Future of Mooney

[gsxrpilot]

10 hours ago, John Car said:

http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20J Evaluation/M20J_evaluation_report.html  

This week I realized that a used M20J is a heck of a deal.  I used to own a Trinidad TB21 and now fly a Symphony 160 I picked up at a bank repo sale.  The 160 is fun but I miss being able to do long cross countries and having a real IFR platform.  Thinking of picking up M201J and doing a refurb as this gentleman did.  I am an A&P and IA so labor will not be an issue. 

Dynon package soon to be released with autopilot.

http://www.dynoncertified.com/index.php#features

http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20J Evaluation/M20J_evaluation_report.html

 

I don't think you can go wrong refurbishing a J. It's certainly one of the best four seat pistons ever produced. And no one is making anything like it... even on the experimental side. 

[BKlott]

People keep commenting that the Mooney is a fifty year old design. It is actually closer to being a seventy year old design.

I think Mooney had the right idea in designing a new composite airframe to try to become competitive in the marketplace. They needed to do that if they were going to remain relevant in the future. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out. Was it a lack of capital to see the project through? A lack of commitment? Did they not understand what would be required in order to succeed? Was it poor prototype performance or a combination of these factors?

Cessna attempted this awhile back with their Cessna NGP (Next Generation Piston) but abandoned the project and purchased the Lancair Columbia line instead. Even though most reports I read stated the Columbia / TTX was a superior aircraft to the Cirrus, that just didn’t work out either. There was a lack of commitment to compete with Cirrus and Textron has effectively ceded the market to Cirrus.

With Textron (Beechcraft and Cessna) not interested in competing, Piper and Mooney unable to compete, Cirrus dominates the market.

What will become of Cessna single engine production when the demand for trainer 172s evaporates once the demand for Working Pilots is satisfied?

Long term success in this market mandates carbon fiber construction, fixed gear, a comfortable, modern cabin and a parachute for safety. Modern designs have shown that the complexities, expenses and risks associated with retractable gear are unnecessary to achieve acceptable cross country performance. Why incur those costs and risks?

The parachute has saved lives. When things go really bad you still have one hope left. I don’t think we can underestimate the value that adds. As a heart patient with four stents in my areteries following a nearly fatal heart attack six years ago, I do worry about flying with my Wife and putting her well being at risk if I should have another “event” while flying. One of those chutes would become pretty valuable to have in that instance.

I think that the legacy manufacturers can eke out an existence for awhile with part sales and possibly some repair and restoration work if they want to. To succeed in the future, they are going to need to design, build and market a product that is significantly superior to Cirrus. In other words, they are going to have to out Cirrus, Cirrus. Good luck with that.

 

Edited March 11, 2019 by BKlott

[Bravoman]

23 minutes ago, BKlott said:

People keep commenting that the Mooney is a fifty year old design. It is actually closer to being a seventy year old design.

I think Mooney had the right idea in designing a new composite airframe to try to become competitive in the marketplace. They needed to do that if they were going to remain relevant in the future. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out. Was it a lack of capital to see the project through? A lack of commitment? Did they not understand what would be required in order to succeed? Was it poor prototype performance or a combination of these factors?

Cessna attempted this awhile back with their Cessna NGP (Next Generation Piston) but abandoned the project and purchased the Lancair Columbia line instead. Even though most reports I read stated the Columbia / TTX was a superior aircraft to the Cirrus, that just didn’t work out either. There was a lack of commitment to compete with Cirrus and Textron has effectively ceded the market to Cirrus.

With Textron (Beechcraft and Cessna) not interested in competing, Piper and Mooney unable to compete, Cirrus dominates the market.

What will become of Cessna single engine production when the demand for trainer 172s evaporates once the demand for Working Pilots is satisfied?

Long term success in this market mandates carbon fiber construction, fixed gear, a comfortable, modern cabin and a parachute for safety. Modern designs have shown that the complexities, expenses and risks associated with retractable gear are unnecessary to achieve acceptable cross country performance. Why incur those costs and risks?

The parachute has saved lives. When things go really bad you still have one hope left. I don’t think we can underestimate the value that adds. As a heart patient with four stents in my areteries following a nearly fatal heart attack six years ago, I do worry about flying with my Wife and putting her well being at risk if I should have another “event” while flying. One of those chutes would become pretty valuable to have in that instance.

I think that the legacy manufacturers can eke out an existence for awhile with part sales and possibly some repair and restoration work if they want to. To succeed in the future, they are going to need to design, build and market a product that is significantly superior to Cirrus. In other words, they are going to have to out Cirrus, Cirrus. Good luck with that.

 

 Unfortunately, I think this is correct.  Of the legacy manufacturers, Piper seems to be doing OK, but it’s bread and butter ( the PA-46 line)is no longer the aircraft that most GA folks can afford, particularly anything new or nearly new. 

[exM20K]

18 hours ago, John Car said:

I agree.  Chinese own Mooney and they could easily reverse engineer all the components into single assemblies.   Carbon fiber molds for two-piece fuselages and wing assemblies.  Could reduce the parts count considerably and cut production costs in half.  It could be done.  Use Dynon avionics which is a fraction of the cost of Garmin and certify a UL 200 HP engine and you could produce an aircraft under $200,000.00.  Introduce 7-year lease options.  It can be done. 

With the  exception of the G1000, you are precisely describing the Diamond DA40XLT, current MSRP approximately $400,000.

manufacturing costs are but a fraction of the total cost to the manufacturer.  Have a look at an aircraft maintenance manual.  Contemplate the cost to produce that.  Certification costs must be recovered over a few hundred airframes per year, and a wildly optimistic estimate to certify a new aircraft would be $75 million.

 

additionally, with cheap money, the sticker price of the plane is less important than you might think.  That extra $200,000 for the DA40 vs the hypothetical composite M20 is less than half the TCO of a new plane.  Ditch G1000NXI and you could probably shave another $50,000 off the cost of the Diamond.

Cirrus has created demand and drawn new people into the hobby.  Perhaps Mooney should concentrate on producing a more capable and useful aircraft to peel some of them off.

-DE

Edited March 11, 2019 by exM20K

[Jerry 5TJ]

1 hour ago, Bravoman said:

.....Piper seems to be doing OK, but it’s bread and butter ( the PA-46 line)is no longer the aircraft that most GA folks can afford, particularly anything new or nearly new. 

Was a new PA46 ever within reach of  “most GA folks?”   

In 1984 a new Piper Malibu sold for about $330,000.  

That’s about $800,000 in 2019 bucks.

[Hank]

On ‎2‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 3:06 AM, Bravoman said:

I truly believed and still do that the only way Mooney could have done it was to have a trainer to tap into this market, flight schools, university programs, etc. This would also have the secondary benefit of putting the brand out there as the step up  oncept is very important for  getting repeat customers. I always had Pipers because I learned to fly in a traumahawk.

I hear this all the time about cars and planes. BUT . . . .

•  I trained in a Cessna, then bought a Mooney. Zero carryover . . .
• I went to driver's ed in a Ford LTD, lo these many moons ago. I still have not bought a Ford vehicle, although I did inherit the Ford Ranger that I'm driving now. I have owned but didn't buy a Chevy, then bought Honda, Infiniti, Jaguar, Hyundai, Toyota and Nissan. Zero carryover . . .
• Is this pattern really that unusual????
• Do Boeing, Lockheed or Airbus make entry-level "step up" jets? Not that I'm aware! Gulfstream, Cessna, Lear, Fokker do, and the nice folks who make CRJs. But they don't make the big ones to compete even with an A320 or 737.
• It's quite difficult to make something to suit everyone. Pick a market and set out to dominate it. Mooney has picked, they just lack the spirit to dominate.

[Bravoman]

1 hour ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Was a new PA46 ever within reach of  “most GA folks?”   

In 1984 a new Piper Malibu sold for about $330,000.  

That’s about $800,000 in 2019 bucks.

I didn’t write that particularly clearly. I meant that what piper used to produce that was affordable to the typical GA buyer is no longer their mainstay. I was never suggesting that the PA 46 line was ever affordable to the masses.