Factory Closed Down?

[PT20J]

1 hour ago, JT said:

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.  

Wow, now I get it: Cirrus won because Mooney screwed up by carrying 8 gallons more gas. Wow. 

[M016576]

On 11/22/2019 at 11:59 AM, MRussell said:

, I have seen the incredibly fun manual transmission die a horrible needless death because of "spouse concerns."

I love my ‘08 M3 with the 6MT.  
 

naturally aspirated and manual transmission

[chinoguym20]

I agree and feel bad for the employees who have been through this before and those going through it again, or for the first time. Out of the 50-60 people who were furloughed on 11/8 there were only a handful of mechanics who could support a service depot and not many would relocate. The rest were manufacturing and support staff.  There was a lot of overhead there. I doubt it will reopen this year and if it ever does, they won’t be building new aircraft. There needs to be a realistic and profitable business plan. 

[chinoguym20]

PS. I hope the business plan includes the M10 we worked so hard on that Kerrville didn’t want. Out of the 70+ people at Chino, only a few relocated to Kerrville and were never accepted there. 

[Parker_Woodruff]

23 minutes ago, chinoguym20 said:

PS. I hope the business plan includes the M10 we worked so hard on that Kerrville didn’t want. Out of the 70+ people at Chino, only a few relocated to Kerrville and were never accepted there. 

The M10 should have been the primary business plan when they restarted this whole deal.  M20 parts as supporting business.

[AGL Aviation]

[mention=14357]AGL Aviation[/mention]has ordered parts this week as well.

Yes, we have. Parts that have to be manufactured will of course take their time... we have one order in for that Here’s hoping for the best possible outcome for those. Parts that are on their shelf (in stock) are going out the door, payment before they get to the shipping docks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[LANCECASPER]

18 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

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

When they introduced the Eagle in 1999, for manufacturing efficiency, they wanted to make one body length and wait as far into the process as possible to determine whether it was going to be an Eagle, an Ovation or a Bravo.  

I asked Chris Dopp why they didn't put the TSIO360SB (220 hp all the way up to Service Ceiling) on the Eagle rather than the de-rated IO-550 (244 hp up to maybe 10000).

They had considered it but he gave two reasons why they didn't: 1) It was easier to get it approved by the FAA the way they did it since the Ovation already had the same engine (IO-550) on the long body 2) they felt it would cannibalize Bravo sales (the one they made the most money on).

They were probably right on both counts, but I think the long body with the TSIO360SB would have been the best seller of the product line - a nice balance of speed and efficiency. Without the engines there wasn't a lot of weight difference in the airframes between the mid body Encore and the long body Eagle. The Encore already had the heavier brakes, heavier engine mount and the upgraded fiberglass interior. 

[Parker_Woodruff]

Just now, LANCECASPER said:

When they introduced the Eagle in 1999, for manufacturing efficiency, they wanted to make one body length and wait as far into the process as possible to determine whether it was going to be an Eagle, an Ovation or a Bravo.  

I asked Chris Dopp why they didn't put the TSIO360SB (220 hp all the way up to Service Ceiling) on the Eagle rather than the de-rated IO-550 (244 hp up to maybe 10000).

They had considered it but he gave two reasons why they didn't: 1) It was easier to get it approved by the FAA the way they did it since the Ovation already had the same engine (IO-550) on the long body 2) they felt it would cannibalize Bravo sales (the one they made the most money on).

They were probably right on both counts, but I think the long body with the TSIO360SB would have been the best seller of the product line - a nice balance of speed and efficiency. Without the engines there wasn't a lot of weight difference in the airframes between the mid body Encore and the long body Eagle. The Encore already had the heavier brakes, heavier engine mount and the upgraded fiberglass interior. 

Was the body lengthened for the CG of the heavier IO-550?  It seems like that's could have been a major factor for why they had to lengthen in the first place.

The TSIO-360-SB is an incredible engine, especially when paired to a 3-blade prop.  I don't know if an M20K would sell well today, but it'd be my first choice if:

 

1. I had $400-500K for a new plane

2. Mooney could get the economies of scale and lean the plane out to make a $400-$500K new plane.

[MooneyMitch]

18 minutes ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

The M10 should have been the primary business plan when they restarted this whole deal.  M20 parts as supporting business.

At the 2014 MAPA homecoming, I asked the newly appointed Kerrville CEO Tom Bowen about the plans for Mooney.  Tom said there was a quality long term plan for Mooney, and he was very excited!  It did appear there was a tremendous emphasis [$'s] on the M10J Chino project, looking to the China general aviation emergence.   In addition, the M20 was to be built for both the United States and China's emerging market.  And then.................................

[Parker_Woodruff]

Here's my lean of peak $449,000-$499,000 Mooney proposition that still wouldn't sell enough to make the product profitable:

M20K Encore with composite fuselage (if it makes sense) becomes the M20W

Standard:

TSIO-360-SB

Oxygen bottle

Garmin G3X with engine monitor, GTN750, Garmin GNC255 Nav/Comm, GTX 345 Transponder

Some nice fabric seats like the new Porsche 718T

3-blade Hartzell

Optional:

Electric Air conditioning

FIKI TKS

MT 3-blade

[LANCECASPER]

9 minutes ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Was the body lengthened for the CG of the heavier IO-550?  It seems like that's could have been a major factor for why they had to lengthen in the first place.

The TSIO-360-SB is an incredible engine, especially when paired to a 3-blade prop.  I don't know if an M20K would sell well today, but it'd be my first choice if:

 

1. I had $400-500K for a new plane

2. Mooney could get the economies of scale and lean the plane out to make a $400-$500K new plane.

I wish Mooney could but it's tough when the list price on a new TSIO360SB engine is $101,547.

Back in 1997 the invoice for Encore serial number 12 was almost $400,000.

 

[Parker_Woodruff]

6 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

I wish Mooney could but it's tough when the list price on a new TSIO360SB engine is $101,547.

Back in 1997 the invoice for Encore serial number 12 was almost $400,000.

 

 

I wonder what the price is if you ask for 100 brand new TSIO-360-SB engines.  Put 50 on your planes the first year then retail the others for a wash/profit.

If you offered $45,000 each for 100 new TSIO-360s, delivered over 12 months, I bet Continental would do it.  Retail the leftovers to overhaul-needing people at $55,000 installed at the Mooney Factory or $50,000 shipped.  All cores go to Continental as part of the deal.

Mooney needs to think in economies of scale, starting with their parts sales.

Find the 100 most ordered parts and go make them in production runs of 100+.

[LANCECASPER]

20 minutes ago, MooneyMitch said:

At the 2014 MAPA homecoming, I asked the newly appointed Kerrville CEO Tom Bowen about the plans for Mooney.  Tom said there was a quality long term plan for Mooney, and he was very excited!  It did appear there was a tremendous emphasis [$'s] on the M10J Chino project, looking to the China general aviation emergence.   In addition, the M20 was to be built for both the United States and China's emerging market.  And then.................................

Tom was never CEO, Jerry Chen was CEO back in 2014.

Tom Bowen was in Engineering in the late 90's, Chief Operating Officer from 1992-2002 (https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-bowen-68020017) and came back as Chief Operating Officer for a short time on Mooney's latest venture (https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/february/11/mooney-introduces-new-acclaim-and-ovation-models)

I wish they would have kept Tom since he gained a lot of experience in composites when he was with Columbia/Cessna. To get a better useful load and a modern airframe, they needed to go that direction.

[MooneyMitch]

8 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

Tom was never CEO, Jerry Chen was CEO back in 2014.

Tom Bowen was in Engineering in the late 90's, Chief Operating Officer from 1992-2002 (https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-bowen-68020017) and came back as Chief Operating Officer for a short time on Mooney's latest venture (https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/february/11/mooney-introduces-new-acclaim-and-ovation-models)

I wish they would have kept Tom since he gained a lot of experience in composites when he was with Columbia/Cessna. To get a better useful load and a modern airframe, they needed to go that direction.

I stand corrected, terminology.  Tom Chief Operating Officer, Kerrville. 

[johncuyle]

54 minutes ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Was the body lengthened for the CG of the heavier IO-550?  It seems like that's could have been a major factor for why they had to lengthen in the first place.

The TSIO-360-SB is an incredible engine, especially when paired to a 3-blade prop.  I don't know if an M20K would sell well today, but it'd be my first choice if:

 

1. I had $400-500K for a new plane

2. Mooney could get the economies of scale and lean the plane out to make a $400-$500K new plane.

It probably needed it.  K models tend to be very nose heavy.  I'm at full aft trim almost every landing.  Since we're playing fantasy Mooney here, I guess that my fantasy Mooney restart model lineup would look something like this:

Analyze the cost of building the airframe.  One suspects that the major component of cost (other than maybe liability insurance) isn't materials or parts, but construction time since Mooney has routinely said it takes about three times as many hours to build a Mooney as a Cirrus.  I'm not sure where the time actually is.  Maybe it is in the fuselage, maybe it is in the wings, maybe the empennage.  Figure out to what extent it is practical to (economically, for low volume, ~30-50 per year production) take time out of the build.  This is probably going to mean more composite, not more automation.  Maybe it isn't and the M20 has just reached the end of its economic viability.  If that's the case, I guess become a parts business and consider a clean-sheet design of some sort as a future possibility.

If there are places to optimize the build, though, (composite wings and empennage?) then proceed towards getting that certified with the expectation of having two or three models on the market, all (probably) long bodies (though the mid looks a lot sportier and is "long enough" for passengers, you'd want the second door, which means Ultra fuselages to avoid spending the money that retooling the mid fuselage for a second door might require.)

The G1000 attached to the type certificate has been problematic for Mooney.  It is probably worth seriously considering whether G500 TXi and GFC 600 might not be a better option.  While the G1000 is currently considered the gold standard, and it may make the Mooney a little harder of a sell, a dual screen G500 TXi, GTN 750, G5 backups, and GFC 500 is plenty of capability for this sort of aircraft.  Plus, to the worrisome potential buyer who might have heard about some people not being able to load approaches to their home airfield due to certification headaches with the G1000, the G500 would not require future factory support and if Garmin ever drops support at least you can replace everything with something else, which I don't think is true of G1000 equipped aircraft. 

The top tier would be, essentially, a long body two door Encore Ultra.  TSIO-360-SB, 220hp, 100 gallons of fuel, O2, MT prop, optional TKS, maybe optional A/C.  This plane should roll out the door with a FIKI-equipped useful load of around 1100 pounds.  M20-KU (M20K, Ultra).  Priced against the SR-22T, $700k.

Second tier (or for East Coast folks who never see mountains) Same plane except with either the Lycoming IO-390-C3B6 (or possibly the Continental IO-370-CL), O2 perhaps optional instead of standard (depends on construction efficiency.  It may be that running the plumbing even for unequipped planes makes sense).  This plane would likely have a higher UL than the KU due to the engine being considerably lighter.  M20-JU (M20J, Ultra).  Priced against the SR-22 base model, $600k.

Third tier would be worth considering, in this case revisiting the D concept.  I wonder if it would be feasible to design a modern fixed gear system, castering nosewheel, aerodynamic legs, similar to the Diamond or Cirrus design, that could be fitted to the M20 and would be more economical than the retractable gear.  This plane, essentially a fixed gear JU, with the G3 based avionics package that the Piper Pilot 100i has, if it could be sold down below the $450,000 price point that an SR-20 sells for, might make an attractive high-end IFR trainer to the SR-20.  The SR-20 seems to be showing up with increasing frequency at local flight schools, and a model which targets that market could help with volume.  Again, this would be very dependent on whether you could make money at a price that would be competitive with the SR-20.

 

[cliffy]

A couple of interesting points I have to contribute-

Back when Ton B was around there was a flyin where they/he showed up and proceeded to show a picture of the Mooney with a "glass smooth" exterior. This was before the 2 door model. At that time I mentioned that it was not a big engineering exercise to fill in the interior with composite structure if you have the outside dimensions. All Tom B did was smile!!! I now realize that they were working on the 2 door and composite forward fuselage at that time.    A full composite fuselage is still not a big engineering exercise with the available data points (this also includes the other flying surfaces). 

Secondly, at that time, he mentioned to me that they could design a fixed gear for the Mooney with almost no extra drag over the suckum ups we have now. 

If TOTAL speed was not the "prime directive" then maybe cost savings could be achieved with very acceptable speeds and range with a stiff gear Mooney and still keep a good looking design. 

For me I like the metal wing! I wouldn't want that to change (great marketing point and one big item that wouldn't need recert). All the rest could go composite at a lower cost to produce. Tail cone aft of the cage, tail feathers, flaps, etc. 

One has to find where the market is and design for that. Maybe out the door for 500K would do it with 170 kts TAS and say 9-10 GPH. No gear up landings might also be a factor in insurance for new pilots. 

Last point- certification costs are extreme with any new design.

An item I see come up often which I take exception to is the idea of reworking old airframes. I don't see that as viable for a company like Mooney (maybe a smaller mom and pop type company) because where are you going to get airframes for years of production? How many "no damage history" airframes are there out there that might be converted? Would Mooney want to take liability for someone else's repairs? How many might be for sale? And how many who own them would want to pay to have theirs converted? I don't see enough supply to keep a factory in business for too long at a steady pace. 

By far the biggest hurdle will be the public's view of the viability of a resurrected Mooney & company once again. How many would be willing to plunk down a half a mil on that flyer? Not saying it can't be done but it can't be done the way it has in the past. 

I hope that there is some big plan in the offing for the company. To let it die isn't what any of us want. 

[MIm20c]

The only reason Cirrus can sell the sr20 for $450 ish and still make a profit is they have buying power for the components and it takes them 1/3 the amount of time to complete an airframe.

IMO the only way to buy a cheaper new Mooney is if the production for all major components was moved to _______ where labor is cheap.

[Jerry 5TJ]

Just now, MIm20c said:

the only way to buy a cheaper new Mooney is if the production for all major components was moved to _______ where labor is cheap.

Shangri-la

[LANCECASPER]

On 11/25/2019 at 1:35 PM, johncuyle said:

The top tier would be, essentially, a long body two door Encore Ultra.  TSIO-360-SB, 220hp, 100 gallons of fuel, O2, MT prop, optional TKS, maybe optional A/C.  This plane should roll out the door with a FIKI-equipped useful load of around 1100 pounds.  M20-KU (M20K, Ultra).  Priced against the SR-22T, $700k.

It turns out that the original McCauley 2 blade prop was the most efficient that they tested according the the Flying and AOPA articles released around that time.

 

[johncuyle]

41 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

It turns out that the original McCauley 2 blade prop was the most efficient that they tested.

Flying magazine article on Mooney Encore prop.pdf 7.46 MB · 1 download Aopa Article Encore Preview May 1997 prop.pdf 204.7 kB · 0 downloads

 

 

This article is from 1998, and that's the old MT prop.  The current model (STC'd 2002) has a new blade design which, apparently, doesn't give up cruise speed and offers better takeoff and climb performance.  It's also very quiet, which is probably desirable for a product selling into a premium market.  Mostly, though, it's very light.  We're trying to offer a product which is competitive with an SR22T here, and we need the UL.

[MIm20c]

I wonder how many of these new Cirrus sales are being leased back and put on the club/FBO rental flight line?  Lots of used aircraft being sold within a couple years with a large amount of hours...

[MIm20c]

1 hour ago, johncuyle said:

 

This article is from 1998, and that's the old MT prop.  The current model (STC'd 2002) has a new blade design which, apparently, doesn't give up cruise speed and offers better takeoff and climb performance.  It's also very quiet, which is probably desirable for a product selling into a premium market.  Mostly, though, it's very light.  We're trying to offer a product which is competitive with an SR22T here, and we need the UL.

Or a two blade version of the S prop might gain some speed. 

[Schllc]

i wonder if reviving the M22 concept wouldn’t be something to distinguish themselves. 
there is no real viable pressurized single other than the matrix, and I’m not sure I would fly in one of those much less own one. 
A high performance 4 person pressurized piston, would have no real rival. 
I was told the useful load, has more to do with landing gear than anything else, not sure its true, but plausible none the less. 

[johncuyle]

Or a two blade version of the S prop might gain some speed. 

And presumably be even lighter, but one thing the K model is not known for (at least not in a good way) is takeoff performance at gross. Aluminum three blades are just too heavy for the K model (and forward CG is a problem for them, though the long body should be fine given how much heavier the big bores are) but the composite is light and with only 220hp and a relatively high gross, you’re probably going to want the three blade. Outright speed is no longer the sales pitch. Making the plane as generally useful for as many pilots as possible is. Dropping a knot or two in order to be able to more comfortably operate from more airports is a good trade off in the new, “useful planes first, speed second” Mooney.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

simple question...

What would it take to revive the three seat, diesel, training Mooney?

 

Best regards,

-a-