Oshkosh observation

[aviatoreb]

When I first got into airplane ownership about a dozen years ago, I had a new car mentality.  Cars around here corrode in the salt.  Cars are constantly changing in shape, equipment, etc and you can see old models from a mile away vs the new versions.  Most of all cars mostly wear out with heavy use in ten years or so.  I have friends that trade in their old car for a new car every two years.  Getting rid of their new car while it still has the new car smell.

I brought the same mentality to aviation, and I was creeped out by the ancient and dirty old Cessna 152 and 172 available here to learn in.  Yuk.  They were Yuky, but they were not relatively less safe I gradually learned.

When I got my first new to me airplane it had in part some of that new is better bias.  I got a 2003 Diamond DA40 that had a new look.  I loved it.

Soon I upgraded to this Mooney M20K rocket for over 10 years. 1981.  Now it is fixed up to the point that any non aviation person will think it is brand new.  New paint.  New leather interior.  It looks gorgeous.  So much of my airplane, inside and out, is not old.

There was a comedian once I saw holding up an axe - he said, this is George Washington's axe.  But the handle rotted so he had to replace the handle.  And the head corroded so he had to replace the head.

So I have gradually learned that old airplanes aren't necessarily old.  They can be as new.  And the general designs aren't dramatically different in the new model either, as the general shape and flight characteristics is comparable.  

So it is not that I wouldn't love an M20V, or M20TN, but I love what I have. And the old fleet does compete with the new fleet.  Which is just not the same in cars.  I have read a lot btw about the difficulties that G1000 owners have had and so actually as far as I am concerned being locked into G1000 is a negative.

I feel like I have gradually evolved so that I no longer have the new is better mentality.  I have grown to love keeping my old thing in new condition.  What is critical to this discussion is that as a long time old-plane owner, I feel like I have become trained to not pine for a new airplane.  I wish the company the best!  And I root for Mooney.  But I cannot imagine a scenario where I would want to buy ANY new airplane from any company.  When I started I wanted a new plane (but couldn't afford one), but now I don't even pine for a new plane.  If I had a million dollars budget to buy a new plane because I won a lottery (better make it a $5M lottery win so no one says I am being unwise blowing it all on a plane), I would more so be pining for whatever I could get for $1M used in fantastic condition.  What - maybe a pristine TBM700?  I am just not pining for anything new.  Not a cirrus. Not a Mooney.  I don't want a new plane anymore, and I feel like this is what old airplane ownership does to many of us overtime.

Oh, and my car/daily driver is a 2004 Subaru WRX STI that I have had since it was new, and somehow it is now considered a classic.  I used to want new cars all the time, but somehow what I want has changed.  I like keeping old things going.

So in other words - while old Mooney owners seem like the ideal market place to sell new Mooneys, there is a hidden factor which is we somehow become trained to not want new airplanes.

I'm certainly not discoing the new line though.

I would love to own a 2019 M20V when it is 20 years old....in 2039.  But I have a very very hard imagining that there will not be a sea change in aviation before. then.  Will there still be avgas?  Will we still be flying piston powered airplanes at all in 20 years?  Will quadcopter/octocopters take over the airspace?  Will fixed wings still exist?  Will a single engine on the nose still exist or will fixed wings all have 20 tiny electric motors on the wings.  The sea change is coming, and what we fly today, all of them, cirrus, mooney, etc, will only be museum and antique owners but not necessarily even legal to fly. Or no fuel available.

OK, if I had $25M to spend on airplanes, I would definitely buy a 2019 M20V and a TBM and a jet and a cub crafter.  And a big hangar with a shiny floor.  Definitely,  In other words I do still love Mooney.

[Jim Peace]

On 7/25/2019 at 12:59 PM, 201er said:

I think the point that you missed and more so Mooney International is missing is that this whole "attitude" stems not from jealousy or lack of money but from Mooney failing to produce innovation that appeals to the Mooney community.

THIS. ^^^^^^^^^^^

[Chris K]

A brand new Mooney is likely targeted toward someone that needs quick travel usually for the sake of business.  The Cirrus definitely appeals to people new to aviation simply due to cabin size and the "OH SH**" rip cord.  Personally I'd never fly in a Cirrus because I feel the airframe itself is junk compared to a Mooney.  I love my Mooney and its capabilities however if my other half was involved in deciding on an airplane, very likely I would not have a Mooney right now.  Instead, I'd probably own something like a Saratoga, Columbia, or even a Malibu along with the huge costs to keep that plane flying.  Mooney adding a 2nd door at least gets it closer to be able to compete with a new Cirrus.  Unfortunately some buyers that don't know any better focus on cabin interior size and ramp presence (Cirrus sits higher).  

I have a fellow across from my hangar that is partners in a Cirrus and he comes over often to come check out my Eagle.  He was previously a J owner and I think he actually misses his old trusty Mooney so I don't think the pilot population itself has rejected the idea of a new Mooney, likely it is a combination of price and just seeming slightly outdated as far as its cabin dynamics.  Though I love the way the Mooney looks, I hate to admit that Mooney may need to look into certifying a newly designed cabin with more space both width and height (but please keep the wings and tubular frame).  

Additionally, so many parts of our Mooneys are hand made and custom fit which is both a good and bad thing.  The good is a human had eyes on it to check for quality and fit.  The bad is the same as the good since the cost of certain production items by a human take more time and effort than machines and usually more uniform.  The cost of a new Cirrus being significantly lower than either Mooney model must definitely hurt.  If Mooney could streamline some of its production, good chance they could be more competitive, at least on price and on parts production as well.

Regardless, I do hope the owners of Mooney invest enough capital and find a way for a long future for the company because it keeps our planes flying.  Lastly, I have made a couple calls to the factory since I bought my plane and if I did not reach someone, I received a call back within a day or so therefore customer service is not lacking.  I do wish however the cost of certain parts were more reasonable and more readily available.

[BKlott]

Airplanes like the Cessna Columbia/Corvalis/TTX and the Cirrus SR22 have largely made the legacy single engine retractable fleet obsolete. They offer comparable, if not superior, performance with roomier, more comfortable cabins, built-in air conditioning and oxygen systems, along with fully integrated modern avionics and autopilot systems. They do all this without having the added complexity, maintenance, risks and costs associated with retractable landing gear. Their airframes are not subject to corrosion issues which can render them un-airworthy.

Time and progress have bypassed the manufacturing standards and techniques of the 1950s and 1960s. The manufacturers who are stuck in that technology era are just hanging on. The sales results in the marketplace have spoken. Like it or not, today’s buyers want the slick carbon fiber airframes with roomy cabins, fixed gear and, yes, the last gasp safety option of a BRS.

Their comes a point when you realize that the cost to acquire and modernize a legacy airplane to make it “like new”, can easily become a $150,000+ endeavor. Then you find corrosion on your spar, in your empennage or suffer one gear up landing and it can all come to an end. You’re back to square one and it’s hard to justify.

Or you go to sell your $150K investment and find that you’re lucky to get an offer for fifty cents on the dollar. Again, it’s hard to justify.

You might just reach the conclusion that you would be better off and way ahead of the game by purchasing a used Cirrus/Columbia/Corvalis/TTX in the first place.

 

[gsxrpilot]

52 minutes ago, BKlott said:

Like it or not, today’s buyers want the slick carbon fiber airframes with roomy cabins, fixed gear and, yes, the last gasp safety option of a BRS.

Not all of today's buyers. I personally wouldn't spend money on a fixed gear airplane. I think they're ugly. 

If Mooney made a new 252, I'd buy one. But they don't so I'll restore one.

[mike_elliott]

7 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

Not all of today's buyers. I personally wouldn't spend money on a fixed gear airplane. I think they're ugly. 

If Mooney made a new 252, I'd buy one. But they don't so I'll restore one.

Paul, dear friend, Unfortunately, the tooling to make a mid body was destroyed, reworked etc by one of the previous regimes and there will be no going back to a mid sized J or K as a new product. The longer body Mooney's wont cost much additional to make even if it were possible. Would factory "kits" to "renew" a midbody be of interest? Or better yet, a factory refurbed J, with new interior, paint, engine, Glass avionics, prop, new wear parts for say 390K be of interest? I think so, but who am I to think what everyone wants. Mooney would have to be able to buy a solid used airframe for 60K or less to make that number work, however. You would essentially have a new plane, but the airframe logbook would still have the hours. Heck, just a few weeks ago, there was a lot of bellyachin' about possibly the nicest J in existence being sold for 200K here.

  On 7/25/2019 at 12:59 PM, 201er said:

I think the point that you missed and more so Mooney International is missing is that this whole "attitude" stems not from jealousy or lack of money but from Mooney failing to produce innovation that appeals to the Mooney community.

THIS. ^^^^^^^^^^^

Mike, Jim, can you perhaps elaborate on the product innovation you would like to see that would appeal to the Mooney Community? The "chute" would be a major redesign that would require millions of certification costs, tooling etc. There are better things on the horizon anyway...'nuff said for now until they are real. While I cannot guarantee your constructive thoughts or comments will be implemented, I can guarantee I will voice them.

The cost of a new Cirrus being significantly lower than either Mooney model must definitely hurt.  If Mooney could streamline some of its production, good chance they could be more competitive, at least on price and on parts production as well

Cris, a new SR22T GTS lists for 879K, an M20V is 769K trying to get apples to apples as best as possible. They do have the 'chute, neither have FIKI at this price. You are spot on about streamlining production, and who better than the current Chinese ownership to do just that. What Cirrus does have is effective marketing. The perception is it is significantly lower than competition and safer. I most likely would have died if I were in a Cirrus in 2014. Do they have areas to improve on in pricing and safety? Sure. More importantly, they need to improve marketing. It is not ALL about speed....

 

[Yetti]

Let's see.   So far there is a Non Mooney International person hosting the conversation.   There are people providing feedback.   Software companies hold user conferences that people go to.  Software companies have Customer Advisor Boards.   The users provide feedback into what the product should have.   The Software companies find their niche and then market sell the heck out of it.

 

Mooney's Niche is an up and coming company that is regionally based and the managers need to zip around to the field offices.   Not many people are going to buy a $700K airplane to fly on the weekends to grab food.   That is what the used fleet is for.

Someone suggested making mods for the used fleet.    There are lots of abandoned STCs that were good ideas that people would buy.   For most on Mooneyspace the Mod market is you want to be talking.

If there were a bunch of mods, that generates traffic to the factory.     Factory traffic generates sales.   Factory traffic generates upgrades.

I am thinking of Ford SVT program here.   Started with Engine Mods, then complete built engines, then car mods, then complete cars.   See how that works.

Can the factory slap a 300hp engine on a J and call it a Missile which I just read there are 25 or so of?    Would that create excitement?  I bet so.

The factory is in a unique position with the FAA.  They can slap a part number on it. update the manual and do some flight tests.   This is way quicker than the STC route.   

Edited July 27, 2019 by Yetti

[Tom]

On 7/25/2019 at 7:48 AM, mike_elliott said:

 The problem isnt the price, it is the ability of the existing Mooney owner to pay it. And that can be fixed by the individual if they elect to earn more.

The problem mostly is the price, more specifically the number of people who can afford it, and (as stipulated upthread) the competing purchase options (including in the used turbine arena) for people who can afford the new price.  I'm not saying that the price is too much, but rather it is what it is, and the economy simply can't support it.   

My apologies if the graph below raises hackles but the decline in household wealth shares starting in the 70s coincides with the evaporation of high-end discretionary spending on things like brand new personal planes.  Sure, the population overall increases and some people will still buy new, but there's a real tipping point beyond which the percentage of people able to afford new really drops off (exacerbated by increased real-dollar housing costs, healthcare costs, etc, as a % of net wealth).  The carrying capacity of the economy is only so much while the graph below explains a lot...even if it conflicts with a lot of people's perceptions about the ~strength of the economy.  Who the heck doesn't "elect to earn more?"

 

[M20F]

11 minutes ago, Tom said:

The problem mostly is the price

The word would be value.  The price of a Mooney is similar to other comparable new aircraft which sell much better.  The price is not the issue it is what one gets for it that is. 

Mooney’s history has been innovation of building faster, cheaper, better performing planes.  That has ceased to be the case.  

[Davidv]

44 minutes ago, Tom said:

The problem mostly is the price, more specifically the number of people who can afford it, and (as stipulated upthread) the competing purchase options (including in the used turbine arena) for people who can afford the new price.  I'm not saying that the price is too much, but rather it is what it is, and the economy simply can't support it.   

My apologies if the graph below raises hackles but the decline in household wealth shares starting in the 70s coincides with the evaporation of high-end discretionary spending on things like brand new personal planes.  Sure, the population overall increases and some people will still buy new, but there's a real tipping point beyond which the percentage of people able to afford new really drops off (exacerbated by increased real-dollar housing costs, healthcare costs, etc, as a % of net wealth).  The carrying capacity of the economy is only so much while the graph below explains a lot...even if it conflicts with a lot of people's perceptions about the ~strength of the economy.  Who the heck doesn't "elect to earn more?"

 

This is a very good point, I don’t know the average income/wealth demographics of someone buying a new cirrus, but I would contend that the shrinking of the top 2-9% makes the new airplane market stagnant if not smaller which means there’s much more competition for fewer buyers.  The minimum income to be classified top 1% in 2018 was over $700k.  The minimum for  top 5% was 300k.  I would imagine that the 300k-700k income ranges would be a very good market for new airplanes, especially when you look at the current financing market (20+ yr amortization at ~5% interest rates which means you can finance $500k at around $3.5k per month ).  So the numbers would definitely support a shrinking applicable market.  Yes, the top 1% is growing but by definition, that’s a smaller number of people and probably includes many who would spend more than $700k on a new aircraft.

[81X]

I echo this sentiment.  As a person who strongly believes in at least the legacy brand, I was completely un-impressed with the Mooney company presence at OSH.  I was over at their exhibit for 15 minutes, not a single person came and talked to me and it wasn't because they were busy.  Terrible.  

Also, many of you saw me in a really ratty old hat, and as such I was in the market for a new hat.  A new Mooney hat would have fit the bill perfectly.  After what seemed like I was bothering someone to ask about buying some Mooney gear, I was instructed to go on the speed shop website and just buy it there.  Terrible.  

The loyalty and enthusiasm of Mooney owners doesn't come around often and I agree strongly with others that this is a completely untapped, somewhat free resource.  In addition to the obvious current owners, I met a few former Mooney owners that went to pressurized aircraft or twins but still really loved their Mooneys that they sold.  Just look at all the Mooney events- the Caravan, the Summit, this site, the regional Mooney groups.  Moral of the story- the aircraft are great and the following is really strong.

 

I think one of the more important things to ask here is focused a lot around why people are buying new Cirrus aircraft vs new Mooneys; their capabilities and costs are similar enough.  The formula comes down to knowing your customer base and how it's changing.  Why are people buying Teslas vs ICE cars?  A really nice Honda Accord (30K for a top of the line) vs a Tesla (48K for a mid-level 3) are both great, reliable transportation.  Teslas are improving the vehicle experience AND moving the industry forward, not just improving on what you've got like the Accord.  People want more of this experience change and are willing to spend a little more for it.  It's about the experience and lifestyle which is partially set by the brand image, marketing, and of course the core product.  While there are some needed product changes, I don't think Mooney is grossly failing at the core product here, it's the brand and marketing.  Those new Acclaims and ovations were incredibly nice on the inside and outside, and we know the craftsmanship is great!  

I believe the second is also risk perspective changes.  In my non-scientific opinion, I feel that people are much more risk averse these days since the margins of safety for everything has significantly improved over the last 20 years or so.  Airbags everywhere in cars, advanced crumple zones, advanced airline pilot training, car seat technologies, food safety, antilock brakes, the list goes on.  This increase (or perceived increase) in light GA safety standards was brought en masse to light GA by Cirrus with a simple parachute and the "safety/simplicity of fixed gear" which they marketed the hell out of whether the data supports it or not.  While Mooney has a great legacy safety platform with arguably one of if not the strongest light GA airframes, it's somewhat outdated by the perceived standard set by Cirrus.  

My thoughts- get a parachute & other modern standard stuff (composites, maybe?), leverage your customer/enthusiasm base, rebuild the brand and market the hell out of the things that are important to people these days and then there will be 400+ airplanes rolling down the Kerrville factory floor per year.  

[Tom]

43 minutes ago, M20F said:

The word would be value.  The price of a Mooney is similar to other comparable new aircraft which sell much better.  The price is not the issue it is what one gets for it that is. 

Mooney’s history has been innovation of building faster, cheaper, better performing planes.  That has ceased to be the case.  

So I agree with your two points....on what is value...and what is/was a Mooney.

In my mind modern Mooney vs Cirrus is really apples vs oranges in the value department, particularly for most new Cirrus sales.  Quite simply the Cirrus can be used commercially (rental, training, air taxi) with much greater ease than the Mooney...such that the purchase price can be depreciated, effectively making the purchase price hit more tolerable to small plane operators.  This angle alone really puts modern Mooney sales at a disadvantage when prospective commercial operators (i.e. the market most able to afford a new plane) are reviewing new plane brochures.

Regarding faster, cheaper, innovation...I don't know that my old Mooney was significantly less expensive than, for example, a Skylane in the year it was produced.  I also don't know what innovation came after 1968 besides incrementally increased complicatedness, more size, and more horsepower (save turbo-normalization).  This evolutionary path, from my perspective, finds the modern Mooney akin to a Bugatti or some other semi-custom European sports car that I know nothing about...small production, doesn't need to advertise as people know to go to Kerrville to get the highest performing singles out there (on a tangent Van's has followed the same path, starting with small, nimble, fast, efficient...now with massive HP two-seaters).  But again, for less money you can buy a used turbine such that the number of people wanting a new high-performance piston is small.

And, outside of internet forums, chutes are a net positive in the safety department, even more so with appropriate training.  The logic that someone could be trained to fly a high performance Mooney but not trained to appropriately utilize a chute on a Mooney makes absolutely no sense to me. 

[KLRDMD]

On 7/25/2019 at 9:59 AM, 201er said:

We fly our Js at Bonanaza speeds with 20% less horsepower . . . 

Well, not exactly Bonanza speeds. Most Js are 155 KTAS airplanes, 160 under the right conditions. Most Bonanzas (S model and on, what most think of as a Bonanza) are 170 KTAS airplanes, 175 under the right conditions.

[LANCECASPER]

On 7/25/2019 at 1:34 PM, jetdriven said:

The entire Cirrus is carbon.  

The entire Cirrus is composite. They sell different appearance packages, one of which is carbon.

 

[LANCECASPER]

I realize that I'm preaching to the choir, but certified airplanes have become too expensive to buy and maintain for the average pilot.

Mooney was selling hundreds of airplanes a year when the J and K first came out because they were innovative and a great value.

I'm bracing myself for the backlash of saying this, but the closest thing to what the J or K model was when it first came out is an experimental Sling or Sling TSi.

https://www.airplanefactory.com/aircraft/sling-tsi/

[ArtVandelay]

Sling is nice, but I don’t want to build an airplane, I want to fly it.
Quick build saves 500 hours, but the fastest I’ve heard is 2 years...working full time, by someone who had previous experience.


Tom

[LANCECASPER]

Sling is nice, but I don’t want to build an airplane, I want to fly it.Quick build saves 500 hours, but the fastest I’ve heard is 2 years...working full time, by someone who had previous experience. 

 

Tom

 

 

Going to South Africa to do a build assist adds $50000 total and you have an airplane built in two weeks. The man the paperwork gets done and it gets shipped to you for another 12500. 

Even doing it without the quick build they estimate 900 hours for someone who has never built an airplane.

 

The liquid cooled Rotax 915 is compelling.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

[Danb]

Comfort was mentioned a few times above of it being a strong suit of the Cirrus line, a friend of mine just bought a new cirrus in April trading in his 2004 cirrus.

We had good discussion regarding both lines the chute was important as was the fixed gear, he is just retired and flies 200+ hours a year. The two items he like the long body better than his c was comfort on a long trip he stated he doesn’t get as fatigued in the way the Mooney sits low and secondly he feels he gives away 15-20 knots depending on altitude considerably more when comparing it to an Acclaim. A lot of his flying is from the east coast to Ok city he’s on the medical advisory board at the faa and would love the Acclaim for those trips. I believe his wife was instrumental in getting the c.

[RogueOne]

3 hours ago, Yetti said:

Let's see.   So far there is a Non Mooney International person hosting the conversation.   There are people providing feedback.   Software companies hold user conferences that people go to.  Software companies have Customer Advisor Boards.   The users provide feedback into what the product should have.   The Software companies find their niche and then market sell the heck out of it.

 

Mooney's Niche is an up and coming company that is regionally based and the managers need to zip around to the field offices.   Not many people are going to buy a $700K airplane to fly on the weekends to grab food.   That is what the used fleet is for.

Someone suggested making mods for the used fleet.    There are lots of abandoned STCs that were good ideas that people would buy.   For most on Mooneyspace the Mod market is you want to be talking.

If there were a bunch of mods, that generates traffic to the factory.     Factory traffic generates sales.   Factory traffic generates upgrades.

I am thinking of Ford SVT program here.   Started with Engine Mods, then complete built engines, then car mods, then complete cars.   See how that works.

Can the factory slap a 300hp engine on a J and call it a Missile which I just read there are 25 or so of?    Would that create excitement?  I bet so.

The factory is in a unique position with the FAA.  They can slap a part number on it. update the manual and do some flight tests.   This is way quicker than the STC route.   

There are at least 42 Missiles...

[gsxrpilot]

Just because something is newer doesn't necessarily make it better. We see this all the time with cars and many other items as well. IMO Mooney innovated it's self a bit past the market with the long bodies. If I were going to spend $750K on a new airplane today and my choices were an Acclaim Ultra or a 252 Encore Ultra, I'd choose the Encore. And likewise I believe if many buyers had the choice between a $600K Ovation Ultra or a 201 Allegro Ultra, I think they'd choose the Allegro.

I'm not saying Mooney can do this easily, but I think they've continued to double down on the bigger/faster and in doing so blew right past efficient. I believe their core customer going back to the beginning was with them primarily because of Efficiency. 

And in full agreement with @LANCECASPER, the Sling is probably the closest thing to the J. But it's still not the J.

[mike_elliott]

One of the purposes of this thread is to gauge the viability of the existing Mooney owner to upgrade to new Mooneys, thus being able to ask for support from Mooney International for events like the Mooney Summit. One of our board members (Ken Yale) has purchased a new Mooney, and 3 of the current Presidents' club members are new Ultra owners I have trained, 3 are legacy Mooney pilots (Thanks, Rick, Peyton, Bob, Jim, Omar, Terrence).

Additionally, it was to inspire "wishes" for Mooney's product. Price cant be lowered, unless production could be in the 10's of thousands. That wont happen. Supplying upgrades to 15 year old planes sold on the used market for less than costs wont help them pay light bills.

Perhaps the existing fleet owners is not who Mooney should be trying to address, albeit we love the product, just we like pre 1999 that falls into a sub 200K range.  Hopefully, in 20 years there will be enough 2019 U's and V's to service the demand for used Mooneys. The new price point seems to be unjustifiable for most, and this would be true if it were a new C172, new Cirrus or new anything. This thread will help them make decisions to correctly go forward.

 

 

[Jerry 5TJ]

Over a 20+ year period I owned 3 different Mooney airplanes, each registered in my legal name.  I was not hard to find, and clearly I liked the planes.  

However, the Mooney company never contacted me, not even once, to see if I’d like a new Mooney.  

Cirrus, by contrast, worked long and hard to sell me a new plane.  

[Yetti]

No one said sell legacy upgrades under cost.  If their product is only new planes then yes this might not be the audience.   If the want to expand the product line to upgrades like pull an F up to the factory that leaves with 300 hp and a new cowl for say 100K then people could get interested.  The factory has the power of the certificates.

Edited July 27, 2019 by Yetti

[Tom]

29 minutes ago, Yetti said:

No one said sell legacy upgrades under cost.  If their product is only new planes then yes this might not be the audience.   If the want to expand the product line to upgrades like pull an F up to the factory that leaves with 300 hp and a new cowl for say 100K then people could get interested.  The factory has the power of the certificates.

In a world without lawyers I must assume that the factory would do precisely that, except that the cost would be like $60k or less.  Ironic (or not) who can afford a brand new plane in 2019.

[mike_elliott]

41 minutes ago, Yetti said:

No one said sell legacy upgrades under cost.  If their product is only new planes then yes this might not be the audience.   If the want to expand the product line to upgrades like pull an F up to the factory that leaves with 300 hp and a new cowl for say 100K then people could get interested.  The factory has the power of the certificates.

Your example cant be done for 100K, so in essence, you are asking for this upgrade at 100K to be done for under cost. A new IO550G costs almost 90K, now we will have to change out a bunch of other stuff, like make it a 24V system, new cowl, new prop, Oh, and get an STC. Never mind the IA's and A$P's time to do it and feeding the liability insurers. Make it 200K and you are being a bit more realistic for this. Now you are getting into used Ovation and Bravo territory. The point of asking about whether or not a 395K renewed J would be of interest was to see the viability of such upgrades.

Lets do the numbers

Used J at 60K (try to find and buy them at that)

New IO360/390 60K

New Prop 10K

New Interior 15K

Paint, tank sealing 25K

New avionics panel 70K

New everything else needed 20K

500 man hrs at 50/hr 25K

Liability exposure 30K (WAG here)

Thats over 300K without profit so far..

Anyone want to submit an irreversible PO  once they have a dozen, maybe they will begin the project

Anyway, the point is we want these upgrades, so lets let Mooney know it and let them know what we would be willing to spend for them. Be realistic here, they would love to be able to provide a profitable product for us I am sure, but I doubt have an interest to hear once again how they need to price a new plane for less than they can buy the parts for. All that does is tell them to get out of the market.