Jump to content

If you were in the Mooney Biz?


Jocbay

Recommended Posts

Something....

  • fast
  • efficient
  • safe
  • carry four people
  • Have a TN with an MP controller

If I wanted to expand the offering...

  • carry two people, and go faster...
  • carry six people
  • turbine 
  • pressurized

Somehow come up with a payment plan that would work for everybody on MS...  :)

Best regards,

-a-

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't biggest competitor for new aircraft manufacturers their own models in the used aircraft market?  74-year-old Bonanzas are regularly for sale, so it's seems like only a matter of time before our grandchildren are flying 100-year-old Mooney's.

Robinson Helicopters seem to be the exception to that rule since helicopters have such a high must-replace maintenance cost, and the company is relentlessly focused on keeping costs down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, john buhrman said:

What would you produce?

This seems like a trick question - who is buried in Grant's tomb?

If I were in the Mooney business, I would produce Mooneys, by definition of whatever I produce would be called a Mooney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cloudskipper said:

Isn't biggest competitor for new aircraft manufacturers their own models in the used aircraft market? 
 

Somebody thought that once...

It is easy to say...

It sounds logical...

 

I can only speak for myself...

I bought the best used Mooney I could afford...

Without consulting the factory for a quote...

So... there was no competition there...

 

Businesses like to buy the new planes...

A person that has a business can make more sense out of buying a new plane...

 

There are a few dozen  MSers that have bought direct from the factory... and thousands of people that have purchased pre-flown planes...

Lets not confuse planned obsolescence for automobiles in the 60s, with 700amu planes built post Y2K...

 

Sure... there are a few people that can, and would afford a new Ovation if it were available....

There aren’t that many used Ovations for sale to compete with... today.

 

PP thoughts only, I’ve only sold one airplane...

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All affordable options face competition from the used market.   How rapidly does a factory new machine depreciate?   A quick scan of asking prices on Controller, and assuming the cost of a new one, I see this. 

I'd posit that it is impossible to certify a new design today and ever hope to break even.    Data support this.  Every company that has tried to design and sell a "modern" certified competitor to Cirrus has gone broke or quit before they went broke.  That's why P, C, B (and M) are still building old certified designs that have had some TQM applied over the years.

The answer to the question is like the answer to "Shall we play a game?" from the movie "War Games".  Don't.   You'll never recoup the costs of developing and certifying a completely new airframe.  Keep refining the design and building them until the market disappears due to natural competitive market forces.  It seems that Mooney has already lost.  Its' only hope is infusion of cash from sources that don't expect ROI and can weather a total loss.   Sorry to be gloomy, but I think the data support my thesis.

 

 

Mooney_cost_vs_age_in_2021.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, 0TreeLemur said:

All affordable options face competition from the used market.   How rapidly does a factory new machine depreciate?   A quick scan of asking prices on Controller, and assuming the cost of a new one, I see this. 

I'd posit that it is impossible to certify a new design today and ever hope to break even.    Data support this.  Every company that has tried to design and sell a "modern" certified competitor to Cirrus has gone broke or quit before they went broke.  That's why P, C, B (and M) are still building old certified designs that have had some TQM applied over the years.

The answer to the question is like the answer to "Shall we play a game?" from the movie "War Games".  Don't.   You'll never recoup the costs of developing and certifying a completely new airframe.  Keep refining the design and building them until the market disappears due to natural competitive market forces.  It seems that Mooney has already lost.  Its' only hope is infusion of cash from sources that don't expect ROI and can weather a total loss.   Sorry to be gloomy, but I think the data support my thesis.

 

 

Mooney_cost_vs_age_in_2021.png

Nice graph.  Can you publish the data?  I want to see what that looks like on a semiology plot.

eventually there were will be such a new design paradigm that new designs will break through.  E.g. vertical take off electric 20 bladed octocopter like things or whatever, with AI autonomous flight and everyone will have one and no one will be human pilot for anything.  Mass market pricing will jump in again and they will cost like cats today.  Until then, its C, P, B, M, C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Cloudskipper said:

Isn't biggest competitor for new aircraft manufacturers their own models in the used aircraft market?  74-year-old Bonanzas are regularly for sale, so it's seems like only a matter of time before our grandchildren are flying 100-year-old Mooney's.

 

45 minutes ago, 0TreeLemur said:

All affordable options face competition from the used market.   How rapidly does a factory new machine depreciate?   A quick scan of asking prices on Controller, and assuming the cost of a new one, I see this. 

Mooney_cost_vs_age_in_2021.png

This is not a depreciation curve.  It is a curve that shows the accelerating unaffordability of the planes that the industry choses to sell.  

In 1977, the first year of the 201, an M20J sold for about $45,000.  Median household income in 1977 was $13,570.  That Mooney was 3.3 X household income

In 2020, the last year of the Ovation, an M20R sold for about $700,000 Median household income in 2020 was $68,4000.  That Mooney was 10.3 X household income.

Bonanza, Cirrus, Diamond, Mooney, Pipistrel, etc. - it doesn't matter - new high performance complex single engine aircraft are more and more unaffordable by historical measures.

I think a better way to think about it is that the biggest competitor for new aircraft manufacturers is used aircraft that were affordable when they were manufactured.

Look at Piper - I think they have realized this for a long time.  They ditched the SEL Saratoga 10 years ago and then the Matrix too - unaffordable for the vast majority of buyers and Piper could not make any money at the sales price.  In reality, Mooney hasn't been making any money on its planes for the last 10 years although they kept raising prices making them more unaffordable.  Piper has doubled down on affordable planes to sell.  Flying Mag announces the Piper 100i at Sun&Fun - Piper has cut cost to keep this modern "Archer" under $300,000.  Piper Debuts New Piper 100i at Sun ‘n Fun | Flying (flyingmag.com)

Edited by 1980Mooney
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, 201er said:

Only in Cuba do they refurbish and overhaul cars like we do airplanes.

But our planes are refurbished with actual airplane parts, from the manufacturer, built for the exact model. There are no repurposed Cessna parts, nor Ford tractor parts, on our Mooneys. Not so the cars in Cuba, they only look like a 55 Chevy . . . . . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hank said:

But our planes are refurbished with actual airplane parts, from the manufacturer, built for the exact model. There are no repurposed Cessna parts, nor Ford tractor parts, on our Mooneys. Not so the cars in Cuba, they only look like a 55 Chevy . . . . . 

Most of the Chivvies in Havana still have the original shocks Im sure, at least the ones I rode in a couple years ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know that it is quantities of scale.  The very popular C182 with approximately 23,500 built over 64 years averages out to 367 planes a year.  I'm not sure how many Cessna averaged over the last 5 years but I am sure is is much less than 367.  It would be nice if C,B P and M could produce 1 or more planes a day every day and sell them at the same rate.   However, I do not think between all manufactures of small airplanes you the market to sell 1,500 plus new units a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certification costs and legal liability costs have killed new planes. There is no need for million dollar singles. There is a large market for $250,000 singles.

An airplane is much simpler than a car. Nothing from Garmin is more complicated than a new I-phone. 
it is amazing that 60 year old airplanes that were certified for comparatively no cost are still flying.

‘Certification “should” help produce safe new products. Certification in reality just guarantees old tech at crazy prices.

Another comparison. A 70s airplane cost 10 times what a basic car cost. Today’s basic car has a lot more stuff that in the 70s. Today’s plane at 10 times a basic car is still that $250,000 plane. 
Lawyers are not your friends in or out of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, RJBrown said:

Certification costs and legal liability costs have killed new planes. . . .A 70s airplane cost 10 times what a basic car cost. Today’s basic car has a lot more stuff that in the 70s. Today’s plane at 10 times a basic car is still that $250,000 plane. 

Lawyers are not your friends in or out of government.

Today an "average" new car runs about $25,000. An new plane runs about $500,000-$600,000. So the price differential planes:cars has increased from 10:1 to 20+:1, while automotive technology has far outstripped airplane technology. Engines, occupant safety, manufacturing techniques, materials, fuel economy, horsepower per engine weight, horsepower per unit displacement, etc. Planes are the same as.50 years ago, cars are leaps.and bounds ahead. Why? FAA certification and liability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Light sport - Guy a few hangars down is building an rv12 whole kit including engine $87k

Experimental ready to assemble kits. Or offer a build service @  x amount of dollars but there would be lots of legalese in that contract and nobody wants to be the responsible party. There is also alot of variation on how people would tackle said assembly. Which is where PMA/TSO are meant to convey confidence 

Vans rv has set the model, and others have followed.  I believe the word certified and certification are where exponential costs are incurred due to the drawn out time consuming "certification" process. How many items or units are being used in the experimental fleet that can't go into a certified aircraft? Not saying they are better or worse just saying they are up in the air flying without the title Pma/tso and seem to be working just fine. For example a garmin G5 between certified and experimental, 1k difference! 

The problem is people don't have the time, the patience to wait or know how. It's much easier to just buy.

Just my rambling

Screenshot_20210416-083142_Samsung Internet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, carusoam said:

Prof. Falken, it’s been 38 years... :)

-a-

I am the same age as Matthew Broderick...  That was one of my favorite movies from my youth.  

Favorite line:   AIR FORCE GENERAL BERINGER - "Get the ICBM's in the bull pen, warmed up and ready to fly."

I grew up on the eastern plains of Colorado- the fallout zone of what would have surely been massive multi-detonation ground penetrator attack on Cheyenne Mountain.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jeph357 said:

Light sport - Guy a few hangars down is building an rv12 whole kit including engine $87k

Experimental ready to assemble kits. Or offer a build service @  x amount of dollars but there would be lots of legalese in that contract and nobody wants to be the responsible party. There is also alot of variation on how people would tackle said assembly. Which is where PMA/TSO are meant to convey confidence

 

Wouldn't an experimental Mooney kit be great? 

Features:

Factory assembled wing

Factory assembled steel tubular frame

Fixed gear, which reduces insurance, simplifies design and increases UL.

IO-360 or

optional IO-390 to overcome the drag associated with fixed landing gear

J-model cowl and fuselage

What would one of those cost?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Nice graph.  Can you publish the data?  I want to see what that looks like on a semiology plot.

eventually there were will be such a new design paradigm that new designs will break through.  E.g. vertical take off electric 20 bladed octocopter like things or whatever, with AI autonomous flight and everyone will have one and no one will be human pilot for anything.  Mass market pricing will jump in again and they will cost like cats today.  Until then, its C, P, B, M, C

#controller.com asking prices in April 2021
# age(y)  asking_price(AMU)
0   800
5    500
15   300
25  230
30  170
40  110
50  90

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

This is not a depreciation curve.  It is a curve that shows the accelerating unaffordability of the planes that the industry choses to sell.  

In 1977, the first year of the 201, an M20J sold for about $45,000.  Median household income in 1977 was $13,570.  That Mooney was 3.3 X household income

In 2020, the last year of the Ovation, an M20R sold for about $700,000 Median household income in 2020 was $68,4000.  That Mooney was 10.3 X household income.

Bonanza, Cirrus, Diamond, Mooney, Pipistrel, etc. - it doesn't matter - new high performance complex single engine aircraft are more and more unaffordable by historical measures.

I think a better way to think about it is that the biggest competitor for new aircraft manufacturers is used aircraft that were affordable when they were manufactured.

Look at Piper - I think they have realized this for a long time.  They ditched the SEL Saratoga 10 years ago and then the Matrix too - unaffordable for the vast majority of buyers and Piper could not make any money at the sales price.  In reality, Mooney hasn't been making any money on its planes for the last 10 years although they kept raising prices making them more unaffordable.  Piper has doubled down on affordable planes to sell.  Flying Mag announces the Piper 100i at Sun&Fun - Piper has cut cost to keep this modern "Archer" under $300,000.  Piper Debuts New Piper 100i at Sun ‘n Fun | Flying (flyingmag.com)

I like this comparison. In my own head, I think about how many Lincoln Continentals it took to equal a nice plane. In my own math it was around 4 of them. Fast forward to today, how many Cadillacs? It is now around 9 or 10. The affordability has dropped considerably. While a nice place was special in the 70's and attainable by many, it is super special or relatively unattainable in the 20's. The golden years of GA appear to be behind us. Its is very sad and looks unsustainable.

How did this happen that today you need 9 or 10 luxury cars whereas in the 70's you needed only 4 to trade for a nice airplane? My speculation is the prices had to increase to fund product liability claims. I recall a a huge Cessna payout for seats...thoughts?

On a tangent...Cessna purchases Columbia. What happened there? They bought something that was "build run" capable and they they mothballed it whereas all they had to do potentially is lean the manufacturing process. The majors seem to want to push old iron but composites are in and we see examples of companies mothballing proven technology/process. Then you have Mooney which from an airframe perspective seems timeless from a drag/performance perspective but they are out of the game. Very sad.

 

Freddy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hank said:

But our planes are refurbished with actual airplane parts, from the manufacturer, built for the exact model. There are no repurposed Cessna parts, nor Ford tractor parts, on our Mooneys. Not so the cars in Cuba, they only look like a 55 Chevy . . . . . 

I only have one thing to say to you:

FAR §21.303(b)2 - owner produced parts

274F97EE-EAA9-4ADC-973C-8AE96F270A70.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Dad bought his first plane in 1978 Cessna 172 for $28,500 and his second plane in 1982 Cessna 182RG for $52,500.  In 1981 a new corvette was about half the price of a 172, now they are 7 or 8 times the price of a 172 and 15 corvettes to make the cost of a new Mooney.  On the other side he sold both planes for a profit and I could easily sell my C for a profit even after adding the costs for upgrades.  What does this mean?  There are a lot of us in the market for used planes, but could not or would not choose to buy new.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bonanza, Cirrus, Diamond, Mooney, Pipistrel, etc. - it doesn't matter - new high performance complex single engine aircraft are more and more unaffordable by historical measures.

 

but Cirrus still managed to sell 420 total aircraft in 2020.  There is still a market for these type of new aircraft. If Mooney was able to build aircraft efficiently / competitively and make somewhat of a profit, they would still be in business.

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.