Factory Closed Down?

[aviatoreb]

7 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

“Very Difficult to widen” because.....because...?  This is a welded cage.  The structural engineers couldn’t come up with a wider design?  No innovative insight? It might cost some money to do it right?  They might lose a knot? Some Mooney koolaid that says changes are not allowed and Mooney owners should be happy with the cabin that they have. Help me understand. 

Some companies have done a fine job of widening their airplanes.  These two airplanes for example have both excellent leg room and plenty of shoulder room thanks in part to modifications to the originally already successful airframes for larger shoulder room.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Dreamlifter#/media/File:Boeing,_N780BA,_B747-409(LCF)_Dreamlifter_-_PAE_(19833251496).jpg

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/interesting-airplanes/belugaxl-earns-easa-type-certification/

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by aviatoreb

[aviatoreb]

I have not seen in any of the primary announcements that this furlough is permanent, or that otherwise Mooney is closing operations permanently or semi permanently.

Could they -

-be temporarily closing for weeks to regroup or otherwise reorganize?

-could they be making a major shift in operations such as for example off shore building but perhaps they are still planning on building airplanes?  With the major cost being man hours, could they be following a typical multi-national corporate solution (like it or not) to ship all the tooling to a low cost man hours country to drive rivets for Pennys on the dollar thus lowering cost and perhaps changing the marketability?  Im not voting for this, just asking if this is what the corporate types might be doing.

I'm not advocating for either but just wondering if that might be what is going on either one, or has someone seen an article explicitly saying that this is not going on?

Aside - I was watching the night before last a documentary from the BBC about the spitfire, on Netflix - I HIGHLY recommend it.  Anyway it was striking to see the old black and white footage of them churning out spitfires with all those rivets in a massive volume, and also that beautiful V12 Rolls Royce Merlin engine with 11,000 parts to fashion and then assemble.  They were churning these airplanes out faster than they could keep pilots (alive and healthy ...ugh..) to fly them.

[brndiar]

1 hour ago, NJMac said:

On the Mooney Facebook group they said 2 of the 4 delivered acclaim Ultras were in fatal accidents. If that's true, it would make one wonder if the correlation is there.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
 

Where und wann happened Second fatal Acclaim Ultra Accident-? At https://aviation-safety.net/  there is only one, that from 11.6.2019  Thanks. Just curious.

[quik flite]

The Mooney is a nice airplane on the used market . To build new ones at the price approaching 1000,000 dollars , there is a lot of competition with more utility, used or new. It is a very niche market and in most cases just an expensive toy. I wish them luck and hope they make it , I think it will be very tough, the economy has been very good and still no sales. I hope manufacturing isn’t headed overseas . 

[steingar]

I don't think they're going to be building airplanes again unless they start doing so really soon.  The guys who built them aren't going to stick around now that they're out of work.  Without the human capital they're going to have trouble actually putting the airplane together.  I recall the stories about their last startup, when they had to recruit older workers to try and lean who to build the airplane.

[GeorgePerry]

9 hours ago, kevinw said:

I’m glad I found the Ovation I purchased because I don’t think I would ever be happy with a Cirrus. Coming from a J with a UL of 900, I just wanted an airplane that could carry a load and feel lucky I found it.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm living happily ever after and my (non pilot) wife is happy to take trips with me.  Do I miss my Screaming Eagle IO550.  Sometimes if I'm flying by myself.  The rest of the time, having TKS, Air Conditioning and still being able to carry over 1200 pounds is hard to argue with. 

And this makes sense...Its simple business and product evolution.  Mooney's and Bonanza's are like really nice cars from the 90's.  At the time they were great, but no one would spend $600K+ today for the airplane version of a 1990 BMW 525i. 

Do I still love flying Mooney's...Heck yes.  But in the same way as I love driving old Porsches or BMW's.  They are great cars but time required evolution.  Mooney's attempts at updates were too little, too late.

In comparison...

Cirrus keeps innovating and its key attributes, the parachute, gear down and welded, a big cabin, two doors etc..etc are there on all the planes.  And the new ones are just getting better.  If anyone wonders why Mooney is out of business, take a look at exhibit A below...My Cirrus.    

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by GeorgePerry

[mike_elliott]

3 minutes ago, GeorgePerry said:

I'm living happily ever after and my (non pilot) wife is happy to take trips with me.  Do I miss my Screaming Eagle IO550.  Sometimes if I'm flying by myself.  The rest of the time, having TKS, Air Conditioning and still being able to carry over 1200 pounds is hard to argue with.  

 

George, your rationalizing again...You should have just got an Aztek and kept 300K in your pocket, or maybe a Commanche 400 like Clarence. No fancy "shoot" to blow, however, but you wouldnt look like a dork with the wheels hanging down all the time

Oh wait...it has a 4 blade prop! Never mind...

[Alan Fox]

6 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

Perhaps their target market was not the USA but the rest of the world where we are all of normal size and build.  Why they then stopped marketting it to the rest of the world, ill never know.

Um NO , I have seen your "Size and Build" …….  Perhaps we inherited ours , from you guys back in the 1700s ??

 

[GeorgePerry]

5 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

George, your rationalizing again..but you wouldnt look like a dork with the wheels hanging down all the time

Oh wait...it has a 4 blade prop! Never mind...

I always look like a dork, regardless of where my wheels are hanging!  

[aviatoreb]

28 minutes ago, GeorgePerry said:

I'm living happily ever after and my (non pilot) wife is happy to take trips with me.  Do I miss my Screaming Eagle IO550.  Sometimes if I'm flying by myself.  The rest of the time, having TKS, Air Conditioning and still being able to carry over 1200 pounds is hard to argue with. 

And this makes sense...Its simple business and product evolution.  Mooney's and Bonanza's are like really nice cars from the 90's.  At the time they were great, but no one would spend $600K+ today for the airplane version of a 1990 BMW 525i. 

Do I still love flying Mooney's...Heck yes.  But in the same way as I love driving old Porsches or BMW's.  They are great cars but time required evolution.  Mooney's attempts at updates were too little, too late.

In comparison...

Cirrus keeps innovating and its key attributes, the parachute, gear down and welded, a big cabin, two doors etc..etc are there on all the planes.  And the new ones are just getting better.  If anyone wonders why Mooney is out of business, take a look at exhibit A below...My Cirrus.    

 

I agree MT four blade props are beautiful - smoother - save weight on the nose - better ground clearance - ...

Someone should put one on a Mooney.

TKS is nice too.  ...alas no AC and you defn beat my useful load on that slow plain white airplane of yours.

Ok - smack aside - a nice paint job is fun - why do you have a plain white plane?  (a plain plane).

 

[INA201]

Mooney is what it is.  The Cirrus is great but the cost benefit for most budgets is not there at all. Mooney is an awesome used plane.

1.  What's the insurance costs 

2. How much are annuals

3.  whats the efficiency in MPG  or  MP$

4.  How much are subscription costs

5.  Chute repack costs

6.  How much is depreciation costing annually

7.  How much do you value modern comfort vs classic comfort

My guess is you could own a J, an old Porsche, an old Vette, and a newer BMW for a similar outlay of cash/overhead or some similar combination of assets compared to one SR22 Cirrus.  Cirrus is an awesome plane but it costs a lot to play at that level.  If you have $100,000 available for an asset purchase the options dwindle down pretty quick and Mooney's personal and economic value rises really really quick.

[GeorgePerry]

Just now, aviatoreb said:

 

Ok - smack aside - a nice paint job is fun - why do you have a plain white plane?  (a plain plane).

 

 

I like all white...

[aviatoreb]

Just now, GeorgePerry said:

I like all white...

Apparently you do!  That must come from your Navy days looking sharp and proper in the ice cream man dress whites.  

[GeorgePerry]

14 minutes ago, INA201 said:

Mooney is what it is.  The Cirrus is great but the cost benefit for most budgets is not there at all. Mooney is an awesome used plane.

1.  What's the insurance costs 

2. How much are annuals

3.  whats the efficiency in MPG  or  MP$

4.  How much are subscription costs

5.  Chute repack costs

6.  How much is depreciation costing annually

7.  How much do you value modern comfort vs classic comfort

My guess is you could own a J, an old Porsche, an old Vette, and a newer BMW for a similar outlay of cash/overhead or some similar combination of assets compared to one SR22 Cirrus.  Cirrus is an awesome plane but it costs a lot to play at that level.  If you have $100,000 available for an asset purchase the options dwindle down pretty quick and Mooney's personal and economic value rises really really quick.

All valid points...

Insurance is about the same.  1.0%-1.5% of hull value depending on quals / TT and Time in type

My last Annual was $4500.  Nose pucks needed to be replaced but all else was good.  So same basic charge for annual as a M20R

Subscription costs depend on what system you use.  If you have dual 430W, then costs are the same.  If you have G1000, then costs are the same

Chute repack required every 10 years.  Cost is about 15K or 1500 per year.  I look at this as cheap safety insurance.  If a motor quits at night or over inhospitable terrain, I'll take the chute, thank you!

Depreciation is an area where the Cirrus shines.  Depreciation is very low on the SR22 because demand is very high.  You can look at controller and compare the resale of a 2015 Cirrus and 2015 Mooney.  About 100K difference in favor of the Cirrus

Last question is subjective, but I'd say after flying with A/C and having and using TKS, newer is better!

Lastly, budget always is a factor.  And getting into a "good" Cirrus SR22 is a 200K and up proposition, so if a buyer only has 100K to spend they are out of luck or need to find a partner.  No arguments, budget matters.  But if we remove cost from the equation, the decision is a no-brainer. 

Edited November 14, 2019 by GeorgePerry

[j3gq]

On 11/10/2019 at 9:30 PM, EricJ said:

IMHO it shouldn't make any difference in your search, timeline, or plans, but that's just me.   It's pretty rare for J's to need parts from the factory, in my observation, anyway, and even if the factory were completely abandoned, somebody may come buy the assets for pennies on the dollar and sell parts and make airplanes again or whatever.    There are quite a few makes and models of airplanes out there that don't have factories any more, and factories/brands/etc., change hands with fair regularity.

IMHO ... 12 likes to your post are showing how much owners (including me) love their Mooneys, not that it is reasonable to ignore the factory shut-down. Mooney do need parts when damaged on ground / in the hangar / at an airshow. I have had my fair share of it. It is true so that just from flying you won't need parts. And not every part from the salvaging companies can be put back into service. Stocks did shrink, will continue to shrink, ... and I wish I had the solution.

[Urs_Wildermuth]

Well, the fact of the matter is, that in the current market it will be VERY difficult to sell any airplane without a shute.

Rationalizing or not, it is a very sad fact that with huge probability several of the Mooney friends we lost to engine failures recently, including the loss of the Ultra, would have been perfectly survivable. So SEP's without a shute will become a no go for most people who are looking to buy new and quite a few flying partners or wives will insist on it. Hell, even single jets get it these days. 

As much as I love my Mooney and as much as I like the performance of the current line (the Ovation in particular including the range), if I were in the new market or in the market for a comparable plane, I could not justify to my family NOT going for a BRS equipped plane. As much as nobody buys cars without airbags these days or safety belts for that matter. When I was small, nobody heard of children seats either (never had one myself). Times have changed in that regard. And I am afraid to say, Mooney missed the bus badly on this, not that they are the only ones though. 

The training market is different, that is why Piper and Cessna still can sell basic airframes as they are. Mooneys however are the Ferrari/Lamborghini class of GA and it that class, you can't really be second best in anything, least of all in the public's perception of safety. 

If I bought a plane for myself with a goal in mind such as a long range travel trip, such as some single travel, I would still look very favorably at my personal dream plane of the Ovation with LR tanks (and I would have to fly it alone too due to it's payload) but for family travel, family guys also rather buy a crash proof Volvo to a sports car. 

 

[afward]

27 minutes ago, GeorgePerry said:

if we remove cost from the equation

Soooo, I should go buy a Phenom 300?

Mooney prioritizes speed, Cirrus prioritizes comfort (which indirectly includes CAPS).  That's not to say the Cirrus isn't a good performer with lots of things to recommend it, mind you.  In any case, most "new high performance piston single" buyers are more interested in comfort and "enough" performance.  There are buyers out there who want the higher performance, just not enough to keep Mooney in the black for new production.

[HRM]

9 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

“Very Difficult to widen” because.....because...?  This is a welded cage.  The structural engineers couldn’t come up with a wider design?  No innovative insight? It might cost some money to do it right?  They might lose a knot? Some Mooney koolaid that says changes are not allowed and Mooney owners should be happy with the cabin that they have. Help me understand. 

Pure speculation, but I am an engineer, albeit electrical. I am also going on the lengthening that took place between the short bodies and long; i.e., why didn't they widen then when they had the chance?

So, take the fuse and pick a 'clean spot', like between the windows. Saw it in half and slip in a 6" slice--voilà, longer airplane. Minimal tooling, just some longer wiring, tubing and control rods.

Now get on either side, say at the panel, and widen for more room. Now the panel has to be wider, the doors may have to change and the overall shape into the airflow is larger, which is a huge Mooney conceptual no-no. The tooling changes significantly as well.

Just sayin'.

Lastly, this underscores a set of thought I've been having lately about the uncanny similarity of 'Mooney' (the engineering entity) and 'Porsche'. Simply the need for speed and efficiency at speed. 

Drink the Kool-aid or move on. There's a reason for the term Mooniac.

[GeorgePerry]

24 minutes ago, HRM said:

Lastly, this underscores a set of thought I've been having lately about the uncanny similarity of 'Mooney' (the engineering entity) and 'Porsche'. Simply the need for speed and efficiency at speed. 

Have you driven a "modern" 991 or 992 (911) Porsche?  They have become big GT cars.  The days of a small, light sports car are gone.  The 997 model (2005-2012) was Porsche's last true "sports car" and every 911 produced after that is a glorified GT car.  I've owned 14 different 911s and my last was a 2013 991.  It was big, fat, and had lots of "modern" stuff that annoyed me more than anything...but its what consumers wanted.

Porsche (and Cirrus) have evolved to meet consumer demand.  Mooney didn't.  Porsche (and Cirrus) are still in business...Mooney isn't.  

[smccray]

Random thought (and I know this is out there a bit)- I wonder if Mooney is taking steps to minimize cash outlays now because Pipistrel is close to certifying the Panthera.  Radio silence from Pipistrel, but the Panthera will tough competition for the Ovation if the Panthera is ever certified.  I'll acknowledge up front that this is unlikely, but it's not outside the realm of possibilities. 

[GeeBee]

Regarding BRS, I purchased my used Ovation last July. I also looked at Cirrus. could not get myself past the cost of maintenance on the airplane as a whole and in particular the BRS. If it were a grand every 5 years or so, it is a consideration. 16 grand? Nope.

 

 

[Stryker]

1 hour ago, Urs_Wildermuth said:

Well, the fact of the matter is, that in the current market it will be VERY difficult to sell any airplane without a shute.

 

Yep.  You can get a brand new SR22T with a chute for $800k.   It won't go as fast, but you have a safety margin that will make your wife happy to go up with you.   That's where the market is today.  Cirrus is eating everyone's lunch in the non-trainer market and its in large part to having CAPS.  

[RogueOne]

17 minutes ago, GeorgePerry said:

Have you driven a "modern" 991 or 992 (911) Porsche?  They have become big GT cars.  The days of a small, light sports car are gone.  The 997 model (2005-2012) was Porsche's last true "sports car" and every 911 produced after that is a glorified GT car.  I've owned 14 different 911s and my last was a 2013 991.  It was big, fat, and had lots of "modern" stuff that annoyed me more than anything...but its what consumers wanted.

Porsche (and Cirrus) have evolved to meet consumer demand.  Mooney didn't.  Porsche (and Cirrus) are still in business...Mooney isn't.  

When you are right, you are right.  Personally I have zero desire for a new airplane.  I do hope that parts begin to flow to those that did purchase a late model Mooney.  I would be more curious to know what the unobtainium part is for my 1980 201?  Flap and gear motors?  Heim Bearings?  I can’t think of any parts that are not available?  Gear doors?  Here is my only response to you George.  You stated “when price is not a consideration”.  As a pre-owned Mooney owner that has many interests beyond Mooney...NEVER is the answer to that.  Price is ALWAYS a consideration.  I look at your white Cirri and just think “whatever floats your boat”.  Glad there are options for different wallets and missions.  If I want passion satisfied I vote for the bird/paint in front of the blimp.  All the time.  Every time.  Go Mooney!

What’s that sound?  Hark!  Over there!  A Phoenix stirs in the ashes...

[RogueOne]

37 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

You don’t have to be a businessman or an accountant to realize from public information that Mooney is hemorrhaging cash. They just laid off 229 people and Kerrville while retaining 90. They easily have an annual cash payroll with benefits of $15-$20 million. And that’s just people cost. Facilities cash cost, insurance, legal and other infrastructure cost probably add another $5 million. They sold four planes in the first six months. There’s no way they get $800,000 per plane after paying distributor commissions. Additionally there’s probably $200,000 worth of vendor pass-through cost for engine, avionics etc. per plane. So maybe they netted $2 million cash in the first six months from plane sales which hast to pay for labor and materials. Add another couple $ million for parts sales. So maybe they had $5-6 million cash inflow to cover $12 million cash cost in the first six months of this year. 
 

They probably squandered $15 million opening, staffing, laying off and closing the Chino facility in 2017. The failed M10T development probably had additional 3rd party costs at Chino. 
 

The parent of Soaring America is a Chinese real estate company. This has to be a cash sinkhole for them. It appears that they are taking action to cut cost. Since it means they are not producing planes that means no cashflow except from part sales (which they have ceased manufacturing). So unless they get a big infusion of cash from the owners it’s hard to see how this lay-off is “temporary”

So, still waiting on that N Number...

[pkofman]

 

NO News?!

THRE DAYS AND NO NEW INFO!!!

This is just bad business and crappy communication

Total disrespect for the loyal customer/owner/fan base

The part of this whole Mooney furlough thing that I hate is that it spreads wild speculation.

Existing customers and owners are entitled at a minimum, to  understand  how to maintain their  assets in perfect flying condition 

Mooney could easily solve this  by putting out a formal statement provide what the future holds

There is zero info, or an  update that i can find   explaining what is happening. Nothing at all on  Twitter, Facebook or Instagram , or Mooneyspace or on the home website

www.mooney.com looks like business as usual.

Without clear information speculation is  going  to  continue to be rampant.

Its pathetic, that the company has not put out an explanation or go forward / strategy for its existing loyal base  and  or potential customers

Im sure this must have been in the works for a while. It did not happen overnight. Most companies would have had a news release ready to go once the news was out in the public.

Peter

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by pkofman