What should Mooney do?

[1964-M20E]

While the Mooney is not a trainer this is true but the niche as I see it is a 4 place retract with 160 to 180 kts at 8-10GPH.   You cannot find this even in the experimental class or at least I have not found it.

 

The other is the 230kts that they are going for.

[chrisk]

I'd like to see Mooney drive costs down with:

-the adoption of 3d printing for complex structures. Like landing gear.

-certified for at least two engines to force competition now and on overhaul.

-new engine manufacturer. An engine shouldn't cost 50k+

-composite wing skins

-cut a deal with jpi, ei, aspen, avadyne, etc.

And how about a fixed gear Mooney. Something without to much drag. Something low cost. Maybe from a supplier who can make rubber disks for $10, instead of $100 each.

[1964-M20E]

I don’t know about 3D printing but I know that CNC machines could produce (cut, fit, and bend) all the steel tube parts for the landing gear, motor mount, and cage.  Lock the parts into a jig and the robot welds them up off to heat treat lock onto another jig and do final line boring for landing gear parts and your done except for paint.

 

As for composites use composites for control surfaces and fuselage and the door  if you want to go that way.  The fuselage especially the tail cone no reason why a jig and a couple of unemployed automotive robots couldn’t rivet it up in no time with minimal human help.  Same thing for the wing you might have a few rivets that would need to be done by hand but the majority could be done by robot and then the robot could photograph each rivet for QAQC and that could become part of the record for the plane.

 

 

As for doors add a second one again would make entry and exit much easier and make the plane more sellable and make the doors identical to each other and symmetrical (if possible) so that you only need to make one door.

[scottfromiowa]

While the Mooney is not a trainer this is true but the niche as I see it is a 4 place retract with 160 to 180 kts at 8-10GPH.   You cannot find this even in the experimental class or at least I have not found it.

 

The other is the 230kts that they are going for.

180kts on 10GPH. B.S.-unless you are going downhill or have a hell of a tail wind. Let the speed to efficiency claims speak a little bit of honesty...for once.

The truth IS still impressive.

[smccray]

First- better useful load.  Second- pilot side door.

 

The planes are already at the top of the heap on speed.  Make it a little easier to get into (don't have to scoot across the front seats) and improve the useful load.  Problem is that I suspect a better useful load requires a little more spring in the landing gear, but I don't have a clue.  You need 2 real american people plus bags with full fuel.

[PMcClure]

I would like a 2nd door and improved seating. 

 

I think the useful load is a non issue. Most of the new fleet has 800-1000lbs useful load isn't it? With 100 gallons of fuel that is only 200-400lbs useful load which sounds bad. But that is not a fair comparison. Most missions don't need fuel fuel and the ones that do, most pilots and especially passengers don't want to be in the plane that long anyway. I think they are penalized for having a lot of fuel capacity. I had a Beach Bonanza TC and it had 100 gallon takes and a higher useful load at 1200. But with 22 gallons per hour, I couldn't fly as far with 4 seats filled. Better speed and fuel economy =  better  useable load. 

 

Marketing communication should be able to explain this better. 

 

For me, I never had any trouble getting the most out of my useful load. I can put 90 gallons and me and fly for up to 5-6 hours. Or I can take four seats (adults and a couple of kids) and fly 1-2 hours which is a trip to the beach or grandma's. That is about all my pax can stand anyway.  Or 2 reasonable adults can easily fly 3-4 hours with IFR reserves and bring whatever can fit in the plane.  Isn't that as good or better than any other GA single piston? Only looking at fuel fill payload and ignoring the range and flexibility penalizes the Mooney for having larger fuel capacity. 

[kmyfm20s]

I would like a 2nd door and improved seating. 

 

I think the useful load is a non issue. Most of the new fleet has 800-1000lbs useful load isn't it? With 100 gallons of fuel that is only 200-400lbs useful load which sounds bad. But that is not a fair comparison. Most missions don't need fuel fuel and the ones that do, most pilots and especially passengers don't want to be in the plane that long anyway. I think they are penalized for having a lot of fuel capacity. I had a Beach Bonanza TC and it had 100 gallon takes and a higher useful load at 1200. But with 22 gallons per hour, I couldn't fly as far with 4 seats filled. Better speed and fuel economy =  better  useable load. 

 

Marketing communication should be able to explain this better. 

 

For me, I never had any trouble getting the most out of my useful load. I can put 90 gallons and me and fly for up to 5-6 hours. Or I can take four seats (adults and a couple of kids) and fly 1-2 hours which is a trip to the beach or grandma's. That is about all my pax can stand anyway.  Or 2 reasonable adults can easily fly 3-4 hours with IFR reserves and bring whatever can fit in the plane.  Isn't that as good or better than any other GA single piston? Only looking at fuel fill payload and ignoring the range and flexibility penalizes the Mooney for having larger fuel capacity.

I used to have a 182 which I felt like I needed to carry all my gear around on trips. After doing a comparison with my "J" I realize I needed the 182 to carry the extra fuel needed to get to my destinations. I could actually carry more weight in my "J" and get there faster because of the efficiency:)

[BigTex]

Mooney needs to understand what it's mission is and that is creating the most efficient fastest single engine traveling aircraft available. It's not creating trainers nor bringing back older vintage aircraft. They need to be single minded and focus on creating the next generation Mooney that improves on that mission. From my perspective, that means improving improving the traveling experience. The plane should also be a true 4 person aircraft (four 200lb passengers, full fuel and max baggage capacity).

To improve on the traveling experience, that means a wider cabin, two doors and good leg room in the back seats. Ballistic Parachute should be a option for those who want it. You can offer turbocharged and pressurized as different models.

[Lood]

How did Cirrus become as successful as they are - against all the odds of building a certified airplane, from scratch, in the current times?

They dumped most of the 50 year old technology and while even myself still have doubts about composites, for instance, this seems to be the future. They incorporated a lot of the modern luxury motor vehicle into their airplane and they pursued an extremely clever and effective marketing strategy, and buyers seem to like that.

 

There's no use in hand building a "super strong, all metal" airplane, like you did from the beginning and use that, among others, to convince modern buyers that you have the best on offer. People simply don't think like that when they have to fork out a lot of money for something. Also, everybody knows that Mooney is the speed king, but Mooney should maybe consider another marketing approach and boost a few other things than speed and efficiency alone.

 

Efficiency sure must be part of the equation, but my take is that someone who buys a brand new Cirrus or Acclaim, for that matter, is not at all concerned about fuel consumption. Although both these go fast, they also guzzle fuel, big time.

 

I vote for using more modern materials and building techniques, a better useful load (because that's why I'll sell my Mooney), two doors and slightly more room inside. Sadly, nothing Mooney do is going to come cheap, not even if they carry on the way they did for the past 50 years.

[flyboy0681]

Don't kid yourself thinking that the price would come down significantly if the airframe were to be built in Asia. If that were true, a pair of Nike's manufactured in Vietnam would cost $12, not $150. It's all about profit my friends.

[aviatoreb]

Maybe they should push even further the fast hotrod concept that is their niche.

 

To do that they could hang an IO720 (aka from the Commanche 400).  Then turbo normalize it.  I bet in short order you would have a 280-290TAS Mooney.  They would need to strengthen the frame to increase the Vne and strengthen the landing gear for the extra weight (of the extra heavy engine plus all the extra fuel you will need!) plus lengthen the long body slightly for balance.  Maybe put a third battery in the tail.  Viola!  A 290TAS Mooney guzzler!  Funny thing is - some people would buy it....  Maybe even me someday!  I like fast.  Zoooom!

[PMcClure]

Can someone remind me who actually owns Mooney now. Is it this Chinese business man 100%?

[mooniac15u]

I'm hoping there will be some commitment to helping the existing fleet transition to whatever replacement we get for 100LL.

[fantom]

Don't kid yourself thinking that the price would come down significantly if the airframe were to be built in Asia. If that were true, a pair of Nike's manufactured in Vietnam would cost $12, not $150. It's all about profit my friends.

 

As is any non government subsidized business. Nike needs to pay additional millions to a lot of athletes who don't need the money to begin with. It's all about advertising, image, business as usual and spreading the wealth. Call it free enterprise. Businesses that don't make a profit, don't survive. We've got loads of examples in the aviation industry.

 

The price of planes will be much lower when the business, major production and most sales, are in Asia and else where outside the USA, free of the governmental and legal encumbrances we have. Does anyone really believe Mooney was bought primarily to build cheap planes for a shrinking USA market, or to sell parts to a bunch of CB's? While not happy about it, I don't believe so.

[Nemesis]

 

Businesses that don't make a profit, don't survive. We've got loads of examples in the aviation industry.

 

The price of planes will be much lower when the business, major production and most sales, are in Asia and else where outside the USA, free of the governmental and legal encumbrances we have. Does anyone really believe Mooney was bought primarily to build cheap planes for a shrinking USA market, or to sell parts to a bunch of CB's? While not happy about it, I don't believe so.

 

 

The best example of a business that does not make profits is Mooney itself – is it 4 or 5 times in hibernation or bankruptcy? As I see it, we are lucky with what we still have; halfway decent parts availability.

 

I always try to evaluate from a realistic perspective. I am not saying that other comments are not stated from the beliefs of their respective authors or that their comments are not realistic, it is only that I have a different vision about Mooney and about GA as a whole. It seems to me that is what was asked at the beginning of this thread. Where is Mooney going and what can make it better?

 

New airplanes. Damn, I would love a new airplane. Heck, I would love a newish airplane. Nice big engine with but only a few hours on it or maybe a turbine with a 5000 hour TBO. The price of fuel has been bugging me lately but if I were putting all of that gasoline or kerosine into a new or nearly new airplane, I think that I could go with it. Pressurization, count me in. I put on oxygen below 10,000 as it is – thanks to cigarette smoking. I am not complaining. I loved cigarettes for many years but a pressurized cabin could fix that nagging 02 problem. Wider cabin, sure. I was once told that adding 1 inch to the width of a Mooney cabin would only reduce the speed by about 10 knots. Maybe give me 2 of those. I am sure that it is ok if my 231 is really only a 189. A nice new all-glass panel, or even a panel with some glass and some conventional instruments would work for me over my full set of steam gauges. I don't even have a negative comment about an upgraded panel. Better seating, pilot side door, parachute, quiet cabin, fuel cells, automatic fire extinguisher with sensors, A/C, a pooper. Well, maybe those could be options. I don't mind adding any of those to my airplane except that the useful load just went to negative numbers on me – before fuel and people. I bet some carbon fiber here and there can help out with those payload numbers if we can wait for a decade or so for some certification. One more things, let us not forget that we are starting out with a $650,000 airplane to begin with and adding those features, or any features for that matter, is only going to make that price go up.

 

How about those prices anyway? When I think about the cost of an airplane and for the fuel to run it, I have to think of when was GA really strong? In the 60s and 70s, a new airplane (and that is what we are talking about given the Mooney poll at the beginning) could be had for some portion of a year's salary – perhaps a whole year's salary. That was true for a large percentage of the American middle class. An airplane was a simple purchase for a rich person but also was a reasonable purchase for someone in the middle class. One could buy a car but for not much more, or maybe double, could also buy an airplane. Throw in a little financing and airplanes were flying out the door. That same guy could throw 100 gallons of fuel in for 25 or 30 bucks. Even I can remember when I paid less than $0.25 for a gallon of mogas as a teenager. Of course I know that the monetary scales have slid quite a bit since the 70s, but how many of us on this board earn in 1 year the price of new airplane? A few perhaps. How many could buy a new airplane with 5 years of salary? 10 years worth of salary? How many people on this board could realistically purchase a new airplane even with a 20 year note? Don't forget to add in maintenance, storage, fuel, financing, etc., and balance those numbers with the real utility and freedom gained with your new purchase. Who has that kind of disposable income these days? Can anybody here see more than even a few hands go up? And we are the most captive audience around – we love aviation and we love Mooneys. I am not an economist but the percentage of available income vs. cost of living is just not in favor of GA anymore. In fact those percentages are so out of whack that those of us who love aviation have to look to 30 and 40 year old machines just to participate. And we are the very best that GA has to offer!

 

I was talking with a fellow list member and Mooney owner the other day. At one point the conversation turned to Mooney itself and the factory. The factory is going to turn out as many airplanes as it can sell. Hmmm, novel thought isn't it? It will be 10 this year, 20 next year, more after that. Whatever the number actually is, I am betting that more than 50% of those will be delivered to China. It does not matter to me where the airplanes are sold. As long as the factory is open then parts are available to me and other Mooney owners. Maybe the value of my machine can actually rise a bit if the Mooney fleet is stronger. I speculated that the new owner of Mooney, even though a California Corporation which appears to have something to do with model aviation, was backed by Chinese money. So, Soaring America or whatever the name of the parent company is, now owns Mooney and all that goes with it. I hate to say it but I am guessing that in the next handful of years, and most especially if GA continues to develop in China and more and more Mooneys are sold in China, that we see the Mooney tooling, the only Mooney tooling in existence, loaded onto a boat and headed overseas. If the goal is to sell airplanes and the only emerging market is in SE Asia, why in the world would any company build here? Where wages and benefits are 20 fold what they are on the other side of the big water? (I don't know what wages are in China, I am just taking a guess) Where shipping costs are maybe 5 digits?

 

Maybe copies of the tooling will be made and shipped abroad. All of the plans and dimensions are now available. I was once told by a Chinese telecom engineer, that while they were here installing a cellular system for a company that I worked for, every Chinese employee had 2 goals; install the system as ordered and copy as much technology (photos and paper) as possible. There were rewards for returning with copied documents. Even if only copies of the tooling were made and shipped, how do you think that would eventually affect the operation in Kerrville? Would we have to start ordering parts from overseas?

 

(I know that many people in Kerrville, Texas will disagree with what I just wrote. I hope for their sakes and for their jobs, as well as simple Mooney tradition, that nothing bad happens to the Mooney factory and the good people of Kerrville.)

 

We are the heart and soul of GA and more particularly of Mooney airplanes. If GA were ever to recover to the point that the pilot population would be increasing and new airplanes would be selling, including Mooneys, then the prices would have to come down to approximately what we, the heart of GA, are willing and able to spend. For the most part, that gives a range of $40,000 for a basic model and perhaps $250,000 for fully loaded, all engine and panel combos included between those two numbers. I know that not everybody falls between those two numbers but I am guessing that the largest percentage does. So, once more by a show of hands. How many on this board think we will ever see prices like that for a certified piston single? And don't forget about the fuel. And never start a sentence with a preposition.

 

I really am not a doom and gloom guy. I just see a kind of writing on the wall that something bad is on the horizon for this rebirth of Mooney and for GA in general in America.

 

Dave

[Cris]

Not being an engineer, I am not sure about how to get a better gross weight or more speed/efficiency. However I have heard that the airframe is pretty close to its max ability to be tweaked. Thus I'd vote for a new fuselage/design. Although I'd not buy a fixed gear A/C that might be an answer to an entry model esp. with an automotive style cabin. How often do we hear how "small" the Mooney cabin is compared to others and I'm talking about the long bodies! The seating/entry position is the issue and many will argue with measurements but as they say perception is reality. Throw in the two doors and parachute and yes it is now similar to the Cirrus/Cessna products but with more speed/ efficiency. However the wing is the thing and perhaps new engine combo's like diesel & TN provide the product differentiation required in the market place. Since the parachute sells I'd emphasize the almost unbreakable Mooney wing which would provide another safety feature. I think one could give up on the steel roll cage if the fuselage was somehow designed like a car to provide crashworthiness and increase useful load. Maybe composite panels for the wing would also reduce weight to increase the useful load? Over time I have become increasingly concerned over the obsolescence of the glass panels. It is like computers but with a somewhat longer life span. The glass is determining the value of the airframe! Think of the issue of Wass and the G1000 panels on the Mooney. While some orphaned avionics can be repaired, as time goes on there will be fewer parts and techs not to mention mfg.'s to fix this stuff. So I vote for simple panels with glass options or maybe better glass such as the new rule rewrite. We will see.

[cujet]

I voted "bring back the J" and "invent a new airplane"

 

However, none of the poll choices would be my answer. Note: I'm an aviation professional with 30+ years experience, I see the trend towards higher end products, equipped with every imaginable option as extremely limiting. 

 

First, I'd like to see Mooney update the looks of the airframe. Regardless of what actually matters, looks sell. Just ask me about the looks vs. performance ratio of our Eurocopter EC-135 if you don't believe that looks matter. "Looks" modernization can be done with relative ease and incorporated into aerodynamic tweaks. 

 

Second, Mooney should offer a high performance, low frills airframe. Fast, simple, cheap and light. A modern "J" with the IO-390 might be a great choice. Every effort should be made to keep it simple. This reduces the cost to affordable levels. Even manual gear is a viable option...

 

Third, I'd like to see Mooney retain it's spot as "the fast one", with a more modern design retract. Something along the lines of the Pipistrel Panthera:

 

[fantom]

That Pipistrel Panthera is a very sweet bird. Last year at Oshkosh they had one 'iffy' buyer. I wonder if it's gotten any better.

[1964-M20E]

I’m not overly wild about the T-tail based on comments regarding the T-tail configurations but I’ve also never seen one in person nor have I flown it.  From looking at their web site looks like they are going with the  IO-540 instead of the IO-390 due to fuel certification issues.  It also apears to have 3 or 4 doors great for entry and exit.

 

One thing I could not determine from their web site is this plane offered as an experimental kit built?

 

If so I think I’d be interested in this one using an IO-360.  This would fit what I’m looking for a 200HP 4 place retract that can do about 200kts +/-  Not that I want to get rid of my Mooney but I’d love to have my Mooney or something like this in the experimental class.

 

Maybe Mooney could go for something with similar line to the M20 in a J frame size with the 200HP as a first out for initial certification and production then increase the HP and length on subsequent models.  Using proven airfoils, overall shapes and controls with a new composite construction to clean it up significantly might just work.  Maybe even go with a different type of suspension on the gear but bring back the manual actuation.

 

 

Maybe Mooney could start a new design keep it in the experimental kit built class for a while during extensive testing for certification.  

[scottfromiowa]

AV Consumer had a great four passenger spin demonstration in the Panthera. It was very Non-Cirrus/Mooney-like in that scenario.

SWEET Bird.

[DaV8or]

I said it all before, but here it is again-

 

Near future- Phase One

 

• Support the existing fleet to the best of their ability.
• Develop new STCs to extend the life of older aircraft and improve them.
• Automate production of replacement parts with CNC and possibly 3D print to reduce labor, increase consistency and lower costs.
• Provide technical drawings and engineering support to owners so they can build their own replacement parts for rare and hard to find parts that the factory doesn't want to make.
• Get more involved in the grass roots with fly ins, air rallys and club support.
• Add a parachute to the Ovation and Acclaim with a corresponding gross weight increase.

Far future- Phase Two

• Design and certify the next gen M20. I would keep the wings, but redesign the construction techniques to lower construction time and costs. Make much of the landing gear from titanium, aluminum and carbon fiber. Retain the trimming tail. Increase the cabin width, add a second door, add a parachute, keep the airbag seat belts, keep the steel frame, but to compensate for a larger cross section, make the outer skin in carbon fiber rather than aluminum and regain aerodynamic efficiencies through better contours like Cirrus, Diamond and Columbia did. Offer both gas and diesel versions.
• Design and certify an all new and bigger airplane that seats six with single turbine power to compete with Socata, Piper and Pilatus. This new design should maintain Mooney identity and design principles.
• Design and build an all new two seat and possibly four seat aluminum construction, retractable airplane to be sold as a kit plane. This new design should maintain Mooney identity and design principles. Kit building is the future of middle class flying and Mooney should be a part of it. Think Vans RV-9 with manual retrac Mooney gear and Mooney tail.
• Keep doing everything in Phase One.

[KSMooniac]

I voted "bring back the J" and "invent a new airplane"

 

Second, Mooney should offer a high performance, low frills airframe. Fast, simple, cheap and light. A modern "J" with the IO-390 might be a great choice. Every effort should be made to keep it simple. This reduces the cost to affordable levels. Even manual gear is a viable option...

 

 

 

Unfortunately such a plane today would only cost ~$20k less than an Ovation.  Maybe $21k less with manual gear.  It still takes the same amount of labor to build a J as it does an Ovation, and an IO-390 is <$10k difference in price compared to an IO-550.  As much as we want a cheap new Mooney, those days are long gone.  Every Mooney attempt since the late 80's to sell a less-optioned/lower-cost model has also failed... 201 Lean Machine, M20S Eagle, etc.  The cost savings at that level are not significant enough to a NEW airplane buyer to matter...they always opt for the greater HP and optioned-up model.  

 

The SR22 out-sells the SR20 by something like 8:1 for the same reasons.

 

Mooney is stuck between a rock and a hard place.  Not enough volume to exploit factory automation or moving the production line to a 3rd world country.  Not enough sales or capital to justify spending $100 million on a new plane effort.  Could they spend less than that to make a more evolved model, perhaps something bigger/better than an M20, but using the M20 wing?  Maybe.  Radical changes to carbon fiber this or titanium that will be expensive, though.  And swapping materials does not automatically mean weight-savings or cost-savings.  Many (or most) of the composite planes flying today are heavier than they would've been with conventional aluminum construction.  As it stands now, composites rarely save weight unless explicitly designed in the initial design process to take advantage of their unique properties and processing potential to integrate parts and reduce fasteners and joints.  For example, making an aileron out of fiberglass would be much heavier than an aluminum one, and cost more.  The SR ailerons are aluminum...for that reason.  Carbon fiber might be close weight-wise, but cost 10x as much.

 

And regarding the Chinese thefts of technical data...that is a real concern, but in this case I'm not sure it would truly be theft, and it's not like any of the Mooney tech is cutting-edge anyway.  I know in the 90's Boeing was partnered heavily with the big Japanese companies on the then-new 777 program.  Japanese workers were on-site in Seattle, and of course worked long hours like they're known to do.  What isn't widely known is that many of them were copying and faxing the Boeing design manuals late at night and sending them home.  These included the "crown jewels" of Boeing engineering that distilled 5+ decades of fleet experience into manuals that showed good and bad design details that did or didn't work in the fleet.  Very valuable data, that is only learned through experience, or theft.  I suspect the Chinese are similarly trying to steal their way forward in technology to be more competitive.  They've certainly bought much of our GA industry in the last 5 years too...and at least it is keeping some of it alive in this country for a while longer at least.

[flyboy0681]

 I suspect the Chinese are similarly trying to steal their way forward in technology to be more competitive.  

 

I have zero doubt that the Chinese are doing this around the clock in every industry imaginable, from toilet assembly to chip manufacturing.

[1964-M20E]

 

• Design and build an all new two seat and possibly four seat aluminum construction, retractable airplane to be sold as a kit plane. This new design should maintain Mooney identity and design principles. Kit building is the future of middle class flying and Mooney should be a part of it. Think Vans RV-9 with manual retrac Mooney gear and Mooney tail.
• Keep doing everything in Phase One.

 

Don't forget the Mooney wing and definitely make it a 4 seat.

[aviatoreb]

Look at what this company did the the commanche - they redid it in carbon fiber - smoother/more aero and with winglets and 160gal fuel capacity.  Resulting in a 196 knot cruiser on otherwise the same design.  For 2000 nm range.

 

http://www.saravin.com/Specifications.html

 

I bet a M20 with the same cromoly airframe but covered in smooth carbon sheets instead of metal/rivets, and big-ol' winglets, maybe a bit deeper aero windshield than current, would be a new look, quite a bit faster on the same power, and would not require re-eingeering from scratch since it would be just a different cover process but same basic airplane.  It would look new and fresh and better performance.  So say a 265TAS M20TN covered in carbon, two doors (with the saved weight) a parachute and more fuel.  That would be a cirrus killer.