed which is a big plus. The mid-body Mooney is very versatile. Frugal and fast! Good Useful Load. I used mine as the hauler of a family of 4 while they were growing up. I did the Missile modification and added 300 HP and continued to use it to haul them to college and beyond. A lot of pilots here suggest buying a cheaper version and selecting the modifications and upgrades yourself. But the downside is that takes a lot of time and perhaps distance depending on where you are. (travel time, dropping off, one way driving, lots of downtime - especially now with supply issues, unexpected costs, rework/warranty, etc) The current owner has put a ton of time into it. You said it is the way you like it so it is ready for your mission. Insurance may be high but a good way to bring it down is to get your Instrument ticket immediately. I used my J model to train for the Instrument. And yes I fly "touch and go's" in it all the time - there are some here on MS that are afraid to do it. Regarding the Garmin (Apollo) 480, it is vastly superior to the Garmin GNS430. That is why Garmin bought Apollo. Some think it is better than the Garmin GTN750. in many ways - see Beechtalk below. And I see it can be repaired much more cheaply than Garmin will rip you off. https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=133445 https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=51797&start=15 https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=88535 I assume you have the budget to fly. You say you have already made an offer. The purchase price is just the first payment. Hangar, data subscriptions, Annuals, Insurance, etc. It can be a money pit - costs/repairs can hit when totally unexpected. Lastly - the final purchase price is subject to your prebuy inspection. You still have room to negotiate - and the ad did say "Price Negotiable"

Oh "Chute" - good point!

A couple more articles to add for your summary analysis and then some confusion on the Plessey: See Tom Rouch's review of Actuators (MooneyFlyer Aug 2017) on pages 17-19. He states that the Plessey is obsolete and that the springs are no longer available. Present Position (themooneyflyer.com) See Damon Trimble, Pascual Puetrolas (LASAR) and Paul Loewen's comments on Actuators (MooneyFlyer Sept 2020) pages 12-13. They highlight the problem of relating gear cycles to hours and note that the actual life is longer for most planes. Present Position (themooneyflyer.com) And last although Rouch and @donkaye state that Plessey springs are no longer available, @adverseyaw posted a thread in January saying that the factory and MSC's received Plessey torsion springs in November of last year.

From 4 years ago:

CO+Levels_Risk+Chart.pdf (squarespace.com) Avweb recommends no more than 35 ppm. Carbon Monoxide Detectors (avweb.com)

Some planes change hands pretty fast. Sometimes due to health or other issues the plane winds up with a broker. The 'original incident owner" won't be around to so kindly inform potential buyers either in the advert or orally. If it is not properly noted in the Logbooks, then future owners wont have a clue. How many times have we read stories on MS where a potential buyer, does a Pre-buy inspection only to find evidence of previous repairs to undocumented and unknown damage. It may or may not impact the purchase - but no-one likes surprises in that situation. It makes a buyer think "I wonder what else happened that is missing from the record". Evidence of a prop strike or sudden stoppage is not easily identifiable in a Pre-buy - not like visual identification of structural repair with new parts, braces, welds, different paint, etc, In order to be as honest and forthright as possible, it seems to me, that an owner should just do the inspection and log the incident in the Logbooks. Just my view.

So, per M20Doc it sounds like the cost & time to comply with the AD&SB 475 gear inspection, bolt and lock plate replacement on a J is not excessive and can be done in place. Dialing crank not required. Work can be done without splitting cases. A licensed A&P caused the damage - he could have conducted this inspection on his own time and properly noted it in the Logbooks (i.e. cost to the owner should not have been an issue) Others note that insurance pays for it in any event usually (as well as compliance with the SB) Yet nothing was done Now, after all this public discussion on MS, apparently something will be done but at a cost to the new owner (i.e. price increased) These seem like contradictions in this "honest and forthright" situation. - perhaps there is more to the story.

Bad news travels fast!

You may have been confused by the title on this earlier thread - it might lead one to incorrectly think they were only trying to sell the factory (which they don’t fully own - the facilities and land at Kerrville airport are leased from the City of Kerrville.)

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.