Modern 201 - Will it happen? Ever?

[Seth]

I know I have heard rumors in the past about this never happening, it being a good idea, it being a bad idea, or it being too pricey, but here is the idea (and it's not a unique idea - many of us have spoken about this in the past).

Will Mooney, of course should they be able to get through these tough times and resume production, ever consider reproducing a modern 201 style airplane with a smaller engine?  To compete price wise with the mid level singles.

I have heard that they destroyed the jigs and equipment necedssary to reproduce the short body Mooney's but what about the medium length jobs (M20J, K).  Obviously, the current long body Mooney needs a more powerful engine and is all about speed (and there is nothing wrong with that).

If Mooney put out a product that was basically a new 201 (a new eagle), had the aerodynamic improvements of todays birds, and was at a price point lower than the current $600k (somewhere between $300 and $400 maybe? You could have basic avionics and add glass as an option), do you think a lot of M20J (E, C, K, etc . . . ) owners would go for it?  As annuals become more expensive, and larger amounts of work have to be done to the current Mooney fleet, would there be a price where it makes sense to have a newer low end Mooney than maintaining a 40+ year old aircraft?  Do you think it would sell?

Just a thought, please elaborate on what you know and what you think. 

 

[N57039]

I'm afraid Mooney could put in no motor and not save $250K. The Mooney design is too labor intensive. Maybe if they moved production to China...

[KSMooniac]

We've hashed through this debate a few times on the Mooney email lists, and I still think it comes down to the buyers of new planes today and what has been selling. 

Lance is right about the high degree of labor required to fabricate a Mooney compared to most any other single, and because of that there really cannot be a huge price reduction compared to an Ovation.  A little bit less material cost, but equal labor costs.  The OEM price difference between an IO-360 and IO-550 is about $10k.  That only leaves the panel and interior to reduce costs...and I don't think there is any way to trim $100k out of there.  The G1000 is expensive, but likely requires much less labor to install when compared to a steam gauge panel + GPS/com boxes, autopilot, etc.  With an Ovation going out the door for $500k today, I would estimate an M20J would have to sell for $450k or in that ballpark.  We likely will never see a new Mooney for $300-$400k unless they move out of the country, and even then that would require a huge capital expense to do so (moving, training, recertification of production line, etc.) that would have to be spread over 50-100 airframes a year...which might put the price back to where it is today.

Looking at what has been selling over the last 15 years, new buyers almost always opt for the loaded planes and bigger engines.  Look at SR-22 sales vs. SR-20...perhaps 5 or 6:1.  Lancair/Columbia didn't even bring the IO-360 version to market even though that was in the plans originally.  Mooney might have made a mistake dropping the J in '99 and going with the M20S as a replacement, but the S didn't sell very well compared to the Ovation.  I suspect we would have seen the J discontinued anyway even if there wasn't an S.  The Lean Machine didn't sell very well either compared to a regular MSE.  My theory is that folks/businesses buying new planes obviously have enough money to pay big bucks, and an extra $50-$100k when you're already at $500k or $600k isn't that big of a deal, so they get the more powerful/capable plane.  Obviously this is not the case for those of us flying $50-$100k birds that are 20-40 years old!

One interesting idea cropped up on the MAPA list recently that I believe has a lot of merit.  Mooney could purchase some of the older 201s and do a refurb at the factory while it is idle as a way to keep some craftsmen employed and around instead of letting them scatter into the wind.  They could buy "runout" planes for $70k or so and reseal the tanks, new firewall-forward package plus other pertinent maintenance, new windows and paint, and a new interior and perhaps some panel work and re-sell for $250k or thereabouts.  Panel options could include whole replacement with a G600 + GNS-430W and STEC autopilot, or something more modest.  Perhaps a LoPresti cowl could be an option too.  Unfortunately most of the employees are gone and whether or not Mooney would even have the money to start such a program is debatable...

[TurboExec]

Jim,  I like the idea and wish they could do it.  But as Lance points out the labor is to high, these still built by hand airplanes are just to costly to build.

Now if Mooney would consider having them built overseas and assembled here that could possibly lower costs, but look at the negative press Cessna is getting for building the skycatcher in china.  Mooney just isn't in a position to try and startup production on another airframe.

If Mooney could be convinced to sell the Jigs and TC I might have a few investors interested in starting up production on a "new" J model.  But again parts would have to be made overseas and assembled here to attempt to keep the final price under $400k.  And they would have to sell the jigs and TC pretty cheap, which if they need the cash bad enough they might be interested in...

[TurboExec]

Another option requiring a significant captial investment is to go with Composites to build the Airframes.  The aluminum and rivet construction is costly, I'm sure after the initial investment the composite construction would be faster and cheaper and we might even see a little more speed out of the birds too.

[TurboExec]

Dreaming is great!  And I like Scotts idea of Mooney setting up a refurb for older 201s.  They should get the STC for the new IO-390 and throw those in there too!

[KSMooniac]

It is fun to dream, and I too intend to keep improving my 201 and keep it going for a long, long time.  A turbo-normalized J with a LoPresti cowl would be my dream machine!  I hope to do the cowl and paint in the next few months...the TN project will be for later.  A TN-IO-390 would make me wet my pants.

Also, one can't really switch airframe materials (ie metal to composite) as it becomes an entirely new plane.  That would be millions and millions in development/analysis/test/certification costs, even if the aerodynamic shape was unchanged.  At that point you might as well just make an entirely new plane.

[TurboExec]

Quote: KSMooniac

Also, one can't really switch airframe materials (ie metal to composite) as it becomes an entirely new plane.  That would be millions and millions in development/analysis/test/certification costs, even if the aerodynamic shape was unchanged.  At that point you might as well just make an entirely new plane.

[Chris White ex-N205KD]

Here's part of an interview I found relating to this very topic, from the then-president of Mooney Christian Dopp.  It was given in 1999, right when they discontinued the mid-body Mooney.  The last question, about the Cirrus and "Lancair", I thought was interesting.  I wonder when that view changed?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"Which brings to mind the demise of the J-model, probably the best seller in Mooney’s history. Why was such a popular airframe dropped?

The margin on the J-model is just not there. It wasn’t even breaking even. In our estimation, on every J-model the company sold, we lost money. By comparison, for every Ovation or Bravo we would build, we would have to build four or five J-models respectively to get the same margin.

Using the same manpower, that means if we were building 10 Bravos and 10 Ovations a month, we would have to build 40 or 50 J-models [Allegros.] It didn’t cover the overhead and it just didn’t make sense.

The J-model is a product that had its time, but unfortunately, the time has passed.

 

How about the 252/Encore? It was recently re-certified then just as quickly dropped from the product line.

The 252 was and is a great product. When the previous management brought it back, I think they saw a niche for it. But the niche in that market is at a price point a heck of a lot lower than we were selling it for. We have found that buyers who want top-end performers are willing to spend the dollars for the Bravo.

A big driver here, too, is getting the commonality of the long-body airframe. You’re setting up machines in the shop now for basically one airframe. With both the short body and the long, the build times were up over 4000 hours.

With one airframe, you shrink your cycle times and you get your inventory turns up higher. The entire economic argument against the short bodies was just too strong.

 

How about the J-model for a low-cost, high-performance trainer?

That’s something we have discussed. Is there demand there and if so, at what price? Can you get the economics to do a limited run? We just don’t see it right now for the J-model. But it could happen sometime. I think the Eagle is more likely.

We do see an advanced training requirement of some sort, not just for piston airplanes but for turbines, too. If you look at the military now, for every two pilots they’re training, they’re losing three.

There are significant pilot shortages. Delta Airlines and other airlines are talking about starting their own internal training programs and these are going to require airplanes, so the demand for advanced trainers may be good in the long term.

 

While Mooney hasn’t had the four-place, high performance market entirely to itself, it certainly has dominated the field for the past decade. How do you see the Cirrus SR20 and Lancair Columbia shaping up as competition?

We don’t see Cirrus as being a contender, really, at any point and Lancair still has to overcome issues related to marketing and production.

We’re not confident that they’re going to perform to the degree that they need to to achieve a market presence. So for us, it’s not so much seeing them as competition as it is redefining our own product line and offering better value for the money.

In soft times, typically, we’ve found that the wealthier buyers are always there for the high-end products. The Ovation, for example, has had a considerable price increase but continues to sell well.

And now we’re going to provide a performance increase on that airplane commensurate with the price and offer the Eagle for the entry-level market. Then we’ve got to consider the next product."

[KSMooniac]

Great find Chris!

I especially like this tidbit:

In soft times, typically, we’ve found that the wealthier buyers are always there for the high-end products. The Ovation, for example, has had a considerable price increase but continues to sell well.

This has been my feeling for a long time...and like it or not just about any new 4-seat plane these days is now a high-end product.  Anyone that can spend 400k or 450k will usually opt for the 500k Ovation or even higher... and that is why I don't think we'll see a new production J again, unfortunately.  At least they made a few thousand and most of them have lots of life left in them!

[TurboExec]

Wow, they really got it wrong on Cirrus!

[KSMooniac]

So did Cessna!  When I worked at Lancair (and formerly at Cirrus) we all thought Cirrus would never get there...too many "issues" inside that place.  But, lo and behold they worked through things and in spite of the owners they got certified and into production while Lancair/Columbia struggled mightily even with the superior plane due to their own issues.

[RobertoTohme]

Let's face it, Cirrus has been a marketing machine selling the false sense of security of the CAPS system to the uninitiated; those who were somewhat afraid of small GA planes were lured by the marketing of a "safe airplane", and the wreckage record proves that they have been put into mostly inexperienced hands, that has led to bravery in decision making which ultimately resulted in crashes.  Any company with Cirrus' marketing savvy could have sold lots of planes, but thankfully, it's mostly them making the news about crashes.  One reason a lot of people don't get into Mooneys is that they're known as "hard to fly"; while that's not true, they're precise machines that command respect...  they were designed many years ago to be flown precisely, and sloppy pilots have labeled them as "difficult".  Respect is always a good thing to have for any machine capable of inflicting harm to it's user if used improperly, and I sense a total lack of respect on those young guns getting into Cirruses because of CAPS....

That's my view; some will disagree with it, but the statistics are there to be checked by everyone...  I do respect my plane, and firmly believe that our planes, regardless of vintage, are superior to the plastic crowd.

[KSMooniac]

The airframe time limit will be extended or eliminated by the time any plane approaches it IMO.  The composite airframes have a much higher chance of infinite life, practically speaking, than any metal plane, including our beloved Mooneys.  (my day job is composite aircraft structure)

That aside, Cirrus prices have plunged due to the continual improvement of the line and large volume of them on the market.  I think they are or will be good value purchases for those that want one.  The CAPS certainly adds some cost to the ownership since that system does have a time limit, and I have no idea how much that costs.  I also agree that the support costs and issues of the older first-gen glass panels will likely be an issue going forward.  As we're now suddenly seeing with the Apollo GPS line, when a vendor exits the business it will eventually create a problem.  Who knows how long those screens will last, and if they will be repairable down the road.  I wouldn't be surprised to see forced obsolence either, requiring owners to buy complete new glass systems, as a way to keep revenue up.  That might be a scenario that allows other companies into the market like Chelton with their system that is not an OEM to any plane at the moment.

Perhaps our older planes might have an advantage...we can run on 100% "steam" gauges, or a single Aspen unit, or two, or a G600, or.... you get the idea.  If a G600 takes a dump in 10 years then an owner could downgrade back to steam gauges if he/she didn't like the cost of repair or replacement.  I doubt any of the new planes could do that easily!

[KSMooniac]

Mooney makes perfect sense for my mission...efficient XC work on a budget!  2 years ago I couldn't even consider a Cirrus or other newer aircraft just from the budget standpoint.  I also did not want to buy anything that was still depreciating since my use is 100% personal.  The engineer in me can tally up the features and benefits...and the Mooney wins hands-down!    I'm also leery of the brand-new technology a little bit...not necessarily the structures but the avionics and integration of all the stuff on the panel.  It will be interesting to see how well they hold up down the road.

At the end of the day, Mooneys are relatively easier to purchase, and much easier to maintain IMO than just about any other XC plane, at least right now.