Mooney factory closed again

[JT]

3 hours ago, Austintatious said:

I am not surprised...   They needed to be able to sell the new aircraft for SUBSTANTIALLY less than a turbo cirrus.  Otherwise I can see no reason to go with a Mooney over the cirrus. 

They are basically the same price...both 200 knot airplanes only the cirrus carries more weight, is more simple to operate, has more room inside and has a parachute.   Why would anyone have gone with a Mooney?

There is obviously a HUGE market that Cirrus has dominated and to me the reason is obvious...  Now, had a New Mooney cost 250k less than a cirrus, they would have likely sold many many more.

Just stop and ponder for a second that someone was able to design, certify and tool up for  a new aircraft that best mooney in almost every respect (save for max top speed) and sell for about the same price.  Mooney has been making essentially the same aircraft for how long now?  How different is the wing on a new mooney vs the ones from the 70's ?  yet Cirruse simply dominated Mooney.  That doesn't happen because one airplane is a SLIGHTLY better buy than the other... it happens because one is a VASTLY better buy.

I love my Rockets... amazing aircraft and at what I could spend on aircraft, they were a no brainer.... However had I been looking at dropping 800K on a new airplane, I  would not have bought a Mooney.  It would have made no sense.  

 

 

According to POH's , Acclaim Ultra is 29 KTS faster than the SR22T at 242KTS vs 213KTS. That's 58,000 nautical miles farther traveled on a 2000HR TBO IO 550.  Cirrus has to carry more weight, because the inefficiency of the wheels being out means you have to carry more fuel, and by the way, burn it. What is more simple to operate in a Cirrus? Put the gear down???  Cirrus built the first SR20's in the 90's. Why is the fact that Mooney built those first beautiful wings in the 70's a detriment to it's value? I don't see what's even slightly better, let alone vastly better. I understand the comfort factor of the parachute for some, that's the only substantive advantage the Cirrus has. IMHO, 800K Mooney vs 800K Cirrus? No Brainer.  

[carusoam]

You guys make me want a composite pressurized Turbine Mooney... can I get that for the 800amus?

Could be M10 ver.2... 

No engine outs, no need for a parachute...  parachute optional if you want me to have one...

Best regards,

-a-

[DXB]

1 hour ago, pwnel said:

Yes I would.  Not to build new planes, to support the existing fleet.  Provided I could get Mooney Inc at the right price, combine it with Lasar, buy the Rocket STC and all Lopresti mods, bring in Jimmy to run second hand sales, bring in Maxwell or one (or several) of the nearby Texas MSCs and run a lean vertically integrated Mooney shop at Kerrville.  Maybe offer full one-stop-shop refurbs using local suppliers like AeroComfort etc.

A man of vision...potentially a reality?

[David_H]

31 minutes ago, philip_g said:

Riveted aluminum looks antiquated next to a perfectly smooth composite airframe.

I like aluminum and rivets. To each their own, I guess.

[JT]

50 minutes ago, philip_g said:

Literally everything is simpler. Takeoff? Hit the toga button to bring the command bars up, rotate, climb a bit, engage autopilot and it'll climb to bugged altitude on the command bars until you hit nav And fly the programmed plan. Setting cruise power? Pull the big lever back to 2500 rpm, pull the red lever to the blue carrot and you're lop. Keep pulling it to the desired fuel flow or percent power. Want to slow down? The flap speed is high enough on the g6/5 that you can basically use the flaps as a speed brake. The panel will tell you if you're taking off without takeoff flaps set, it'll automatically disconnect the yaw damper for landing, it's really like flying an iPad. I'm honestly shocked they haven't automated fuel tank switching. The TKS tanks Auto switch. 

 

Riveted aluminum looks antiquated next to a perfectly smooth composite airframe. I wonder if that perception doesn't turn off non pilot buyers

Pilatus PC 12-  $4.8 million, riveted aluminum

Quest Kodiak- $2.5 million, riveted aluminum

Piper M600- $2.8 million, riveted and bonded aluminum

Cessna Caravan 208- $2.9 million, riveted aluminum

TBM 940- $4.1 million, riveted aluminum

Nothing antiquated about any of these, or lots of others. 

Nothing antiquated about Mooneys either, except the image that's been spun.

 

Speed brakes can be deployed at any airspeed, Cirrus 150KT flap speed does not make them speed brakes.

[carusoam]

Speed brakes are great for E-descents...

For... The time you have too much fuel...

-a-

[M20F-1968]

6 hours ago, philip_g said:

Riveted aluminum looks antiquated next to a perfectly smooth composite airframe. I wonder if that perception doesn't turn off non pilot buyers

The cost to insure a glass airplane is still higher due to the fact that repairing a glass structural part is uncertain if next to impossible.  

There are also concerns of how glass will maintain its structural integrity over the years and when exposed to the elements.  

Ultrasound structural imaging and analysis not need with aluminum.  Repairing aluminum is well established.

John Breda

[Schllc]

It’s pretty clear who is dominating in sales and marketing. 
mooney is, and always has been a niche market. 
i would also say that all aviation is a niche market. 
I have completed the type training to required to fly the cirrus and was underwhelmed. 
It’s  louder inside than my Mooney, slower and i personally feel the training focuses way too much on avionics and less on pilotage. 
My preference is the Mooney, but I understand why people like the cirrus.

By cirrus’s own admission they converted a whole sect of people who would otherwise not have been pilots much less owners. Take what you will from that statement.

my only knock/concern about the plan is the composite. 
with a metal airplane, damage is obvious and easy to repair, not so much in the composite, and the modulus of elasticity of metals is well defined and understood. 
once composite is compromised something that looks fine may or may not be, and it has zero structural value where compromised, unlike metal. 
They will just not last the way metal will. 
maybe this is a moot point. Time will tell. 

[Jerry 5TJ]

7 hours ago, TGreen said:

Cirrus sells about half as many planes as it did in 2006. About 6 per state per year. And no one else sells any. As far as high performance singles go, Cirrus is dominating a vanishing market. 

Perhaps that’s it — The market for high performance Avgas powered aircraft peaked 15 years ago.  

[exM20K]

8 hours ago, philip_g said:

Literally everything is simpler. Takeoff? Hit the toga button to bring the command bars up, rotate, climb a bit, engage autopilot and it'll climb to bugged altitude on the command bars until you hit nav And fly the programmed plan. Setting cruise power? Pull the big lever back to 2500 rpm, pull the red lever to the blue carrot and you're lop. Keep pulling it to the desired fuel flow or percent power. Want to slow down? The flap speed is high enough on the g6/5 that you can basically use the flaps as a speed brake. The panel will tell you if you're taking off without takeoff flaps set, it'll automatically disconnect the yaw damper for landing, it's really like flying an iPad. I'm honestly shocked they haven't automated fuel tank switching. The TKS tanks Auto switch. 

 

Riveted aluminum looks antiquated next to a perfectly smooth composite airframe. I wonder if that perception doesn't turn off non pilot buyers

The flight you describe is basically the same in the Mooney.  Yes, we have to put gear up and down, but Cirrus pilot has to unpin and re-pin the parachute.  One big difference: I climb and cruise way faster. 

Ramp appeal is very different.  My acclaim was recently nestled into a tight MX hangar in front of a new SR22T. That plane stands much taller, is much wider, and the two doors are more welcoming than crawling into my Mooney cave.  The plane feels more substantial to the non-pilot, and Mooney really never has an answer for that emotional comfort level on the part of the non-flying SO.
 

Maybe Mooney had the right idea with the to doors, but perhaps too little, too late.

-dan

[aviatoreb]

8 hours ago, philip_g said:

I think to a more tech focused person the riveted aluminum looks like an outdated apple 2 sitting there. I haven't flown a g1k mooney so I don't know how well integrated the system is for checklists, cas messages etc. I assume it's similar to cirrus, but citrus updates software and adds features pretty often.

I like carbon fiber and glass. It doesn't corrode and the wing skins are one piece, fewer seams to leak fuel. I have never heard of a Sr series needing a reseal... Yet. I'm sure some day.

I guess that's why there are options, but it's one thing to say you'd buy a new Mooney and a whole other thing to actually buy one, and the people voting with their wallets are clearly saying which they prefer.

I understand it is perception that counts when it comes to sales, and the perception is that composite airplanes do not corrode.  

But the fact couldn't be more different.  I had a Diamond DA40 before I purchased this M20K more than 10 years ago.  I can say that composite airplanes do corrode, and mine had such a rash, as did many many others as often discussed on the forum diamondaviators.  There is a metal sheet embedded in the wing under the surface to wick static electricity for IFR flying.  There is a dissimilar metal set of screws running through the wing holding various bits in place.  This makes for a corroding process.  The composite surface can start bubbling and blistering.  The solution is much more expensive than if it had just been a metallic wing.  It involves "scarfing" which is wearing away the surface mechanically, replacing the metal, then rebuilding up the composite material.  Even a small corroded section costs many thousands to mitigate where if it had just been metal it would have been a simple matter of r&r.  I was so disgusted by the prospect of my composite airplane corroding, that it was one of the balls that got me rolling toward a traditionally built riveted airplane.

But yes, perception is everything and people are voting with their wallets.

[aviatoreb]

If I had 800k for an airplane - I am not a new airplane buyer.  Cirrus or Mooney.  I would be buying something used, and in a higher category - a SETP of some kind.  But if I were buying something new, at same price absolutely I would be buying a Mooney over a Cirrus.  And in fact in the same price category, I did as my airplane is in the price range that I could have had a newer cheapest in category SR22. They don't float my boat.  I know they float many people's boats because they are selling.

[Parker_Woodruff]

23 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

If I had 800k for an airplane -

I'd be seeing if Piper would give me 20% off a brand new Seneca V.

[Jerry 5TJ]

21 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

If I had 800k for an airplane - I am not a new airplane buyer.  Cirrus or Mooney.  I would be buying something used, and in a higher category - a SETP of some kind.  But if I were buying something new, at same price absolutely I would be buying a Mooney over a Cirrus.  And in fact in the same price category, I did as my airplane is in the price range that I could have had a newer cheapest in category SR22. They don't float my boat.  I know they float many people's boats because they are selling.

You make a valid point --  20 years ago there was no same-cost option between a used SE Turboprop or a new Piston as the former had a price twice that of the new plane.  Now, for your $800K you can get a nice Turbine.  Sure, it costs more to run than the new piston.  It goes faster, higher, etc, too.  So it is not just Cirrus in competition with the new Ultras -- a modest flock of used turboprops also competes for Joe Pilot's attention.

 

[Austintatious]

9 hours ago, JT said:

According to POH's , Acclaim Ultra is 29 KTS faster than the SR22T at 242KTS vs 213KTS. That's 58,000 nautical miles farther traveled on a 2000HR TBO IO 550.  Cirrus has to carry more weight, because the inefficiency of the wheels being out means you have to carry more fuel, and by the way, burn it. What is more simple to operate in a Cirrus? Put the gear down???  Cirrus built the first SR20's in the 90's. Why is the fact that Mooney built those first beautiful wings in the 70's a detriment to it's value? I don't see what's even slightly better, let alone vastly better. I understand the comfort factor of the parachute for some, that's the only substantive advantage the Cirrus has. IMHO, 800K Mooney vs 800K Cirrus? No Brainer.  

Yea, if you cruise them at top speed.... which you would be foolish to do.  When you cruise at more economical speeds, the difference is not so much. Furthermore, do you think someone with 800k to drop on a new aircraft cares about a few gallons of gas? 

Have you flown a cirrus?  Much simpler aircraft to operate. There is no prop control.  No gear handle. No speed brakes that I recall.  It just has less going on..  Compare that to a Mooney, with 1 more engine control, speed brakes, gear handle... with a yoke in your lap... things can get cluttered feeling... I make an extraordinary effort to keep my cockpit organized and even so things can feel like a lot is going on.  I can totally see a weekend warrior feeling overwhelmed in the Acclaim ultra.

I never said That building those wings in the 70's was a detriment.  I was actually saying it was an advantage.  They already had certification, Tooling and years of experience perfecting it all... Yet another aircraft came along and beat the snot out of them despite that advantage.

I think it is wonderful that if you were buying a new airplane, you would take the mooney.  That is however more easily said than done.... I don't know if you are married, but consider how many wives were likely involved in the purchase.  Do you think the wife cares at all about the merits you put forth?  I doubt any woman if shown the two aircraft side by side would choose the mooney. 

At the very least you have to accept that you are in the VERY SMALL minority.  The market has proven this.  Instead of trying to tell me how wrong I am by cherry picking numbers, why dont you ask WHY the vast majority of people with 800k to spend on new aircraft DIDNT buy mooney?

 

[Austintatious]

3 hours ago, M20F-1968 said:

The cost to insure a glass airplane is still higher due to the fact that repairing a glass structural part is uncertain if next to impossible.  

There are also concerns of how glass will maintain its structural integrity over the years and when exposed to the elements.  

Ultrasound structural imaging and analysis not need with aluminum.  Repairing aluminum is well established.

John Breda

Nonsense.

Composites can likely outlast metal.  There are composite gliders from the 70s still flying around.  My 1983 PIK is glass/carbon and has an expected lifespan of 800,000 flight hours, 20% at maximum aerobatic load factors.

Yes, if you sit composite outside in the sun and weather you will have issues.  That is why you don't do it.  There are plenty of issues for Metal airplanes treated that was as well.

Repairing composites is also well established.  As I said, we have had composite aircraft since the 70's

[aviatoreb]

26 minutes ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

I'd be seeing if Piper would give me 20% off a brand new Seneca V.

For 800k you would spend 640k?

I understand the appeal of a new Seneca V. But if I wanted a Seneca V, I would buy perhaps this one (not having spent more than 30 seconds shopping), for 350k.

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/188460559/2000-piper-seneca-v

or something close to it.

For 800k I'm buying turbine.  But I don't have 800k.

For 450k Im buying one of these.  https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/32593913/1994-beechcraft-a36-bonanza-turboprop

 

[Austintatious]

It is a bit pointless to compare older aircraft to new.

Obviously a person willing to drop 800k on a NEW airplane does not care about efficiency or bang for buck.  If they did, they wouldn't spend 800k on a NEW airplane when an Old aircraft could give them similar performance at a fraction of the cost.  That right there is why you can take the efficiency  argument for a new Mooney over cirrus and toss it right in the can.

[exM20K]

2 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Perhaps that’s it — The market for high performance Avgas powered aircraft peaked 15 years ago.  

With great sadness, I'll agree with this. It's a great time for those who can afford a SETP.

-dan

[aviatoreb]

30 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

It is a bit pointless to compare older aircraft to new.

Obviously a person willing to drop 800k on a NEW airplane does not care about efficiency or bang for buck.  If they did, they wouldn't spend 800k on a NEW airplane when an Old aircraft could give them similar performance at a fraction of the cost.  That right there is why you can take the efficiency  argument for a new Mooney over cirrus and toss it right in the can.

Its not pointless.  I am not describing airplanes.  I am describing customers.  It is customers who buy airplanes.  I am describing myself as a buyer.  We can describe Cirrus buyers a certain way as we have been doing...Cirrus buyers like this. Cirrus buyers like that. Cirrus buyers want a parachute. Cirrus buyers are tech-gizmo-geeks who want to check their oil pressure on a cell phone app remotely.

SO I am describing another kind of buyer, whom I am one of.  Unfortunately, there are many people like me (well if we end that thought there....I guess I would feel sorry for my wife!).

Unfortunately there are many people like me and being like this I purchased a used aircraft and I purchase used cars.  I think many people are like this by nature who enjoy the value in a used car or airplane and fixing it up, perhaps more than buying new, even cost being not the main object.  And people of that kind may well be many of us here who gravitated to Mooney.  I think this is a systematic problem for Mooney factory generally - I am describing a variant of the CB syndrome.  I think Mooney fans are systematically biased to be of this nature who are not as much excited at the plane being new, as the idea of a plane being fixed up like new.  It doesn't help that the new Mooney are so very much like a 1981 Mooney rocket, in my humble opinion, right or wrong.

But back to new vs used Mooney or Cirrus.  With $150k in my pocket today if I were buying today I would buy a Mooney something.  I would not buy a $150k Cirrus something.  So I assume if I were an 800k new piston buyer (which I said I am not) that would scale up.

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by aviatoreb

[PMcClure]

Does the market need another high performance SEL mfgr? I think not. As much as I would like to see Mooney keep making airplanes for the USA market, it seems pointless. But there is a large, active and faithful  legacy fleet and a host of STC upgrades. There should be a profitable business model in there somewhere that does not involve making new airplanes for the USA market.  The idea of making Acclaims and Ovations for the existing domestic market does not look like an investable endeavor to me. But a parts, refurb, STC upgrade, etc... model seems investable and sustainable. Maybe a $10mm revenue business instead of a $100mm or $1BB. It would require some hard choices about what the new company is and does and a new overhead structure that fits the new model. But there should be a place for the Mooney name in the aviation world for a long time. But if it doesn't happen soon, there may be little left to salvage. 

[exM20K]

25 minutes ago, PMcClure said:

Does the market need another high performance SEL mfgr?

Diamond is about to find out with the DA50

-dan

[Jerry 5TJ]

7 minutes ago, exM20K said:

Diamond is about to find out with the DA50

A JetA -burning turbodiesel 300 hp 5 seat pressurized retractable with G1000 suite for under €500,000?  
Sounds good.  We’ll see.  

[Austintatious]

24 minutes ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

A JetA -burning turbodiesel 300 hp 5 seat pressurized retractable with G1000 suite for under €500,000?  
Sounds good.  We’ll see.  

Sounds amazing... but man that thing looks like a DRAG queen.  I think they should hang some more stuff off of it!

[pwnel]

1 hour ago, Austintatious said:

Sounds amazing... but man that thing looks like a DRAG queen.  

O Lord, that's going to stick for a looooong time.  I like this plane, but you put into words what I thought about how it looks.