Jump to content

New Mooneys, any interest at all?


Recommended Posts

I do believe I understand the perspective of others, such  as Godfather expressed for example that he felt "the used c, e & f market is just as important to GA as the new Mooney and Cirrus aircraft". The used vintage market is the entry point most newly minted pilots that want to own an efficient sleek sporty aircarft. But thanks to non-profit flying clubs that allow pilots to rent good aircraft at very competitive rates, the older J, K, M, R, S also provide entry to ownership to a lot of pilots that postponed ownership. I was one of those pilots who waited to enter aircraft ownership till I picked up my IR and had experience in different kinds of makes and models before deciding what I really wanted to own and acquired a K model. So i'd argue there is really no segment of the used aircraft market that is more important than any other, plus for any entry level buyer acquiring a vintage Moomey, there is the seller that is often moving up to a newer used Mooney. So to me,its the entire used market that is critical to GA. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bonal said:

 Is there anyone on this site that does not think product liability is a significant factor in the cost of an airplane?

Adjusted for inflation Modern airplanes (sans radios) are just about the same as they were in the 60's when you compare like for like.  Liability is certainly a part of it but it gets over played quite a bit.  It almost costs me less to insure my plane then my car and the coverage is much better.  

Cirrius has been successful largely because their manufacturing costs are very low in comparison to a Mooney.  It also is a much better plane minus 15kts which for most isn't even noticeable.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adjusted for inflation Modern airplanes (sans radios) are just about the same as they were in the 60's when you compare like for like.  Liability is certainly a part of it but it gets over played quite a bit.  It almost costs me less to insure my plane then my car and the coverage is much better.  
Cirrius has been successful largely because their manufacturing costs are very low in comparison to a Mooney.  It also is a much better plane minus 15kts which for most isn't even noticeable.  


How exactly is it a much better plane, aside from the chute?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gsengle said:

 


How exactly is it a much better plane, aside from the chute?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Better room, better useful load, non-retract.  My opinion but sales figures support that people like them and it isn't because of the chute though that is a nice thing to have.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Non retract = inefficient, dumbed down and slow. Life limited airframe, higher insurance rates, and even if you love the chute, over a thousand dollars a year in repack before you fly one mile. The sales figures are undoubtedly in large part due to the chute.

And finally poor handling and a bungee (spring cartridge) based trim system that has been theorized to be the source of pattern accidents by numbing slow speed handling.

This is far from a superior product... imho.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, M20F said:

Adjusted for inflation Modern airplanes (sans radios) are just about the same as they were in the 60's when you compare like for like.  Liability is certainly a part of it but it gets over played quite a bit.  It almost costs me less to insure my plane then my car and the coverage is much better.  

Cirrius has been successful largely because their manufacturing costs are very low in comparison to a Mooney.  It also is a much better plane minus 15kts which for most isn't even noticeable.  

I wasn't referring to personal liability I was speaking of what manufacturers have to spend on their own product liability. Because a good lawyer can sue an airplane manufacturer for a parts failure even after decades and multiple owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bonal said:

I wasn't referring to personal liability I was speaking of what manufacturers have to spend on their own product liability. Because a good lawyer can sue an airplane manufacturer for a parts failure even after decades and multiple owners.

So can a "bad lawyer". ;-)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on now folks - how many planes will Mooney sell this year - 7-10 max @900 k per copy.  How much could the liability insurance be - 1mm for for the entire 2017 fleet would be an outside guess - or only 10% of the fleet value.  These planes are just way too expensive and saying liability is the issue is crazy - they have a friendly insurance guy just like all of you.  It is just complete bs that these planes cost nearly 1mm.  Just guessing here, but think - 70k for the engine, 50k for the electronics - 200k for the airframe - assembly and paint - 100k and I'm being generous - that's my guess on costs.     So how do we get to 900k per copy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, bonal said:

I wasn't referring to personal liability I was speaking of what manufacturers have to spend on their own product liability. Because a good lawyer can sue an airplane manufacturer for a parts failure even after decades and multiple owners.

60% of the cost doesn't surprise me. It actually sounds about right for a new model plane that sells at a less than meager rate during a production start up. If they sell two planes in a year for $600k each and the insurance that year was 720k that would be 60%. If they sell more planes per year then that 60% number would drop.

Just  a practical thought....maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, rpcc said:

Come on now folks - how many planes will Mooney sell this year - 7-10 max @900 k per copy.  How much could the liability insurance be - 1mm for for the entire 2017 fleet would be an outside guess - or only 10% of the fleet value.  These planes are just way too expensive and saying liability is the issue is crazy - they have a friendly insurance guy just like all of you.  It is just complete bs that these planes cost nearly 1mm.  Just guessing here, but think - 70k for the engine, 50k for the electronics - 200k for the airframe - assembly and paint - 100k and I'm being generous - that's my guess on costs.     So how do we get to 900k per copy.  

It's not just insurance on current production, it's the entire fleet and every new part they sell.  Manufacturers are named in all kinds of stupid law suits, regardless of merit they still have to defend themselves.  

As an example Van's Aircraft was sued for $35 million when a builder used silicone sealant on a fuel flow transducer fitting, they made an out of court settlement.

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rpcc said:

Come on now folks - how many planes will Mooney sell this year - 7-10 max @900 k per copy.  How much could the liability insurance be - 1mm for for the entire 2017 fleet would be an outside guess - or only 10% of the fleet value.  These planes are just way too expensive and saying liability is the issue is crazy - they have a friendly insurance guy just like all of you.  It is just complete bs that these planes cost nearly 1mm.  Just guessing here, but think - 70k for the engine, 50k for the electronics - 200k for the airframe - assembly and paint - 100k and I'm being generous - that's my guess on costs.     So how do we get to 900k per copy.  

Current-production isn't the problem.  The issue is that the manufacturer has liability for the whole fleet as well as parts for, I believe, 18 years.  Fewer units means that whole fleet premium cost is charged against a small number of current-year sales.

-dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rpcc said:

Come on now folks - how many planes will Mooney sell this year - 7-10 max @900 k per copy.  How much could the liability insurance be - 1mm for for the entire 2017 fleet would be an outside guess - or only 10% of the fleet value.  These planes are just way too expensive and saying liability is the issue is crazy - they have a friendly insurance guy just like all of you.  It is just complete bs that these planes cost nearly 1mm.  Just guessing here, but think - 70k for the engine, 50k for the electronics - 200k for the airframe - assembly and paint - 100k and I'm being generous - that's my guess on costs.     So how do we get to 900k per copy.  

Mooney does not have the buying power to save much on components. Not sure what Garmin sells the 1000 setup for but I'm positive it can't be installed with AP and engine management connections for 50k.  It costs almost 30k to do a simple 750/650 install...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Current-production isn't the problem.  The issue is that the manufacturer has liability for the whole fleet as well as parts for, I believe, 18 years.  Fewer units means that whole fleet premium cost is charged against a small number of current-year sales.
-dan


I've read the premiums are based on sales, it's not a fixed cost amortized over a variable number of units.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok - push electonics to 150k - or even 200k - its at most a 500k plane - in all due respect the plane has not changed since in a substantive way since 1994.  Look - its a great plane, but 900k per copy for a new one makes no sense.  From a business perspective you are competing against 150k planes that you can toss in 50k for avionics upgrades.  So for 200k you can have a plane that is 99% of a 900k plane - again, that dog don't hunt.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, gsengle said:

 


I've read the premiums are based on sales, it's not a fixed cost amortized over a variable number of units.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Premium is based on exposure, not current year sales, and that makes sense: if the manufacturer has a huge fleet (and/or a lot of parts) that fall in the 18 year window, then that's the risk the underwriter has to assess, along with the additional partial-year risk of the current production.  This is one thing that made life very difficult for Cirrus, Diamond, etc when the world went pear-shaped in 2009: sharply reduced production/sales, but same or increasing insurance premium.
-dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all relative...  If I could afford a new Ultra as easily as I can afford my 252, I'd probably take a serious look at one.  I was negotiating to by my first Mooney, a C at about the same time a guy called Parker was getting used to his Encore. I remember reading about his upgrading of a 252 and thinking how amazing it would be to own a plane like that. Unfortunately I'll never be able to afford that and anyway, I'm very happy to own a C. Fast forward a few short years, business is good, and I'm shopping for Encore parts to fix up a pretty nice 252. Buying and Ultra? I can't imagine it now, but it's not out of the realm of possibility, and therefore I imagine that there are people shopping for the Ultra.

I do think the problem is that there just isn't enough of them.  If I could afford $1 mil for an Ultra (10% put away for unexpected expenses), there would be a whole lot of nice airplanes I could afford as well. The airplane market is very crowded at that level and the customer pool is certainly small. 

BTW... I rode right seat today in a Texas Wing formation flight. It's much more difficult to get out of the right seat rather than the left seat. So I'm not sure that second door is all that exciting. If I owned one, I might still just use the right side door as it's easier.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brother for 539,900 list, you can buy a brand spanking new sr22.  How does one think that a Mooney at nearly 2x that price is reasonable.  


I suggest you check your math....

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/2017-cirrus-sr22-g6-turbo-specifications/#.WP1WZ4EpCEc

http://www.flyingmag.com/mooney-announces-m20v-acclaim-ultra

Pricing is in the same ballpark.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gsengle said:

 


I suggest you check your math....

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/2017-cirrus-sr22-g6-turbo-specifications/#.WP1WZ4EpCEc

http://www.flyingmag.com/mooney-announces-m20v-acclaim-ultra

Pricing is in the same ballpark.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Really???  the pricing is right on their web site - what are you talking about?  https://cirrusaircraft.com/aircraft/sr22/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.