New Mooney Sales - M20 Upgrades?

[geoffb]

I agree with George Perry, the parachute sells planes.  I am guessing that the target market for new, high-performance singles is wealthy (by my standards very wealthy) new pilots who find the chute comforting to both the pilot and the spouse.  Many if not most of these people will trade up to turboprop power in a relatively short time, or will get a new one once the new smell wears off or Cirrus launches the latest "Special Edition."  Looking at the used Cirrus listings, and the number for sale, low times and high depreciation tends to support my assumptions.  The Mooney wins in performance and now has a second door.  Cirrus ingress and egress sure is nice.  Engineer in the BRS and start marketing the hell out of it. 

Those of use flying short bodies, Js and Ks aren't the target market for new planes.

Adding the TBM as the step-up model would keep people in the brand, but that ship sailed.

[Marauder]

4 hours ago, 201er said:

Do are you saying marketing needs to include a pallet of diapers to sell airplanes?

Well, you know the population of pilots is aging. Couple this with enlarged prostrates and we will be seeing a genuine need for diapers, Lil John or Jose's venturi system. Whatever will sell! 

[201er]

Just now, Marauder said:

Well, you know the population of pilots is aging. Couple this with enlarged prostrates and we will be seeing a genuine need for diapers, Lil John or Jose's venturi system. Whatever will sell! 

No wonder you guys wanted medical reform so badly. Can't hold it in on the way to the AME and then don't have enough left to give him some.

[Marauder]

Just now, 201er said:

No wonder you guys wanted medical reform so badly. Can't hold it in on the way to the AME and then don't have enough left to give him some.

Don't worry young gun, your gun will get old and wrinkly one day too.  

[Igor_U]

19 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

No you are right i havent ever worked in aerospace, i have spent my life though in fortune 50-100 compamies cutting the costs right the way along production lines (back and front office) and aerospace is NO different to any  other manufacturing process.  The trick is looking at where your production process can done elswhere cheaper.  From what i understood speaking to Dirk at the summit, the problem is not Lawyers though, that does not account for much of his costs.  Staff do though as well as some of the avionics (G1000) costing approx 100k alone!   (Still want a G1000?). 

So in answer to your point i think i am qualified to question their production methods.  The question you actually need to ask yourselves is why does a 98k aircraft in 1982 now cost 750k amd not 339k which is what it should cost if it had tracked the RPI.  

Andrew

Andrew,

 

I understand you have a good background and in principal I could agree airspace is no different but it is, due to manufacturing process, low volume, high certification cost and such. And I've heard before other industries might have similar challenges.

There is a truth in your questions why new planes cost much more then in a past but volume is one! Manufacturing dozen planes a year (or 100) just can’t be efficient.

That includes fuselage manufacture, electrical harness, steel frame, spar, you get the picture. Mooney closed the plant so often that their experienced staff is long gone and they take more man-hours to make components it and assemble it. Outsourcing would just make it worse, not to mention production certificate might be an issue.

 

Then there are legal cost, increased price of components (much more expensive engine, Garmin 1000, double electrical system, TKS, comfort features old planes didn’t have, etc) drive the price up.

There is a global market of 400-500 high performance piston singles a year, Cirrus have most of them. If by some marketing miracle Mooney could get “fair share” of that market, I think it still wouldn’t make them profitable (nothing to backup this statement, though) and would take profits away from Cirrus. I believe market is just not there for multiple GA companies in this segment. Prices are too high, sellers are too few and profit margin is non-existent, especially with Mooney’s complex built.

 

So, why not redesign for manufacturing it or come up with a new plane?

Cost! Certification, tooling, and R/D is something you can’t recover in GA with current volume. It is even difficult in volume we have in Transport category planes.

There were literary hundreds of planes in development in last, let’s say, 30 years and only small percentage came to production; only handful are actually profitable. When younger, Jane’s all the words aircraft was my “book of dreams”; It still is but more like a book of broken dreams as you can’t take a ride 95% of those planes…

 

So whenever I see a new startup with great plans designing a revolutionary airplane, building a factory with “new technology” in a middle of nowhere (in aerospace term), breaking a paradigm etc… I don’t get excited, I cringe. It is very difficult (if not impossible) for “startup” to succeed and I mean financially succeed. Cirrus is on, I can think of and even they were in financial trouble before bought by Chinese.

As the saying goes, to make a million in aerospace you have to start with two (or is that racing?). Those few exciting GA airplanes programs that are still in production are alive as new owners bought them cents on a dollar and all R&D and certification cost were written off. Columbia, Eclipse, Adam, Honda-jet, MJet and Premier come to mind…

Be all sure, this list is not only excusive to newcomers in aerospace; old established companies have their big flops  as well, Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, Raytheon… list is long.

List with companies not out there anymore is even longer. J

 

So, I believe this is reality now and if you think you could change and help Mooney (or any other aerospace company) with your experience, feel free to do so.

I would honestly be the first to cheer for you and  wish you well. I have a feeling, though that they couldn’t even afford you.

And this is the root of the problem. J

 

I wish Mooney Co. well (BIG congrats on developing two door/Fiberglas cockpit!) and I’m thankful I can afford one of their old airplanes but I’m afraid it’s not if, but when they’ll go bankrupt again.

 

Best regards,

 

Igor

[KSMooniac]

The initial cost to bring a GA plane to market from scratch these days is north of $100 million. Guess at a sale price and serial production cost (and of course insurance cost) and then figure out how long it takes to recover that investment selling a few dozen ot even 100 planes a year...

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[CaptainAB]

People still want what mooney USED to offer. An intermediate to advanced pilot plane that is fast and far more efficient then the competition. The fact is a new SR20 has 5 seats, a fixed gear, a modern airframe, great avionics and does 155 knots on 11gph. 

The new mooney models need to be faster and more efficient then an sr20 or a sr22. By at least 15%. Price needs to be competitive. Which shouldn't be hard a new cirrus costs a fortune.

 

[GeorgePerry]

1 hour ago, CaptainAB said:

People still want what mooney USED to offer. An intermediate to advanced pilot plane that is fast and far more efficient then the competition. The fact is a new SR20 has 5 seats, a fixed gear, a modern airframe, great avionics and does 155 knots on 11gph. 

The new mooney models need to be faster and more efficient then an sr20 or a sr22. By at least 15%. Price needs to be competitive. Which shouldn't be hard a new cirrus costs a fortune.

 

price points aside, I can tell you that an SR20 doesn't go that fast, its more like 140-145 and doesn't have nearly enough useful load to carry 4 light adults never mind 5 regardless of the number of seats.  Numbers off the web are one thing, personal experience of flying the plane is another.  

[CaptainAB]

I've heard that's true of the older models George.  I demoed a 2014. We got 157 kts TAS at 2500 ft on 11.5 GPH At Gross with three adults. Which seemed to be right on target for book ops LOP. That's was on an average Florida fall day.

Mooney can't be in denial. It's a good plane, and as soon as you crack 100k on the used market you can get one of those slower ones, with great used avionics and of course a parachute.

 

[Robert C.]

8 hours ago, CaptainAB said:

People still want what mooney USED to offer. An intermediate to advanced pilot plane that is fast and far more efficient then the competition. The fact is a new SR20 has 5 seats, a fixed gear, a modern airframe, great avionics and does 155 knots on 11gph. 

The new mooney models need to be faster and more efficient then an sr20 or a sr22. By at least 15%. Price needs to be competitive. Which shouldn't be hard a new cirrus costs a fortune.

 

Aren't they getting ready to sell M10Js and M10Ts? Think that is their response to the request for 201J equivalents for today's market or am I missing something?

[DaV8or]

I hate to say it, but I have said it before, so why not one more time? The M20 is dead and needs to be put to rest. I love the new Ultra as a Mooney fan, pilot and cheap bastard spectator, but in reality, in the new 21st century airplane market it is pretty much DOA. It doesn't do much that modern buyers are looking for.

The M20 costs way too much to produce and falls short in too many important categories. IF Mooney can find a way to increase useful load without recertification, then I say go for it!! IF Mooney can somehow magically put a parachute in it without recertification, then I say go for it!! If they can do anything to the M20 without recertification, I say go for it!! Basically spending anymore big bucks on R&D and FAA certification is throwing good money after bad.

Save the money and design and certify an all new airplane that is actually 21st century.

The only brand new M20 I might see as a viable niche product going forward is this-

Make it two place with generous baggage area and more aggressive, light handling. Perhaps a parachute as well. Think certified RV-14 with retractable gear, or SIAI Marchetti SF 260. This would be a unique product in the market that would only have competition from the experimental market and the very old used market. This would offer a brand new, certified, turn key fun personal rocket ship.

[Raptor05121]

I agree with Dave. I personally think the M20 series is dead and for Mooney execs to keep pushing on a 40-year design to a market of 11 people per year is worthless.

I think the M10 is their best bet of surviving the future. Diesel engine and sales in China for the rising aviation marketplace there will keep them afloat for the time being. I hope they have the designers busy making another clean-sheet design.

[Marauder]

11 hours ago, Robert C. said:

Aren't they getting ready to sell M10Js and M10Ts? Think that is their response to the request for 201J equivalents for today's market or am I missing something?

The only one I saw was a mock up. That was at Sun N Fun. They didn't even show it at Oshkosh.

[ArtVandelay]

They need 2 new models M40 (seats 4) and M60 (seats 6). They should target the huge gap between a single prop plane and a turbine,jet. Which means 300kt cruising speed, pressurized cabin, and they need to lose the 50s technology in engines, replace iron with titanium, electronic ignition, higher compression ratios. 1 mil for 40, 1.2 for the 60.

[DaV8or]

3 hours ago, Marauder said:

The only one I saw was a mock up. That was at Sun N Fun. They didn't even show it at Oshkosh.

They have one that flies on the west coast they are using for certification. The rumors were, they are finding out just how hard it is to certify a brand new design and it's taking much longer and more money than expected. Here's a picture of it I took at the Chino airshow.

[NotarPilot]

15 hours ago, DaV8or said:

They have one that flies on the west coast they are using for certification. The rumors were, they are finding out just how hard it is to certify a brand new design and it's taking much longer and more money than expected. Here's a picture of it I took at the Chino airshow.

It's a good thing the Chinese have deep pockets.

[DaV8or]

11 hours ago, NotarPilot said:

It's a good thing the Chinese have deep pockets.

They need deep pockets and patience. We'll see if they can bear both. The whole certification process must be unbelievably frustrating to them. I doubt in China they have anything like what you must do in America for certification and they can't just bribe somebody. I imagine the M10T will move forward to completion, but will they go back and do it again with the M10J, or any replacement for the M20? I imagine not any time soon.

[1964-M20E]

Certification costs is why I say put the M10J (EXM10J)v on the market bringing in funds during the development phase. 

[DaV8or]

24 minutes ago, 1964-M20E said:

Certification costs is why I say put the M10J (EXM10J)v on the market bringing in funds during the development phase. 

Ummm... They're doing that. Likely as fast as they can. They are starting with the M10T with fixed gear because it is even easier to certify and it meets the needs back home in China. Certification of an all new airplane takes a long, long time and lots of money. It has bankrupted many a company.

What happens is, problems are found with the photo type and they are told to go back to the drawing board and fix the problems and then test some more. The fixes require re-engineering and then further testing. It is slow and tedious. It also usually sucks the performance out of a plane as it becomes heavier and slower. It's the price we pay to be as absolutely safe as we can possibly be and still go up in the air.

Whether we really need this level of safety is open to debate, but at this time it is what it is.

[NotarPilot]

11 hours ago, DaV8or said:

I doubt in China they have anything like what you must do in America for certification and they can't just bribe somebody. 

Who needs a robust and thorough certification process when you just copy designs of existing aircraft that are already proven and slightly modify them to suit your needs. They have been doing that with Russian, French for decades and now they are doing it with American aircraft and aerospace technology. 

[1964-M20E]

My comment was to bring the M10J to the market as a quick build experimental aircraft called the EXM10J.  You use the funds generated to continue development of a certified version and a the same time you can begin to work out the production kinks.  This would open the air frame up to several newer engine technologies and avionics immediately.

The way I see it you have 3 major systems for an airplane and Mooney has full control of only one of the 3 as it should be.

1. propulsion - Mooney does not produce propulsion generating devices

2. air frame - Mooney makes air frames and integrates other components into that air frame.

3. avionics- Mooney does not produce avionics

Mooney has a neat clean sheet design for the 10J so rather than continue to bleed money developing it offer it now to consumers willing to do the experimental route and generate some funds to continue the project.  At $50k to $60k for the complete quick build air frame and you add your engine and avionics I think they could sell them a quick 3 seat retract with good range.

 

[DaV8or]

3 hours ago, 1964-M20E said:

My comment was to bring the M10J to the market as a quick build experimental aircraft called the EXM10J.  You use the funds generated to continue development of a certified version and a the same time you can begin to work out the production kinks.  This would open the air frame up to several newer engine technologies and avionics immediately.

The way I see it you have 3 major systems for an airplane and Mooney has full control of only one of the 3 as it should be.

1. propulsion - Mooney does not produce propulsion generating devices

2. air frame - Mooney makes air frames and integrates other components into that air frame.

3. avionics- Mooney does not produce avionics

Mooney has a neat clean sheet design for the 10J so rather than continue to bleed money developing it offer it now to consumers willing to do the experimental route and generate some funds to continue the project.  At $50k to $60k for the complete quick build air frame and you add your engine and avionics I think they could sell them a quick 3 seat retract with good range.

 

I have suggested for years that one potential future for the M20 was as a kit. However that kit would have to be a redesigned M20J to make it kit worthy. Much like the Raven 500 is a kit version of the Piper Comanche. The Raven and the Comanche look the same and fly much the same, but are built very different.

However, the reality is, it takes a fair amount or R&D and certification for a 51% kit too. It's cheaper than a Part 23 certified airplane, but still a significant expense and it requires a lot of staff to support that kit. So Mooney would have to ask themselves how many of these kits, either M20J, or M10J they would actually sell and how much money would they bring in. IMO, the sales would be poor.

The trend right now in the kit market (which is also in a slump) is away from retractable gear. I just adds too much time to the build time, costs more in insurance, costs more for the parts, eats into your potential useful load and the perception is it doesn't make you go that much faster. 

They could do a kit of the M10T, but how does that stack up against the established players in the kit market? It really offers nothing new other than a third seat. People looking to buy a four place kit are likely to pick the RV-10 over the M20J due to the quicker build and the established reputation and fantastic builder support. People looking to buy a fast retractable kit are likely to choose the Glasair II, or III because they are faster. The M20J kit would also be competing against the used certified market.

I'm sure Mooney could sell some kits, but the more I think of it, probably not enough to justify the expense and hassle.

Edited October 10, 2016 by DaV8or

[1964-M20E]

no matter how you slice it the economics of aviation is tough

 

 

[INA201]

Engineer the chute in the new designs as an option and make a "deal" with the FAA to allow useful load to increase the proportional amount.  Also, engineer the chute as a retrofit for all Moonies with appropriate UL increases.  You would probably recoup 70% of the upgrade costs(retrofit)in equity and the value and marketability of the most economical, all metal, longest range, fastest, and now safest aircraft would be available.  Now, make a ten year commitment to the economic viability of the company through committed parts and maintenance support through MSCs possibly as a separate corporation. Get involved with all of us Mooney pilots who would be one of your biggest marketing tools available.  E-mail is easy. We should be on your announcements list.  You should be on Mooneyspace.  We are excited to own Moonies, we love the planes. Some of the best companies I deal with have a newsletter highlighting employees, customers, product development, etc.  My 1978J beats the SR20 in every category except for cabin space/comfort and the "chute" hands down.  Do a video racing a $500,000 2016 SR20 with an old J and then the new Acclaim with the SR22.  No "pilot personality" wants to lose, show them losing.  

Doesnt the Acclaim do a real world 45 knots faster than the SR22, and the Bonanza?  

Isnt the Mooney airframe proven to 50 years.....proven!

Range?

This is the only video I found with a Cirrus ad in the middle lol.   You have to visualize the plane soaring past its competitors IMOP.  This looks like it's filmed from a phone.

 

[Jerry 5TJ]

Is the Diesel engine the M10J is designed to use actually available today?  Or is that Continental CD-155 still under development?