Jump to content

Factory Closed Down?


chinoguym20

Recommended Posts

On 11/12/2019 at 12:55 PM, steingar said:

Yeah, if the airplane has one seat.  I looked into this.  For the money I paid for my Mooney there wasn't an experimental that could be had that went faster that would take two people and a weekend's worth of luggage.  At the time there wasn't a single one, and I'll bet there still isn't.  Anything less than $35K was a puddle jumper, if it was fast it was small, really small.  My Mooney is the biggest bang for your buck in all of general aviation, hands down.

I do feel bad for Mooney, but I really do feel the writing is on the wall.  it's greatest strength is it's greatest weakness.  I'd been wondering when the Chinese were going to pull the plug.

It seems like the biggest compelling value Moony offers to the current market is in used aircraft that, at a  given price point, compete favorably against most certified options for those looking at a comparatively 1) lower entry price 2) lower payload, 3) longer distance XC and 4)high-efficiency mission. That was me, and  I think this requirement list  may account for the vast majority (>95+%?) of Mooney ownership on this forum and in the market. A new Mooney fails item #1 and seems to be relegating itself to a small, shrinking, boutique market. 

Putting on my product strategy hat, an investor would likely look at the Mooney situation through goggles that look something like :  

Mission 1 = creating and executing a profitable and sustainable business model is a financial/business mandate and essential outcome.

Optional outcome 2 = Keeping the Mooney brand, M20 line and factory employees going; this is an emotive mission.

An investor is likely only interested in it mission number 1 because they see outcome  2 as a luxury afforded by a successful mission 1... and may not even be interested in all or part of outcome 2. While it is true, 2 may have some assets to leverage in 1, it will also present risk (possibly significant and lethal)  via inertia to Mission 1. It sounds like this has been the outcome in the last few attempts in resurrecting the Mooney factory.  

According to wikipedia, there are about 7128 Mooney's registered worldwide, a number of those obviously are non-flying. Just guess here, but whatever the active number, the number of new aircraft entering that pool annually is probably somewhere around a 1% " rounding error"  (compared to the active fleet) and fewer than the airframes falling out of active use ...resulting in a shrinking fleet. So, if someone wanted to "save" the Mooney brand (meaning create a sustainable business model), they would probably be well advised to take a cue from tennis and stay at the base line - i.e go conservative an align the organization to serve the current used fleet market ......or go to the net - i.e execute an innovation/disruption play that would require procuring committed high 9 to 10 figure funding and market a blank-sheet design optimized to the center of mass of the market demand and mass production efficiency. Hybrid strategies (apparently the current business strategy) end up in a "no man's land" that dies a death of lack of focus, excessive inertia,  resource starvation (human and capital), lack of "runway" (time) and lack of resulting compelling & differential feature distinction according to the masses in the market. Regarding the last aspect, trying to "evolve" the M20 line does not create net market competitive advantage because competitors are evolving as fast (or faster). By the time the M20 is evolved, competition has set a higher bar than the evolution targeted. So, if you want to make an innovation based play, you need to aim waaay ahead of the market to give you development time to market a sufficiently disruptive technology that will command market attention and buying $$. But... you have competition doing the same, so you must win in both design and ... more importantly ...in demonstrating amazing execution capability. It is almost always easier and lower risk to execute a successful innovation play by growing from a small, core team and organically expanding it with high-fit/value team members. Trying to do an innovation play by re-tooling an existing larger organization is typically far higher risk and usually doesn't work, especially when you are starting behind in the market. So.... Mooney may want to take a very hard look at profitability/sustainability of a scaled-down structure that exists to support the existing M20 fleet and does not manufacture new airframes. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2019 at 6:10 PM, 1980Mooney said:

It's one thing if you have owned the same Mooney for 20 years like me.  It's another thing if you are trying to buy any plane that has 40+ years of history which may or may not be fully documented and apparent in the maintenance logs or visible in the pre-buy.  There will be always be "surprises" in the first annual after purchase of a used plane.  And while ordinary use may not cause much need for factory airframe parts, an unexpected incident may. 

Its true that Mooney's are rugged but some things like the push rod/control tubes or landing gear push/pull tubes can only be sourced from Mooney if I am not mistaken.  The Heim bearings wear or seize over time or the tubes may suffer from hidden corrosion.  The old style rods have the rod-end with Heim bearing pinned into the tube and you have to replace the entire rod.  The new style rods which Mooney sells for legacy models have the rod end screwed in so it is easily replaceable (go figure why they didn't do it originally).  Price is one thing, availability may be another.

Although I never needed any Mooney OEM parts during the 18 month shutdown starting in 2008, I certainly felt better when the factory re-opened in 2010. 

This time might be different. The Chinese owners may not act as you think.  You may be assuming that they will let it go into bankruptcy like all other General Aviation manufacturers that failed which allows the bankruptcy court to dictate the process.  They may just shut it down and pay off their debts.  They won't be forced to reorganize or sell by the court and won't be motivated to sell for pennies on the dollar.  They may just sit on it.  Or they may just pack all the drawings, IP, jigs and everything of value up and ship it to China.  I noticed that the Chinese company, Midea Group, which bought the North American Electolux and Eureka vacuum business in 2016, simply abandoned much of the product line completely without any support.  It is one thing to stop selling a product, but it is another to just stop supplying repair parts even if the parts could be priced for an adequate return.  They did not care about the damage to the brand or customers that were abandoned.  These Chinese owners, Meijing Group, which control the company holding Mooney have no cultural tie to the  general aviation industry, Mooney pilots, or Kerrville and have no other investments in the US.

This is exactly right and I feel for this reason it will crash the pre-owned mooney market. Would you gamble 75k - 150k on a plane without a solid replacement parts strategy? i suspect you will be looking at Bonanza's etc.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly right and I feel for this reason it will crash the pre-owned mooney market. Would you gamble 75k - 150k on a plane without a solid replacement parts strategy? i suspect you will be looking at Bonanza's etc.
Some would argue that the prices are already so depressed that it will not make much difference.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know a lot on here don't like high wing, but I wish someone would buy the stallion rights from Martin Hollman's widow and get it certified. a high wing six seater with full fuel payload of 1100 lbs that hits 200+ KTAS on 14 gph. ... https://www.aircraftdesigns.com/design/stallion/specifications/

Add a high wing to the model line and keep the speed advantage over the competitors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Chinese economy is struggling; maybe the parent owner has debts being called in? Time to bring in the MBA’s to recover rebuild and restore order. That may mean that it gets moved to Independence KS or Duluth MN. I’m sickened that the previous owners destroyed tooling. WTH.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will this cause anyone to think of selling their Mooney in the near future??
Not a chance! In almost 13 years of ownership I've not needed a factory part. I came close last summer with a main gear door, but their new pricing structure made me find an alternate solution.

Textron is similar with their parts pricing and availability. I've said it before... They want nothing to do with making and/or supporting piston planes. Go shop for new spare parts for any of their legacy products and be sitting down when you get cost and lead time quotes.

There could be a reasonable business supporting the fleet... But not by charging 10-100x costs on spare parts or interior upgrades, as an example.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, philiplane said:

But you aren't buying a new airplane, and new airplanes are what keeps factories in business. You have to divorce your feelings from the reality of the situation, and admit that Mooney cannot survive on the  current path. And then there will be no new parts for the old planes.

We can all feel the way we feel, but the reality is the market decides who wins and who loses. Mooney is not winning, and that is reality. I also wish it weren't so, but wishes don't keep businesses alive.

For the price I paid for a Mooney Rocket, I could have purchased a newer Cirrus.  So I think my opinion is valid since I would have purchased a new Mooney instead of a new Cirrus.  I did not purchase new in part for the reason that I cannot afford new (the main reason!) and second I learned quickly that used airplanes are a good deal!  But I don't see how that factors into the style airplane that I would value.  The reasons you gave that customers want a utilitarian airplane I was arguing.  Not the punchline - that for sure Mooney - the factory I mean - seems to be having hard times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New article in P&P on this (Mooney Ceasing Production).

Sort of sad, especially this:

"Despite best-in-class performance, a recently updated design that includes larger windows and a second, pilot-side entry door, the aircraft have sold poorly even at a time when sales of some competitors’ planes have held steady or surged."

 

  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the sad truth is that most of us fly Mooneys because they are efficient.  What is more efficient than a nice used Mooney M20M for about $200K?  Certainly not a brand new $800k Acclaim.

It might sound great to buy a brand new M20J or M20K for $650,000, but nobody would- you can buy a cream puff for about $150,000.

At the end of the day, we're all CBs at heart, and that won't keep the factory open.  At least, not when that factory is a one-trick pony.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KSMooniac said:

Not a chance! In almost 13 years of ownership I've not needed a factory part.

Good for you. I was quite lucky to get upper wing stringers in September, mine rusted through. Fortunately, Mooney didn't change anything in their wing since 1960s, so they were able to sell me a set.

I noticed some people bring up the old warbirds that fly without any factory support. Well, yeah, if you want to get FSDO permission in order to fly anywhere. Most of them have Experimental Exhibition certificates.

The gentleman who repaired my wings has a lot of experience in restoring WWII warbirts. The question is in the paperwork.

Edited by zaitcev
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the sad part of it:  "None will be producing aircraft parts, however, which is certain to concern Mooney owners".

If all 290 employees laid off were making airplanes, and they made 48 a year, then that is 12,083 person-hours per plane. I think Cirrus are in the 2000 hour mark.  I recall reading a long time ago that Mooney were at about 4500 hours per plane when Cirrus were at 3000 hours.  I may be out with these numbers, but I think the point is valid.

Aerodon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you see the recent test flight of the DA50 retractible.  Composite, diesel engine, under 10 GPH, 20,000 feet, nice big fuselage. Performance - I'd settle for a real 180 or 200kts with range and payload.  Manufacturers track record.  Incremental change to product line.

That is how successful manufacturers go about their business.

 

Aerodon

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t take this the wrong way. But as a long time owner (28 years and counting), I don’t get the fear about the Mooney situation.

 

In those 28 years, I’ve been through numerous Mooney ownerships/bankruptcies and during that time frame have yet to experience the inability to get a part. Yeah, sometimes it may require an owner produced part and other times, the services of one of the Reapers.

 

But in the end, a solution was available.

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good for you. I was quite lucky to get upper wing stringers in September, mine rusted through. Fortunately, Mooney didn't change anything in their wing since 1960s, so they were able to sell me a set.
I noticed some people bring up the old warbirds that fly without any factory support. Well, yeah, if you want to get FSDO permission in order to fly anywhere. Most of them have Experimental Exhibition certificates.
The gentleman who repaired my wings has a lot of experience in restoring WWII warbirts. The question is in the paperwork.
Until recently, Mooney's ability and willingness to make detail parts for even the oldest Mooney models (maybe not the wooden ones) at reasonable prices has been commendable. They entered the final phase of business by jacking up prices, unfortunately. Much or even most of the Mooney airframe can be recreated by a competent mechanic/craftsman if needed. It might not be cheap, but not impossible, and there is no reason a repair can't be shown to meet standard airworthiness regs so you can continue using the plane normally. That's where we're different than those in the warbird community since we have certified planes, approved maintenance manuals, etc. Warbirds were never certified by civilian authorities, typically don't have all of the data available to repair or rebuild, etc, so a lot of that work is done tediously with engineering and regulatory oversight. For a rare bird worth millions that is feasible. Not so for a Mooney worth
Perhaps major repairs will be more difficult in the future without factory support, but I'm not willing to say it means more planes will be scrapped.



Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you see the recent test flight of the DA50 retractible.  Composite, diesel engine, under 10 GPH, 20,000 feet, nice big fuselage. Performance - I'd settle for a real 180 or 200kts with range and payload.  Manufacturers track record.  Incremental change to product line.
That is how successful manufacturers go about their business.
 
Aerodon
 
If I had a time machine, I'd try to get the M10 program on the right track from day 1 so that Mooney could be enjoying modern serial production today, and hopefully funding development of planes like the DA50 or Pipistrel Panthera... Which seem poised to carry the mantel of efficient speed into the next few decades.

As recently as a year or two ago I laughed at the potential of electric propulsion, but it is coming. Perhaps first with hybrid arrangements until battery tech makes a few more leaps. There are still innovations coming in our corner of the aviation universe! I really want Mooney to be in the game.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Marauder said:

In those 28 years, I’ve been through numerous Mooney ownerships/bankruptcies and during that time frame have yet to experience the inability to get a part. Yeah, sometimes it may require an owner produced part and other times, the services of one of the Reapers.

I think this may be the key for all of us- that we, as a community (owners, MSCs, MAPA, etc.), need to be responsible for our parts availability.  Paul Loewen and LASAR have made great inroads into ensuring PMA'ed parts such as bushings and aftermarket parts are available to us.  Other MSCs are legendary in removing corrosion and/or rebuilding wings and the like.

It isn't impossible to fabricate a control pushrod as a one-off and have it be legal; with enough demand, an MSC could receive a PMA if we give them our loyalty and make it financially beneficial to them.  And A&Ps like me will buy from them to install on customers' airplanes.

I'm sad that the factory might close.  But like Chris, I'm not afraid for our future.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Marauder said:

Don’t take this the wrong way. But as a long time owner (28 years and counting), I don’t get the fear about the Mooney situation.

 

In those 28 years, I’ve been through numerous Mooney ownerships/bankruptcies and during that time frame have yet to experience the inability to get a part. Yeah, sometimes it may require an owner produced part and other times, the services of one of the Reapers.

 

But in the end, a solution was available.

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

Maruader - When you needed a part for your plane in those 28 yrs. at the times when the Mooney factory was closed.. where did you get it? If Mooney stays closed this time where would you get parts to repair your plane when needed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KSMooniac said:

If I had a time machine, I'd try to get the M10 program on the right track from day 1 so that Mooney could be enjoying modern serial production today, and hopefully funding development of planes like the DA50 or Pipistrel Panthera... Which seem poised to carry the mantel of efficient speed into the next few decades.

As recently as a year or two ago I laughed at the potential of electric propulsion, but it is coming. Perhaps first with hybrid arrangements until battery tech makes a few more leaps. There are still innovations coming in our corner of the aviation universe! I really want Mooney to be in the game.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

I think we'll have diesel propulsion a lot sooner than electric.   Purely electric propulsion isn't even fully mature for automobiles yet, and electric propulsion in automobiles is far more viable in a hybrid system, which aircraft don't lend themselves to nearly as well.

If one were to go back in time and fix Mooney, I think a lot of other knobs could be turned besides the M10.    Keeping and developing the 301, which has since been proven to be a successful design both technically and in market acceptance, and so many other milestones that in hindsight could've gone differently.   That said, there's no telling how the story would have unfolded even if the "obvious" things could be changed.

No telling where it'll go from here, but as an owner I'm not particularly worried just yet.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Aerodon said:

Did you see the recent test flight of the DA50 retractible.  Composite, diesel engine, under 10 GPH, 20,000 feet, nice big fuselage. Performance - I'd settle for a real 180 or 200kts with range and payload.  Manufacturers track record.  Incremental change to product line.

That is how successful manufacturers go about their business.

 

Aerodon

 

That looks like a fine bird - but it will be over a million dollars.  And as a former Diamond DA40 owner, and still an occasional reader of their forum - the Diamond customer service is terrible. In fact their service is in part why I sold my DA40 12 years ago and moved to Mooney.  I felt I had better service (from various sources) during the period the Mooney factory was closed than I did owning a DA40 with the factory open!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Aerodon said:

This is the sad part of it:  "None will be producing aircraft parts, however, which is certain to concern Mooney owners".

If all 290 employees laid off were making airplanes, and they made 48 a year, then that is 12,083 person-hours per plane. I think Cirrus are in the 2000 hour mark.  I recall reading a long time ago that Mooney were at about 4500 hours per plane when Cirrus were at 3000 hours.  I may be out with these numbers, but I think the point is valid.

Aerodon

That article says they will still retain 90 employees but as you quoted "None will be producing aircraft parts, however, which is certain to concern Mooney owners".

So I wonder what those 90 people will be doing?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we'll have diesel propulsion a lot sooner than electric.   Purely electric propulsion isn't even fully mature for automobiles yet, and electric propulsion in automobiles is far more viable in a hybrid system, which aircraft don't lend themselves to nearly as well.
If one were to go back in time and fix Mooney, I think a lot of other knobs could be turned besides the M10.    Keeping and developing the 301, which has since been proven to be a successful design both technically and in market acceptance, and so many other milestones that in hindsight could've gone differently.   That said, there's no telling how the story would have unfolded even if the "obvious" things could be changed.
No telling where it'll go from here, but as an owner I'm not particularly worried just yet.
 
There is a crazy amount of activity and investment going into electric propulsion and the eVTOL space right now. Some major companies are developing and flying electric fixed wing demonstrators. Bye in Denver is making great progress on his plane. It's coming.

I was excited about diesels 10-12 years ago... But it seems like they won't ever get there. We'll see, I guess.

Electric motors with modest batteries coupled to a gas or diesel generator is intriguing to me right now, at least until battery tech matures.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maruader - When you needed a part for your plane in those 28 yrs. at the times when the Mooney factory was closed.. where did you get it? If Mooney stays closed this time where would you get parts to repair your plane when needed?

 

Most of the MSCs have some level of stock for the Mooney specific parts. As well, many of these parts are cross overs from other manufacturers. Like the Cleveland wheels, Heim joints, engine components, etc. There are also a number of aftermarket manufacturers for plastics and windows.

 

What you are left with are the parts that you either need to produce yourself, find it from a Reaper or have it rebuilt. There really isn’t a lot left other than those components that you truly need a factory produced part. And those needs are usually tied to something significant. Like taxiing your wing into a pole. Even then, the Reapers can find stuff for you.

 

Here is an example of an owner produced part. A visor.

 

12d771e0382ff3abab99280feff5bb6b.jpg

 

Also had a new mixture control knob machined.

 

b78e8bd423edfb83792ee448c32af8b1.jpg

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

There is a crazy amount of activity and investment going into electric propulsion and the eVTOL space right now. Some major companies are developing and flying electric fixed wing demonstrators. Bye in Denver is making great progress on his plane. It's coming.

I was excited about diesels 10-12 years ago... But it seems like they won't ever get there. We'll see, I guess.

Electric motors with modest batteries coupled to a gas or diesel generator is intriguing to me right now, at least until battery tech matures.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

I’d like to see an M20 TE- Turbine Electric. A micro turbine engine in the tail burning Jet-A, coupled to a good sized generator. Propelled by a big-ass electric motor in the nose. Throw in just enough battery capacity for 45 minutes at about 40% power for reserve and I think you’d have something. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.