Would you buy a new J/K?

[201er]

Everyone says Mooney should restart mid body production. Who’s ready to pony up and actually buy one? Who’s willing to spend $700k on a new J with all the latest avionics, maybe they’ll even throw in the 2nd door?

[rbridges]

I know production costs are similar, but do you think it would be realistic to get a J into the mid 500s?  That might attract some buyers who don't need all the capabilities of the ovation/acclaim.

[elimansour]

A viable price point will have to be around $500k to compete with a new SR20.  AT $700k the plane will be overpriced and will not compete well with SR22 (as discussed in another thread).  Having owned an SR20 previously, and having lots of time in SR20s and SR22s I think a comparably priced new J could be a competitor with the SR20.  Issues will be lack of parachute (and perceived less safety) and lack of fixed gear (for training market).  Notwithstanding the lack of chute and having retractable gear, a nicely equiped new $500k J could attract buyers looking to step up from a trainer or beginner aircraft but wanting something new, fast, efficient and reasonably priced.  At $700k it's just not in the ballpark.

[jlunseth]

There is a not-so-secret advantage I have learned about with my 231.  I routinely run LOP at 75%.  I use 11.1 GPH. The cruise speeds vary with altitude, if I go to 10 or 12,000, which is about the limit of where I can run LOP in a 231 without excessive TIT, my TAS is about 160-165.  What is not to like about that?  And the problem with the 231 is that it has a hot running engine by nature, and a clunky first-generation way of managing MP.  In my view, the Encore, which is faster and has a much cooler running engine, would be great.  Probably I could get into the flight levels LOP and see 175+ speeds.

You can do that with an Acclaim, an S, or an Ultra, but you can't do that and carry a useful load of around 1,000 pounds. You could add TKS and make it a very good, inexpensive to operate, cruise vehicle that can hold a big adult, a smaller adult, and a kid or two in the back.  

I would not make the panel with a G1000.  Way too many updating problems have occurred, there are still quite a few GX Bravos that can't do WAAS.  There were long running issues with the more recent 1000 panels even in the Acclaims, problems that could only be solved by going to Garmin and paying tens of thousands.  A better and less expensive panel that could be readily updated without having to get a new STC, would be the "modular" route that most of us follow when we upgrade old King panels - GTN's in the middle, a 345 or equivalent transponded, I would like a GDL69A for weather and entertainment, probably one or two G500 TXi 's, maybe a G5 or equivalent standby.  And EIS could be put in the second GTXi or the panel could have a JPI 930 or equivalent from EI.  All these are upgrade components that Garmin (or JPI or EI) supports for long periods of time, rather than integrated panels that can only be upgraded by going through the manufacturer (Mooney), that then has to redo the certification process with Garmin. Who needs it?

Edited December 5, 2019 by jlunseth

[Cargil48]

Just comparing. Basic List Price LX: USD 389,000 as of now, I see. And they came also out of bankrupcy as all know. Now let's make some fantasy and add $50k for the retractable gear. Add another $50k to get a 210/220hp engine instead of the 180hp the Archer has. You'd arrive at somewhere around $490k. Just add some more $50k for whatever reason, we're still at $550k. What's wrong with this reasoning of mine?

Edited December 10, 2019 by Cargil48
typo

[gsxrpilot]

55 minutes ago, jlunseth said:

In my view, the Encore, which is faster and has a much cooler running engine, would be great.  Probably I could get into the flight levels LOP and see 175+ speeds.

Here's your 175 knots TAS at FL230, LOP at 9.5 gph. And this is just a regular 252, not an Encore and only running at 62% power. 

[Parker_Woodruff]

1 hour ago, jlunseth said:

There is a not-so-secret advantage I have learned about with my 231.  I routinely run LOP at 75%.  I use 11.1 GPH. The cruise speeds vary with altitude, if I go to 10 or 12,000, which is about the limit of where I can run LOP in a 231 without excessive TIT, my TAS is about 160-165.  What is not to like about that?  And the problem with the 231 is that it has a hot running engine by nature, and a clunky first-generation way of managing MP.  In my view, the Encore, which is faster and has a much cooler running engine, would be great.  Probably I could get into the flight levels LOP and see 175+ speeds.

 

Are you running Tempest Fine Wire plugs?  Switching to those from Champions brought my EGT/TIT down substantially - I guess better spark = cooler/better burn.  30" MP and 11.5 GPH will be no problem for you.

Get to 15,000 and I bet you'll see 175 on an M20K (231).  My 252/Encore would do 180 KTAS at the fuel flows you describe.

[Guest]

Just dreaming of a diesel powered 2 door J.

Clarence

 

[jlunseth]

Parker and Paul-

Paul has a 252, Parker ran an actual Encore as I recall (220 HP instead of 210).  The big difference is in the engine.  You can add the Merlyn sort-of-automatic wastegate and an intercooler to the 231, but the induction system still does not run like the MB or SB engines.  They were much better engines, even though all three (231, 252, and Encore) had TSIO360's.  I just can't run LOP above around 16,000 and usually lower than that, in my 231.  If it cooled better I probably could.  That is part of my point, I get really good LOP performance from my first generation (for Mooney) turbo, sell a new version with the SB or an even better engine and it would be competitive, I will wager.  The Acclaims can't match the useful load and 800,000+ for a single engine piston is only going to work for a small group of buyers.

Paul, try running your MP up to 34" and your GPH to 11.1 or so.  I am pretty sure our engines have identical compression ratios (dictates the fuel flow/percent HP formula).  I am pretty sure you will be happy with the temps and the speed.  I have been doing this for a few hundred hours and rarely have to put in a quart of oil between oil changes.  Engine runs nice.  Turbo has about 1200 hours and half that was ROP, which was hard on the engine compared to the LOP I run now.

Also, make the panel readily upgradeable without having to go through Mooney, where they have to make a decision to pay for an STC for a small group of existing owners.  I have a lowly 430, but I have WAAS, and I can load and store the entire approach database, why would I want a panel in an $800,000 aircraft where in a couple of years there will be things I cannot do with it and nothing I can do about it?

[steingar]

This is all fantasy.  The short body, mid body, and long body Mooneys have about the sane number of parts.  They take the same number of man-hours to build. the only real difference is the extra two cylinders in the newer aircraft, if you only have a 4 cylinder engine you do save some coin.  But a Modern J or K or whatever is going to cost about the same as an Ultra.  There's just no getting around it with the amount of labor and outsourcing involved.  I suspect the only way to substantially affect the labor is to change the design, and that can run into certification issues.

Edited December 6, 2019 by steingar

[MIm20c]

17 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Just dreaming of a diesel powered 2 door J.

Clarence

 

If Diesel engines get certified for the Mooney that can run 90-95 percent power with efficiency and longevity that would be a huge upgrade for the airframe.  I’m kind of surprised Cirrus hasn’t pushed through something like that for the sr22.  

[gsengle]

I’ve come to believe the only way to compete is to add a chute. But this would require a wing and gear redesign/beef up for increased load and to keep under the single engine stall speed certification limits. That’s expensive. Us “real pilots” like to er downplay the importance of the chute, but they do sell airplanes and deal with spouse objections.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

I really respect the fine gentlemen that have purchased a new Mooney from the factory...

That takes two things...

1) A stack of cash
2) ability to release it...

what would keep me from releasing a mythical stack of 700amus... on a mid body Mooney...?

• Can I get a long body for a few dollars more?
• How about the Missile?
• Can I get some decent financing to get this down to an AMU per month?
• After 20 years, a panel update is going to be needed... can I get something not so constrained as the G1000 has been?

I suddenly hear music in the background....      Dream on!     -Aerosmith 

-a-

[EricJ]

Beech does still sell new Bonanzas, Cessna sells new 182s and 206s, and Piper sells new Archers and the Pilot series, but I can't personally justify ~$500k for a new J when I can get a nice used one for far less than half that.   A new one would have to offer some sort of advantage, like a different power plant (e.g., diesel, or more power), a second door, etc., etc.   In other words, it can't just be a new J.

 

[gsxrpilot]

If I could satisfy both of the @carusoam conditions, I would certainly be in the market for a brand new Encore. For me that is preferable to any of the long bodies even at the same price.

[jlunseth]

1 hour ago, steingar said:

This is all fantasy.  The short body, mid body, and long body Mooneys have about the sane number of parts.  They take the same number o man-hours to build. the only real difference is the extra two cylinders in the newer aircraft, if you only have a 4 cyclone engine you do save some coin.  But a Modern J or K or whatever is going to cost about the same as an Ultra.  There's just no getting around it with the amount of labor and outsourcing involved.  I suspect the only way to substantially affect the labor is to change the design, and that can run into certification issues.

I don't think so.  The cost of the later generation big bore engines is much greater than the TSIO360.  A reman in my 231 is a little less than 50k (w/o installation), I think a Bravo is 65K or more.  I am sure the Acclaim engines are more still.  Its not just two more cylinders, because the K's already had six, it is a completely redesigned engine and all of them with bigger cylinders, 550 vs. 360.  I think they could bring the cost of even the Ultras down though, if they stopped doing the extremely costly and nonupgradeable integrated panels.  That is, to my way of thinking, just a dumb idea.  It looks nifty, but today, panel technology has a life span of 10 years, if that.  It is not just the programming and functionality that changes, but CPU's increase in bandwidth and the displays of ten years ago just can't keep up.  So every ten years, not only do you have to put in a new engine at a cost of 80-100,000, you have to completely redo the panel, and probably  without the benefit of a manufacturer to support the STC cost, so figure another 100G at least for the panel.  Add to that the fact that the integrated Mooney panels have a track record of running into some kind of significant upgrade blockage at about 5 years and you have to wonder why anyone would want that panel, it makes no sense.

[exM20K]

14 minutes ago, jlunseth said:

I don't think so.  The cost of the later generation big bore engines is much greater than the TSIO360.  A reman in my 231 is a little less than 50k (w/o installation), I think a Bravo is 65K or more.  I am sure the Acclaim engines are more still.  Its not just two more cylinders, because the K's already had six, it is a completely redesigned engine and all of them with bigger cylinders, 550 vs. 360. 

The delta between the TSIO550G and TSIO360 SB/MB is not that much.  Invoice for a rebuilt 550 is about $85,000 with all accessories including exhaust system. TSIO360 MB or SB is about $65000 - dunno if that has all the accessories.  TSIO is 30% more expensive.  However, the TBO on the TSIO550 is 2200 hours vs 1800 on the TSIO360 if I recall correctly.  Let's pretend both make TBO.  The price difference shrinks to ~$6000 (65000/1800*2200).  

[n961jk]

Why do they need 600k panels?

[RobertGary1]

21 minutes ago, n961jk said:

Why do they need 600k panels?

$6k?

The factory says that the old style panels would be far too expensive to build today. Its very labor intensive to wire all the individual radios and all the pitot static we have in our older Mooneys. Garmin makes it all drop in and play. Garmin is made for the modern world where labor is far more expensive and materials are far less expensive.

-Robert

[johncuyle]

2 hours ago, steingar said:

This is all fantasy.  The short body, mid body, and long body Mooneys have about the sane number of parts.  They take the same number o man-hours to build. the only real difference is the extra two cylinders in the newer aircraft, if you only have a 4 cyclone engine you do save some coin.  But a Modern J or K or whatever is going to cost about the same as an Ultra.  There's just no getting around it with the amount of labor and outsourcing involved.  I suspect the only way to substantially affect the labor is to change the design, and that can run into certification issues.

The thing is, the TSIO-550-G weighs 554 pounds.  The TSIO-360-SB weighs 328 pounds.  The max gross on the Acclaim is 3368 and the max gross on the Encore is 3130.  So your 226 pound heavier engine gets you a 238 pound increase in gross, for a net UL gain of...  8 pounds.  Until you compare the weight of the Acclaim's aluminum three blade with a two blade or composite three blade and suddenly the bigger powerplant actually LOSES you useful load.  If you had a choice, which would you buy for $700k, the current Acclaim Ultra with its 975 pound UL, a new Encore (Ultra, with the long body and extra door) with a G500TXi/GTN750/GFC500/GTX345R based panel and a 1075 pound useful load, knowing that you also wouldn't need to carry as much gas due to the lower fuel burns, or an SR22?  The Acclaim is a hard sell.  It just doesn't carry enough.  That Encore, though, that's a pretty compelling option.

Edit:  I'm not in a financial position to buy any of them, but if Mooney made an Encore Ultra, that's the one I'd actually want.

[n961jk]

Why do they need 600k panels? There are many current panel options that are less expensive. A retrofit Garmin can be had for 40K. all glass and no vacuum. Why not install these at the factory as an option?

[n961jk]

There are many current panel options that are less expensive. A retrofit Garmin can be had for 40K. all glass and no vacuum. Why not install these at the factory as an option?

Edited December 5, 2019 by n961jk

[aviatoreb]

25 minutes ago, n961jk said:

There are many current panel options that are less expensive. A retrofit Garmin can be had for 40K. all glass and no vacuum. Why not install these at the factory as an option?

I agree - in fact I consider that more desirable than G1000 since G1000 leaves the airplane at the mercy of the airplane OEM for upgrades such as software updates, WAAS, ADSB and whatever else in the future.  Modular is better.  In fact - I used to own Diamond so sometimes I look on that website - there are people with orphaned G1000 no waas panels asking about if they can get the G1000 removed and start over.

[moontownMooney]

How about an M20J kit (experimental, for home build)?

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

[INA201]

39 minutes ago, moontownMooney said:

How about an M20J kit (experimental, for home build)?

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
 

I have brought this up before without much support from the audience at MS. Vans and Rans both sell a lot of kits and the planes are everywhere. The cool thing about a J kit is the amateur builder only has to complete 51% of the plane.  The marketing behind a J kit is that of a seriously proven design. Think of all of the tweaking that would go into one of these planes too.  The factory could churn out parts, sell new, sell kits, and find a comfort zone of productivity and hopefully profitability. We all talk about Cirrus but Vans probably sells more kits than Cirrus sells planes. 
Of course you offer factory produced planes too.