Mooney Factory

[N33GG]

Thanks for the post Bill. I enjoyed reading every word.

George

[triple8s]

Just wondering...........the planes that were on the line when the factory was shutdown.......what year model will they be??????

[ZamF16]

Thanks for the update Bill.  I am so happy to see Mooney rising again.  I completed my annual last week, and my mechanic/inspector (with over 30 years experience) emphasized to me that in his opinion the Mooney is the best GA aircraft made.  I have to agree, but of course I am a little biased. 

 

- Dave

[320KPH]

i hope the new owners concentrate on the average mission, rather than the ultimate performance.

 

Look how many 201's Mooney sold and how much they still suit the average mission, (and how they fared after production of the 201 ceased)

 

Imagine a 201 with an IO390?

[Steve65E-NC]

I think the Mooney is ideal for Asian and developing country markets. Put four average Asians in a Bo and they will rattle around like mice in a barrel. I know the Mooney is sometimes a little tight for four average Americans. Not so in the East. Second, the steel and aluminum technology is easier to maintain in a developing world market than a plastic structure. Third, one person can move a Mooney around on a paved ramp, many airports in developing countries lack much in the way of support equipment. Finally, the Mooney is tops in speed vs fuel economy.

[manu damaschin]

...and the show is going on! Happy to hear!

[wishboneash]

On Sunday, while flying at 5,500 ft, ATC tells me - "Traffic 12 o' clock 3 miles same direction, you are catching up to him." I said "Negative contact, will deviate 10 deg left to avoid the traffic". A short while later, on my right, a Cessna was puttering along and it seemed like it was standing still as I quickly overtook it. Yes, happens very often and everyone on this group has a story to tell. The Mooney is an incredible flying machine - efficient, beautiful and timeless. Glad to see it back in business!

[AlanA]

So awesome to have someone from the Mooney company on our forum!!

[FlyDave]

Bill,

 

Thanks for posting the information you did. This is great news and I think we all welcome the re-starting of Mooney, the influx of cash and the momentum that has and will be built over the next few years. As you read through this board you'll find we are all "Mooniacs" and love the brand. I am in the process of moving from my 201 (EXCELLENT Airplane) to a 252 - staying with Mooney - not out of loyalty to a brand but of commitment to what I feel is an excellent design, an extremely high quality of workmanship that has always come out of Kerrville and the best performance I can buy for the money. I don't feel there is another plane that compares and I do bet my life on that!

I know there has been a lot of China bashing on this board. I have done a little myself, though not as overt as others. Here in the US we have seen a lot of Chinese products (well, more like 85-90% of what we buy) with quality that is not up to par with American standards. It's one thing to buy a door stopper and have it disintegrate after 1 year, it's another to have your landing gear collapse one year after replacing components and yet an entirely different scenario if you loose elevator authority just after takeoff or later.

These safety of flight concerns are valid given the history and experience of Chinese manufacturing we see in the US. I don't think the posts were aimed in any way at you, your teams or the Kerrville facility. We all hope to see the same excellent quality product coming out of Kerrville that always has.

Your post is assuring that this will happen. What I hope is that when the money talks it's with the sincere intent of continuing that quality and commitment to excellence that the Mooney brand is known for.

 

Thanks for your post and please do continue to update us on the company's progress!

 

Dave Norinsky

[mulro767]

After a little google search of our new best friend Jerry Chen, I found that he also owns an RC aircraft company and is an RC aviation enthusiast. Boom! Finally a Mooney RC will be available. About the only thing I can afford right now anyway!

[David Mazer]

Good luck to you and Mooney International.  I'm sure everyone else on this forum joins me in wishing all in involved with Mooney International congratulations.

[carusoam]

Stacey,

Thanks for bringing the "real" news!

It's great to see that a known, intelligent, individual, who is familiar with how to make a small fortune in aviation (start with a large one) is committing to the Mooney faithful.

Congratulations to the Mooney team in Kerville and to the training and maintenance teams around the globe!

Now, everybody go fly a Mooney!!!

Best regards,

-a-

[KSMooniac]

I hope the business model remains flexible. The Ovation and Type S are great, but they aren't the best Mooneys ever made, and are the airframes that priced Mooney out of existence. Why not bring the J or 231 back? These have the same interior room and speed as the competition, but are more efficient. Either way, awesome job on, first, bringing back a brand, and having the correct priorities.

 

The short answer is that the J and K models would only cost marginally less than an R or TN today.  Like <$25k less than those models, and frankly anyone that can purchase a $550,000 plane today will 10 times out of 10 opt for the faster $575,000 plane.  It is too bad, but there isn't much we can do about it.  

 

It is folks like me that are buying older/used planes that care about operating efficiency and total cost of ownership.  I couldn't buy a new J today even if it were offered because it would cost more than both of my houses!  Someday I might be tempted to move into an Ovation or Bravo or Acclaim, but not until the price goes way down...

[DaV8or]

The short answer is that the J and K models would only cost marginally less than an R or TN today.  Like <$25k less than those models, and frankly anyone that can purchase a $550,000 plane today will 10 times out of 10 opt for the faster $575,000 plane.  It is too bad, but there isn't much we can do about it.

 

Exactly! Well said. Why do people think they stopped selling the J and K in the first place? Lack of demand due to the small price differential between these and the long bodies is why. What's the difference between the J/K and the long bodies? A little bit of sheet metal, the engine and the prop. If anybody is serious about the "economy" 201, go to the internet engine sites and price the difference between the IO-360 and the IO-540. Do the same for the two blade prop and the three blade prop. That is the bulk of your savings. Like Scott said, if you have those kind of bucks, why not go faster?

[Cruiser]

Exactly! Well said. Why do people think they stopped selling the J and K in the first place? Lack of demand due to the small price differential between these and the long bodies is why. What's the difference between the J/K and the long bodies? A little bit of sheet metal, the engine and the prop. If anybody is serious about the "economy" 201, go to the internet engine sites and price the difference between the IO-360 and the IO-540. Do the same for the two blade prop and the three blade prop. That is the bulk of your savings. Like Scott said, if you have those kind of bucks, why not go faster?

 

The main reason they quit building the mid-body was the cockpit roll cage master framing tool. There is only one. When they modified it to make long body planes, they could no longer build the mid body planes.

[kmyfm20s]

The short answer is that the J and K models would only cost marginally less than an R or TN today.  Like <$25k less than those models, and frankly anyone that can purchase a $550,000 plane today will 10 times out of 10 opt for the faster $575,000 plane.  It is too bad, but there isn't much we can do about it.  

 

It is folks like me that are buying older/used planes that care about operating efficiency and total cost of ownership.  I couldn't buy a new J today even if it were offered because it would cost more than both of my houses!  Someday I might be tempted to move into an Ovation or Bravo or Acclaim, but not until the price goes way down...

Exactly! Well said. Why do people think they stopped selling the J and K in the first place? Lack of demand due to the small price differential between these and the long bodies is why. What's the difference between the J/K and the long bodies? A little bit of sheet metal, the engine and the prop. If anybody is serious about the "economy" 201, go to the internet engine sites and price the difference between the IO-360 and the IO-540. Do the same for the two blade prop and the three blade prop. That is the bulk of your savings. Like Scott said, if you have those kind of bucks, why not go faster?

We need to start another thread for this discussion. I agree and disagree with both of you on this. Somehow Piper and Cessna in the aircraft arena and Mercedes in the Auto arena can make a value product as well as your top of the line. There is a distorted scale of economy in my opinion and even rich people consider operating cost.

[Cruiser]

A question that has me stumped is why it is necessary to issue different model designations for the relatively minor changes between the models? I mean really? What is the difference between a C,E, F or G? or the Ovation, Eagle? or the Encore, Bravo and Acclaim?

 

The only differences are engine, propeller and avionics package. These sound more like options than model differences.

 

It would seem the manufacturer could have more flexibility and cost control by managing an options list instead of certifying multiple models.

[Cruiser]

I might have some of the details wrong, but that is what we were told during the factory tour last year. Maybe they modified "the last" fixture so that there are no more currently? Anyway, the reason not to build new mid body models has to do with the roll cage, among other things.

[KSMooniac]

I thought it was a case of the J & K were not selling (after the price got so high the economy-minded buyers couldn't or wouldn't buy them) and it made sense to downsize the product line to the common long-body fuselages that were still selling.  At the extreme end of an example, it doesn't make sense to sell 5 different models of something with different tooling requirements if you're only selling 5-10 units in a year!

[KSMooniac]

We need to start another thread for this discussion. I agree and disagree with both of you on this. Somehow Piper and Cessna in the aircraft arena and Mercedes in the Auto arena can make a value product as well as your top of the line. There is a distorted scale of economy in my opinion and even rich people consider operating cost.

 

Piper isn't selling a lot, and Cessna isn't either, frankly.  Even on the low-end.  I don't think the Skycatcher is doing well at all.  There just isn't much margin anymore in the entry-level planes, and that should be the last thing Mooney should chase, especially since that market is very crowded.

 

I still think Mooney is a great product, but it costs too much relative to the modern competition.  If cost can be driven out of the fabrication process and get the sale price down to something significantly below that of an SR22 or Corvalis, then more buyers might give it a serious look.  For nearly equivalent money, I don't blame new buyers for going after something with a bigger and modern cabin.

 

Of course a new clean-sheet Mooney would be a dream... but I wouldn't expect that anytime soon.  

[1964-M20E]

I thought it was a case of the J & K were not selling (after the price got so high the economy-minded buyers couldn't or wouldn't buy them) and it made sense to downsize the product line to the common long-body fuselages that were still selling.  At the extreme end of an example, it doesn't make sense to sell 5 different models of something with different tooling requirements if you're only selling 5-10 units in a year!

Well if they are only going to sell 5 or 10 units a year IMHO they are doomed at least in the long run. Hopefully the worldwide market can get them up to well over a 100 units a year but that may be optimistic.

[KSMooniac]

Yeah, let's hope it is 100+ but that is really pushing it.  I think they got there in 2007 before the crash.  I think Beech sold 12 Bonanzas last year for a more recent reference point.  Hopefully the export market will push it up to hundreds, not just 100, and they can gain a lot of efficiency in the factory.

[Cruiser]

I thought it was a case of the J & K were not selling (after the price got so high the economy-minded buyers couldn't or wouldn't buy them) and it made sense to downsize the product line to the common long-body fuselages that were still selling.  At the extreme end of an example, it doesn't make sense to sell 5 different models of something with different tooling requirements if you're only selling 5-10 units in a year!

According to the "Mooney Aircraft Corporation Production Historical Roadmap"  It looks like they were making between 60 - 100 total per year of all models J,M,R (there were no Ks after 1990) thru 1998 when they quit building the J.(205/MSE) but the J production dropped from 83 in 1990 to 39 in 1991 and overall production went from 142 to 81 so the company was experiencing problems overall not just in the J model.

[KSMooniac]

Mooney has certainly had some up-and-down production numbers, and the variability is an enemy to efficient and profitable production.  When you get really busy, you might not have the capacity to keep up and then you have to send work out or bring in new workers that don't have enough experience and quality/cost suffer.  You also can't get good production contracts with suppliers with such variability as well.  Hopefully the overseas market will be steady and growing and we'll all benefit.  We don't export much of anything anymore, but airplanes are still exported and that benefits our nation greatly.  (too bad the politicians keep trying to demonize it!)

[AustinKalb]

I went to the UCLA website and could not find any mention of Jerry Chen Professor of Aeronautics. Not saying he doesn't exist - just could find him.

 

Austin