chinoguym20

Factory Closed Down?

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, KSMooniac said:

The wings and tail aren't welded!

We use automated equipment to manufacture aerostructure at my employer so I'm quite familiar with the concept... And that it just isn't feasible for an M20, nor would it cut the price in half if it were suitable.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

Yea forget the welding Idea.... What they should have done YEARS ago was to make Molded wings.  Use the same airfoil and planform  but go to a  composite wing.   Initial cost would be well worth it to reduce labor.  I would think that keeping the aircraft the same aerodynamically speaking would make working with the FAA easier. 

 

EDIT: not to mention that wing corrosion would be off the list.  I cannot help but think that people choosing Cirrus over Mooney have that in mind a bit.  If I was a Cirrus salesman I would be pointing out that Composites do not corrode.   Keep in mind we (humans) have been making composite aircraft since the 70's.   My 1983 PIK glider is fiberglass and carbon and has an expected airframe life of 800,000 flight hours, with 20% of that being at maximum allowable load factors.

 

Edited by Austintatious
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

This thread reminds me of a bunch of drunk old men at a bar in New Orleans at 2 pm on a Thursday, each pontificating over how to save the world from the younger generation....in a good way, of course :-). 

  • Like 7
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FloridaMan said:

With $10M I could be cranking out M20j’s like donuts. 

Unfortunately during the Dopp era at Mooney (1997-2001) tooling for the mid-bodies (J & K) was destroyed so it would take a lot more than $10 million to start cranking out J's.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

That didn’t work out well with Commander.

Can you imagine all us cooks in the kitchen yelling at each other with what the direction of the company should be? :-p

True.  Definition of a camel. A horse designed by a committee, functional but bloody ugly.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, wcb said:

Agreed.  We need one CHEF in charge!  I will do it because I am always right!!!!!!

Love it but incorrect.  We need a leader in charge, someone who listens to his people, realises that the company is only as good as its people, gives the company direction and strategy and takes the people on that journey.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hyett6420 said:

Love it but incorrect.  We need a leader in charge, someone who listens to his people, realises that the company is only as good as its people, gives the company direction and strategy and takes the people on that journey.  

Yup.  The way postulated by more than one leadership guru.  Hard to find in this day and age - where personal power drives most of those given responsibility for the success of teams.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Hyett6420 said:

Love it but incorrect.  We need a leader in charge, someone who listens to his people, realises that the company is only as good as its people, gives the company direction and strategy and takes the people on that journey.  

Here is why I am always right!  The same way Socrates was the wisest man!

"I know that I know nothing" is a saying derived from Plato's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates. It is also called the Socratic paradox. The phrase is not one that Socrates himself is ever recorded as saying.

A man who knew what he knew and then had the wisdom seek guidance from those that were far wiser than himself.

 

As @alextstone said the 2 am bar talk continues :)

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, wcb said:

Here is why I am always right!  The same way Socrates was the wisest man!

"I know that I know nothing" is a saying derived from Plato's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates. It is also called the Socratic paradox. The phrase is not one that Socrates himself is ever recorded as saying.

A man who knew what he knew and then had the wisdom seek guidance from those that were far wiser than himself.

 

As @alextstone said the 2 am bar talk continues :)

 

 

@wcb, I said 2 PM because only the real pros drink during the day!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take four general aviation airplane manufacturers in a booming economy, all with relatively equal offerings, and one company outsells all the others combined, then the market has spoken.

Beech makes a handful of Bonanzas because very few people want them today. It has to be a losing proposition on each sale, but the King Airs are probably subsidizing the Bonanza and Baron line to keep it open. It's only a matter of time before the bean counters say enough of the nonsense. Then they will stick with the turbine planes that make money.

Cessna closed the Corvalis/TTx line because it didn't complete the jump from a homebuilt to certified aircraft until it was too late. Even with fit and finish and avionics integration finally perfected in the TTx, buyers would look at the cabin size and comfort of a Cirrus, and buy it instead. Cessna focused on the training market, and turbine aircraft. They have buyers for them. They had no buyers for the TTX, probably because the speed didn't overcome the disadvantages of a cramped cabin. (Hint). And the lack of real ice protection until near the end of production didn't help. And let's not forget that Cirrus discovered that the chute seals the deal with non-pilot spouses and corporate boards.

Piper has focused on trainers again, and on the M series line. It's what buyers want and Piper is good at both of them.

Mooney hasn't figured out where they fit in this picture. They aren't going to poach customers from Cirrus. The products serve similar needs but in different ways. On an 800 nm trip, the 240 knot Acclaim saves all of 30 minutes versus a 210 knot SR22 Turbo, but sacrifices 200 pounds of useful load. On shorter trips the speed is even less of a factor. So absolute speed really doesn't sell, overall utility does. Mooney hasn't learned this yet. Most of the new Cirrus sales are to people and small business that fly two to four people on day trips. The Mooney is not suited to that in its current form. It can't carry enough weight, and the cabin is significantly smaller.

I've checked out the latest Acclaims, with the dual doors. It's better, but it's still not competitive. It's still a pilot's airplane, passengers be damned. That really doesn't work when the owner is a non-pilot sitting in the back and writing the checks. In the Cirrus they can literally step into the back seat, and sit down with plenty of legroom and headroom. In the Mooney, it's not a graceful entrance, and it's cozy at best when seated.  If Mooney sticks with the current configuration, they will continue to only sell a handful of planes to a shrinking customer base. 

Back in 2008 when Mooney was shutting down, they told me they couldn't keep the factory open selling less than 80 planes a year. They attempted to get to 100 planes, but didn't make it. They either need to get those 80 sales with existing products, or find out what the market wants and build it before the current investors lose interest.

Edited by philiplane
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given all the changes that everyone seems to think are necessary for this company to survive, what are the essential elements that we care about saving? Is it just the name? The unique vertical stabilizer? A factory in Kerrville? For what, exactly, do we feel an affinity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TGreen said:

For what, exactly, do we feel an affinity?

“Seat of the pants”-flying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, lots of things to consider regarding selling new Mooney airplanes.  The product, marketing [or lack thereof], the market for them, management [lack thereof], the competition, and the list goes on.
 
As I've said about Harley Davidson motorcycles over the years..........HD is really great at building antique motorcycles.
Does the current market love the tried and true Harley Davidson [a dying image, product]?  Obviously not.
 
Mooney is really great at building antique airplanes! Does the current market love the M20? NO! 
Blame it on management, blame it on marketing? Yes, probably! Blame it on the antiquity? Yes, probably. 
 
The overall answer?  Heck, I have no idea.  Maybe all the above and more.
 
As we continue to offer our ideas and opinions on what Mooney [who are they, anyway?] should do to make Mooney airplanes and sell lots of them, the reality is, in its current configuration, it is an antique airplane...........a great one indeed!
 
Do we love the M20?  No doubt!
 
Will this thread continue ad nauseam?  Yes, probably. :rolleyes:
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bravoman said:

And if it wasn’t for us the British would be speaking German;). Sorry, it’s Veterans Day and I couldn’t resist!

Didn't geography help quite a bit too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, philiplane said:

IMooney hasn't figured out where they fit in this picture. They aren't going to poach customers from Cirrus. The products serve similar needs but in different ways. On an 800 nm trip, the 240 knot Acclaim saves all of 30 minutes versus a 210 knot SR22 Turbo, but sacrifices 200 pounds of useful load. On shorter trips the speed is even less of a factor. So absolute speed really doesn't sell, overall utility does. Mooney hasn't learned this yet. Most of the new Cirrus sales are to people and small business that fly two to four people on day trips. The Mooney is not suited to that in its current form. It can't carry enough weight, and the cabin is significantly smaller.

Your opinion - not mine.  

Not all customers are the same.  My Mooney is a traveling machine and I do travel with it.  But it is also my hot rod and I enjoy it very much as my hot rod.  It is more of a hot rod than a Cirrus, more fun to fly, and a better pilots machine.  I am a pilot and that is what I wanted.  By your general logic, minivans are the only vehicle that makes sense because they get the job done so who would want something else- so clearly there is no purpose to a Ford Mustang.  Yes Ford still produces and sells some Mustangs, because that is what some people want.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TGreen said:

Given all the changes that everyone seems to think are necessary for this company to survive, what are the essential elements that we care about saving? Is it just the name? The unique vertical stabilizer? A factory in Kerrville? For what, exactly, do we feel an affinity?

At least parts manufacturing ability.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wcb said:

@Hyett6420 @aviatoreb  @Bravoman OK!  I have a couple videos for you to watch by Andy Adrews.  1st two are on Jashua Chamberline on the decision to take action.  2nd is on the Butterfly effect.

 

If some things in history of what would seem to be small impacts have impacted our life today.  In other words if it was not for Columbus, if it was not for America winning the war, if it was not for the civil war and Jashua Chamberline we would not have an America to set in during the World War II to stop the evil that was swept over all of Europe and the world.  You could say the butterfly effect impacted the war and us all today from not just the US perspective but the world perspective (would Russia have been in a position to to help the war in a meaningful way if it had not gone through its own revolution etc etc)

 

I just want to declare a bit of distance from what Mr Andrews is saying.  Scientifically he is falsely representing the phrase "the butterfly effect" in a manner that I sometimes call co-opting science as unwitting yes men.  My PhD area is applied mathematics and I wrote a thesis in "Chaos" which far from a philosophy has a very strict and specific definition.  See http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~kyodo/kokyuroku/contents/pdf/1246-9.pdf and that first page has a popular definition by Devaney, #3 the phrase sensitive dependence to initial conditions.

Even in the spirit of the idea of it Mr Andrews speaks incorrectly.  When I was an assistant professor of mathematics at West Point, there was a professor of history who wanted me to "work with him" but I soon learned he wanted to say what he wanted and represent it as "chaos theory says" and use my department address as a high tech yes man.  So I learned to politely distance myself from him.  I see the same with Quantum mechanics - "quantum mechanics says" (says whatever you want right - its a philosophy... it says...philosophy of the mind).  In any case, chaos theory and also quantum mechanics and now machine learning are somehow victims of their own success as scientific fields (each very distinct- dramatically so) that they have broken through to popular culture and somehow people who don't worry about what they actually are want to use the distinguished success of such fields as philosophical support for whatever they want to say.

I am as happy as the next guy to enjoy a philosophical discussion that uses these words, but Mr Andrew is also using them incorrectly.  I say that as a specialist.

Actually, I also see he describes a good bit of history incorrectly too - what little history I know - this time  say that as a nonspecialist.  But as it turns out I know in general terms a bit about Joshua Chamberlain as growing up in MD and my grand father was a Civil War historian he used to drive me all around and we would visit battle fields.  Including little round top site of Joshua Chamberlains greatest success.  And I have visited again to the same sites with my youngest son lately who also wants to be a historian and has read probably 10,000 pages on the Civil war.  And we have visited Bowdein in Maine, site of Professor Chamberlains majority of his career - and there is a beautiful statue monument to him there on campus - he returned there after the war and also he was university president as some point.  So I feel confident in cringing many times as Mr Andrews misrepresented or otherwise significantly simplified for the purpose of theater the nature of so many facts.  And likewise butterfly.  For example, Mr Chamberlain was not some "school teacher" who was assigned Lt Col because he was the first volunteer  as if absolutely anyone who would have volunteered first would have been assigned this high rank of officer.  But he got a lot of laughs on the tv show for it so its fun to say so say it. Professor Chamberlain was by 1861 Professor of Modern Languages at Bowdein college.  I have to think having an advanced education might have been a factor in assigning him directly to be an officer - in an era when having advanced degrees was much more rare than today.  But even today can't a college grad request to be assigned directly to be an officer after being assigned to officer training school?  ..and he also makes up lots of specific dialogue - which I wonder how much is true given the rest.

I don't mind people telling stories and telling a yarn, but Mr Andrews has positioned himself as if an educator and he is speaking publicly and falsely educating.  Making up details, distorting details and otherwise simplifying facts because they sound better that way and clearly he is a good story teller and a dynamic speaker but I would rather he were less lazy and used his power and gift of gab, as a story teller to tell true stories rather than yarns and fiction and using the true story as a scaffold on which to build a better than real story.

Actually I would not have piped up if 1) I wasn't specifically tagged, and 2) he was using technical terminology from my own specialty field, but incorrectly as a matter of supporting his pre-decided thesis.  :-)  End of rant.

What were we talking about again?

Right! Factory.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by aviatoreb
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it should remain a parts business for the foreseeable future.  On the bright side at least from a business case perspective, they proved that they can't sell the current model against new cirrus and their own high quality used options.  

I feel bad for the employees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw the news has been made public in the Kerrville paper. Link posted on FB but article is behind a paywall.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steve Dawson said:

Didn't geography help quite a bit too. 

A lot has been written on this topic. Most is beyond dispute. Even going back to the beginning where Churchill knew about the plan to attack Pearl Harbor but did not do anything to warn us because he knew he needed us brought into the war because at the time there was a very strong isolationist movement in the United States as a reaction to World War I. No one seriously disputes that if it were not for lend lease and the material provided to the British before our involvement, and the United States subsequent involvement after the attack on Pearl Harbor, that an Axis victory would have been inevitable. Unlike what was said above, The German Air Force was far from finished after the Battle of Britain; quite the contrary, it did not even suffer a dent. Absent US involvement, the Germans would’ve ultimately succeeded in an invasion of the British Isles, or, at the very least, cutting off the British Isles from sources of supply and thus neutralizing the British. As demonstrated by Dunkirk in particular, the British would have never been able to invade the mainland of Europe in a fashion that would have caused the defeat of Germany. And the British would certainly have never been able to wage a two front war such that the Japanese would have been defeated in the Pacific theater.

Edited by Bravoman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

Just saw the news has been made public in the Kerrville paper. Link posted on FB but article is behind a paywall.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

use outline.com and paste the link below -- reading right now. 

 

https://dailytimes.com/news/article_b5fd6b10-056c-11ea-a29f-830a66f49904.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

I just want to declare a bit of distance from what Mr Andrews is saying.  Scientifically he is falsely representing the phrase "the butterfly effect" in a manner that I sometimes call co-opting science as unwitting yes men.  My PhD area is applied mathematics and I wrote a thesis in "Chaos" which far from a philosophy has a very strict and specific definition.  See http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~kyodo/kokyuroku/contents/pdf/1246-9.pdf and that first page has a popular definition by Devaney, #3 the phrase sensitive dependence to initial conditions.

Even in the spirit of the idea of it Mr Andrews speaks incorrectly.  When I was an assistant professor of mathematics at West Point, there was a professor of history who wanted me to "work with him" but I soon learned he wanted to say what he wanted and represent it as "chaos theory says" and use my department address as a high tech yes man.  So I learned to politely distance myself from him.  I see the same with Quantum mechanics - "quantum mechanics says" (says whatever you want right - its a philosophy... it says...philosophy of the mind).  In any case, chaos theory and also quantum mechanics and now machine learning are somehow victims of their own success as scientific fields (each very distinct- dramatically so) that they have broken through to popular culture and somehow people who don't worry about what they actually are want to use the distinguished success of such fields as philosophical support for whatever they want to say.

I am as happy as the next guy to enjoy a philosophical discussion that uses these words, but Mr Andrew is also using them incorrectly.  I say that as a specialist.

Actually, I also see he describes a good bit of history incorrectly too - what little history I know - this time  say that as a nonspecialist.  But as it turns out I know in general terms a bit about Joshua Chamberlain as growing up in MD and my grand father was a Civil War historian he used to drive me all around and we would visit battle fields.  Including little round top site of Joshua Chamberlains greatest success.  And I have visited again to the same sites with my youngest son lately who also wants to be a historian and has read probably 10,000 pages on the Civil war.  And we have visited Bowdein in Maine, site of Professor Chamberlains majority of his career - and there is a beautiful statue monument to him there on campus - he returned there after the war and also he was university president as some point.  So I feel confident in cringing many times as Mr Andrews misrepresented or otherwise significantly simplified for the purpose of theater the nature of so many facts.  And likewise butterfly.  For example, Mr Chamberlain was not some "school teacher" who was assigned Lt Col because he was the first volunteer  as if absolutely anyone who would have volunteered first would have been assigned this high rank of officer.  But he got a lot of laughs on the tv show for it so its fun to say so say it. Professor Chamberlain was by 1861 Professor of Modern Languages at Bowdein college.  I have to think having an advanced education might have been a factor in assigning him directly to be an officer - in an era when having advanced degrees was much more rare than today.  But even today can't a college grad request to be assigned directly to be an officer after being assigned to officer training school?  ..and he also makes up lots of specific dialogue - which I wonder how much is true given the rest.

I don't mind people telling stories and telling a yarn, but Mr Andrews has positioned himself as if an educator and he is speaking publicly and falsely educating.  Making up details, distorting details and otherwise simplifying facts because they sound better that way and clearly he is a good story teller and a dynamic speaker but I would rather he were less lazy and used his power and gift of gab, as a story teller to tell true stories rather than yarns and fiction and using the true story as a scaffold on which to build a better than real story.

Actually I would not have piped up if 1) I wasn't specifically tagged, and 2) he was using technical terminology from my own specialty field, but incorrectly as a matter of supporting his pre-decided thesis.  :-)  End of rant.

What were we talking about again?

Right! Factory.

 

 

 

 

 

I certainly will not debate your expertise and defer to you as the wisest of all men in your field that I have run across(not that I run in the PhD in Applied Mathematics crowd).  My simple point on the UK vs US debate was simply if we (the US) did not break from the UK the world for certain would be very different today.  If we would not have stayed the United States the world would be very different today.  Mr. Andrews points out decisions and actions matter.  Decisions and actions can impact lives and history for generations.  I also like the "real" history but just like any Hollywood movie Mr. Andrews puts an exaggerated flare to his story telling to appeal to wide audience. I have seen his more detailed work and will have to defer to him on his research to fact and embellishment. You would really enjoy picking his story apart on why the solid rocket boosters on the space shuttle were designed off of the width of two horses ass.

Edited by wcb

Share this post


Link to post
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.