Another Mooney CEO gone...

[Bob_Belville]

25 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

Mitch is arguing on a cost per mile basis, and using that metric an Ovation LOP compares favorably. It also loses less going into a headwind thanks to the increased speed.

It's just that 50%+ premium at purchase over a J that holds many of us back... (And useful load in some cases)

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk
 

I'm not arguing against the current line of 2 ~300HP long bodies, NA and turbo. ISTM that with a good sales effort they can compete with Cirrus though it will take a while to get the word out.

What I am suggesting is that there are folks, a market, who would be interested in a 3rd model: a 160-165 ktas, 4 place, 200HP, with about 64 gallon tanks, and a 1000# useful load. They could call it a J.  

 

[Robert C.]

37 minutes ago, Browncbr1 said:

 

 Also, why would anyone want to buy a plane that couldn't be certified to recover from a spin without a parachute? I bet the average cirrus owner doesn't know that? Maybe a competitor should put that on a megaphone? 

Please do some fact checking before making statements. This canard has been proven false so often it just isn't funny anymore. The SR line has been spun successfully but Cirrus was able to get out from under the spin certification requirement because of the chute. Why wouldn't a smart company NOT take advantage of that opportunity to save time and expenses? 

[KSMooniac]

There was a blurb recently about the Panthera closing in on EASA certification. Some 200 changes in the design were mentioned, most notably the switch to an IO-540 from the IO-390. I remember years ago they mentioned other powerplant possibilities like electric, hybrid, etc. Those are certainly years away.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

[MooneyMitch]

"Mitch is arguing on a cost per mile basis, and using that metric an Ovation LOP compares favorably. It also loses less going into a headwind thanks to the increased speed."

Thank you for articulating what I fumbled with.

I'm certainly not advocating one Mooney over another.   I love them all and would have one of each model.......at least.......if that were possible.

In the meantime, I'm in love with my MM!! 

[Browncbr1]

Please do some fact checking before making statements. This canard has been proven false so often it just isn't funny anymore. The SR line has been spun successfully but Cirrus was able to get out from under the spin certification requirement because of the chute. Why wouldn't a smart company NOT take advantage of that opportunity to save time and expenses? 

 

Thank you for correcting me. I guess someone put some "spin" on that fact. Pun intended. To be honest, that's why I put question marks at the end of those sentences.

[Browncbr1]

There was a blurb recently about the Panthera closing in on EASA certification. Some 200 changes in the design were mentioned, most notably the switch to an IO-540 from the IO-390. I remember years ago they mentioned other powerplant possibilities like electric, hybrid, etc. Those are certainly years away. 

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

I like what I saw from pipistrel's videos. I like how they are trying to get performance from efficiency rather than just throwing more power on the firewall. With the Io-390, the pantera may end up being similar to our dreams of a what a new J would be in some ways.

 

 

 

[MooneyMitch]

Oh, and another quality of the Ovation, you certainly don't have to fly it as fast as it will go......LOP or otherwise.

One can fly it all day at J performance levels if you want to go flying around just for some fun local cruising.

During my last year owing my Ovation, and without traveling anywhere in particular, I'd power  back to 20", 2000 RPM, 40 LOP, and see 155+ knots at under 10 GPH.

It was fun!

 

[Ftlausa]

The Panthera looks like a plane that could disrupt the market place some if they could get it going.  Lycoming screwed them over when they backed out of certifying the IO390 for avgas.  That forced a re-design of the Panthera for new power plant. 

[Bob_Belville]

I pulled up our MAG Caravan roster to get some contact info.

I took note of what this group, active (formation flying, KOSH) Mooney owners in the East, flies:

M20E - 2, F - 2, K - 1, R - 2, J - 9.

That's 1 turbo out of 16.

2 long bodies, 2 short bodies, 12 mid bodies.

Make of that what you will about what folks settle on.

[mike_elliott]

7 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

I pulled up our MAG Caravan roster to get some contact info.

I took note of what this group, active (formation flying, KOSH) Mooney owners in the East, flies:

M20E - 2, F - 2, K - 1, R - 2, J - 9.

That's 1 turbo out of 16.

2 long bodies, 2 short bodies, 12 mid bodies.

Make of that what you will about what folks settle on.

You know what they say about statistics. Long before the Caravan was formation flying into OSH, the short and mid bodies also dominated the caravan's roster. Perhaps this decision to skip the caravan by long bodies is because of the inner gear doors of the newer long bodies and the sometimes less than stellar conditions at OSH to taxi on. I think Don Kay has flown his Bravo there, but parked it in Madison and drove the rest of the way, and I have known a few O owners that would go into Appleton, but not OSH. While I would love to do the caravan again soon, it wont be in a Bravo (or a Rocket, Missile, or Ovation). Michael Baraz pulled a Bob and hit a hole in his Rocket  taxiing at OSH, with a larger penalty than yours wa$. He was being marshaled at the time.

[gsxrpilot]

I've flown in the Caravan three times and the long bodies are always well represented. Don Kay has flown his Bravo in to OSH with the Caravan as well.  

[Bob_Belville]

2 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

You know what they say about statistics. Long before the Caravan was formation flying into OSH, the short and mid bodies also dominated the caravan's roster. Perhaps this decision to skip the caravan by long bodies is because of the inner gear doors of the newer long bodies and the sometimes less than stellar conditions at OSH to taxi on. I think Don Kay has flown his Bravo there, but parked it in Madison and drove the rest of the way, and I have known a few O owners that would go into Appleton, but not OSH. While I would love to do the caravan again soon, it wont be in a Bravo (or a Rocket, Missile, or Ovation). Michael Baraz pulled a Bob and hit a hole in his Rocket  taxiing at OSH, with a larger penalty than yours wa$. He was being marshaled at the time.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, grass has it's risks. A friend of mine based at KMRN was marshalled across a little ditch at SnF several years ago - prop strike, engine tear down. That was an F model.

[MooneyMitch]

Saxena Out At Mooney

By Geoff Rapoport

Vivek Saxena has stepped down as CEO of Mooney International Corporation after less than a year in the top job, according to AOPA, citing an email to employees, and confirmed by AVweb. Saxena joined Mooney in August of 2016, replacing Jerry Chen, who had been appointed as interim CEO by Soaring America Corporation, the Chinese-backed investment group that recapitalized Mooney to restart production of the M20. Albert Li, Mooney’s CFO, will reportedly serve as executive director until a new CEO can be appointed. The turmoil comes at an awkward moment for Mooney, which just last month announced FAA certification of the M20U Ovation Ultra and its turbocharged sibling, the M20V Acclaim Ultra. Mooney’s production had all but stopped in the run-up to certification. They produced just seven aircraft in 2016, according to General Aviation Manufacturers Association data, though that was down only slightly from 11 in 2015. Saxena told AVweb last month at Sun 'n Fun that he hoped Mooney M20 production would rise to about 80 aircraft per year. At Sun 'n Fun, Mooney had reported that the M10 project, originally envisioned as a next-generation trainer and two-seat personal aircraft, was going to be substantially reworked. Mooney representatives speaking with AVweb acknowledged that the trainer sales were not the most robust part of the GA market and that the technology developed in the M10 might be put to better use competing for the portion of the market now dominated by the Cirrus SR22. In a statement to AOPA regarding Saxena’s departure, Mooney’s marketing director Lance Phillips said, “We as a company are proceeding full speed on production of M20s and development of the M10.” It’s unclear whether this means the M10 as originally envisioned is back on the product roadmap or, more likely according to one Mooney dealer to whom AVweb spoke, Phillips means that the technology development originally related to the M10 project is continuing but slated for use in a larger airplane. Mooney representatives were not immediately available for comment. AVweb article this AM.

[Jeff_S]

CEO changes are always messy. And they can be instigated from both sides, either the CEO or the Board.  It's really difficult to say here what may have gone on because the facts are murky. What is known is that Mooney just announced the certification of the Ultras and also sent a conflicting message about the M10 series, both announcements which just happened at SnF a few weeks ago. The immediate departure of Saxena so soon after these announcements makes me think this particular change was instigated by the Board, but again, the reasons are hard to guess. For some reason, he wasn't satisfying investor requirements, but perhaps they wanted to keep him on until they got the Ultra's certificated so as to not worry the FAA. That would be in my thought process if I were the Board.

As to everyone's various opinions about the Ultra models and the marketplace, I would encourage all the naysayers to put yourselves in the CEO office and think about reality. A lot of investment has been sunk in upgrading the manufacturing process for the Ultras, and FAA certification has just been won. That's your pony, boys, and you've got to ride it as best you can. The cost of an Acclaim Ultra is less than an SR22-GTS, and if marketed correctly it can appeal to a particular audience. I know I would buy an Ovation Ultra before an SR22, parachute-be-damned, because of the operating costs and the cool factor. Those of us on Mooneyspace don't buy new planes (most, anyway) but we need other people to do that, so we can eventually buy the used ones. For this reason alone, we should ALL be rooting for Mooney to succeed.

[JohnB]

On 4/27/2017 at 1:32 PM, Browncbr1 said:

I think a new sleeked up J with a smooth and efficient diesel that will run on jetA with 1100lbs UL and 180ktas would be the ticket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I really really like your idea Brown. Mooney could be a leader in using a less expensive, cleaner fuel in a very fast airplane. And as long as one doesn't go crazy with the addons, I bet you could make that competitively priced, and with Mooneys already awesome fuel economy, it could be one of the cleanest and less expensive pistons to run in costs per mile, which would make lots of people including flight training schools happy. May even have a longer time to TBO perhaps if diesel? I like it! And you doesn't have to call it J!! (Still laughing at that video.. thanks!)

John

[gsxrpilot]

I'm afraid the expense in a Mooney largely (certification and liability issues aside) comes from the way each plane is hand built. It's fun to tour the factory, and I've done it a couple of times. But it's painfully evident the reason Mooney's are so expensive. Each one is hand made. Until there is some automation to speed up production and reduce the expense of hourly employees, it doesn't matter if they're turning out M20C's or Acclaims, they're all gonna be north of half a mil.

[Hank]

Maybe they should restart the M22? Give everyone another Step Up.

[JohnB]

37 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

I'm afraid the expense in a Mooney largely (certification and liability issues aside) comes from the way each plane is hand built. It's fun to tour the factory, and I've done it a couple of times. But it's painfully evident the reason Mooney's are so expensive. Each one is hand made. Until there is some automation to speed up production and reduce the expense of hourly employees, it doesn't matter if they're turning out M20C's or Acclaims, they're all gonna be north of half a mil.

Great point Paul! I think we Mooney buyers might be partly holding Mooney back! (what?? has JB lost it? Heh) You're right, manufacturing costs could go way down if more automation is used, but it would be a departure from the A then other models being all hand built. (Which is not entirely true as there are lots of machines run by people, it's just a lot of them could be replaced with much newer ones and computers that could do more. I saw this when I toured the factory which is great fun btw) and I bet some older machines are being kept for their nostalgic value and to keep the mantra built in Kerville by hand which I bet some Mooney purists would insist on. There may be enough used airplanes that would keep the hand built only crowd happy.

But if we could let go of that built all by hand mantra for new airplanes, and if Mooney added more automation so that it could make more airplanes at much lower manufacturing costs, everyone should be better off, in that they could make competitive products and get back on top. I'm willing to accept much more automation in the factory, as the highest end cars and airplanes have lots of automation, why shouldn't Mooney have it too?

 

(By the way, I also think we together make a great armchair CEO! Fun discussion)

 

[Hank]

I've said it before:  the Factory needs to get a couple of robotic welders from the auto industry. Even an old, slow one that's been replaced. If they can weld together an automobile unibody chassis, they can weld together a Mooney wing or tail. It'll be quicker, cheaper, more accurate and with less variation from one to the next than the best human welder can do.

[KSMooniac]

The auto industry comparisons don't translate at all to GA...There will never be enough volume to recover the capital costs in setting up robotic welders or riveting machines. Even in the good old days, the annual output might have matched a week's output in a car factory.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

[Guest]

7 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

True, unless they start building 'em overseas where labor is much cheaper, which is what they need to start doing if they want to squeeze more years out of the M20 design.

Van's Aircraft has been doing this very successfully in the experimental market for many years with their fast built kits.  

Didn't Cessna try overseas manufacturing for the Skycatcher?

Clarence

[Browncbr1]

Previously, I was really interested to see what pipistrel has been doing, but I was really disappointed to just learn that they are, in fact, exporting all their IP and manufacturing technology to a Chinese supplier. It's a real pity to see so many play right into their hands. So short and narrow sighted.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk