Would you buy a new J/K?

[INA201]

34 minutes ago, marcusku said:

In another thread someone showed the list price in 2005 for an Ovation 2 with the G1000 was $420k?  I realize that's 15 years ago and some inflation needs to be factored in but the price has gone up substantially for a not so different airplane.  So I wonder what's changed in 15 years?

If you factor in inflation, if I calculated correctly $420k in 2005 = $550k now.

Although not affordable to me, I would think they would sell a few more at that cost.

Everything from football helmets, ladders, food, cars, and of course aircraft have had liability cost increases that can seriously hamper the ability to keep prices more reasonable. Kit planes do not carry the liability like certified do but the legal cases are beginning to show up.

[KSMooniac]

The liability/insurance costs have gone off the rail. Don't forget that it isn't just Mooney... It is Continental/CMI, Hartzell, Garmin, the aluminum vendor, tank sealant vendor, etc. Each of those suppliers have exposure and by the time a Mooney delivers, that exposure and this cost has been compounded a few times. It is a terrible reality that has been slowly killing our industry for 40 years now.

Friends of mine did an easy study in the 90s... Plot the price of a new 172 vs average engineer starting salary out of college. They tracked essentially 1:1 until the late 70's when the lawsuits started going crazy, and then the price started diverging. Now it is on the order of 6:1, which is beyond any reasonable aspiration for someone in the middle class.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[chrisk]

On 12/10/2019 at 10:17 AM, EricJ said:

A hangar neighbor has an LSA with a Rotax.   The gearboxes can be problematic with expensive overhauls.   They have a clutch in the gearbox to mitigate prop strikes, i.e., a prop strike is usually a gearbox teardown and saves the engine.  The motors can have electrical and fueling issues.   The closer I look at his the more I don't want one.   

Planetary gears seem to do much better and can be engineered to handle tons of torque (e.g., geared radials are nearly universally planetary gears).   The PT-6 propulsion gearing is planetary.

I have an aircraft with a Rotax 914.  The engine is a good design with many innovative features.   For example, the Rotax 912 engine doesn't have carb ice problems because the body of the car is heated with a loop from the engine coolant.     As for the clutch mentioned.  Its designed to smooth out the power pulse from the combustion events.  Its not designed to mitigate prop strikes, although it does tend to save the engine.  

My concerns with Rotax revolve around the lack of general aviation knowledge by aircraft mechanics.  They also could use better hoses on the initial builds.  Fortunately my version is experimental and I can work on it myself.

[kpaul]

13 minutes ago, chrisk said:

My concerns with Rotax revolve around the lack of general aviation knowledge by aircraft mechanics. 

Just find a snowmobile engine shop...

 The MQ-1 Predator (drone) used the turbo charged 914.  They are great engines. They operated in the high teens to mid 20s for altitude in high DA locations and extremely high mountains.  They ran about 22.5 hours per day.  The only real maintenance problem that were encountered was the occasional turbo failure, if this happened the airplane would end up descending to about 12,000 MSL, occasionally that caused problems with terrain.  The engines had 50 hour oil changes every 2 days.

[LANCECASPER]

19 hours ago, marcusku said:

In another thread someone showed the list price in 2005 for an Ovation 2 with the G1000 was $420k?  I realize that's 15 years ago and some inflation needs to be factored in but the price has gone up substantially for a not so different airplane.  So I wonder what's changed in 15 years?

If you factor in inflation, if I calculated correctly $420k in 2005 = $550k now.

Although not affordable to me, I would think they would sell a few more at that cost.

There are also quite a few improvements on the Ovation between 2005 and now. The STEC autopilot was upgraded to a Garmin GFC700, the non-waas G1000 has been upgraded to waas and now the Nxi avionics. The interiors have been upgraded, There is a pilot's side door. All Ovations made are now Ovation3 (310 hp), etc. etc etc. 

But yes even factoring in these things, apples to apples, it's gone up more than the rate of inflation. But what in aviation hasn't?

[chrisk]

2 hours ago, kpaul said:

Just find a snowmobile engine shop...

 The MQ-1 Predator (drone) used the turbo charged 914.  They are great engines. They operated in the high teens to mid 20s for altitude in high DA locations and extremely high mountains.  They ran about 22.5 hours per day.  The only real maintenance problem that were encountered was the occasional turbo failure, if this happened the airplane would end up descending to about 12,000 MSL, occasionally that caused problems with terrain.  The engines had 50 hour oil changes every 2 days.

 

Living in Central Texas, a snowmobile engine shop is not something that will be found.        Agree that it is a good engine. 

 

[chrisk]

On 12/10/2019 at 5:33 AM, Pasturepilot said:

I love the idea of a Mooney kit, but having built an RV-4 tail with my granddaddy and done a couple condition inspections on others, I’ll say this: Mooney’s wing is not suitable for homebuilders. The wing and tail jig for the RV fit easily in our little workshop; a jig for a Mooney wing would take up 40 feet by the time you had enough room to squeeze around either end. The structure has a lot more to it than an RV as well. So you’d have to either have some really advanced quick-build option for the wing, or go to the factory to handle that. 

Or just make a “plastic“ wing. That could lower the parts count and tie up fewer man hours. Use the experimental wing to develop the process and design for an improvement to the certified design that might reduce hours on the assembly line. 

This is all hypothetical rambling from me of course. I’m no engineer and to be honest, my antiquated C model is about where I need to be in terms of finances. A 20 year old Mooney is about the best that my day job will ever subsidize. I’m not complaining - when I need to go somewhere in a hurry or in bad weather, I go to the bigger airport, flash my ID and beg nicely for a jumpseat wherever I need to go. My Mooney is for a different kind of travel. 
 

I just wish to see continued success for our friends in Kerrville, regardless of how they can brainstorm a way out of their situation. I’ve flown and maintained several designs that had zero factory support. It’s doable, but not what I signed for when I bought a Mooney. 

I've contemplated building a plane before.  I quickly came to the conclusion that the vast majority of the build needed to take place at my home, not the airport.   A "Mooney Kit" would virtually guarantee that  a lot of the plane would need to be built at the airport.  A standard 2 car garage is some where between 20x20 and 24x24.  A 35 foot wing is going to be a big challenge. 

That said, I wonder if there is a path where the fuselage is built first, complete with engine and avionics.  Then the wing could be constructed for final assembly at the airport.  --There has to be, since I'm under the impression off field recoveries involve separating the fuselage and wing.    I think there is also opportunity for the factory to offer builder assist on wing construction.

[Stephen]

On 12/12/2019 at 9:16 AM, chrisk said:

I've contemplated building a plane before.  I quickly came to the conclusion that the vast majority of the build needed to take place at my home, not the airport.   A "Mooney Kit" would virtually guarantee that  a lot of the plane would need to be built at the airport.  A standard 2 car garage is some where between 20x20 and 24x24.  A 35 foot wing is going to be a big challenge. 

That said, I wonder if there is a path where the fuselage is built first, complete with engine and avionics.  Then the wing could be constructed for final assembly at the airport.  --There has to be, since I'm under the impression off field recoveries involve separating the fuselage and wing.    I think there is also opportunity for the factory to offer builder assist on wing construction.

So, there is always this option...

 

[tmo]

On 12/11/2019 at 5:54 PM, carusoam said:

Did you see the pic of an MSer flying his Mooney past the Statue of Liberty?

Nothing says freedom of flight like cruising by the statue flying next to NY, NY... 

Bring The K to the USA!

I would actually love to do this, in a couple of years.  Buzz Lady Liberty on the way to Osh...  The adventures of @flumag and @terbang are an enormous inspiration.  All in due time.

TBH, I've considered the reverse trip a couple of times, but the challenge of buying a first airplane from that far away ended up being overwhelming.  Buying one relatively locally hasn't been easy nor fast either.  Perhaps I scare too easily.  Oh well, all is well that ends well!

[aviatoreb]

On 12/12/2019 at 10:16 AM, chrisk said:

I've contemplated building a plane before.  I quickly came to the conclusion that the vast majority of the build needed to take place at my home, not the airport.   A "Mooney Kit" would virtually guarantee that  a lot of the plane would need to be built at the airport.  A standard 2 car garage is some where between 20x20 and 24x24.  A 35 foot wing is going to be a big challenge. 

That said, I wonder if there is a path where the fuselage is built first, complete with engine and avionics.  Then the wing could be constructed for final assembly at the airport.  --There has to be, since I'm under the impression off field recoveries involve separating the fuselage and wing.    I think there is also opportunity for the factory to offer builder assist on wing construction.

If I were ever to "build" an airplane it would be in one of those supervised in factory setting quick build setups that some of the kit companies have.  Where you build "51%" with the watchful eye of some pros.  Take off several months and live at the factory.

I put "build" and "51%" in quotes since those kit companies have figured out how to make the hours to be officially 51% but I suspect a lot of assistance is available as needed both hours, supervision and knowledgable advise - plus comraderie of other kit builders who may be there shoulder to shoulder working with their kit planes. And lots of good pre-fab parts.

I still think at the very least the wing (whether for certified or for experimental kit) should be replaced with a plastic wing of some kind (fiber glass?  carbon fiber?) since kit builders seem to be able to successfully work with these in a more timely manner and this would/could bolt on to an otherwise as it is today Mooney body.  Same shape wing, but different materials.

Edited December 14, 2019 by aviatoreb

[flyboy0681]

On 12/9/2019 at 4:01 PM, Gagarin said:

How about a refurbished M20J by the factory? The factory will buy used M20Js refurbish/overhaul them and sell them for $200k. 

Doesn't necessarily have to be done by the factory. There are excellent examples here on MS of complete rebuilds done by outside companies, one of the finest examples was Bennett Bibel's N335BB. I had the pleasure of seeing it two years ago and was astonished at how new it looked for a 1983 model.

 

 

[skykrawler]

I think price wise a 201 model would have to be close to a C182 or Arrow IV.  But wait, Piper doesn't make  a SE retract anymore.

 

[aviatoreb]

4 hours ago, flyboy0681 said:

Doesn't necessarily have to be done by the factory. There are excellent examples here on MS of complete rebuilds done by outside companies, one of the finest examples was Bennett Bibel's N335BB. I had the pleasure of seeing it two years ago and was astonished at how new it looked for a 1983 model.

 

 

I have seen and kicked tires Bennett's N335BB - it is stunning - inside and out.  It was refurbed essentially all in one shot just as we are discussing here.  And for much less than new - and now nicer than new.  It is still owned by someone else here on Mooney space - one lucky pilot.

E

[EricJ]

38 minutes ago, skykrawler said:

I think price wise a 201 model would have to be close to a C182 or Arrow IV.  But wait, Piper doesn't make  a SE retract anymore.

https://www.piper.com/model/m350/

They were making Arrows until very recently.   I think they were still expensive.

 

[carusoam]

23 hours ago, tmo said:

I would actually love to do this, in a couple of years.  Buzz Lady Liberty on the way to Osh...  The adventures of @flumag and @terbang are an enormous inspiration.  All in due time.

TBH, I've considered the reverse trip a couple of times, but the challenge of buying a first airplane from that far away ended up being overwhelming.  Buying one relatively locally hasn't been easy nor fast either.  Perhaps I scare too easily.  Oh well, all is well that ends well!

We have an MSer from/in France who bought a Mooney in the US. Flew it a bit, putting many hours on it before flying across the Atlantic taking it home... of course, our Statue of Liberty, has some shared meaning for the MSers from France as well... she is directly related to the Eiffel Tower... she represents freedom and Liberty... All important stuff for Flying a Mooney...

@Awful_Charlie recently crossed the pond to visit KOSH this year...

Some of the first pics I have seen of a Mooney crossing the Atlantic came from @Gagarin who ferried an Ovation to Europe...

 

It is amazing how shared knowledge removes some of the scare from the equation...

Some MSers share their Spot Tracker details while making their epic journeys...

we have a few World Rounders around here. the last one was an M20K from TX...  That also included a story of contaminated fuel and having to return from one departure over the ocean before the fuel screens got blocked...

With MS... we are open 24/7... you are never alone... 

The first hint somebody is going to start a long flight... questions about range and fuel capacity start coming up, and the words TurtlePac or Monroy are part of the discussion... 

We have quite a few MSers based in places like Australia, South Africa, and Brazil...

Some of the most epic flights are individual achievements... more about the pilot, then the Mooney.... but the Mooney helps get the pilot where he wants to be...

There are more Mooney pilots flying long distances than my memory can hold...  

Some really cool pics get dropped into the Today’s Flight thread...

Best regards,

-a- 

[Jerry 5TJ]

16 hours ago, skykrawler said:

But wait, Piper doesn't make  a SE retract anymore.

Piper offers the Mirage and Matrix which are SE piston retracts.  And they have two models of SE turboprop retracts.  

[chrisk]

22 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

If I were ever to "build" an airplane it would be in one of those supervised in factory setting quick build setups that some of the kit companies have.  Where you build "51%" with the watchful eye of some pros.  Take off several months and live at the factory.

I put "build" and "51%" in quotes since those kit companies have figured out how to make the hours to be officially 51% but I suspect a lot of assistance is available as needed both hours, supervision and knowledgable advise - plus comraderie of other kit builders who may be there shoulder to shoulder working with their kit planes. And lots of good pre-fab parts.

I still think at the very least the wing (whether for certified or for experimental kit) should be replaced with a plastic wing of some kind (fiber glass?  carbon fiber?) since kit builders seem to be able to successfully work with these in a more timely manner and this would/could bolt on to an otherwise as it is today Mooney body.  Same shape wing, but different materials.

I did just that a few years ago with a rotorcraft.  From memory, the FAA has a check list of tasks.  If you perform 51% of the tasks, then you built 51% of the aircraft.   It's not 51% of the time to build the entire aircraft.  Factory assist was a huge time saver and prevented lots of contemplation before I drilled holes.