174 Mooneys on Controller

[Parker_Woodruff]

Looks like quantity available is up by almost 30 aircraft over the past 3-4 weeks to the highest I can remember seeing.  Numbers were holding strong in the high 140s-low 150s for awhile.

I'm hopefully wrapping up the acquisition of a Mooney 252 here in a couple weeks, but it'll be coming down off T-A-P.

I haven't been paying attention to other makes/models to see quantity.

http://www.controller.com/drilldown/models.aspx?ETID=1&catid=6&Manu=MOONEY&setype=1

[DaV8or]

I wonder if some are owners concered about future parts availability? Some may be using the current problems with Mooney as a reason to trade or hang it up. They may not be wrong because it won't be too long before prospective buyers will be getting "expert" advise like, "You can't get parts for 'em anymore."

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: DaV8or

They may not be wrong because it won't be too long before prospective buyers will be getting "expert" advise like, "You can't get parts for 'em anymore."

[aerobat95]

Man that really sucks...but I look at it in the same reguards to the housing market.  Whats probably happening is there are more people losing jobs and falling into hard times and figure let the airplane go.  Hopefully once the economy turns around Mooney will start parts production again and this will be a distant memory.

[Piloto]

With fuel prices and other articles going up there is less money left for hangars, maintenance and flying. For most GA flying is not a priority but a non essential expense. When you to have choose between health premiums and hangar rent, guess who wins. I don't see employment improving in the near future. Many companies are finding that they can survive with less labor thus lower overhead and be even more profitable than before.

In my opinion the demise of Mooney is not that much due to other brands competition but competition from the used Mooney market itself. Why spend $500K on a new Mooney when you can get a 3 year old Mooney for $300K with all the bugs cleaned. Something similar happens in the new housing market. Why spend $500K on a new house where you don't know what neighbors you are going to get vs $300k on a used one where you know who your neighbors are.

José

      

[scottfromiowa]

-Aging population

-Higher Fuel Costs

-Questionable future of fuel costs

-Unemployment level and Inflation increasing other costs (food/clothing etc.) (inflation)

-Uncertainty regarding dollar and investment...=

POOR ECONOMic OUTLOOK=

People selling hight ticket items like planes and NOT buying high ticket items like planes.

When the economy turns around more older pilots will by losing medical, dying.  The pilot population is NOT being replaced.  Major reason being thrown around...poor instruction?!  I don't agree.  Flying would be embraced by many more people if liability and government regulation would be reduced...instead Feds are looking at increasing the requirments on sport aviation certification.  I can by an awesome automobile with state of the art electronics/safety and function that does NOT require a lot of maintenance for $30 grand.  A similar airplane needs to be $100grand for larger numbers to buy and fly and for general aviation to again grow.  It is NOT going to happen.  A Cirrus SR22t is HOW MUCH!!!  How much did a new Mooney cost before they stopped production?!!!!  AOPA can spin GA however they want but the numbers of used airplanes is going to continue to grow...until all of the above change.  I don't see that happening.  I'm just going to enjoy my M20E and hopefully have a 50% co-owner in next year to share costs and wonders of a Mooney with.

[GeorgePerry]

The average age of a US registered Single Engine Piston aircraft is 34 years old.  There are many reasons for this.  One thing is for sure, if the current trends don't change, over time, the GA community will only continue to wither.

What GA needs is reform.  Streamlining the FAA certification process and meaningful liability reform are both long overdue.  The current business climate makes the costs associated with GA product and aircraft production prohibitively high.    A GAO report recently stated that unnecessarily lengthy FAA certification delays hurt the Aviation industry.  The GAO went on to say that the FAA must do a better, more timely job of issuing certifications and approvals.  Unfortunately, when it comes to working with General Aviation businesses and fostering industry growth, the FAA is often an impediment to progress.  The FAA places the safety of inaction ahead of the public and business interests they should be serving.  This needs to change.  The FAA should proactively work with industry to streamline and simplify TSO / Certification processes.  Meaningful reform would help quickly bring new and innovative aviation products to market in a safe, cost effective way. 

In addition to the up front costs companies and manufacturers must bear to achieve certification, they are also hamstrung by the requirement to pay shockingly high liability insurance premiums.  Unfortunately GA companies, unlike few other businesses, must be ready to preemptively defend themselves against lawsuits and the possibility of outrageous jury awards.  The result of these liability concerns forces prices of aviation products through the roof. 

Without a more business friendly streamlined certification process, tort reform, and reduced government bureaucracy, well-meaning, responsible companies that serve GA will continue to struggle.  GA will likely never have a mass appeal, but until regulatory and business conditions are such that manufacturers can produce a 4 place aircraft for around $150K, I don't see GA growing any time soon.

 

[PTK]

Quote: GeorgePerry

The average age of a US registered Single Engine Piston aircraft is 34 years old.  There are many reasons for this.  One thing is for sure, if the current trends don't change, over time, the GA community will only continue to wither.

What GA needs is reform.  Streamlining the FAA certification process and meaningful liability reform are both long overdue.  The current business climate makes the costs associated with GA product and aircraft production prohibitively high.    A GAO report recently stated that unnecessarily lengthy FAA certification delays hurt the Aviation industry.  The GAO went on to say that the FAA must do a better, more timely job of issuing certifications and approvals.  Unfortunately, when it comes to working with General Aviation businesses and fostering industry growth, the FAA is often an impediment to progress.  The FAA places the safety of inaction ahead of the public and business interests they should be serving.  This needs to change.  The FAA should proactively work with industry to streamline and simplify TSO / Certification processes.  Meaningful reform would help quickly bring new and innovative aviation products to market in a safe, cost effective way. 

In addition to the up front costs companies and manufacturers must bear to achieve certification, they are also hamstrung by the requirement to pay shockingly high liability insurance premiums.  Unfortunately GA companies, unlike few other businesses, must be ready to preemptively defend themselves against lawsuits and the possibility of outrageous jury awards.  The result of these liability concerns forces prices of aviation products through the roof. 

Without a more business friendly streamlined certification process, tort reform, and reduced government bureaucracy, well-meaning, responsible companies that serve GA will continue to struggle.  GA will likely never have a mass appeal, but until regulatory and business conditions are such that manufacturers can produce a 4 place aircraft for around $150K, I don't see GA growing any time soon.

 

[jetdriven]

Mooney would have to list the 201 at 300-400K to hope to break even.  Then many people could still buy an older one and fix it up for far less.  Look at Beech, a Baron is a million $.  A 182 is 400K.    Cessna was considering building 414s again in the 90s, they were told they would have to be 1.5 million$.  Its just the cost of building one, I suppose.

 

Small planes like this are primarily a middle class or upper-middle-class toy.  The middle class is shrinking, and depite all the finger pointing, will continue to do so. The super-wealthy are getting a larger share, and they dont mess with singles, they buy turbines.

[DaV8or]

Quote: GeorgePerry

Unfortunately, when it comes to working with General Aviation businesses and fostering industry growth, the FAA is often an impediment to progress.  The FAA places the safety of inaction ahead of the public and business interests they should be serving.  This needs to change.  The FAA should proactively work with industry to streamline and simplify TSO / Certification processes.  Meaningful reform would help quickly bring new and innovative aviation products to market in a safe, cost effective way.

[John Pleisse]

Tort reform......not to get political..........GA would survive, meidcal insurance would survive...everything would be better off. A new GA aircraft costs twice its intended price for fear of product liability. Don't get me wrong, lawyers deserve to make a good living, but the trial lawyers association is out of hand. GA has been phasing itself out for 30 years directly the result of legal laibility. Funny, the one legal avenue designed to protect everybody equally, is the one that will be our demise. It's our tort system.

[DaV8or]

Quote: allsmiles

What got Mooney in trouble is that they produced bigger much less efficient airframes in a hostile fuel cost environment. They stopped the venerable 201.  The epitomy of efficiency and speed in the whole entire GA!!  This one airplane they stopped producing!

[DaV8or]

Quote: N4352H

Tort reform......not to get political..........GA would survive, meidcal insurance would survive...everything would be better off. A new GA aircraft costs twice its intended price for fear of product liability. Don't get me wrong, lawyers deserve to make a good living, but the trial lawyers association is out of hand. GA has been phasing itself out for 30 years directly the result of legal laibility. It's tort reform.

[ChrisH]

I wonder if Mooney could find a market re-opening as an experimental aircraft, ala Lancair. I know the FAA is looking into the 51% claim of Lancair, and putting a chill in the market. But, could take a lot of the liability costs and parts uncertainity out of the market.

Also, I disagree with the airframe isn't competitive arguement. Find another aircraft the gives the same performance as the Mooney, it's faster on less fuel than the Cirrus. At the same altitude it's even competive with the too fast for 23 certification Lancair.

My take, make it experimental, give me a Kerrville build option and put the $'s into modernizing the M22 platform to give me a pressurized version and I think that you'll steal 50% of Lancair's market not to mention what you'd take from the 'certified' market. After all, do you want a plastic plane that breaks up in T-storms, or the Mooney?

[Barry]

One of the very biggest problems to production of aircraft at reasonable cost is the cost of insurance for each and every airframe built. I was already flying when the infamous Cessna crash occurred that caused the increase in aircraft to almost triple in price. The entire aircraft was poorly maintained. On it's last flight a mechanical failure of a seat latch on this Cessna caused the death of several people and the survivors and relatives of the deceased received TEN'S OF MILLIONS in compensation. This was the first time that compensation of that magnitude had ever been given out.

Within a year, the cost of a Warrior increased from ~$40K to ~$140K ... most of that increase in the cost of insurance on each and every airframe produced.

Nowdays, everything that touch’s an aircraft will receive a high level of scrutiny in a crash. Each item and every individual bolting that item on an aircraft needs to have expensive insurance to protect their ass.

Our government was attempting to kill the small plane GA back in the '70's. The FAA was hard at work "making flying safer". It seemed that every year one had to bold another couple thousand dollars of equipment on the plane to be allowed to fly in a certain area. Maintenance was very carefully scrutinized and mechanics were heavly fined if they were determined to be at fault.

If you have the history of over 35 years of flying to look upon, it is quite evident that this whole thing that we are presently experiencing is a planned event. NOTHING in the actions of government or politics is a mistake. The rising cost of automobiles, aircraft, housing, food, clothing ... all of this raises tax revenues and allows government to expand. The FAA will never be controlled by government because it is doing exactly what the government wants it to do. Eliminate individuals flying their own airplanes and increase tax revenues.

 If you want to see where the US is headed you only need look at Europe. The US has been following in the footsteps of the European model for the last 30 years.

[scottfromiowa]

Yes,

This IS a complete replay of another thread.  Yes, I agree that GA is being choked and dying a slow death.  I just wish that the government AND lawyers would get out of the way and a new cross country plane that is reasonably priced...insert price here...could be built in numbers to employ a lot of people and pilots like me could afford a used one down the road...just like my dream to own a Porsche Cayman S...used.  It is a reasonable dream.  The dream is dying in GA.  That just makes me sad.

[DaV8or]

Quote: ChrisH

I wonder if Mooney could find a market re-opening as an experimental aircraft, ala Lancair. I know the FAA is looking into the 51% claim of Lancair, and putting a chill in the market. But, could take a lot of the liability costs and parts uncertainity out of the market.

[jetdriven]

Quote: Barry

One of the very biggest problems to production of aircraft at reasonable cost is the cost of insurance for each and every airframe built. I was already flying when the infamous Cessna crash occurred that caused the increase in aircraft to almost triple in price. The entire aircraft was poorly maintained. On it's last flight a mechanical failure of a seat latch on this Cessna caused the death of several people and the survivors and relatives of the deceased received TEN'S OF MILLIONS in compensation. This was the first time that compensation of that magnitude had ever been given out.

Within a year, the cost of a Warrior increased from ~$40K to ~$140K ... most of that increase in the cost of insurance on each and every airframe produced.

Nowdays, everything that touch’s an aircraft will receive a high level of scrutiny in a crash. Each item and every individual bolting that item on an aircraft needs to have expensive insurance to protect their ass.

Our government was attempting to kill the small plane GA back in the '70's. The FAA was hard at work "making flying safer". It seemed that every year one had to bold another couple thousand dollars of equipment on the plane to be allowed to fly in a certain area. Maintenance was very carefully scrutinized and mechanics were heavly fined if they were determined to be at fault.

If you have the history of over 35 years of flying to look upon, it is quite evident that this whole thing that we are presently experiencing is a planned event. NOTHING in the actions of government or politics is a mistake. The rising cost of automobiles, aircraft, housing, food, clothing ... all of this raises tax revenues and allows government to expand. The FAA will never be controlled by government because it is doing exactly what the government wants it to do. Eliminate individuals flying their own airplanes and increase tax revenues.

 

 If you want to see where the US is headed you only need look at Europe. The US has been following in the footsteps of the European model for the last 30 years.

[jetdriven]

Quote: DaV8or

I totally agree with this idea. When I floated the idea a while back, I was told that the M20 airframe is too complex and difficult to build for the average person. I believe that as it is now, that is true. I think the way to go would be to re-engineer the M20J so that it can be built by an average person. This may mean use of composites for things like the the wing spar and fuselage. Maintain the basic flight characterisics, shape and form, but change the way it is built. Maybe much like the Ravin 500, which is a kit Piper Comanche.

It could have a choice of engines, O-360, IO-360, TNIO-360, IO-390 and maybe the Delta Hawk diesel. They could also offer the Rocket conversions too. Manual or electric gear and flaps, or even fixed gear and tail dragger options. Any number of things you could do once you get away from the type certificate. In my mind, this is the only way the world will ever see brand new M20Js again.

"Also, I disagree with the airframe isn't competitive arguement. Find another aircraft the gives the same performance as the Mooney, it's faster on less fuel than the Cirrus. At the same altitude it's even competive with the too fast for 23 certification Lancair."

Here I really have to disagree. It may come as a shock, but people buy airplanes on criteria other than just speed and fuel efficiency. The Columbia/Corvalis and Cirrus come close in speed and efficiency, but offer more in comfort and design. They are also easier to build and so more profitable. The BRS in the Cirrus and fixed gear can not be under estimated in terms of sales. The proof is in the sales. Buyers voted with their pocketbook. Everyone shopping for a new airplane in the last ten years was well aware of the Mooney and what it could do, but most chose otherwise.

[PTK]

Quote: DaV8or

We've been over this before. Mooney didn't stop making the 201, rather, people stopped buying the 201. The cost to build a 201 or an Ovation is the same. Pretty much the only difference in cost is the engine and prop and as a percentage of overall cost, the difference is minimal. Buyers with that kind of money chose bigger and faster almost every time. Same goes on over at Cirrus. If it weren't for a few flight schools, the SR-20 would be dead too. The SR-20 is a tiny, tiny percentage of their annual production.

We have to all face it, the M20 airframe is outdated and not viable for the new airplane market. It cost way too much to build, has an uncompetitive cabin and is not in step with current aviation trends. Most of all, Mooney needs to understand this. The money is not there to build an all new airframe or to majorly revise the M20, so we have to let go the dream of future aircraft production at Mooney in the forseeable future. The focus needs to be on supporting the existing fleet. Maybe in time, after Mooney becomes a financially viable company again, they could venture out into the world of aircraft production, but for now, the dream of a brand new M20J priced at $200,000 is just that... a dream. Time to wake up and get to work on those parts.

[scottfromiowa]

O.K.  I'm done posting on this site.  People like Jet Driven have to go after individuals with personal attacks.  It's petty Bullshit. Jet Driven posters like you RUIN the forum.  Have fun everybody.  I'm OUT a here...

[jetdriven]

Quote: allsmiles

We've been over this before. Mooney didn't stop making the 201, rather, people stopped buying the 201. The cost to build a 201 or an Ovation is the same. Pretty much the only difference in cost is the engine and prop and as a percentage of overall cost, the difference is minimal. Buyers with that kind of money chose bigger and faster almost every time. Same goes on over at Cirrus. If it weren't for a few flight schools, the SR-20 would be dead too. The SR-20 is a tiny, tiny percentage of their annual production.

We have to all face it, the M20 airframe is outdated and not viable for the new airplane market. It cost way too much to build, has an uncompetitive cabin and is not in step with current aviation trends. Most of all, Mooney needs to understand this. The money is not there to build an all new airframe or to majorly revise the M20, so we have to let go the dream of future aircraft production at Mooney in the forseeable future. The focus needs to be on supporting the existing fleet. Maybe in time, after Mooney becomes a financially viable company again, they could venture out into the world of aircraft production, but for now, the dream of a brand new M20J priced at $200,000 is just that... a dream. Time to wake up and get to work on those parts.

[DaV8or]

Quote: jetdriven

I miss my 1982 Z-28 but I know Chevrolet isnt going to build them again.

[DaV8or]

Quote: allsmiles

I respectfully disagree.  For the simple question:  How do you support M20 parts inventory for a used fleet with no new production aircraft?  I don't see  how Mooney would maintain parts just for used airplanes.  

Umm... You just make the parts and then price them to make a profit. Just like they do with vintage car parts. You only inventory the ones that are needed all the time. One off airframe parts, like say a cowl deck or something, are made by hand to that order and priced accordingly. MAC would become a much smaller company, but more profitable. In other words, their big hangar factory would be replaced by a small hangar factory.

As for the J I don't think it's a dream. I think it can be done.  Which aircraft would you chose if Mooney put out a brand new J for 200K??  I know I would chose the J.  There is no other aircraft out there in the Mooney J class. Ofcourse the used values would decline so it's probably good that they don't!

Come on now, if you're going to put out there the idea of a brand new $200,000 M20J with a straight face, at least fill us in on how in the world that would ever be possible in the US. The basic, simple little Liberty XL-2 is over $200,000. I've inspected the plane. Not a lot of frills there.

[DaV8or]

Quote: jetdriven

At 3,800$ for an aileronetc. , an M20J "kit" would be 3 million dollars.