Jump to content

What was actually announced today?


toto

Recommended Posts

My ultimate take is Mooney is still in business, run by folks with a ‘real’ vested interest, know the brand, and have a history with Mooney. They have to get on a solid footing - fairly priced parts supply (and yes making a good profit) and supporting those with the ‘later’ models,  has to be the first step. 
 

Those that spent $400k and up on the later model Mooneys will probably be the initial focus. Those of us with the ‘older’ fleet will probably still need the used/OPP model for some time. Mooney could help the older fleet by ‘STCing’ older part designs/drawings (per aircraft serial number) and still make a profit from that. We still have 337s and field approvals too when needed.

Overall, Mooney is still in business with ‘Mooney’ enthusiasts/experienced folks at the helm... a good thing...

-Don

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO it's a parts business first and foremost to start.  Focusing on what existing customers want, the g1000 upgrades seems like a great idea as well as the UL improvements.  I'd love to see some type of subscription plan where owners pay mooney some significant $ per year for low or no cost upgrades as they become available.   Would be great to get someone to figure out how to improve the landing gear and put a parachute in there before wasting more $ on trying to sell airplanes again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rpcc said:

I'd love to see some type of subscription plan where owners pay mooney some significant $ per year for low or no cost upgrades as they become available.

Sounds like a recipe for impatient, angry subscribers and hurried, half-baked “upgrades.”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key insight into the new Mooney business plan, afaict, is that Mooney==M20.

There are thousands of M20 airframes, and at this point it's fair to say that the company's core competence is all things M20.  Taking an incremental approach to supporting and improving that airframe is a very reasonable path forward, and it's the most predictable path from a capex perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

And subscribers that want their money back when they lose their medical and are forced to sell....

I think that concept will work out about as well as “timeshares”
 

But you have correctly identified the problem facing the new owners… This business will need a constant infusion of cash because it’s a constant development cost upfront and no revenue until later. Especially since they’re not selling airplanes which would covet overhead and help support the engineering cost. 

Look at Hinckley Yachts as an example of what I am talking about this company building.  It works, and can be a cash monster for mooney and help them develop something new.  https://www.hinckleyyachts.com/yachtcare/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hinckley has built beautiful boats for many decades...

Including very capable sail boats...

It is quite possible that A Mooney Owner is flying to be on his Hinckley this weekend...

Or his Grand Banks...
 

Not so much the picnic yacht... unless that is parked at the beach house...

Hmmm...

Hangar house, near the ocean...?

:)

Consumer research, while we are patiently waiting only, not just PP stuff...

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Hinckley has built beautiful boats for many decades...

Including very capable sail boats...

It is quite possible that A Mooney Owner is flying to be on his Hinckley this weekend...

Or his Grand Banks...
 

Not so much the picnic yacht... unless that is parked at the beach house...

Hmmm...

Hangar house, near the ocean...?

:)

Consumer research, while we are patiently waiting only, not just PP stuff...

Best regards,

-a-

Id just love to see this company build a cash flow model that works somehow.  This hand the factory the keys and send me the bill model works for some and probably would work for Mooney.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

 if an owner advances funds in the subscription program they just become an unsecured creditor in bankruptcy. Essentially they kiss it goodbye. I would rather pay for a real STC rather than an “dream“ STC. 

If a change is made by the factory, and approved by FAA, then it's not an STC. It's a change to the Type Certificate rather than a Supplemental Type Certificate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, rpcc said:

Look at Hinckley Yachts as an example of what I am talking about this company building.  It works, and can be a cash monster for mooney and help them develop something new.  https://www.hinckleyyachts.com/yachtcare/

You said you wanted subscription upgrades, like the plane is a mobile phone app.  That is a maintenance service plan, almost like Piston Power.  These are two entirely different things.  Not sure how one can be an example of the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

I wonder what it would take to the Acclaim to 300 knots...that seems like a great selling point...what’s the most powerful piston engine available? 425? Maybe raise the ceiling although not being pressurized may be the limiting factor.

Never say never, but 300TAS is not possible with the current airframe no matter how big an engine is driving it.  300 is greater than any true airspeed considering the vne the redline speed.  So it would require strengthening the airframe to make it legal.

And of course then a big engine.

So given that - let's go!  Plausible...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Never say never, but 300TAS is not possible with the current airframe no matter how big an engine is driving it.  300 is greater than any true airspeed considering the vne the redline speed.  So it would require strengthening the airframe to make it legal.

And of course then a big engine.

So given that - let's go!  Plausible...

By my calculation you would have to see an IAS of 190 at 25k to get around 300 depending on oat.  Just sneaking in under redline! :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Missile=Awesome said:

 Mooney should certainly look at history and reality as they chart a course for the future of the company.  Last time a pressurized airframe was tried...They died.  Last time they went all in for speed...they died.  Last time they went long body and eliminated a more affordable cost option...they died.  History can be a wonderful guide when plotting a course to a long term sustainable future.  History is history.

Exactly. They should look at what worked and what did not, combined with what the requirements of todays customers are. And I fully agree with you on your points here. Their most successful models were the C and F/J and IMHO because they deliever to this day a ratio of bang for buck which is unmatched.

 

22 hours ago, Missile=Awesome said:

ear/Cabin/Weight/Chute/Avionics ALL areas that make PERFECT sense to me in looking at history and what is needed for a successful course to the future.

Correct.

22 hours ago, Missile=Awesome said:

 Fossil fuels are the “BIG” what if in the scenario.  Some want ‘em GONE in 20.  Maybe we will have a MUCH lighter battery by then.  THAT would be a game changer.

True, yet 20 years is a long time. To get Mooney to survive we are talking the next 2-3 years in which they need to get profitable. If I had to bet my money, I'd bet it on Jet fuel / Diesel rather than Avgas as in the Aviation world it has a much larger quantity of consumers in the form of the airlines and military. Therefore it will be around for the forseeable future. Failing that, automotive gasoline would be the alternative and actually is here in Europe, where so called Mogas has become huge in GA in recent years, primarily with the rise of Rotax but also as a retrofit STC for many conventional engines.

And here I would see a chance yet again for Mooney, which is actually what the idea behind the M10 was. Both the Diesels and the automotive fuel powered conventional aeroengines are those of relatively low power, in the case of Diesel 150-180 hp and automotive fuels up to 250 hp roughly. Which is exactly the segment of the former C model up to the J. There is no well established Diesel to replace the high power engines used in the Ovation and Acclaim, nor in the SR22 series and the likes for that matter. But there are engines for a 180-200 hp model.

Personally I do not think Mooney can come up with a clean sheet design any time soon, that is why I think their current approach upgrading and maintaining the fleet is a valid approach. They do have the M20 as a certified base and it can for the moment be the base to implement things which can bring them back to profit. And yes, a shute at least as an option will have to be part of that equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Davidv said:

By my calculation you would have to see an IAS of 190 at 25k to get around 300 depending on oat.  Just sneaking in under redline! :)

Oh!  Well there you go!  And shame on me for not actually doing the calculation which I could and should well have done before I started spouting...

So all we need is some sort of big-ass engine.  An 8cylinder like the Comanche 400...and turbo normalize it so you still get that 400 at altitude?  Too heavy....but is there a way?

My feeling that something turn would do it.  But then....the vne becomes converted to the vno top of the green.  I feel it would still take some frame strengthening - recall there was some frame strengthening done for the rocket engineering liquid rocket conversion (the rare tsio550L engine at 350hp) which involved some gussets added at certain points on the frame.

Edited by aviatoreb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was really cheering for that eps diesel 8 cylinder rated from 350 to 420 hp - with amazing fuel specifics.  But alas they went bank rupt this summer - not to say someone could pick that back up.  But a 420hp 8 cylinder turbo diesel on the nose of an M20 - and a few gussets to raise the vne - stronger landing gear and a parachute and dang there you got a 300TAS Mooney that would fly off the shelves and be a big big hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Oh!  Well there you go!  And shame on me for not actually doing the calculation which I could and should well have done before I started spouting...

So all we need is some sort of big-ass engine.  An 8cylinder like the Comanche 400...and turbo normalize it so you still get that 400 at altitude?  Too heavy....but is there a way?

My feeling that something turn would do it.  But then....the vne becomes converted to the vno top of the green.  I feel it would still take some frame strengthening - recall there was some frame strengthening done for the rocket engineering liquid rocket conversion (the rare tsio550L engine at 350hp) which involved some gussets added at certain points on the frame.

Well you were mostly right, using some more realistic temperatures you would have to be right at 295 in level flight.  Starting the descent could get interesting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Davidv said:

Well you were mostly right, using some more realistic temperatures you would have to be right at 295 in level flight.  Starting the descent could get interesting...

Right - don't many/most turbine airplanes have the power to drive themselves in level flight faster than their vne so it is necessary to actually pay close attention to the "barber pole" and certainly in descent so it would be the same in a 400hp M20.  So more pilot workload but not anything out of spec as normal stuff for super high performance airplanes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

I’d skip the diesel and go directly to electric.

If there were powerplants and batteries available to do the job, I'd agree with you.

The current continental diesel range is available, but up to 155 hp only, however, it keeps that power thanks to it's turbo to quite high altitudes. There is however a variant which produces take off thrust of 170 hp, but it has not been certified, but as it the same engine with a different tuning, it should be feasible. Piper seems to want to install this in their Seminole so they are working on it. (CD170) Then there is a CD230, which would be ideal, delivering 230 hp. That one would be a 1:1 replacement for the whole J and K series, possibly even for the S.

Diesels can in theory be retrofit, this has been done to the PA28 and C172 series.

If an entry level model would be of the "back to the roots" type of project, I could imagine a massively lighter M20 series with a CD170 engine (the 155 with 170 hp take off thrust) as about a 150-160 kt airframe with 52 USG tanks and about 2600 lb MTOW and 550 lb full fuel payload. If the CD230 should be available it would be a great engine for even the current airframe but with higher MTOW of maybe 3200 lb and up to 180-200 kt.

Obviously the same kind of thing could be working with the well known IO360/390 avgas engines, however there, I would strongly recommend to include a automotive fuel certification. With that, it would be very competitive in the EU market particularly. And I have a feeling automotive fuel STC's may yet become quite interesting in the US as well if the anti Avgas lobby gets their way.

This could all base on the current M20 certificate.

However, all this is science fiction at the moment, at first they need to get the factory running properly and I guess their ideas of offering a good parts supply and desirable upgrades may well be the way to this.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the “new, new.... ok, really this time... new” mooney is able to offer a gross weight increase of 100-150lbs STC for E/F/J/K models that is reasonably priced (2-3K?), I think they will probably sell around 1000 of the kits.

not sure what they’d have to spend to get there, though, or if it’s even possible.  I kind of hope that’s what they are talking about when they say “gross weight increase”... although an increase for the long bodies would be great for future sales, too

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, M016576 said:

If the “new, new.... ok, really this time... new” mooney is able to offer a gross weight increase of 100-150lbs STC for E/F/J/K models that is reasonably priced (2-3K?), I think they will probably sell around 1000 of the kits.

not sure what they’d have to spend to get there, though, or if it’s even possible.  I kind of hope that’s what they are talking about when they say “gross weight increase”... although an increase for the long bodies would be great for future sales, too

I wonder what could cost 2-3k?  Some kind of spring or oil spring system that goes where the rubber discs are now?

I was imagining an entirely new landing gear kit and that would be at least like 15k plus at least like a 10k install - making up numbers from nowhere...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

I wonder what could cost 2-3k?  Some kind of spring or oil spring system that goes where the rubber discs are now?

I was imagining an entirely new landing gear kit and that would be at least like 15k plus at least like a 10k install - making up numbers from nowhere...

I'm not sure I understand the attractiveness of the gross weight increase without a concomitant POWER increase.  At my M20F's current gross weight on what is typically, here in southern California, above standard atmospheric conditions, it is not a stellar performer.  I just don't see myself wanting to takeoff with another 150 pounds on-board!  I like some safety margin in my performance.  YMMV, I suppose.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I'm not sure I understand the attractiveness of the gross weight increase without a concomitant POWER increase.  At my M20F's current gross weight on what is typically, here in southern California, above standard atmospheric conditions, it is not a stellar performer.  I just don't see myself wanting to takeoff with another 150 pounds on-board!  I like some safety margin in my performance.  YMMV, I suppose.

With the exception of the G1000 upgrade, it feels like most of the enhancements they're talking about are about adding a parachute. 

You have to beef up the gear (and, presumably, the seats) for impact absorption. The beefy gear, beefy seats, and the ballistic thingamajig all add weight, so you have to figure out a gross weight increase that will allow adding the new stuff without leaving a passenger at home. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, toto said:

With the exception of the G1000 upgrade, it feels like most of the enhancements they're talking about are about adding a parachute. 

You have to beef up the gear (and, presumably, the seats) for impact absorption. The beefy gear, beefy seats, and the ballistic thingamajig all add weight, so you have to figure out a gross weight increase that will allow adding the new stuff without leaving a passenger at home. 

No argument with those points.  But, if the parachute is the reason for the weight increase, that is a sad and bad decision, IMHO.

And, with the same power, you're still going to take the performance hit.

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.