Ultras Certified!

[KSMooniac]

True that the OEM cost difference between an IO-360 and IO-550 is on the order of 10 AMU. Labor cost to make a J would be almost the same as an R, except for nominally more rivets for the longer fuselage. Pretty much everything else would be the same cost...and anyone shopping for a 700k plane when faced with the difference of maybe 20k will always opt for the bigger engine, loaded panel, etc. That is why the stripped-down J's didn't sell well in the late 80's, why the J production ended 4 years after the R started, and why the S was only made for 2 years. Same holds true for the K vs M in the same era.

Buyers of new planes are not as sensitive to operating costs compared to those of us shopping/buying/owning 30+ year old examples. I know I'd have a hard time convincing myself to buy & operate a Missile conversion J over my stock J as an example. The extra cost for that extra performance would reduce my comfort zone with expenses a bit.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

[Piloto]

This is what Mooney is competing against.

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1345759/1992-socata-tbm-700

A TBM 700 with de-icing and radar for the same price of a Mooney Ultra. New TBMs have pilot relief tube.

José

 

 

[thinwing]

7 minutes ago, Piloto said:

This is what Mooney is competing against.

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1345759/1992-socata-tbm-700

A TBM 700 with de-icing and radar for the same price of a Mooney Ultra. New TBMs have pilot relief tube.

José

 

 

Uh the dash 64 is 40 hours post overhaul and on its second run...want bet what an overhaul on a pt6-64 is gonna run?

[rpcc]

There has to be some reason the Chinese bought this company.  The only thing that makes any sense to me is that the purchase supports some larger goal in their economic strategy.  I can't imagine their goal is making 700-800k airplanes without a key market feature with projected sales of 10 units.  It's my hope that the owners will make a marketable plane one day.  To do this they will need to solve the UL problems and shoe horn an optional chute in there somehow.  They need more lift, lighter weight, either a larger chute or some airframe airbags (google mars landing) to deal with the small landing gear.  I hope it works out that there is a path forward for this company and I hope they sell all 10 of these planes.

[thinwing]

How about 275000 to 400000 plus the 7 year mandatory gear overhaul and a whole slew of 5 year items....Blase avionics for a turbine..a 430w ,king ap/fd....

[MooneyMitch]

 "in the late 80's, why the J production ended 4 years after the R started"

Information previously given to me by unnamed very reliable sources, stated the reason the J ended was due to a top level decision by the Mooney Company regime in power at that time, that they wanted to place all emphasis on the new longbodies only.  

Also, per the source, many 201 engineering documents/drawings, etc. were taken out and thrown in the dumpster!  Later retrieved by others.

As difficult as this may be to believe and to understand, I was told it did take place.

[mike_elliott]

22 hours ago, teejayevans said:

Cirrus uses their landing gear to absorb impact forces, without it the parachute landing would result in serious injuries. Mooney would need to either auto deploy it's gear (improved to take impact), or have a much larger parachute which would require more development money.

This is very true. There is a the case of a Cirrus fatality when the plane landed in a pond in Indiana about 10 years or so ago. 2 others seriously injured.

[mike_elliott]

13 minutes ago, MooneyMitch said:

 "in the late 80's, why the J production ended 4 years after the R started"

Information previously given to me by unnamed very reliable sources, stated the reason the J ended was due to a top level decision by the Mooney Company regime in power at that time, that they wanted to place all emphasis on the new longbodies only.  

Also, per the source, many 201 engineering documents/drawings, etc. were taken out and thrown in the dumpster!  Later retrieved by others.

As difficult as this may be to believe and to understand, I was told it did take place.

What was more difficult to understand was the destruction of some of the mid body jigs..

[MooneyMitch]

"What was more difficult to understand was the destruction of some of the mid body jigs.. "

Well, that's equally just a nuts!!

[MooneyMitch]

35 minutes ago, MooneyMitch said:

"What was more difficult to understand was the destruction of some of the mid body jigs.. "

Well, that's equally just a nuts!!

Now that I remember, the mid body jigs were converted to long body jigs.

I do believe Bill Wheat told us this as we were filming him at different locations throughout the factory.

As we were filming, coming out of the welding areas and got to a tubular structure jig, that's when he told us the story.

[ArtVandelay]

This is what Mooney is competing against.
A TBM 700 with de-icing and radar for the same price of a Mooney Ultra. New TBMs have pilot relief tube.
 

Yea, but it's a 1992.

How does a pressurized cabin have a PRT? Seems to me that could be problematic, imagine a vacuum cleaner....yikes!

[Zwaustin]

1 minute ago, teejayevans said:

Yea, but it's a 1992.

How does a pressurized cabin have a PRT? Seems to me that could be problematic, imagine a vacuum cleaner....yikes!

My plane relief tube has a button you push to allow the liquid to go out and when you hold the button in you aren't going to see any PSI drop in cabin pressure gauge. 

[201er]

On 3/29/2017 at 7:00 PM, rpcc said:

If mooney had the chute option they could argue all of its virtues - speed, efficiency, safety and start beating up Cirrus on all of its shortcomings - lots of stall spin pattern fatalities and fires. 

Shhh! If Mooney manages to capture perspective Cirrus buyers, there will be lots more stall spin pattern fatalities and fires in Mooneys!

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, thinwing said:

Uh the dash 64 is 40 hours post overhaul and on its second run...want bet what an overhaul on a pt6-64 is gonna run?

Indeed they are. Figure 250-300K

 

2 hours ago, Piloto said:

This is what Mooney is competing against.

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1345759/1992-socata-tbm-700

A TBM 700 with de-icing and radar for the same price of a Mooney Ultra. New TBMs have pilot relief tube.

José

 

 

That's not competition in anyway.  It takes a much higher level of cash flow to keep that thing operating. 3 X the fuel burn and the MX cost to go with it.

[201er]

13 hours ago, cbarry said:

I may be mistaken, but I read a long time ago that Cirrus' certification was being held up initially due to difficulty in recovering from a spin and thus the BRS was used to reach certification.

The greatest marketing cover up of all time. They used the chute as a bandage for poor spin recovery and inability to certify and then spun it into their greatest marketing advantage of all time. Amazing how such a flaw could be marketed into an advantage! Now if only Mooney could convince buyers that a pitiful useful load or 70 year old design are an advantage, they'd be raking it in big time!

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, MooneyMitch said:

Now that I remember, the mid body jigs were converted to long body jigs.

I do believe Bill Wheat told us this as we were filming him at different locations throughout the factory.

As we were filming, coming out of the welding areas and got to a tubular structure jig, that's when he told us the story.

It's the same jig with the same attach points (all of the additional length is in the baggage compartment aft of the cage).  Some of the tube structure was changed with the long body, but that's all.

[Piloto]

1 hour ago, teejayevans said:

Yea, but it's a 1992.

How does a pressurized cabin have a PRT? Seems to me that could be problematic, imagine a vacuum cleaner....yikes!

There is a shut off valve at the horn to shut down the suction. Without this valve it could be painful to retrieve your pp from the horn.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/pilotreliefasmbly.php?clickkey=141074

José

Edited March 31, 2017 by Piloto

[Shadrach]

On 3/30/2017 at 12:10 PM, jkhirsch said:

WE ARE THE ONES MAKING THESE COMPARISONS.

There you go, that's myopia at it's finest. It's not about what WE as existing Mooney pilots think or know.

It's about the marketplace, and that again goes back to Mooney as a brand and company.

How aware do you think Cirrus purchasers are of Mooneys in general or even more details required to understand Mooney capabilities?

Which brings me back to my previous point:

• Do you think that Mooney's highest priority is market share in the USA?
•      or
• Do you think that current Mooney management's highest priority is to make the money?

You guys have done a terrific job over and over of declaring that Mooneys are not trainers and you've won the battle!

What plane do you think people show up at a flight school and see...look at the thread of Sam Husky.

Did any of you think that dude was actually going to buy a Mooney?

You keep saying this like it's some profound observation.  ALL companies on the buy side of an acquisition expect a return.  Of course the Chinese expect to make money... so did American Electronics Labs (divested inside of 3 years)...so did Butler Aviation (ceased operations almost immediately)...so did Republic Steel...so did Alexander Couvelaire (bankrupt)...so did Advanced Aerodynamics and Structures (divested inside of 2 years)...so did Allen Holding Finance (bankrupt)...so did...well, I think I've made my point.

Do you think that the Soaring America has some sort of political advantage in China?

Do you think Cirrus is going to stay out of the Chinese market?  

Do you think  Cirrus' innovation and superior marketing strategy won't be put to work in China?

You keep using the term myopic as if no one here can see beyond the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. The market for vehicles is indeed global. The handful of manufacturer's that only sell in their respective countries are those that can't compete in the world market; have you ever seen a car made by Thai Rung outside of Thailand or a DIM automobile outside of Greece?  America is likely the largest market for every global manufacturer, what on earth makes you think that being competitively challenged here translates to a competitive advantage in China? 

Edited April 6, 2018 by Shadrach

[Jerry 5TJ]

29 minutes ago, Piloto said:

There is a shut off valve at the horn to shut down the suction. Without this valve it could be painful to retrieve your pp from the horn.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/pilotreliefasmbly.php?clickkey=141074

José

I was always a bit wary of the relief tube in the P46T I had.  

Calculating the cabin pressure of 5.5 pounds per square inch plus the Venturi suction of another psi or two, times the (redacted) cross sectional area of my, ah, item...well,  I was pretty sure the item could be removed from the horn, overcoming the suction forces, but I didn't care to try the experiment.  

 

 

Edited March 31, 2017 by Jerry 5TJ

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

I was always a bit wary of the relief tube in the P46T I had.  

Calculating the cabin pressure of 5.5 pounds per square inch plus the Venturi suction of another psi or two, times the (redacted) cross sectional area of my, ah, item...well,  I was pretty sure the item could be removed from the horn, overcoming the suction forces, but I didn't care to try the experiment.  

 

 

You need a bigger horn. The proverbial hotdog thrown down a hallwa...oh never mind.

[jkhirsch]

10 hours ago, Shadrach said:

 

 

You people don't seem to acknowledge or accept that Mooney's management team may well believe they have found a way to make money that doesn't involve increasing US market share. Refusing to acknowledge or accept that they might have a plan of their own is the definition of myopia. It has nothing to do with the aforementioned coasts and everything to do with people only being able to see or accept one perspective.

[AndyFromCB]

17 hours ago, thinwing said:

How about 275000 to 400000 plus the 7 year mandatory gear overhaul and a whole slew of 5 year items....Blase avionics for a turbine..a 430w ,king ap/fd....

Closer to $700K than $400K, this is a big block PT6 and probably does not have all the SBs complied it with as quite a few of the original 64s do not. So you're talking about $1.4 million aircraft, you might as well buy the last of the TBM850s before G1000. Yeap, it's not unusual to have a $60K annual on a TBM every 5 years or so, so it's not really in competition to piston singles. Mooney only has one competitor and they are pretending it does not exist.

And no, the Mooney wasn't reposed, sorry ;-) Sold it to another Mooneyspace member. DM did the prebuy. Just wasn't flying it enough to keep it. Basically used to stay IFR current last few years and that was it. Seemed like a waste of newly overhauled engine. Still think Bravos are the best bang for your buck if you only move 2 people around.

[Shadrach]

On 3/31/2017 at 8:53 AM, jkhirsch said:

You people don't seem to acknowledge or accept that Mooney's management team may well believe they have found a way to make money that doesn't involve increasing US market share. Refusing to acknowledge or accept that they might have a plan of their own is the definition of myopia. It has nothing to do with the aforementioned coasts and everything to do with people only being able to see or accept one perspective.

But you've offered no perspective or insight; you just keep stating "maybe they've figured out..." as if making money doesn't involve selling airplanes and as if selling airplanes doesn't require competing with Cirrus. If indeed there's some unique angle to making money in China outside of selling airplanes, then please enlighten everyone. Calling people myopic while providing a vague "maybe they have unicorns flying out of their asses" analysis isn't really an argument.

I thank you for defining myopia for me!  I will define sophistry in return - Superficially plausible but generally a fallacious method of reasoning.

 

Edited April 6, 2018 by Shadrach

[jkhirsch]

3 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

But you've offered no perspective or insight; you just keep stating "maybe they've figured out..."

Maybe they have maybe they haven't, I don't particularly care to spitball.

I generally work on the principal that actions themselves are really the only relevant piece of life

I can make of a laundry list of made up scenarios if you would enjoy reading that I wouldn't particularly enjoy writing it.

Since you specifically asked for my opinion I'll provide it in the best possible way I can in the way that it actually exists in my brain--it feels a lot like a binary tree.

For me to have an opinion about anything I need a framework to apply to the facts. In my mind it all starts with the most basic question:

What is Mooney trying to accomplish?

Even above that question what we are really talking about is, "What does it take to be successful in business and how do we apply that to Mooney?"

Then I have to define how they would get there. Once I define how they would get there I have explore what actions Mooney has taken and see how that compares.

I see two possibilities of their highest level strategic goal:

• Are they trying to build a company to compete in the general aviation business now and in the future?
• Are they trying to turn the company into something that could be marketed to another company for sale?

Then we have to ask how we could possibly achieve some of those goals; throughout business history we have seen various strategies ultimately rewarded.

• What would allow the company to continue operations indefinitely?
• What would make the company attractive to prospective buyers?

If we want to build and operate the company indefinitely then we want to improve profitability.

If we want to make the company attractive to prospective buyers we want to demonstrate a potential for growth or corner a specific market with a measurable defined value. (financiers love that because they love measurable cash flows that can easily be valued)

Then we go to:

How do demonstrate a potential for growth?

• Ability to attract new business
• Ability to attract new capital

How do we improve Mooney profitability?

• Sell more airplanes
• Cost cutting or efficiency in manufacturing
• Increase market share in the US
• Increase international market share
• Produce parts for and service the existing fleet

As we can see many things that will improve Mooney's profitability at this stage of the game will also demonstrate potential for growth since they have not sold any airplanes, so it will be difficult to discern whether they want to operate the company or sell the company.

Then I start asking more specific questions:

• How does Mooney sell more airplanes?
• Does Mooney want to make the market or listen to the market?
• Can Mooney sell new customers what they currently produce? How?
• Can Mooney grow beyond previous levels of market share, how?
• What are Mooney production costs? Can they be lowered? How can they be lowered?
• Does Mooney need a "ground up" redesign to take US market share? Worldwide market share?
• Does a modern Mooney work in China because average Chinese people smaller than average Americans?
• Can Mooney get a competitive advantage by being an early contributor in the Chinese GA marketplace?
• Should we spend the next few years building a brand while we create a new Mooney airplane platform to build familiarity?
• Does Mooney bring in previous employees with knowledge or start fresh?

You could also have a very big existential discussion about Sales vs Products and about how consumerism itself is designed and implemented.

And then comes the data...Mooney market share since inception, CapEx budget, cost of funds, cost of goods sold, comparative analysis with other companies, etc.

But I don't currently have any data to analyze therefore I can only look at the current actions known to me.

• They've invested in China
• They did not change the air-frame but released a new plane
• They cancelled the M10 "exploratory program"
• They have brought in new faces and some old
• They cancelled factory tours
• They uncancelled factory tours
• The new CEO has on some level has been actively engaged with current owners (who may never own a new model)

I'm probably leaving off something, but those are the ones that stand out in my memory without looking for anything else.

It says to me a few things:

• China is important to them
• Current owners are at least worth talking to
• They are trying to keep themselves in the game
• They have assembled at least part of a strategic plan
• They are working towards their strategic plan
• As far as I know they have not released a strategic plan
• I believe it's because they are still working out longer term goals, but need to stay "relevant" while working toward them

[jkhirsch]

50 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Assuming Mooney International is entirely motivated by profit is it's own form of myopia.  See my post above.

So you're telling me that they are operating a business that they intend to not be able to operate in the future?

See my post above that Ross demanded I write