New Mooney Owner in 29 Palms

[PilotDerek]

I'm very happy to say that I have brought my new Mooney to her new home at 29 Palms. The previous owner flew with me to 29 Palms. It was a perfect So Cal flying day. The air was smooth as glass. I am lucky owner #4 of this great plane. She needs a few updates in the avionics department but that will come in time. I am looking forward to all the trips we will take together. I want to thank everyone on this forum for their continous words of wisdom and knowledge. I learn something new everyday from all of you.

[orangemtl]

Well DONE, sir! Load pics ASAP, so we can all admire.

I hope you have a chance to fly into KHII some weekend. It's maybe 90 NM straightline, and a beautiful place. Let me know when you have a chance to fly in, and dinner's on us.

BTW:  Is 2930L orange and white?  My, what great taste in paint schemes you have!

[jetdriven]

I'd love to see pics of this new steed.  Having recently bought a Mooney ourselves, I know the feeling. A thrill having a plane that no-one can tell you when it needs to be back. For me it was the first plane that didnt belong to someone else, and for the first time ever, had no particular place to go or time to be there. Enjoy it!

 

 

[mooneygirl]

Congratulations and welcome to the Mooney family!  Come see us at Oceano Airport December 3rd for Toys for Tots, that would be a great little flight for your new bird.  Way to go.

[MooneyMitch]

Welcome to the great world of Mooney airplanes.  Tons of info. and help here on MooneySpace.  Have fun with your new bird.

 

[KSMooniac]

Congrats!  Your face will ache very soon from all of the grinnin' ahead of you!

[fantom]

Quote: KSMooniac

Congrats!  Your face will ache very soon from all of the grinnin' ahead of you!

[MARZ]

My Nephew and his family just relocated there - Semper Fi

And congrats on the purchase.

[DaV8or]

Welcome to the wonderful world of Mooneys! Nice choice fellow F owner! We really need pictures for this to be official though...

[TonyPynes]

Woohoo!

Another F driver. We will rule the world soon.

 

Congrats.

 

 

[jetdriven]

If they build a few more, maybe. For now its the 1966 C and E models everywhere. Wait till Mooney comes back and builds 1,000 Acclaims, our planes wont be worth anything then.

[orangemtl]

Quote: jetdriven

If they build a few more, maybe. For now its the 1966 C and E models everywhere. Wait till Mooney comes back and builds 1,000 Acclaims, our planes wont be worth anything then.

[M016576]

Quote: jetdriven

If they build a few more, maybe. For now its the 1966 C and E models everywhere. Wait till Mooney comes back and builds 1,000 Acclaims, our planes wont be worth anything then.

[carusoam]

Thoughts on the factory building new planes...

For me, the new birds were for someone else.  For economic reasons, I got the hand-me-downs...

Don't get me wrong...

I am looking forward to the factory making the next greatest planes, somebody else buying them, having them depreciate a bunch, and then putting them back on the market for me.

It's a long chain of events that takes about 15 years to play out.  So I wish the factory would get going again.  I am going to need a, new to me, old acclaim in about 15 years.

As for C,D,E,F loosing any more value...  They are fully depreciated and retain their value based on the merits of being an econimcal, fast, efficient flying machine.  Keep 'em flying....

Best regards,

-a-

[Urs_Wildermuth]

If Mooney are to restart production, they might want to reconsider to bring back a 200 hp version like the J and the K model. I think one reason Mooney has lost appeal with many of us is exactly the fact that with the huge engine airplanes they have actually departed from their most successful designs, which were airplanes which deliver 150-160 kts on a IO360 at 8-9 gph. Especcially today, this would be very welcome indeed, looking at gas prices. Even better would be to get a version which allows either Diesel (Austroengine) or a Mogas engine to run. Even a variant with the new IO390 would in my view have a much larger marketing segment.

There is no doubt in my mind that by getting rid of their most popular models was a mistake, the consequences of which we can still see today.The J and K with the 201 and 252 series had a lot more life in them than Mooney's owners then thought. Speed is one thing, but efficiency is what today's market is looking for.

It can be seen that also new manufacturers keep their entry level models going, so the Cirrus 20 vs the 22.

[Ron McBride]

I talked to Bill Wheat at the MAPA Convention last week. He told me that the laber difference to build a J or an Ovation is about 20 hours. If you factor in the 4 cyl Lyc vs the 6 cyl Cont engine cost. I would bet the difference is amybe $20,000 tops $30,000 difference. You can pull the Ovation throttle back and fly at J speeds and fuel flows.

Mooney needs to build planes, but must control expenses. Production has gone from 800 hrs to over 4000 hrs per plane. Why?    Management and Labor.

The main competition for the J in my opinion is the Cirrus SR20.  How many SR 20's are built vs the SR22.  I don't know, but 5 or 10 SR22's vs a SR20.   Pilots want the fastest, most efficient plane that we can get. This means big motors. The Cessna Corvalis is 300 HP also.

Ron

[Urs_Wildermuth]

There is a strong case for 200/210 hp versions of such airplanes, especcially in todays cost environment.

I personally think that the bigger engine models have several drawbacks in terms of price, consumption and efficiency. With todays Avgas prices of around $ 11-14/USG here in Europe, my personal favorite would be a tailored Mooney cell which is cheaper, more economical and more affordable then the $400k high end models.

The other thing is, that the 180-210 hp engine segment has realistic chances to get (or already has) STC's for automotive fuels in other airframes. No chance of something like it in the 5xx series. Automotive Fuel (Mogas as it's called here) is a major cost relief factor.

I do have a problem with the 30k difference. Too easy I think, yet 30k is also real money. This assumes however, you will take an Ovation with G1000 e.t.c. and just change the engine. I am sure however that if you scale back on the rest of the airplane as well, you can do a lot more in terms of economy than this. I should think that if you can offer a 201 MK2 for around $ 250 k or so, there will be a huge market for it.

Even better IMHO would be if Mooney considers a Diesel variant using the Austro Engine of 170 hp (basically a rebirth of the "C" model in terms of power) with lower MTOW and lower basic weight. This thing burns Jet A1 at about 3-4 GPH. Even with a 50 USG capacity this would mean a range of 10 hours or more with maybe 140-150 kts TAS?

Here in Europe, speed is one thing, affordability another.

[danb35]

How do you expect that you'll save $150k compared to the cost of an Ovation?  You'll get $30k from the differences in airframe labor and engine; where do you think you'll find the other $120k?  I doubt people spending $250k on an airplane would be willing to take a basic fabric interior, so no (or minimal) savings there.  Are you going to save $100k in avionics?  Are people going to buy a new Mooney without glass?

[KSMooniac]

This has been debated for years, and the economics of modern times are what they are.  Costs for all planes escalated greatly in the 80s, and as it became more and more expensive to buy a new plane, fewer and fewer people were able to do so.  It used to be an middle class family could conceivably buy a new plane, but not any more.  In the last 15+ years, only "rich" people or businesses that had a tax advantage buying new were left to buy the new planes.  Mooneys have almost exclusively been for these customers (ie not training organizations with a brief exception for some advanced trainers) and frankly, most of those folks that can pay $400-$500k for a new plane aren't really concerned about burning 9 GPH vs. 12-15 GPH.  They simply want the most capable plane they can get.  Operating costs are *very* key for most of us buying used (like me) but we don't really factor into the market anymore for OEM manufacturers.  Heck, even if I could buy a new Ovation or Acclaim today, I doubt I could talk myself into that versus a used example...

The reasons for the high prices are many, and the differences in factory COST for a J vs. an R or TN posted above are correct.  IF Mooney could build a $200k J there is no doubt they would, but that would mean the R would only cost $220k or so.  They didn't quit building the J because they thought they could make more money on the R, they quit building it because people quit buying them after the R came out.  After killing the J, they tried to offer a lower-cost plane and made the S (Eagle) but those didn't sell very well either and it was dropped after 2 years.  Once again, the people that buy new want the best they can get, and if you buy a $375k Eagle (or whatever it cost) vs. a $400k Ovation (at the time) went for the Ovation.  Mooney also made a cheaper/basic J for a while, but again, it didn't sell very well at all.  The K is a similar story vs. the M/TN.

It is a sad conclusion, but it is what it is.  The M20 design survived for a very long time with some stretches, upgrades and enhancements but I'm afraid it might have reached the end of the line.  It is a hand-built boutique plane with a nice legacy, but it has lost ground to the modern planes with more comfortable cabins and (perceived) safety features that are appealing to non-traditional customers.  If it could be sold at a profit for <$300k in this market, it would have a great chance against Cirrus/Cessna, but that isn't true.  They're based in perhaps the most biz-friendly state and in perhaps the lowest-cost area of that state and still can't get the cost out.  The airframe isn't really suitable for automated production either, even before you consider the tens of millions of dollars that might cost to get that setup or the fact the volume wouldn't support such an investment.  Moving production to an even lower-wage country would also require a hefty investment without any guaranty of success.  Catch-22?

[orangemtl]

All true.

One counterpoint, however: while I plead ignorance as to the absolute volumes, there is a substantial and broad based LSA market out there: a type which did not exist as such, some 20 years ago.  A different mission from fast, longrange Mooneys: but are they, really in many circumstances?  If I'm going to fly, say 150 NM as opposed to a 250 mile circuitous drive, it's not really a big difference whether I'm flying at 130 vs 180 knots:  I'm going to get there in something around an hour.  Only, I can do so on 8-12 gallons in some aircraft, or 20 in mine.  The more economical and 'efficient' solution is obvious----and it's not the Acclaim.

 

My point?  Mooney has made a series of aircraft that we love: but largely using, stretching, and tweaking a >50 year old design. Yes, they've done a great job with it: but there's a limit. The world has moved on from many aspects of this airframe. The new market is either smaller, lighter and more efficient LSA's that run from, say $75,000 to 160,000, versus powerful and electronically advanced machines like the modern Acclaim, G36, and Columbias: that cost a fortune and are accessible to only the smallest minority. Somewhere in there is the Cirrus, which: good, bad or in between, has sold an enormous number of aircraft in the past ten years, using modern technology.

If Mooney is to (re) exist at all, they need to first identify what they can actually sell in this modern GA market.  They're just not going to make it selling $1/2 million Acclaims. They're too expensive, and appeal to too rarified a customer base.  Were I the King of Mooney, I'd want to design and sell the modern version of the 4 cylinder Mooney:  lighter, more efficient, with AFFORDABLE glass panel technology and pretty good speed at efficient levels of fuel consumption. For that matter: why can't they put out a true LSA with those features, and then extend it to a more typical 'step-up' GA version to occupy that 4 cylinder Mooney niche? 

Given my vast fund of ignorance, I suspect that the LSA could be produced and sold profitably at, say $120,000, while the 4 cyl GA could come in for the low $200's. Not exactly 'a plane in every driveway', but it's a dramatic improvement from where they are now.  After all, would you rather sell 500 planes/year at $200k and only make $25k on each one, or design a fantastic $649,000 aircraft that you can't sell in the modern market? Mooney has already done the latter. I'd sure like to see them try the former, and then rebuild the brand and company from there.

 

[KSMooniac]

I'm not sure the LSA market will hold up... I hope so, but I'm skeptical.  I think it is currently filling a void after production stopped on the various 2-seat/training aircraft in the 80s and never resumed.  They are not really practical travel machines (ie in instrument weather and/or >300+ nm) compared to any Mooney or many other legacy planes.  None of the best-selling LSAs are produced here either, which is an indictment on the cost of doing business in the US these days.  Last I checked, Cessna is delivering about one 162/day, which is pretty good IMO.  Still, it is a $120k+ Chinese-built plane that I wouldn't use to fly 300 NM to TX.

I agree that there is likely demand for a $200k modern 4-place personal airplane.  One that is easy enough for most to fly, and has enough speed and range to use for real travel in instrument conditions.  (Not necessarily winter weather or t'storms of course)  The problem is that nobody has been able to produce such a plane and get it to market yet!  There are a couple of overseas designs on paper that are going for it, but as always color me very skeptical.  In fact, their specs line up almost exactly with the M20J except for a wide cabin, which is most welcome.  Even a new 172 is way over $200k, and that should be the simplest/cheapest 4-place plane to build.

10 years ago I thought composite production would get us there by reducing the number of hours and parts required to make a GA plane, but that has not panned out so far.  Material costs are higher, and modern certification requirements have driven a TON of cost into the process so we are where we are.  There is talk of reforming Part 23 standards, but I doubt the FAA will let anything substantial change enough to make a difference in the process.  (my opinion...*real* Part 23 reform, an engaged FAA and especially national tort reform is needed to get us back to the heydays of the 60's and 70's)

Mooney is truly stuck with a legacy product and no cash to fund any new development.  If you want to do a clean-sheet Part 23 plane, the discussion needs to start with $10 Million or more... that is the reality.  Mooney might have a head start compared to a new company since they had an established factory with an FAA-approved production line and quality system, but it still takes a lot of money and time to do a new plane in the modern world.  After all of the layoffs, though, they might not be able to maintain the Production Certificate, so the company value might be even less if that is the case.  I wish they would have gone after some sub-contracting production from bigger companies like they did once before.   That might have kept everyone employed during this downturn and eventually helped them fund a new product.  I don't see a solution for them now, though, and that makes me sad.

[Cruiser]

The problem is a company (any company) cannot survive on a single product. Mooney has a single engine four seat GA airplane (a fast one) but still only one.

Piper, Cessna, Beech all have big diversity in product lines that keep the GA single engine planes in production. IF they didn't, they would all be out of business also.

[sleepingsquirrel]

I think that a great company with a great design is always going to compete with itself and its older products. I'm flying a 50 year old Mooney and think that you will find you have made a great choice! Great wings and tail feathers, solid time tested engine , it will have value when you decide to move up.  

[orangemtl]

I'd be extremely curious to know what Mooney's plans are. Or, if they currently have one.  I am involved in a medical device startup. It never ceases to amaze me that what a smaller organization can do for, say $2 million takes a larger one $5-10 million.  Much of that is because the smaller one CAN'T spend the bigger number because they haven't got it. The other part of this is, however that the larger ones don't pay a lot of attention to the 'smaller' details: e.g., production of a part lot for $250,000 from a familiar supplier, i/o a newer one that'll do it for $100,000. Many, many things can be done for less if you shop around: whether you're buying a necktie on Ebay, or designing an orthopedic instrument, or building a flying machine.

In a perfect world, Mooney would be taken in by a group of solvent pilots/engineers, and revived with cost effective design of a saleable product.  I've seen the "We just can't do it for less than $10 million" mentality more than once.  Sometimes they're right. Sometimes, they just lack vision.

Perhaps, come January 2013, the economic landscape will have changed in the US. I think there's some sort of election coming up in a year or so, last I heard...

[Hank]

The best way to restart production will involve automated welding of the steel tube and the spar, and automated cutting of sheet aluminum would be nice, too. That's the only way to be competitive. Detroit and UAW fought against it for years and years, but once they bought into the idea and installed some, quality improved, customer satisfaction increased and sales started to pick up. Robotic welders don't get sick, take vacations, ask for raises or make each part differently from the one before. "Hand made" can be nice, but it really is expensive to do and much, much more expensive to replicate.