1964-M20E Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Sounds to me we should pitch the idea of a composite J model to these guys. http://www.saravin.com/Specifications.html I thought about doing this I even had a plane I could have used for making the molds but I simply do not have the time between life, work and flying. A slick composite J type with Mooney style manual gear. I even thought the using a similar roll cage and hard points for gear mounting to would give the strength and reliability needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Not cost effective to manufacture. However, I think there could be a market for factory refurbed planes. If the factory becomes more modular, it might become profitable to take trad- ins and buy old runout airframes then gut the interior, clean, strip and IRAN the airframe followed by a repaint. Then install fresh engine and avionics suite. I'm pretty sure there are folks that'd pay $175k for a factory remanufactured J or upgraded F or G. Not so sure about the short bodies (sorry guys). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyntgr1 Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Not sure you could do it for that. That is the price for that remained 172 that was just announced. Lets do some wild guesses at the cost to IRAN and Jazz up a J 1) Runout J Model 60K 2) New Strip and paint 20K 3) New Leather Interior 20K 4) Lowpesti Cowl 20K 5) new Glass cockpit 50K 6) IRAN airframe and gear system 15K 7) New IO-390 40K 8) Powerflow 5K 9) O&N bladders 10K ---------------------------------------------------------- Total Cost 240K Add in an over 20% mark up and they would have to sell it for around 300K to make the business case. Would someone pay that for a refurbished J model? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisk Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Seems like there would be a market for converting 231s to 252s and almost no R&D. I suspect there might be a bit of R&D for converting a J to a IO-390. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSMooniac Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 There is already an STC for the IO-390 conversion on a J...the problem is that it requires the Hartzell Top Prop and it is the only choice, so all-in cost tickles $50k for the conversion. And I'm sure Lycoming is wondering why they're not selling a ton of these... Sooner or later there will be a market for modernized legacy Mooneys IMO. I'm not sure what the price point will be, though, where it makes sense. Many of us are modernizing our own in stages now and won't sell them. I think the un-upgraded run-outs will continue to decline in value, especially after the ADS-B mandate kicks in, and then it might be economically possible to do a commercial modernization AND be able to sell for a profit. It will be interesting to see how many refurb 172's Yingling can sell at $159k in the coming years. A J or K at $200k might make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_elliott Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Not sure you could do it for that. That is the price for that remained 172 that was just announced. Lets do some wild guesses at the cost to IRAN and Jazz up a J 1) Runout J Model 60K 2) New Strip and paint 20K 3) New Leather Interior 20K 4) Lowpesti Cowl 20K 5) new Glass cockpit 50K 6) IRAN airframe and gear system 15K 7) New IO-390 40K 8) Powerflow 5K 9) O&N bladders 10K ---------------------------------------------------------- Total Cost 240K Add in an over 20% mark up and they would have to sell it for around 300K to make the business case. Would someone pay that for a refurbished J model? These items already have markup in them, and a lot wouldn't be needed like the lopresti, bladders, powerflow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkBug Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 These items already have markup in them, and a lot wouldn't be needed like the lopresti, bladders, powerflow. That's exactly what I was thinking. If the factory was doing the refurb there would be no reason for them to be buying parts (especially at full retail) from other manufacturers. They could easily do their own cowls and simply do a tank strip and seal. They have all the equipment and sealants to do the tanks already, why would they put bladders in? That's $34k in unnecessary cost right there. Now you're down to ~200k (not even accounting for the fact that it's cheaper for the manufacturer to do things than what it costs us retail) which even with a 20% markup would actually not be a bad deal at all for a "new" Mooney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N33GG Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Not sure you could do it for that. That is the price for that remained 172 that was just announced. Lets do some wild guesses at the cost to IRAN and Jazz up a J 1) Runout J Model 60K 2) New Strip and paint 20K 3) New Leather Interior 20K 4) Lowpesti Cowl 20K 5) new Glass cockpit 50K 6) IRAN airframe and gear system 15K 7) New IO-390 40K 8) Powerflow 5K 9) O&N bladders 10K ---------------------------------------------------------- Total Cost 240K Add in an over 20% mark up and they would have to sell it for around 300K to make the business case. Would someone pay that for a refurbished J model? There are companies doing a rolling business out there with a business model very similar to this with other aircraft models such as the Piper Navaho series... just might be an opportunity for the right people! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSMooniac Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 There are companies doing a rolling business out there with a business model very similar to this with other aircraft models such as the Piper Navaho series... just might be an opportunity for the right people! Ditto for some of the older bizjets, like early Citations and Beechjets. The big difference, though, is that these planes (and Navajos) work for a living while our planes are mostly toys aside from a few small businesses with owner-flown planes. I still believe that eventually this will make sense because new plane prices keep going up and there are a LOT of planes in the used market today (like J's and K's) that really have no modern replacements. Ditto for piston twins. Eventually the market will bear the cost of refurbing these planes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryoder Posted July 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Timely article. Refurbished 172 for about 160 http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/July/20/New-Ascend-Skyhawk-is-fully-transformed?WT.mc_id=150723special&WT.mc_sect=osh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryoder Posted July 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 That's exactly what I was thinking. If the factory was doing the refurb there would be no reason for them to be buying parts (especially at full retail) from other manufacturers. They could easily do their own cowls and simply do a tank strip and seal. They have all the equipment and sealants to do the tanks already, why would they put bladders in? That's $34k in unnecessary cost right there. Now you're down to ~200k (not even accounting for the fact that it's cheaper for the manufacturer to do things than what it costs us retail) which even with a 20% markup would actually not be a bad deal at all for a "new" Mooney. Mooney would never bladder the tanks. That would be like admitting failure in their current production design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bravoman Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 I love my mooney, don't get me wrong. IMO one of the biggest limiting factor to the broad marketability of these planes is how tight they are. I flew to Nashville a couple weeks back and for the first time had three folks, including me, onboard, with my passengers being two petite women. It really confirmed my belief that these are two people and bags planes, and I have a long body. I have never flown or been a passenger in any other mooney but by the looks of them I don't think any of the shorter bodies would be feasible for me if was the only aircraft I had available. That is the general consensus of a lot of non mooney pilots and I actually had a couple pilot buddies try to discourage me from purchasing the mooney for this very reason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryoder Posted July 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 I love my mooney, don't get me wrong. IMO one of the biggest limiting factor to the broad marketability of these planes is how tight they are. I flew to Nashville a couple weeks back and for the first time had three folks, including me, onboard, with my passengers being two petite women. It really confirmed my belief that these are two people and bags planes, and I have a long body. I have never flown or been a passenger in any other mooney but by the looks of them I don't think any of the shorter bodies would be feasible for me if was the only aircraft I had available. That is the general consensus of a lot of non mooney pilots and I actually had a couple pilot buddies try to discourage me from purchasing the mooney for this very reason I call BS. Marauder??? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob_Belville Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 I've flow 4 adults, none under 170#, numerous times in my E models. Back seaters claim they have as much room as airline coach class. (Front seats were not occupied by long legged people.) Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bravoman Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 I've flow 4 adults, none under 170#, numerous times in my E models. Back seaters claim they have as much room as airline coach class. (Front seats were not occupied by long legged people.) Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk That could be problem--- I'm 6'1" 205 lbs. With one or two of Marauder's broads aboard it would be a taxi only proposition! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seth Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 I have had four people in the plane on less than 10 occasions, three times in my M20F and the rest in the current M20J Missile 300. In all cases, yes, there wasn't a ton of room but I would not call it uncomfortable. The trips were all about 1.5-3 hours in length and both aircraft performed as they should. The aircraft was heavier than 1 or 2 aboard, but the interior space was adequate. The only time I felt the Mooney is small "pang" was when I had to rent a 182 to make a flight when I had a mag issue, and my girlfriend at the time mentioned how large the cabin was compared to my F model. I would say for occasional use the mid length and long bodies are fine for four people. Do it often and get a six seater. The short bodies? I'm not sure how they'd do with four, but I know three is doable from conversations on the board. -Seth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonMuncy Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 I think Mooneys work very well for 3 full size people and reasonable bags. If I needed to carry 4 people (not kids) very often on a long trip, I would not have a Mooney. But I probably wouldn't have a any other 4 place plane either. And I am not going to fly a 6 passenger plane for the number of times I need more space, any more than I'm going to drive a limousine so that I can carry 7 people once every 3 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 Not sure you could do it for that. That is the price for that remained 172 that was just announced. Lets do some wild guesses at the cost to IRAN and Jazz up a J 1) Runout J Model 60K 2) New Strip and paint 20K 3) New Leather Interior 20K 4) Lowpesti Cowl 20K 5) new Glass cockpit 50K 6) IRAN airframe and gear system 15K 7) New IO-390 40K 8) Powerflow 5K 9) O&N bladders 10K ---------------------------------------------------------- Total Cost 240K Add in an over 20% mark up and they would have to sell it for around 300K to make the business case. Would someone pay that for a refurbished J model? No factory could ever make money paying retail for engines and avionics. Mooney is no exception. Having a factory that produces airplanes already adds to the economy of the program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyntgr1 Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 Obviously my numbers are higher than what it would cost the factory, but my point is i don't think they could refurb a J model and sell it for 200k and make money. Based on all the refurb prices i've seen out there, it looks like most of them are pricing around 50% of new. That would put a refurbed J at around 300K. So it would be competing with a used Ovation at the same price or a new Cirrus SR20 at 500K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaV8or Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 Off topic a bit, but are there builders that will 'hold-your-hand' while you build an experimental? I like the idea of taking a vacation to the Mooney factory (or whatever) and working on my plane, but with the help of people that actually know what needs to be done. I'm far too ignorant to be able to build my own plane solo, or trust the finished project. That is exactly the trend in the kit business today. It costs lots more, but gets you flying fast and lets face it, it's still cheaper than a brand new certified plane, likely better performance that a certified plane. A percentage of kit buyers are doing so only because they are fed up with the certified options. For them, builder assist programs are perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaV8or Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 I agree. I just want to do what I do best and let others do what they do best. I'll trust the pros to build them and I'll stick to flying them! And that's all good. However with Vans aircraft now being the most prolific manufacturer of airworthy airplanes in the world, not just kits, I'd say there is something to this kit building thing and companies like Mooney should get on board. There is no reason in the world they can't do both certified and kits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 And that's all good. However with Vans aircraft now being the most prolific manufacturer of airworthy airplanes in the world, not just kits, I'd say there is something to this kit building thing and companies like Mooney should get on board. There is no reason in the world they can't do both certified and kits. I am doing my PPL training in an RV12 in NorCal and a Cherokee 140 in SoCal. The RV is an SLSA factory built plane and it's been great so far. Landed at C83 yesterday with 20 knot head winds and back at KDVO with a 14 knot cross, it's responsive, and easy to fly with the Glass cockpit, all and all its good. The Cherokee is like flying a TRUCK.. Not responsive, but easy. It's just lethargic in comparison to the RV and they say all the RV's have similar characteristics. Don't know how a Mooney flies yet, the school in LA has a 1961 "B" and they say it's not a lot much different than the Cherokee other than the #'s when landing as it will not slow down. So with a plane that is NEW, EASY to fly and CHEAP in comparison it's a win win for the customers and for Vans. Easy to see why they are successful. Now if RUTAN would do this the world would be even better!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 So with a plane that is NEW, EASY to fly and CHEAP in comparison it's a win win for the customers and for Vans. Easy to see why they are successful. Now if RUTAN would do this the world would be even better!! Rutan did this, but in 1975. I restored and flew a Varieze for a few years. It was the most stable, easiest flying and landing plane I've ever flown. 40mpg at 120mph, top speed 165+mph (without wheelpants). 1000 mile range in economy mode on 28 gallons of gas. Service ceiling higher than you want to fly. Maintenance--well, there is little to maintain on a Rutan canard. 80% of the time on the annual condition inspection was spent on stuff hanging from the firewall. They love the runway on takeoff, land at Mach 1, and have zero internal room, but everything else is a blast. If not for the wing attach fitting issue I'd still own it (I scrapped it after finding corrosion). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peevee Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 I think Mooneys work very well for 3 full size people and reasonable bags. If I needed to carry 4 people (not kids) very often on a long trip, I would not have a Mooney. But I probably wouldn't have a any other 4 place plane either. And I am not going to fly a 6 passenger plane for the number of times I need more space, any more than I'm going to drive a limousine so that I can carry 7 people once every 3 years. I've had 4 place planes for several years, and I never once had more than 3 in any of them. The 182 I could do fairly comfortably, I think the 231 I could too but the weight.... But I also don't want to pay the extra fuel in something like a bo or saratoga to haul 2 people around 99.9% of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 Apropos of nothing, this is a composite canard design that Al Mooney had a hand in, the Avtek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.