Mooney Factory

[John Pleisse]

  On 10/15/2013 at 8:19 PM, KSMooniac said:

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.

 

Agreed, but Cirrus stays in the 200's year after year.

[John Pleisse]

R-D

[Scott Aviation]

Because I have huge respect for all you guys I felt it necessary to back up some of my comments with some follow up info, then im done

 

It takes on average 2000-3000 hrs for a 4 place experimental to be build by joe blow in his garage (not referring to quick build kits)... Why is it so hard to believe that mooney couldn't build a 4 place certified in the same time frame with factory trained experts, proper specific purpose built tooling and jigs and a factory assembly line (sort of)? When Chad told me 2500 that made perfect sense to me...4000 hours definitly seemed wasteful. it was 3 years ago so if my facts are off I apoligize but I do remember standing on the floor reading a board as they tracked that and displayed the stats near the tail cone assembly area on the factory floor. 

 

Regarding my comment on shutting down long ago if they were that wasteful, what I meant is There would have been no 90's and 2000's for mooney if they were that bad.

 

Please help me to understand light airplanes cost structure...

 

I was looking back at a chart on the cost per year of the aircraft:

 

early 90's you could have a mooney for 130,000

 

by the early 2000's you were at 300,000

 

by the late 2000's they were pushing double that over 600,000.

 

look at the automotive industry example during that same time...

 

early 90's toyota camry new off the floor, 15,000

 

early 2000's toyota camry....20,000

 

late 2000's toyota camry....30,000

 

Same processes to build but more effecient...my point is. you still have a metal frame, engine, interior, 4 tires, etc etc. car/airplane whatever.

 

average household income early 90's $40,800

 

average household income early 2000's $45,000

 

average household income late 2000's $50,000

 

 

Look at it this way...If I bought a 1990 mooney for 130,000 it would roughly have been 3 years of my wages.

 

If I were to buy that mooney a few years ago that would have been roughly 12 solid years of my wages.  

 

scary stats....info pulled from wikipedia.

[John Pleisse]

It is clear, their first move would be to hire a P-R firm...not a big, waste of money- aviation type P-R firm, but just an old hand to speak on their behalf. Buying a company without media in place and the Chief Engineer speaking on behalf of the company shows a little disorganization. Finally, definitive, good news.

[John Pleisse]

There have been 4 threads of various types on this subject. Sorry for the confusion. The letter is already posted. I'll redact to avoid clutter.

[N9453V]

  On 10/17/2013 at 1:57 PM, N4352H said:

It is clear, their first move would be to hire a P-R firm...not a big, waste of money- aviation type P-R firm, but just an old hand to speak on their behalf. Buying a company without media in place and the Chief Engineer speaking on behalf of the company shows a little disorganization. Finally, definitive, good news.

 

If you read the press release (http://www.mooney.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=581&Itemid=54), you'd see that they have hired John Nohe Advertising of Overland Park, KS (http://jnaadvertising.com/) as their PR firm. Bill Eldred's note was specifically directed at Mooney owners and not so much externally, similarly to the note he wrote when the tail pitch trim assembly AD came out.

 

-Andrew

[John Pleisse]

I saw this Andrew. It said release, but had no date, time or location. Likewise, in both cases, do you think Nohe held Eldred out as a social media strategy?

[marks]

The problem for Mooney has always been volume.  When Mooney was building dozens of planes a year Cirrus was building hundreds.  Part of the problem was that Mooney had no fixed gear airplane.  Imagine Piper if the only Cherokee you could buy was the Arrow.  Imagine no Warrior, no Archer and no Dakota.  I wonder just how many P28's were built and how many of them were Arrows.  If Mooney could build a 201 with both fixed and retractable gear options you'd have at least one airplane that could fly cheaply without speed brakes, emergency extention equipment, electric trim, cowl flaps, gear motors, gear doors and gear moving parts, warning buzzers, and without the extra weight.  Such a plane would be cheaper to build, cheaper to insure, cheaper to maintain and inspect.  Such a plane would have greater usefull load that an MSE.  -  The only thing is, that I'm not sure a fixed gear J would be faster than a fixed gear Cirrus SR 20.  

[201er]

  On 10/18/2013 at 12:43 PM, marks said:

Part of the problem was that Mooney had no fixed gear airplane.

That was called the M20D which was a total flop. Nearly all remaining D's were "D"converted to "C" to have the retractable gear. No matter how you put it, the M20 airframe isn't a simple little trainer. Getting rid of the blue lever and retractable gear still wouldn't make it easy enough for a beginner to fly.

[Steve Dawson]

As a Mooney owner and lover of the aircraft I'd like to say that I'm very thankfull a few people had the foresite for both stopping production and the unnecasary costs in 2008 therefore keeping the company alive as well as now starting Mooney up again. With the amount of intelligent and knowledgable investors now involved with Mooney, it now has a future.

They have even more money invested then us, so I'm guessing their going to try to mitigate their risk even more by investing in well thought out future aircraft and business stradegies

[kmyfm20s]

  On 10/18/2013 at 2:05 PM, 201er said:

That was called the M20D which was a total flop. Nearly all remaining D's were "D"converted to "C" to have the retractable gear. No matter how you put it, the M20 airframe isn't a simple little trainer. Getting rid of the blue lever and retractable gear still wouldn't make it easy enough for a beginner to fly.

Interesting just found this on POA about one.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32272

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/000012717L.html

[marks]

It sounds like the price difference from a D to a C was nothing like the price difference of an Archer to an Arrow.  I also wonder what the price difference of a D to a fixed gear Cherokee and speed difference was. Obviously the D would suceed or fail against Pipers and Cessnas, not against retractable Mooneys. It's funny to think that so many more people buy fixed gear Pipers, but Mooney built a flop.  There's always a reason for the flop.  Personally, I would have bought a fixed gear Piper for my second plane if I could have bought a 200 hp Lycoming 360 and forget about carb ice.  I don't think there's anything inherently wrong about a fixed gear Mooney and I can't imagine that if Cirrus offered a retractable that all their fixed gear planes would become flops. -  In truth Cirrus came out with fixed gear airplanes and all of Mooney flopped!    

[aviatoreb]

I bet I will get boo'ed out of here - but here I go!

 

It is my opinion that if Mooney started offering a parachute in their airplanes, that this would really help sales.  It is my opinion that this feature more than any other thing is which was the key to the sale success of Cirrus.  So if you can't beat'em - join'em. Let's not talk about the virtues of parachutes but just the sales aspect.  In talking to local people with Cirrus' that more than any other thing seems like it was the deciding factor.  It sells to pilots, and it sells to pilots' spouses who would otherwise be afraid to get into that tiny airplane contraption.

 

I see no engineering reason that a new M20 could not be offered with a parachute.  It is already an STC for Cessna182 which is of similar weight and also metal.  Mooney's are faster - but similar (but faster!) speeds to a Cirrus, and we know Cirrus comes with.

[wishboneash]

  On 10/19/2013 at 1:37 PM, aviatoreb said:

I bet I will get boo'ed out of here - but here I go!

 

It is my opinion that if Mooney started offering a parachute in their airplanes, that this would really help sales.  It is my opinion that this feature more than any other thing is which was the key to the sale success of Cirrus.  So if you can't beat'em - join'em. Let's not talk about the virtues of parachutes but just the sales aspect.  In talking to local people with Cirrus' that more than any other thing seems like it was the deciding factor.  It sells to pilots, and it sells to pilots' spouses who would otherwise be afraid to get into that tiny airplane contraption.

 

I see no engineering reason that a new M20 could not be offered with a parachute.  It is already an STC for Cessna182 which is of similar weight and also metal.  Mooney's are faster - but similar (but faster!) speeds to a Cirrus, and we know Cirrus comes with.

 

Perhaps from a sales pitch point of view, yes. I have been asked by potential passengers whether they can don a parachute or can they jump out of the plane in an emergency. 

[aviatoreb]

  On 10/19/2013 at 2:08 PM, wishboneash said:

Perhaps from a sales pitch point of view, yes. I have been asked by potential passengers whether they can don a parachute or can they jump out of the plane in an emergency. 

 

Haha - tell them to jump out. Or to pull the ejection seat lever.

 

But yeah - exactly.  There is no doubt that parachutes sell, and as a business, I should think it would be wise for Mooney to consider it.

[201er]

  On 10/19/2013 at 5:15 AM, marks said:

Obviously the D would suceed or fail against Pipers and Cessnas, not against retractable Mooneys. It's funny to think that so many more people buy fixed gear Pipers, but Mooney built a flop.  There's always a reason for the flop. 

That's because the fixed gear pipers serve as a simple trainer. They are easy to fly, preferred by some flight schools, and look more like a real plane than a Cessna so someone out of a Cessna can easily choose to buy one. Meanwhile the M20 airframe is fast (too fast for the novice or recent PP, first plane purchaser), complicated, tight, harder to maintain, and expensive. Much maintenance costs more just because you gotta take half the plane apart to get to something. So bearing in mind all the costs of keeping it (as well as building it) are way higher than a piper, the price difference of fixed vs retractable gear becomes negligible.

 

 

  On 10/19/2013 at 1:37 PM, aviatoreb said:

It is my opinion that if Mooney started offering a parachute in their airplanes, that this would really help sales.  It is my opinion that this feature more than any other thing is which was the key to the sale success of Cirrus.  So if you can't beat'em - join'em. Let's not talk about the virtues of parachutes but just the sales aspect.  In talking to local people with Cirrus' that more than any other thing seems like it was the deciding factor.  It sells to pilots, and it sells to pilots' spouses who would otherwise be afraid to get into that tiny airplane contraption.

They needed the parachute to salvage their otherwise terrible safety record. Without the parachute, the Cirrus comes off as a terribly dangerous airplane. Once you factor in a handful of saves with their chute, it gets them to about even or slightly better than the others. That's a crazy reason to prefer the aircraft.

 

 

  On 10/19/2013 at 1:37 PM, aviatoreb said:

I see no engineering reason that a new M20 could not be offered with a parachute.

I do... the fact that the modern long bodies weigh like a whale. They've been piling more and more stuff on them (air conditioning, TKS, dual systems, etc) and the gross weight is starting to limit things.

[Jamie]

anecdata:

 

I was looking at several types before I bought the mooney. The cirrus was appealing because it was fast and had a modern interior. The parachute was kind of a "meh.. intererestng" thing -until- I found out about the mandatory repack interval and cost. Owning an airplane is expensive enough without that.

 

http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/cirrus_caps_parachute_rocket_repack_cost_208212-1.html

[bnicolette]

  On 10/19/2013 at 3:15 PM, aviatoreb said:

Perhaps from a sales pitch point of view, yes. I have been asked by potential passengers whether they can don a parachute or can they jump out of the plane in an emergency. Haha - tell them to jump out. Or to pull the ejection seat lever. But yeah - exactly. There is no doubt that parachutes sell, and as a business, I should think it would be wise for Mooney to consider it.

I couldn't agree more Erik!

[benpilot]

 

I really do hope that Mooney brings back the 201 at least in updated format to give an entry level option against Cirrus. 

[FlyDave]

  On 10/19/2013 at 3:30 PM, 201er said:

 

I do... the fact that the modern long bodies weigh like a whale. They've been piling more and more stuff on them (air conditioning, TKS, dual systems, etc) and the gross weight is starting to limit things.

 

Mike,

 

I just looked on the Cirrus web site and it looks like the SR22 has a MGTOW of 3,600 lbs. I think the Bravo comes in at 3,368 lbs.. So I don't think weight is an issue.

 

Dave

[aviatoreb]

  On 10/19/2013 at 3:30 PM, 201er said:

 

They needed the parachute to salvage their otherwise terrible safety record. Without the parachute, the Cirrus comes off as a terribly dangerous airplane. Once you factor in a handful of saves with their chute, it gets them to about even or slightly better than the others. That's a crazy reason to prefer the aircraft.

 

 

I do... the fact that the modern long bodies weigh like a whale. They've been piling more and more stuff on them (air conditioning, TKS, dual systems, etc) and the gross weight is starting to limit things.

 

201er, I agree completely - the Cirrus is not even spin tested as somehow they argued that a parachute is just as good - but the safety record in the Cirrus has been poor.

 

But I am not saying, I want one - I am chute agnostic.  I am not saying we should have one for safety and I do not want to enter the real-pilots don't need chutes vs the virtual twin vs several other varieties of arguments for vs against.  Just from a business perspective, I am speaking from my observation of speaking to many Cirrus owners, and many non pilots over the years, and it is my opinion that the chute has been a large factor in the business success of Cirrus.  So from a business standpoint, I think Mooney would sell several more airplane per year if the chute were available.  

 

I do believe the Ovation or Acclaim could be configured to carry a chute within weight.  Not with aircondiiton, tks, 130gal of long range fuel and chute, but maybe with 2 or 3 of the above.  Or maybe with beefed up landing gear, and all the above.  I am just saying I bet the company would sell lots more airplanes and that is a good thing.  Actually, if I were CEO of Mooney, I would look seriously into including a chute as standard equipment in all airplanes rather than as an option.

[aviatoreb]

  On 10/19/2013 at 3:59 PM, Bnicolette said:

I couldn't agree more Erik!

 

:-) I love it when SOMEONE agrees with me.

[Hank]

Dave, 3368 is gross weight. The problem is that empty weight is getting too close to gross, leaving not enough for people and bags after adding fuel. Like the modified Porsche Mooneys, full fuel and ~250 lbs. Not good for much.

[aviatoreb]

  On 10/19/2013 at 7:34 PM, Hank said:

Dave, 3368 is gross weight. The problem is that empty weight is getting too close to gross, leaving not enough for people and bags after adding fuel. Like the modified Porsche Mooneys, full fuel and ~250 lbs. Not good for much.

 

The factory could rework the landing gear and likely get a greater gross weight for a new M20 ship with chute or with whatever, if they decide it worth the cost to certify.

[201er]

Perhaps what they could save in weight/material by eliminating the steel roll cage they could put into the chute... I for one would never choose that because the majority of accidents (cirrus included) happen on landing or takeoff and are over before you know it. I'll take the sturdiest frame over a parachute gimmick any day.

 

Let's face it, the chute is mostly meant for enroute issues that are almost certain to be blatant pilot error (flight into IMC, fuel starvation, loss of control enroute, etc). The chute absolutely will not help in a departure stall, approach to landing stall, cfit, thunderstorm entry, fuel contamination or powerplant failure on departure, etc. Easily 90% of the time accidents occur the chute cannot help and the 9% of the time when it could help, a little common sense can easily help avoid the situation in the first place. There may be a rare case of in-flight structural failure, instrument failure in IMC, etc where it comes in as a preferred solution but extremely rare. Otherwise it does little more than embolden pilots to replace good decision making and airmanship with a false sense of security.