Future of Mooney

[bill98]

Love my Mooney and love hearing people talk about my Mooney on the ramp and how awesome they look.

 

That said, over the years it appears that while Mooney Aircraft are designed quite well, the marketing/sales team was never the companies strong point. Roughly 1,000 new GA aircraft were sold last year and price tags of $500,000 sure don't help.

 

I love my M20E and was just thinking about how Mooney could sell many more AC. Much like how I love the old Ford Bronco Eddie Bauer and my 2000 Jeep Cherokee LMTD 4x4 4.0, I wish Ford and Jeep would build those exact models and update the interior and possibly have new doors/windows so they aren't as loud.

I feel if Mooney made a short body again like the M20E or M20C, had a couple ASPENS (or G5's for you Garmin Lovers), a Lycoming 360 at 180/200 HP,  an average run of the mill autopilot, even a Johnson Bar [    =)     ]  to keep mechanical complexities down (with option of electric gear I suppose) and sell it for under 200. These would still smoke the 172's and Piper Arrows in fuel burn and speed. They would have tremendous popularity and in my opinion the cash flow in for the company would be huge and help with future R&D costs of new models, keeping the assembly line running.

 

I know the GA Market continues to have issues due to high entry into market costs. Please feel free to comment with your opinions and thoughts of the future of the Mooney Company. Feel free to comment regarding my wishes for a Cheap E Model remake (as long as it doesn't go against my opinions   )

 

[neilpilot]

10 minutes ago, bill98 said:

and sell it for under 200

...and there’s where you’re logic breaks down.  How could they sell an item that costs them way more than 200 to manufacture for under 200?

[1964-M20E]

I've often said the same thing but make the F model with all the aerodynamic improvements and second door.  Keep the instrument panel simple and let the purchase customize it the way he  wants.  Get away from the fully integrated G1000 model.

 

Unfortunately it won't be under $200k maybe just south of $500k but still better than the current asking price of the a new Ultra which is very very nice.

 

 

[steingar]

Folks said LSA's would sell like hot cakes because a lot of them were very inexpensive.  Turns out the best selling LSA is also the most expensive of them.  Go figure.

[KSMooniac]

It's been hashed multiple times over the last 12+ years I've been an owner, and we always end up at the same conclusion. The good ol days of high production and attainable sales prices are long gone, and ain't coming back.

To build a 2019 E model according to your dream, it will cost Mooney about 80-85% the cost of the current Ovation. Of course they would sell tons at $200k, but it will cost 500+ to build it and sell it in today's era. The material cost is only a little lower. The labor hours would be almost identical. Avionics cost maybe a little lower. So how do you cut out 300k+ of cost?

Mooneys have always been hand-crafted due to the design. That is from an era when there weren't robots or other automaton to even consider. Because of this design, there isn't an economical way to automate really any of the production, nor would a business case close considering the extremely low volume of the M20. I can take a short walk and see machines drill and rivet a 737 fuselage to support a production rate of 57/month. They sell for far more than a Mooney and have to be made quickly, so paying for those expensive machines pencils-out for the accountants. It never will for Mooney. Nor will paying millions to move the factory to a low cost county and trying to get a safe plane made there.

We (all of GA) need a step-change in material, regulatory and legal costs before we can dream of a new plane that can be bought for the price of a modest starter house instead of something that is simply unattainable for most of the population. When I first started in the industry as an intern at Cirrus in 1994, some friends there did their own little study of sales prices of a new 172. From first introduction (late 50's) thru the late 70's, a new 172 sold for roughly the same price as what an entry level engineer earned right out of college. That was attainable for just about anyone! A Bo or Mooney certainly cost more, but not like they are today. That mostly same 172 today costs about 7-8x what a new engineer earns, and a Mooney is 10-12x! Rational folks can't even begin to dream about buying a new family plane at these prices. The diverging trend in price vs salary exactly coincides with the rise of lottery-level lawsuits against all entities connected to aviation and we have what we have today... I don't know how we put the cat back in the bag.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[KSMooniac]

To make my point a little more, several years ago I casually inquired about the cost of product liability insurance for aftermarket airplane parts... I was told it would be roughly 15% of gross sales! Using that figure, think about how much that gets compounded thru the aircraft parts supply chain before you can fly away... Raw aluminum that gets sold to a machine shop, extrusion house, or casting facility, then gets passed along to fabrication then assembly and then installed on a plane. (Like a wheel hub, or prop hub) Everyone in that chain gets to pay for that insurance for their step in the chain. 4 steps turns into an extra 75% of cost, not profit! And I bet the insurance cost on a fly-away plane is even higher!

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[toto]

This topic gets kicked around pretty regularly on MS, and usually comes to the same conclusion. 

Given the passion for the brand, it sorta makes me wonder whether there is a profitable approach to spending factory time on a build-assist program. Mooney sells a set of plans for a J model, certified X-AB, and everyone who is fantasizing about a brand-new mid-body Mooney can have one. The builder dedicates a few thousand hours of his/her time, the Kerrville plant stays active assisting, and we're seeing many more new M20s join the ranks than we would see otherwise. 

We could have brand new aircraft and all the cheap experimental avionics we like

[carusoam]

Wait, stop...

what HASN’T changed...

• We aren’t buying a bunch of new planes because they ARE too expensive...

 

what HAS changed...

• We are buying single planes and turning them into forever-planes that appear to be new....
• One step at a time...
• Year after year...

 

what it takes...

• foresight....
• commitment...
• a fair amount of luck...
• A boatload/planeload of perseverance...

 

The future is looking bright...

•  the economy is still expanding.
• unemployment is still very low.
• the backlog for Boeings is tremendously long.

PP thoughts only, not an economist...

Best regards,

-a-

 

[Yetti]

Or we could just quit crashing the old ones and keep upgrading them.   Much cheaper.   But a J for 100AMU put 100 AMU into it and you would have a really nice plane

[M016576]

5 minutes ago, Yetti said:

Or we could just quit crashing the old ones and keep upgrading them.   Much cheaper.   But a J for 100AMU put 100 AMU into it and you would have a really nice plane

The GA fleet kind of reminds me of the auto situation on Cuba.... some REALLY cherry, fully restored ‘57 chevy’s and fords over there... and some others.. well... that run.  But not a whole lot in the newer model years....

i suppose that’s changing now, though (Cuba, not GA...)

[1964-M20E]

3 minutes ago, carusoam said:

The future is looking bright...

•  the economy is still expanding.
• unemployment is still very low.
• the backlog for Boeings is tremendously long.

PP thoughts only, not an economist...

Best regards,

-a-

 

Yes future is looking bright, the economy is moving to the good side and unemployment is low.

We here are protecting the current inventory of used planes either by maintaining the status quo of the aircraft or vastly improving them and everywhere in between.  However, there are the ones that crash, get damaged by weather events and the horrific act of letting one sit and slowly rot to death.  So the inventory of short and mid body planes is always decreasing. 

The drawback for GA is the lack of new planes being built by the certified manufacturers due to the high entry costs.  If I were a business owner and the business could afford the cost of a new Mooney I'd have one.  Naturally the  business would be structured correctly to minimize taxes paid.

I do like the idea of a M20X model and go to the experimental market with the mid body.  Alternatively, Mooney could sell you a completed stripped mid size air-frame that you then put your data plate on along with all of your avionics engine interior etc.  You then part out the remaining serviceable air-frame parts and destroy the main fuselage. or you could take a rotting hunk and make a airworthy plane from it.  You would still technically own a 19XX model but it would have a brand new air-frame.

[Bob_Belville]

A new Lycoming IO-360 w/o exchange is about $75k. Add accessories, avionics, instruments, and other 3rd party components, e.g. wheels, lights, tires, battery... and the airframe would have to be less than free to market a Mooney at $200k.

[skydvrboy]

2 hours ago, KSMooniac said:

Mooneys have always been hand-crafted due to the design

That is a significant part of the problem.  Until they embrace modern manufacturing practices on large volume production, the price won't budge.  I remember at Oshkosh the Mooney rep saying that a new Cessna takes 700 hours to build, a Cirrus takes 2000 hours, and a new Mooney takes 5000 hours.  They were BRAGGING about this claiming that meant it was better made!  As an Industrial Engineer who's spent my career making production more efficient and effective, I about fell out of my chair.  Current mass production (lean production) produces higher quality at lower cost than the old hand-crafted one at a time model.

Like @KSMooniac said, the accountants aren't going to invest in the retooling and production line upgrades unless Mooney can show they will sell enough to pay for it.  That isn't happening now.

[Guest]

A Van’s RV-10 quick build kit is north of $60K, no engine, propeller, avionics or instruments, paint or interior.  Many owners bump into $200 with them doing the building of a simple airplane.  Hoping a manufacturer could build and sell a 4 seat airplane for the same is a pipe dream.

Clarence

 

[ArtVandelay]

Large volume manufacturing? They aren’t selling Honda Civics, planes will always be a low volume product until we get to self flying cars.


Tom

[Bravoman]

 I think the better question is whether the future of Mooney is uncertain based upon the number of units they are currently managing to sell, which is roughly 14 to 16 per year. This is been discussed many times before as well, but I believe it is due to the cost of the units causing there to be not many takers, as well as the shift in preference to cirrus type aircraft. Probably more of the latter, since Cirrus cost more, and they manage to sell 400+ per year.  I think if Mooney could get the cost of an Ovation or Acclaim down to a half million dollars ( probably impossible), they would sell the heck out of them also.  

[M20F]

The market has changed dramatically as well.  In the 60’s travel by airline was limited and expensive.  As a small business owner getting a personal plane to make sales calls made sense.   Today technology eliminates the need for a lot of sales calls and airline coverage is bountiful and cheap. 

Aside from some fairly specialized circumstances flying the Mooney really doesn’t beat the ease of the airline and when you figure maintenance and depreciation it never beats the cost. 

The market has just gone for small GA aircraft and it isn’t going to come back even at $100K a plane  to the level it was in the hay days.

I fully realize somebody will now post how they fly from Pigs Knuckle Arkansas to Key West ten times a week as a counter argument.  You would be in the minority and not in the masses.  

[toto]

1 hour ago, Bravoman said:

 I think the better question is whether the future of Mooney is uncertain based upon the number of units they are currently managing to sell, which is roughly 14 to 16 per year. This is been discussed many times before as well, but I believe it is due to the cost of the units causing there to be not many takers, as well as the shift in preference to cirrus type aircraft. Probably more of the latter, since Cirrus cost more, and they manage to sell 400+ per year.  I think if Mooney could get the cost of an Ovation or Acclaim down to a half million dollars ( probably impossible), they would sell the heck out of them also.  

Mooney doesn't ask my advice, but if they had, I'd have told them the weight savings from the new composite fuselage components should have been used to add a BRS option instead of a second door.  Whether anyone actually bought the BRS option or not is immaterial - it's about staying in the conversation with people who equate a chute with safety and lack of a chute with danger.

[peevee]

Brand c sells airplanes as fast as they can build them. Mooney is doomed unless they can tap that market somehow. IDk how to do that.

[M20F]

2 minutes ago, toto said:

Mooney doesn't ask my advice, but if they had, I'd have told them the weight savings from the new composite fuselage components should have been used to add a BRS option instead of a second door.  Whether anyone actually bought the BRS option or not is immaterial - it's about staying in the conversation with people who equate a chute with safety and lack of a chute with danger.

BRS is more than just the chute.  It involves the seats, seatbelts, gear, etc.  It is a system not just a chute and a Mooney would require a lot of modification to benefit from it. 

[peevee]

4 minutes ago, M20F said:

BRS is more than just the chute.  It involves the seats, seatbelts, gear, etc.  It is a system not just a chute and a Mooney would require a lot of modification to benefit from it. 

Not sure, honestly. With a tubular steel frame it might not be so bad. They stcd them for 182s so it could be possible but it'll cost you some weight. I think there is room under the Mooney seat for the crush honeycomb. You need straps that go up to the nose and they're a lot easier to hide on a composite airplane than metal. 

 

The gear on the c do take some impact, if they set down in mud the impact force difference is pretty obvious, guy in France pulled a month or two ago and it looked pretty violent due to a very soft field, which would have been a disaster to land in.

Edited February 20, 2019 by peevee

[toto]

5 minutes ago, M20F said:

BRS is more than just the chute.  It involves the seats, seatbelts, gear, etc.  It is a system not just a chute and a Mooney would require a lot of modification to benefit from it. 

Yeah I know, but replacing the whole cabin with a single piece of composite must have been a non-trivial engineering effort.

[M20F]

32 minutes ago, peevee said:

With a tubular steel frame it might not be so bad.

The tubular frame of a Mooney is way over played.  A 1962 Lincoln is a tank by any stretch but if it hit a modern Tesla head on, the folks in the Tesla are walking away.  We tend to turn a lot of what we want to believe about our airplanes into “reality” when it isn’t.  

The frame is a spill over from the cloth era, nothing more.  

[MooneyMitch]

32 minutes ago, M20F said:

The tubular frame of a Mooney is way over played.  A 1962 Lincoln is a tank by any stretch but if it hit a modern Tesla head on, the folks in the Tesla are walking away.  We tend to turn a lot of what we want to believe about our airplanes into “reality” when it isn’t.  

The frame is a spill over from the cloth era, nothing more.  

Bravo, and thank you for saying so!!

[peevee]

56 minutes ago, M20F said:

The tubular frame of a Mooney is way over played.  A 1962 Lincoln is a tank by any stretch but if it hit a modern Tesla head on, the folks in the Tesla are walking away.  We tend to turn a lot of what we want to believe about our airplanes into “reality” when it isn’t.  

The frame is a spill over from the cloth era, nothing more.  

Point being it's a sold structure with gussets and tresses that has anchor points. Something composite or with less structure might need more engineering for anchor points. As far as any other use all it seems to do is collect rust 

Edited February 20, 2019 by peevee