New Mooney Design with BRS Parachute?

[Andy95W]

Interesting thought- pay Mooney factory workers minimum wage.  Quality goes to shit and the price drops all the way to only $600,000.  Great idea.

[1964-M20E]

Just guessing here but I would suspect the average wage at the factory is abut $30/hour so $60/hour aggregate would just about cover all taxes and benefits.

$240k in labor

$100k avionics

$80k engine

$50k misc

$470k total +/-

overhead profit and liability $235k

$705k +/- not too far from the list price of a new Ultra

 

I have said before all small aircraft manufacturers need to get together and automate many of the processes to reduce man hours.  Many of the cutting, bending, riveting and welding jobs could be automated today.  However, to be cost effective B,C, C, P and Mooney need to work together.  Can they see past competition long enough to do it?  Don't get me wrong I like competition and market driving innovation that is why we have the Ultra with 2 doors but I think for all of them to succeed  they need to cooperate at some level.

JMHO

[Bob_Belville]

Against my better judgement I'll weigh in one more time.

• Marketing 101. Costs do not determine prices. The market, i.e. competition, perceived relative values, and subjective considerations all factor in. (Cost accountants and engineers usually have a hard time grasping this idea.) It is usually not helpful to know what a new product costs to make when setting the price. Cost based pricing is apt to leave money on the table. 
• Costs determine whether you can make a margin at the prices set by the market. 
• Compared to other products in the market the prices for the new Ultra models seem to be about right to me.  
• What should Mooney do? As with any product the company should continually work on reducing costs to improve margins.
• Market and sell. Promote our advantages. There are plenty. Don't get bogged down discussing some other product's advantages. We're not a 5 skill player, in this business no one is. Get over it.  
• Live on the apparently substantial amount of revenue received from aerospace subcontract work and the also substantial parts business supporting the fleets of 500(?) flying Mooneys.  

[bonal]

Does any of us know what it actually costs to make one of these beautiful Mooneys. I've said this before on another thread where we were complaining about costs I had a conversation with the president of Cirrus some years ago and I asked him what percentage of the cost went to cover the product liability. He told me straight to my face it was about 65%  

[Austintatious]

3 minutes ago, bonal said:

Does any of us know what it actually costs to make one of these beautiful Mooneys. I've said this before on another thread where we were complaining about costs I had a conversation with the president of Cirrus some years ago and I asked him what percentage of the cost went to cover the product liability. He told me straight to my face it was about 65%  

If true, That is such a sad fact.  Especially considering how few fatal accidents are caused by wrongdoing by the manufacturer.  I guess it all goes back to the lawsuits in the book "the legend of cessna"... the worst one was when a guy flew while intoxicated, crashed because he ran out of fuel and the family sued Cessna and won.

[Bob_Belville]

1 hour ago, bonal said:

Does any of us know what it actually costs to make one of these beautiful Mooneys. I've said this before on another thread where we were complaining about costs I had a conversation with the president of Cirrus some years ago and I asked him what percentage of the cost went to cover the product liability. He told me straight to my face it was about 65%  

I suppose that figure includes the higher prices the manufacturer pays for each component that has its own liability to cover. 

[bonal]

4 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

I suppose that figure includes the higher prices the manufacturer pays for each component that has its own liability to cover. 

Possibly but still effects the final cost 

[KSMooniac]

I suppose that figure includes the higher prices the manufacturer pays for each component that has its own liability to cover. 

this is very true...the aluminum vendor has liability exposure by selling to someone that makes an engine case, a brake caliper, wheel half, etc. Then those vendors have exposure selling to the engine company, or Mooney, or a repair shop. Then those folks have exposure selling to us. The cost of liability insurance is on the order of 15-20% of gross sales. 3 layers of supply chain increases the component cost by 72% so it is really easy to see what this does to our market!

The 1994 legislation was a nice start, but insufficient to save our industry unfortunately. We need much bigger reform on the tort side.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[TGreen]

3 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

Against my better judgement I'll weigh in one more time.

• Marketing 101. Costs do not determine prices. The market, i.e. competition, perceived relative values, and subjective considerations all factor in. (Cost accountants and engineers usually have a hard time grasping this idea.) It is usually not helpful to know what a new product costs to make when setting the price. Cost based pricing is apt to leave money on the table. 
• Costs determine whether you can make a margin at the prices set by the market. 
• Compared to other products in the market the prices for the new Ultra models seem to be about right to me.  
• What should Mooney do? As with any product the company should continually work on reducing costs to improve margins.
• Market and sell. Promote our advantages. There are plenty. Don't get bogged down discussing some other product's advantages. We're not a 5 skill player, in this business no one is. Get over it.  
• Live on the apparently substantial amount of revenue received from aerospace subcontract work and the also substantial parts business supporting the fleets of 500(?) flying Mooneys.  

For most products, demand is price-elastic. The lower the price, the greater the demand. The demand for Ultras at their present prices is 1 per month. Demand at a lower price point would be greater. My guess is that costs (marginal costs, specifically) are the controlling factor in the current pricing of Ultras. 

[bonal]

Seems like the aviation industry has a lot more in common with the medical and health care industry than anything else 

[KSMooniac]

Seems like the aviation industry has a lot more in common with the medical and health care industry than anything else 

That's an excellent point...both are over-regulated and over-lawyered.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[Bob_Belville]

2 hours ago, TGreen said:

For most products, demand is price-elastic. The lower the price, the greater the demand. The demand for Ultras at their present prices is 1 per month. Demand at a lower price point would be greater. My guess is that costs (marginal costs, specifically) are the controlling factor in the current pricing of Ultras. 

I hope that Mooney is pricing new planes based on where Bonanza, Cirrus, C182, Arrow... are priced. 

[zaitcev]

On 5/28/2019 at 11:28 AM, MrRodgers said:

Would you like a chute on your Mooney?

In the abstract, I'd be all for it. An airframe parachute significantly increases the safety of flying over forested areas, or even more hospitable areas at night. Just a couple of months ago a guy with 1,600 hours in type augered an M20C because he lost vacuum in IMC. The loss of the useful load hurts, but I mostly fly solo anyway. No, the big problem for me is cost. A Mooney with a chute is going to push $900k to a million. I just can't afford it.

[SWL]

21 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

But the cost of your K was based on 15-40 years of depreciation and inflation.  With cars, we don't see too much in the way of inflation in the 5 year lifespan of a typical new car, but 15-40 years of inflation on top of depreciation can be eye-popping.

And then add in the fact that car production costs can decrease with time as manufacturers get better at making them or have better techniques.  I imagine Mooney is still mostly making them the same way they were 40 years ago

I took the mooney factory tour this Spring and can attest that they are still hand fabricating the frames just like it was 1955.  I love my K with the rocket conversion. Would trade up for a TBM, nothing less...  Unless Cirrus would sell me a turbo RG!  I asked Cirrus about the possibility of an RG in their future. They said the only RG on their horizon is the jet.  I'd rather have a TBM and the difference in cash. 

[TGreen]

2 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

I hope that Mooney is pricing new planes based on where Bonanza, Cirrus, C182, Arrow... are priced. 

I suspect that Mooney is behaving like a rational economic actor who is trying to maximize profits (through a combination of margin and volume) and is pricing accordingly. 

[Bryan]

1 hour ago, SWL said:

I'd rather have a TBM and the difference in cash. 

Me too, a TBM, but the diff in cash is opposite. A new TBM is 4.2mm and the CJet is 2.4mm new. I guy in my home field had serial number 1 of the SF50, and just upgraded to the first serial number of the G2 jet. I will admit, I love the inside of the G2 SF50 but not ever sent in a new TBM powered up. Lottery plane is definitely the TBM.

[Igor_U]

On ‎5‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 5:06 PM, steingar said:

My Mooney has a steel roll cage. I don’t need a stinking parachute. I’ll bet the airplane will take care of me and mine so long as I don’t stall it on the way down.

 

You do understand you just described a J3 Cub, right? No one describes those as sturdy and with roll bar.

 

[Hank]

13 minutes ago, Igor_U said:

You do understand you just described a J3 Cub, right? No one describes those as sturdy and with roll bar.

 

J3 cabins deform in slow-speed crashes--not much of a "steel roll cage' . . . . Mooneys have been known to impact with an order of magnitude higher kinetic energy, bending wings and rear fuselages but not steel roll cages. I feel safe in my Mooney because I am safe in my Mooney.

[Shadrach]

8 hours ago, KSMooniac said:

this is very true...the aluminum vendor has liability exposure by selling to someone that makes an engine case, a brake caliper, wheel half, etc. Then those vendors have exposure selling to the engine company, or Mooney, or a repair shop. Then those folks have exposure selling to us. The cost of liability insurance is on the order of 15-20% of gross sales. 3 layers of supply chain increases the component cost by 72% so it is really easy to see what this does to our market!

The 1994 legislation was a nice start, but insufficient to save our industry unfortunately. We need much bigger reform on the tort side.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

I suspect the Beech Vtail ruddervator manufacturing issues are largely due to what you’ve articulated here. I’ve never bought into the magnesium shortage explanation. 

[KSMooniac]

I suspect Textron wants nothing to do with piston airplanes and the latest ruddervator situation is just another example. Selling new parts or even just skins will reset the liability clock on those vintage birds, and they have zero pockets (ie big target).

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[MRussell]

7 hours ago, TGreen said:

The demand for Ultras at their present prices is 1 per month. Demand at a lower price point would be greater.

Are we sure about that? Not rhetorical; I have often wondered about this. Cirrus would (obviously) disagree.  How many more units would sell at how much lower of a price point?

[Jerry 5TJ]

8 hours ago, TGreen said:

For most products, demand is price-elastic. The lower the price, the greater the demand. The demand for Ultras at their present prices is 1 per month. Demand at a lower price point would be greater. My guess is that costs (marginal costs, specifically) are the controlling factor in the current pricing of Ultras. 

.   

I have a hunch that if new Ultras had a list price of say $450,000 the number sold each year wouldn’t rise much.  It is still a lot of money to most folks, and there are few potential buyers interested in a new airplane.  

[TCC]

I suspect the Beech Vtail ruddervator manufacturing issues are largely due to what you’ve articulated here. I’ve never bought into the magnesium shortage explanation. 

I suspect Textron wants nothing to do with piston airplanes and the latest ruddervator situation is just another example. Selling new parts or even just skins will reset the liability clock on those vintage birds, and they have zero pockets (ie big target).

Not that I care about B, but I’ve been following the ruddervator skin problem closely.

While raw material isn’t a sourcing issue, it appears the particular corrosion coating specified for the skins is the tough cookie as no one appears eager to do that work.

If this is the case, I’m not sure the problem will be solved as no one can be held at gun point to produce something.

For an STC solution, it seems there’s a fear (rational or otherwise) of the FAA testing regime for control surfaces, given the history of certain models of the airframe.

[Shadrach]

30 minutes ago, TCC said:

 

Not that I care about B, but I’ve been following the ruddervator skin problem closely.

While raw material isn’t a sourcing issue, it appears the particular corrosion coating specified for the skins is the tough cookie as no one appears eager to do that work.

If this is the case, I’m not sure the problem will be solved as no one can be held at gun point to produce something.

For an STC solution, it seems there’s a fear (rational or otherwise) of the FAA testing regime for control surfaces, given the history of certain models of the airframe.
 

 

And for the reason why no one is eager to do the work, see @KSMooniac‘s previous post...

[Tommy]

In Mooney's (new plane) targeted market (middle-aged wealthy individual with family), parachute (marketing) sells. Look at TTx vs Cirrus. Make it optional so for those who prefers bigger load can have the choice not to have it fitted (unlike Cirrus). Mooney's new order number is dismal and one thing that we can all agree on is that stupidity is doing the same thing repeatedly yet expecting a different outcome. What Mooney International is doing isn't working (pilot side door is the only thing that sprung to my mind) and they need to do something different. IMHO, investment in BRS is most likely going to have the biggest ROI (and a cabin revamp is second). 

Make it retro-fittable so the old Mooney can enjoy too (highly doubt this will happen).

BRS does give a better chance of survival in some scenarios (mid-air collision / break up, engine failure in IMC / Night / over hostile terrains) plus the resale value of the plane is likely to go up  if there is a retro-fit STC available (in aother decade, our Mooneys will be just a little bit cheaper than the exponentially depreciated Cirrus that has lower TTIF, great avioinics, and BRS) !