Factory Closed Down?

[Jerry 5TJ]

1 hour ago, MRussell said:

I’m sorry guys, but Mooney didn’t fail this time because of a lousy social media strategy. 

The (lack of) strategy predates social media: Mooney easily could have known I owned 3 of their planes over several decades.  But their sales group never sent me so much as a postcard.  

By contrast, Cirrus tried hard to sell me their planes. 

[MRussell]

2 hours ago, Andy95W said:

My gut feeling is that the folks at the Mooney factory feel the same way.  This explains why their limited social media efforts were lacking, and it even explains why their website is/was very poor.

A lot of us who are 50+ don't really get how influential social media has become, simply because we do so little of it outside of Facebook and MooneySpace.  For everyone under 40, Mooney's lack of effort in our digital age is laughable and embarrassing. 

I hear you, but I'm well under 50 and I do product marketing for a living, and while I agree Mooney didn't make a reasonable effort on the social media front, I truly believe Product and Process come before the Promotion, meaning their poor social campaign was insignificant in the face of larger Product problems. At risk of offending my colleagues who have dedicated their careers to marketing, I simply don't believe we (marketers) can "create demand for" a nearly $1m product when the product is noncompetitive against its peers. We can create interest, enthusiasm, buzz, and we can spread knowledge or talking points, but true demand is filtered at this price point. In full disclosure the most expensive products I have taken to market topped out around $200k, but I saw the same pattern. The higher you go in price, the stronger the BS filter of the buyer will be. Conversely, I would propose we could use a good social media campaign to sell 10,000 pairs of Mooney-branded sunglasses at $99/pair in less than a month, so I'm not saying it's not a powerful medium (the President would agree, I suppose). I'm just saying the details of the product premises matter far more as the price category goes (way) up. 

Maybe I could say it more simply: I've never seen social save a flawed product. Buy time? Maybe, but not much time. 

Incidentally, I also disagree with critics of the high price Mooney was asking for its recent models. I believe the market supports that pricing for a complete product (Cirrus, Piper, and others seem to agree). I simply believe the buyers feel the Mooney product is not complete. Social media can't convince them otherwise. 

Edited November 22, 2019 by MRussell
typos

[pwnel]

22 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

This Sunday gone past, I flew to a fly in.  There all the aircraft lined up and parked, Piper Cherokee, Jodels, Robins, DA40s, amd one Mooney.

After Breakfast I was one if the last to walk out to the line, there was eveyone all crowded around my Mooney, all having a nose and peak.  They are machines of mystery, we need to publicise that aura far more around social media.  Noone would ever buy anything else ever again.

Andrew, 

100% - and it can be done.  I wonder how many younger folks are into Bonanzas just because young Matt Guthmiller makes great Youtube videos flying one.  Or Cirrus/TBM (steveo1kinevo) etc etc.  Or want to build an RV because FlightChops is showing how it's done.  

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Looks like Mooney got 4 more out in Q3.  8 total aircraft for the year thru Q3.

Piper and Cirrus doing well.  Surprising amount of C206s rolling off the line.

https://gama.aero/facts-and-statistics/quarterly-shipments-and-billings/

YTD Extra sold 20 EA300s, Icon sold 36, and Honda Jet 25.

Icon sold 36 after all the publicity about how dangerous they are and how irresponsible their ads were, etc., etc.

Mooney sold -eight-.

One thing you get from the report is that there is demand, but not all of the suppliers are figuring out how to tap it.

[MRussell]

29 minutes ago, pwnel said:

100% - and it can be done.  I wonder how many younger folks are into Bonanzas just because young Matt Guthmiller makes great Youtube videos flying one.  Or Cirrus/TBM (steveo1kinevo) etc etc.  Or want to build an RV because FlightChops is showing how it's done.  

These are all great examples, and while factory support of such "peer campaigns" is important, it didn't make the TBM, the Bonanza, or the Cirrus into the respective successes they are. It also doesn't account for Mooney's 10,000 units in operation (I love saying that). Sheer competitive product substance established each of those brands.

In my days at BMW, we spent considerable amounts of time and resources to engage the BMW Car Club of America, which if you don't know is 70,000 dues-paying members in the USA alone. It is a multi-million dollar organization with a full calendar of social events analogous to our "fly ins," and aside from a license to use BMW's logo, the Club is wholly-independent from the automaker for 50 years now. The Club's member population purchases about 5000 new BMW models annually, and a countless number of pre-owned units. Plus the Club members influence an un-countable number of "non-affiliated" car shoppers to choose the brand each year. 

These are incredibly powerful forces and arguments in favor of a good social strategy. 

But the dirtiest secret in Marketing is that we will take a powerful word-of-mouth buzz any day over a high-cost engineered social media campaign or advertising strategy. And that buzz among buyers (original iPhone, Tesla Roadster, 1990 Lexus LS400, etc.) only comes from having a product with undeniable advantages in the "substance department." The problem today is that unlike the late 20th Century, buyers perceive the Mooney to be obsolete compared to newer designs. Obsolete in the areas of ergonomics, payload, and passenger comfort ("comfort" including passenger perceived safety benefit of CAPS).

To that last point, in my experience selling sport sedans and sports cars, I have seen the incredibly fun manual transmission die a horrible needless death because of "spouse concerns." I truly believe those of us screaming "Mooney is a pilot's airplane!" are grossly underestimating how new-plane shoppers think. They simply *must* place a huge emphasis on the interests of their fellow passengers. It's a force as strong as anything we've discussed in this whole thread. 

Edited November 22, 2019 by MRussell
finished thought

[GDGR]

40 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

You "wonder how many younger folks are into Bonanzas just because of …. great YouTube videos.."?  Well it looks like just about none are into new Bonanzas because of YouTube videos.  Textron delivered only 5 Bonanzas in the first 9 months of 2019, even worse than Mooney's pathetic delivery of 8 M20s.  There is a massive disconnect between desire and ability.  Why would anyone waste resources on widescale marketing when the target market is the few people with about $1 million disposable funds for a plane, hangar, upkeep, etc?  

Many of the comments here seem to be based on the rearview mirror of the 60's and 70's when planes were actually affordable by a greater share of the masses.  There are a lot of comments about Mooney "bang for the buck" and "efficiency" but today Mooney has chosen to make only 2 models of Ultra and neither fit those descriptions.  As was noted earlier in the thread by Lancecasper, the Mooney management of the early 2000's destroyed the J/K specific tooling and patterns.  That ship has sailed....

I don't know how everyone else decided on their aircraft to purchase, but when I did my comparison, I looked at:

1- Affordability

2- Retractable gear (always wanted to fly one... call me crazy, but even as a kid, I wanted a plane that didn't have the wheels hanging out in cruise)

 3- Maintenance complexity

4- Speed 

5- Efficiency. 

Every time, I came back to Mooney. Piper, Cessna, Cirrus, Beechcraft... they never checked off all the boxes. Maybe this is the approach Mooney needs in the future. Figure out where and why people want to buy, and emphasize these in either a comparison between other manufacturers, or outright display its' superiority (i.e. fuel efficiency or speed per gallon)

I was "talked out" of a 231 Turbo when I first got my PPL (probably was a smart choice... still think it was a fabulous deal and now kicking myself. Note: Ken C, if you're on here - if you decide to sell again, message me..... I'm wanting to upgrade!!!). The F I purchased has been good and bad (The Good - it's been a great Complex trainer and transition plane. It has served my purpose 98% of the time. I made the right choice as far as a transition from a C172 trainer at flight school... The bad - Needed work. I knew that when I bought it. Should have researched more into upgrades in the cockpit before I jumped on a great deal.)

I definitely don't want to see this being the end. I don't think it will be. But, things need to change in order for someone else to want to jump on an opportunity to continue on and be successful.  

[MooneyMitch]

“”As was noted earlier in the thread by Lancecasper, the Mooney management of the early 2000's destroyed the J/K specific tooling and patterns“”

Incorrect information.  

During filming of video “Boots”, Bill Wheat showed all jigs and such, which included mid-body jigs for steel cage. 

Incidentally, long body cage is a modified version of mid-body cage.  A few tubes added and lengthened.

i viewed mid-body documentation in engineering offices.

[KSMooniac]

“”As was noted earlier in the thread by Lancecasper, the Mooney management of the early 2000's destroyed the J/K specific tooling and patterns“”
Incorrect information.  
During filming of video “Boots”, Bill Wheat showed all jigs and such, which included mid-body jigs for steel cage. 
Incidentally, long body cage is a modified version of mid-body cage.  A few tubes added and lengthened.
i viewed mid-body documentation in engineering offices.

The mid body fuselage skin tools are gone though. They could be made again of course, but nobody is going to buy a new J or K that is only 50k less than an Ultra.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[MooneyMitch]

15 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

The mid body fuselage skin tools are gone though. They could be made again of course, but nobody is going to buy a new J or K that is only 50k less than an Ultra.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

My intent is certainly not to disagree, or be disrespectful.  I’m only interested in sharing what I learned from my experiences at the factory during filming.  It was a wonderful experience I shall never forget!

At the factory, I saw plenty of skin dyes and formers during filming, including mid-body and short body stuff.

I was amazed at the amount of “vintage” parts and things stored at the factory!  It was like being a kid in a candy store!! 

Heck, for a demonstration for us, Jorge produced a C model air filter bracket in one of the big presses.  That’s in the movie!  

 

[pkofman]

I stepped away from the thread for a few days but I just wondered..... did Mooney ever put out a company press release or statement about where things are headed  in the future.

Did they ever put out a formal press release other than the initial notices.

Im sure someone here will know 

Thank you

Peter

 

[toto]

26 minutes ago, pkofman said:

I stepped away from the thread for a few days but I just wondered..... did Mooney ever put out a company press release or statement about where things are headed  in the future.

Did they ever put out a formal press release other than the initial notices.

Im sure someone here will know 

Thank you

Peter

 

Haven't seen anything official.  The best source of information so far seems to be the Kerrville newspaper.

[Urs_Wildermuth]

So they close down the factory, nobody answering the phones, no word at all from the ownership or management on what the heck is going on. Just silence.

If there is a better way of destroying consumer confidence in a product, I have yet to hear it.

[Guest]

My wife who does our parts sourcing has submitted an order to Mooney.  They responded to her email and say our order is being processed and shipped.  Hope is not lost.

Clarence

[Bob_Belville]

23 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

My wife who does our parts sourcing has submitted an order to Mooney.  They responded to her email and say our order is being processed and shipped.  Hope is not lost.

Clarence

@AGL Aviationhas ordered parts this week as well.

[johncuyle]

On 11/22/2019 at 1:59 PM, KSMooniac said:

The mid body fuselage skin tools are gone though. They could be made again of course, but nobody is going to buy a new J or K that is only 50k less than an Ultra.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

I'm not sure about that.  The big bore engines are HEAVY, and by far the biggest problem Mooney has selling airplanes is useful load.  When I was looking at going into a partnership before I bought my 231, the 920 pound useful was an absolute dealkiller for my prospective partner.  He's got a TR182 now.  In reality, our payload against range isn't all that different because I don't burn that much gas, but on paper you see 1100 pounds (his avionics package is very modern and very light) next to 920 pounds and the latter is just a hard sell. They ought to be able to build a new Encore with an 1100 pound useful load.  I'd buy an Encore Ultra with an 1100 pound useful before I'd buy an Acclaim Ultra (which burns more fuel to boot) with 975 pound Ultra.  The couple hundred people that buy a Cirrus with an 1100 pound useful instead of a Mooney would also probably be a lot more likely to buy a Mooney then as well.

[aviatoreb]

3 hours ago, johncuyle said:

I'm not sure about that.  The big bore engines are HEAVY, and by far the biggest problem Mooney has selling airplanes is useful load.  When I was looking at going into a partnership before I bought my 231, the 920 pound useful was an absolute dealkiller for my prospective partner.  He's got a TR182 now.  In reality, our payload against range isn't all that different because I don't burn that much gas, but on paper you see 1100 pounds (his avionics package is very modern and very light) next to 920 pounds and the latter is just a hard sell. They ought to be able to build a new Encore with an 1100 pound useful load.  I'd buy an Encore Ultra with an 1100 pound useful before I'd buy an Acclaim Ultra (which burns more fuel to boot) with 975 pound Ultra.  The couple hundred people that buy a Cirrus with an 1100 pound useful instead of a Mooney would also probably be a lot more likely to buy a Mooney then as well.

That is compelling - an Encore Ultra.  After the 252 they continued to improve aerodynamics, and in particular aerodynamics improvements after the Bravo, to the Acclaim and finally to the Acclaim type S is a large part of why Acclaim is such a fast airplane.

But I wonder if you took that latest and greatest airplane (but the K length mid body verson) how fast a Encore Ultra burning a latest and creates TSIO360 would be.

E

Edited November 25, 2019 by aviatoreb

[kortopates]

I'm not sure about that.  The big bore engines are HEAVY, and by far the biggest problem Mooney has selling airplanes is useful load.  When I was looking at going into a partnership before I bought my 231, the 920 pound useful was an absolute dealkiller for my prospective partner.  He's got a TR182 now.  In reality, our payload against range isn't all that different because I don't burn that much gas, but on paper you see 1100 pounds (his avionics package is very modern and very light) next to 920 pounds and the latter is just a hard sell. They ought to be able to build a new Encore with an 1100 pound useful load.  I'd buy an Encore Ultra with an 1100 pound useful before I'd buy an Acclaim Ultra (which burns more fuel to boot) with 975 pound Ultra.  The couple hundred people that buy a Cirrus with an 1100 pound useful instead of a Mooney would also probably be a lot more likely to buy a Mooney then as well.

My 252 converted to Encore useful load is over 1120 lbs with all glass and all the options that came standard on 252 including dual alternators and even dual brakes - just no TKS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alextstone]

My 252 converted to Encore useful load is over 1120 lbs with all glass and all the options that came standard on 252 including dual alternators and even dual brakes - just no TKS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For me, if a plane has a turbo, TKS becomes a must-have.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[johncuyle]

48 minutes ago, alextstone said:

For me, if a plane has a turbo, TKS becomes a must-have.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
 

Sure, but then you're talking about an Encore Ultra (that burns 10.5 GPH) with TKS and a 1075 pound useful vs an Acclaim Ultra with that burns 15+ GPH and has a 925 pound useful.  You can dial it back to burn only 10.5 GPH sure, but then you aren't actually going any faster than the Encore and you're carrying 150 pounds of engine that you don't need.  Pursuit of outright speed at any cost has not sold Mooneys.  Maybe go back to the formula that did sell, actually useful planes (now more useful than ever because the panel weighs half as much and you get that as UL for people and things) that go fast enough while burning not much gas.

[Tim Jodice]

On 11/22/2019 at 4:59 PM, KSMooniac said:

The mid body fuselage skin tools are gone though. They could be made again of course, but nobody is going to buy a new J or K that is only 50k less than an Ultra.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

It would be a bigger spread than $50K. A base SR20 is $200K less than a base SR22.

[johncuyle]

It would be a bigger spread than $50K. A base SR20 is $200K less than a base SR22.

The Lycoming four is a lot cheaper and I don’t think they offer as many variations or updates on the 20. They appear to be positioning it as a premium trainer to get people into an SR before they get their PPL so as to get them to buy a 22 if they stick with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JT]

2 hours ago, johncuyle said:

I'm not sure about that.  The big bore engines are HEAVY, and by far the biggest problem Mooney has selling airplanes is useful load.  When I was looking at going into a partnership before I bought my 231, the 920 pound useful was an absolute dealkiller for my prospective partner.  He's got a TR182 now.  In reality, our payload against range isn't all that different because I don't burn that much gas, but on paper you see 1100 pounds (his avionics package is very modern and very light) next to 920 pounds and the latter is just a hard sell. They ought to be able to build a new Encore with an 1100 pound useful load.  I'd buy an Encore Ultra with an 1100 pound useful before I'd buy an Acclaim Ultra (which burns more fuel to boot) with 975 pound Ultra.  The couple hundred people that buy a Cirrus with an 1100 pound useful instead of a Mooney would also probably be a lot more likely to buy a Mooney then as well.

Mooney should have educated the pilot population about UL, It should be an obsolete method of comparing aircraft. A quick search shows that a Cessna TR182 has a fuel capacity of 92 gallons. Ovation is 100. That's 8 gallons or 48 pounds. Take 8 gallons out of an Ovation and  dial it back to the same cruise speed as the 182 and you surely could have left more than the 22 gallons required to make up the 180 pound "useful load" difference at the fuel farm. And an O isn't even as efficient as a 231, which I'm sure would fair even better. Paul Bertorelli makes the same mistake here when he compares the "full fuel useful load" of Mooney to Cirrus: 

 

 

The Ovation hols 100 gallons, the Cirrus again 92. He's penalizing the Mooney because it has the ability to carry more fuel! UL as it stands now just isn't a viable comparison. No reviewer or critic ever did a comprehensive job of presenting an accurate comparison, so Mooney should have done it themselves and posted it clearly on their website.  

[KSMooniac]

Actually at OEM pricing there isn't as big as spread as you think between the 200 hp and 300 hp engines. The spread between an SR20 and SR22 is a function of options/equipment and what the market will bear. You can bet there is a much bigger profit margin on the 22. Cirrus happily sells the 20 at little to no profit (I assume) because they know those buyers or students training in one will come knocking for a 22 soon enough.

With Mooney not able to sell any reasonable quantity, they're not in a position to sell a J/K much cheaper than the U/V. The engine and prop are on the order of 15-20k cheaper than the 550 packages. There would be a tiny bit less raw material to build a mid body, and likely 95% of the labor cost. Maybe they could cheap out on the panel and autopilot, but every time Mooney tried that in the past, that option went out of production within a year or two. So I stand by my estimate that a 2019 J or K would be within 50k of a U or V, unless they intentionally took a loss to sell them.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[aviatoreb]

21 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

Actually at OEM pricing there isn't as big as spread as you think between the 200 hp and 300 hp engines. The spread between an SR20 and SR22 is a function of options/equipment and what the market will bear. You can bet there is a much bigger profit margin on the 22. Cirrus happily sells the 20 at little to no profit (I assume) because they know those buyers or students training in one will come knocking for a 22 soon enough.

With Mooney not able to sell any reasonable quantity, they're not in a position to sell a J/K much cheaper than the U/V. The engine and prop are on the order of 15-20k cheaper than the 550 packages. There would be a tiny bit less raw material to build a mid body, and likely 95% of the labor cost. Maybe they could cheap out on the panel and autopilot, but every time Mooney tried that in the past, that option went out of production within a year or two. So I stand by my estimate that a 2019 J or K would be within 50k of a U or V, unless they intentionally took a loss to sell them.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

What is particularly upsetting about this whole situation - is that Mooney is really suffering to make sales even during this year that has been a big upsell for GA piston even sales generally as in part driven by a strong US and strong global economy.  I hate to think what the story would have looked like if the economy had been weak - or worse than weak - recession.

I tend to think you are right - the calculus of saving $50k is not worth it when spending $750 or $800k - it all looks the same - almost a million.  Cheap out the panel (Dynon is an awfully nice cheap panel much cheaper than the G1000 suite), and cheaper engine - and maybe they save $150k?  Somehow cheap the interior and what at most we save $200k - hey that's pretty good!  After that it gets tough - these airplanes would move like hot cakes if they could cut another $105k (targeting $495) but I just don't see how.  Not with low volume like they have - not without major redesign to simplify the build.

I wonder how fast a Encore ultra would be?  I predict 10-15 knots faster than a standard 252 - guessing that because isn't the acclaim 10-15k faster than a Bravo that has essentially the same weight, the same general shape, and the same power on the nose? The rest is aero improvements.  Plus some more UL.

I agree that 100gal tanks are options and not UL hindrance since you have the option to go far and carry lots of fuel or go light and carry lots of people.  I used to have a Diamond DA40 with a lyncoming IO360 - a 10gph machine.  It had the standard tanks - 40gallons.  Long range tank option was 50gallons.  40 gallons was really annoying since it meant I had 3 hour range safely.  That's not much.  Flying alone often I was sort of irritated to have such small tanks.  

[johncuyle]

53 minutes ago, JT said:

Mooney should have educated the pilot population about UL, It should be an obsolete method of comparing aircraft. A quick search shows that a Cessna TR182 has a fuel capacity of 92 gallons. Ovation is 100. That's 8 gallons or 48 pounds. Take 8 gallons out of an Ovation and  dial it back to the same cruise speed as the 182 and you surely could have left more than the 22 gallons required to make up the 180 pound "useful load" difference at the fuel farm. And an O isn't even as efficient as a 231, which I'm sure would fair even better. Paul Bertorelli makes the same mistake here when he compares the "full fuel useful load" of Mooney to Cirrus: 

 

 

The Ovation hols 100 gallons, the Cirrus again 92. He's penalizing the Mooney because it has the ability to carry more fuel! UL as it stands now just isn't a viable comparison. No reviewer or critic ever did a comprehensive job of presenting an accurate comparison, so Mooney should have done it themselves and posted it clearly on their website.  

Everyone makes that mistake, though, and it's only really a mistake if you plan to do a lot of long cross country flying.  Obviously, I made the payload at range argument to my prospective partner, but he still wanted the UL.  If he's flying from Paine to San Juan Island to go scuba diving, it's only a 45 minute flight in either plane, neither needs much gas, and that extra 150 pounds of UL lets him bring his dogs and scuba gear.