KSMooniac

LOP breakin is just fine. I think it is most important to keep the power up and steady...ie XC cruise at 75% (or more) for the first 8-10 hours. Walter Atkinson has posted the APS breakin procedure on the AOPA Forum a few times...might be worth searching over there if you're a member.

Herb, I believe that Willmar has licensed their process back to the Mooney factory/service center. You might start with them and get a quote. I'd be curious to see how their price compares to Willmar. I got a quote from them a couple of months ago for a smooth belly mod on my J, and let's just say it was quite uncompetitive.

I wish Jennifer Mitchell lived in Kansas! I would *love* to meet her...but there is no way this Texas boy is ever moving to California. I'm an aero engineer and have worked at Cirrus and Columbia for short stints, then Boeing and now Spirit AeroSystems (the old Boeing-Wichita commercial division). My specialty is composite structures, and I have years of factory support experience dealing with composite production problems. I promise you that factory production with prepreg systems and quality tooling is *far* different than your Cozy and EZ experience. The only thing they have in common is some chemistry! Assuming you design it well *for* composite materials, then you can really drastically cut the labor for fabrication *and* assembly. Hopefully more than enough to offset the higher price of the raw materials. In this day and age, it is easy to do. I am very confident that Cirrus/Diamond/Cessna man-hours per plane are a fraction of what Mooney does. Today it is the labor hours that are keeping Mooney prices up, and I really don't see any way to drastically reduce them to the point where they could do a $300k MSE unless they moved out of the country. Mooney very well might have resisted any efforts to iron out inefficiencies in their production line...I have no idea. I just feel at the end of the day there are too many welds, too many rivets, too much goopy sealant, etc. to get their man-hours down to a Cirrus/Diamond/Cessna level. Hopefully I'm wrong though! If companies like Porsche and Cigarette boats can keep going, then so should Mooney!

George- I enjoy the topic immensely and share the same hopes as you do. (I'm sure we all do!!!) Cirrus has *always* been good at marketing...even when they had nothing to market! (I worked there long ago.) I hope Mooney is listening...as many alluded to on the MAPA list there are many of us that can offer Mooney quite a bit of expertise as they navigate this difficult time. However, I wish to point out that fabrication (when done correctly in a factory) with advanced composite is *far* less labor intensive than building with metal, especially with the way Mooney does it with sheet metal, rivets, and steel tubes + welding. I would bet a dollar that Cirrus and Cessnalumbia (and likely Diamond) spend 1/2 the man-hours putting those planes together compared to Mooney. Things like CNC pre-punching (ala Van's) can take a lot of the labor out of the sheet-metal equation at relatively low cost, but to reduce labor on the steel tube operation would require a huge capital investment that doesn't make sense for Mooney's low-rate production. We could argue chicken-and-egg about buying the equipment to reduce the labor cost, but I think that money is better spent on a new product at this point. At the end of the day Mooney is still working with a 1950's design that was laid out for craftsmen, by craftsmen, while the modern plastic planes were optimized for composite production. I sure hope the new president will scrub the production labor aspect of the equation, but I bet every other president has done the same in an effort to reduce the cost. That well might be dry, unfortunately, but who knows. My reasons why Mooney could not build a modern MSE for $300k are: *powerplant...IO-390 or IO-360 will only cost ~$10k less than an IO-550 at OEM pricing. 2-Blade prop might be $4k cheaper than 3-blader. *airframe materials...fractionally cheaper due to the shorter fuselage, lighter engine mount but that is it *labor....perhaps 5% less due to shorter fuselage and smaller wing tanks to seal *avionics...wildcard. I believe the G1000 cost + installation labor is roughly close to a steam-gauge panel + labor. Call it a push. Perhaps a G600 or Triple-Aspen plus two G430Ws and an STEC-30 would be a cost savings, but likely not more than $20-$40k under a G1000/GFC700 instl. *interior...perhaps go down to bare-bones fabric & plastic vs. leather & ultra-suede/ultra-leather sidewalls. Maybe $10k less. Add all that up, and we are still north of $400k for an out-the-door price. My main point is anyone that can or would spend $400k can very likely spend $450k or $500k to get the Ovation. That was the case with the previous MSE and Eagle. *IF* they could get it down to $300k, perhaps there would be a market...but I don't think they can get there unfortunately. The only possibility in my mind would be to move the fabrication and maybe even final assembly to the Far East or Mexico, and none of us would like that. They're already in perhaps the least expensive part of the US right now! I like the latest Mooney campaign with individual profiles. I hope it has a positive impact...it will be interesting to watch. We can all do our part by talking up the positive aspects, giving rides, etc. Many people have never even sat in a Mooney and listen to the old wives tales about the cramped cabin, difficult landing behavior etc. We need to keep preaching the gospel of AL!

I am slightly optimistic about his background in the high-end boat industry (Cigarette) and consolidation/updating/turnaround experience. That *could* be just what Mooney needs. Fast boats are even more of a luxury than a new Mooney, and if he was able to lead that company through some difficult times then perhaps he is the right guy for Mooney now. Mooney is ripe for a bottom-up review of the manufacturing process to reduce the costs and improve efficiency. I would think there is enough price elasticity in the market to sell many more planes if they could get the costs down. I expect the Cirrus & Cessnalumbia costs will come down, or at least stay flat going forward as they tune their production lines. Reduced fab & assembly time is a potentially huge advantage of the composite airframes over the Mooney airframe, and I could envision a scenario where the Mooney ends up costs significantly more than either competitor. Hopefully they can take some action to delay it.

What part of the Dallas area will you be in? That makes a huge difference in airport selection.

Greg- That is George's own analysis that he posted on the MAPA email list...not any publication from Mooney itself. It is a fine effort in my opinion, but not realistic on many points. I'm afraid our dream of a sub-$300k M20J is wishful thinking at best. I see no way Mooney could get there today, and I don't think the market is there anyway for that sort of plane. SR-22s are outselling SR-20s (closest thing to a new M20J today) by a wide margin. When the Ovation came along, the vast majority of new buyers opted for it over the MSE. Mooney offered the M20S as an M20J replacement but it failed too. In my opinion, new buyers today are NOT concerned with fuel burns of 10 vs. 15 GPH. After all, anyone shelling out $400-$600k for a new plane likely can support the bigger motors, so they opt for them. The folks that want the really efficient planes (like me!) on a budget can't or won't spend $300k for a new plane anyway, and are stuck waiting for the depreciation to take it's toll and then pickup a plane on the used market. There is still an ample supply of used 180-200 hp Mooneys at reasonable prices, and thus I don't see much of a market for a brand-new M20J today or in the near future. I'm excited about the turboprop option and think that is a market that is still growing rapidly, and has high margins. Mooney could exploit that in a big way to ensure survival in the future and then perhaps back-fill with a lower end piston if the market is there. TBM and PC-12 sales continue to grow every year, and if the upcoming boom of VLJs ever happens, the single-engine turboprop will serve as a great intermediate step for those folks. I think that is the wisest place to go in today's market...

At 16k I was only pulling ~16" MAP, and TAS ~130 KTAS at 7 GPH or so. Not much performance, but that was the MEA over the Rocky Mountains so there wasn't any better option. Climb rates were down to ~200 FPM or so and this was at ~2300 lbs. I think the book service ceiling is about 18k, and I've been up to 16.5k on a warmish day where the density altitude was over 18k, but I was nowhere near max gross weight either. I don't think a J could get to 18k at gross very easily!

Magnus, yes for the increased power. When flying really high (like 15k-16k) I've gone to best power as well since there isn't much to make at those altitudes. My typical cruise altitudes in the plains of the US are 7-9k, and I'll fly 10-40 dF LOP depending on OAT to keep my CHTs below 380dF.

Yeah, that probably was! Not really a good way to discuss the topic though without the details.

Another 100% LOP operator here with stock injectors on my IO-360 A3B6D. If really high (like above 11k) I'll fly at peak, though.

Adam, I had to use a piddle-pack for the first time last week on my trip to CO. I bought a 2-pack of the ziploc style packs with some material to make the liquid turn to gel. I was in smooth air on top of an undercast, with the autopilot engaged. I moved the seat back, unbuckled, and kneeled on the seat while doing my business. It worked fine, although I just about overwhelmed the pack! I think I might save some big plastic bottles in the future and put some cat litter in the bottom, although it wil occupy more space than the bags.

Scott Sellmeyer here. Nice work so far, Craig! I hope it really takes off. I'm an aerospace engineer (structural analyst) for Spirit AeroSystems (formerly Boeing-Wichita) and have been flying since 1991. I'm active on the MAPA and aviating.com lists, but would love to consolidate all that traffic here in the nice, modern format. I'm also active on the AOPA Forum with the same user name. I have a '77 M20J that I purchased in Feb. 2007. She has given me well over 200 hours of wonderful service so far, and I have some exterior upgrades and paint wishes for 2009. Since I've owned her I've done a double WAAS upgrade and had the fuel tanks renewed at Willmar, and a relatively painless annual. Prior Mooney experience includes learning in an M20F in my college flying club, and renting M20C, E and F in Wichita many years ago. Purchasing my 201 was a dream come true, and I couldn't imagine a better plane for my mission.