Mooney factory for sale

[toto]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

What I was wanting to do was find Cessna’s production from say 1976 and compare it to Cirrus of the last few years, last year may have been a bust due to Covid, But I couldn’t find any Cessna data so I gave up.

Iirc during the best SEP days in GA, the industry produced about 17000 aircraft in a year. The SEP manufacturers today produce something like 600 aircraft annually. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

I don’t believe until recently that Vans was an aircraft manufacturer and in fact most of their business is still likely kits?

Which isn’t to say that’s not a model to pursue, but there is very little similarity to a Certified production aircraft.

The point I’m trying to make is that there is still a market for airplanes.  Not everyone wants or needs a $750,000 to $1,000,000 one.  Not everyone needs an instrument rated airplane to have fun flying.

Vans is not the manufacturer, the average Joe and Jane are.  Most aluminum airplane manufacturers could learn a bunch from Van’s.

Clarence

[Hank]

38 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

The point I’m trying to make is that there is still a market for airplanes.  Not everyone wants or needs a $750,000 to $1,000,000 one.  Not everyone needs an instrument rated airplane to have fun flying.

I think Just Aircraft look like fun! They don't even need an airport . . . .

[carusoam]

Just Aircraft…

[Hank]

Just now, carusoam said:

Just Aircraft…

Did you see the video taking off over stumps and fallen trees? Yeee--Hah!

[carusoam]

T/O in 70’

Landing in 27’

Could use my driveway… 

Best regards,

-a-

[1964-M20E]

If I had the means I would buy it and make the M20X.  You could do it as a short 2 seat, long 4 seat or an extra long big hauler.  All capable of using 310HP, full aerobatics and even a tail dragger version.  Oh we I do dream from time to time.

[Bentonck]

This is the best thread on the forum.  I read through their presentation...it made a very interesting read but $15mm just get's you the license to spend.  Wish I could hear more from GB but for sure that would require going a lot further down the road than I'm going.

There is a market for Ovations and Acclaims, I would guess that if you could produce them 100 airframes a year at a million a pop would fly away.  Cirrus is now at 1.1 for the SR22 and I think the Mooneys are certainly competetive, especially if you could add the parachute on to get the added safety ... the issue was, and is, the build time in man hours of these things. I think I remember in my conversation with one of the investors that Mooney spends 2.5x more man hours per airframe and that is certainly not sustainable, even if the Mooney niche (speed and economy vs. the Sr22) attracts a certain segment of the market.  

That being said, the best thing I read on the whole presentation was the 3" stretch because having owned both the Mooney and the SR22 and being a pretty large fellow I can tell you the SR22 is a lot more comfortable, both for me and the other 3 passengers if I fill the seats.  And the UL on the SR22 will let you do that in a reasoable manner.  The Mooney you can by taking off fuel but there are two pretty unhappy adults in the back if they are average size.  There is plenty of ROOM back there, but on the long-bodies the baggage area is HUGE for the load it can carry.  I know those back seats are where they are because of W&B issues but I would think you could sort that out.   Combined with a 200 or 300# GW increase, and the 2nd door on the pilot side now on the new airframes with composite cabin, and all of a sudden I would think you would have a MUCH more viable airframe.  The probem is, you have room on these planes to put the parachute back there, no issues at all, but that is not going to help your W&B issue....you really need those back seats another 3-4" back...but IF you went carbon and could squeeze some weight out and find a way to get a few more inches for the rear seats, add a parachute, and pull of the GW increase you have a remarkably different airplane.  (So maybe that last generation wasn't really the "ultra") ... 

Next issue is the $1-2mm turbine model.  In between the VLJs and TBMs and the piston segment.  Great idea.  ABsolutely has to be pressurized to get any kind of use out of the turbine or your stuck flying mid-teens at best where your fuel range is going to suck and you are looking at a new type cert because if you slung a turbine on the M20 frame with the current UL the range would be dismal.  Jet-A is 6.7lbs/gal @ STD and it's going to burn double at the minimum so your flight times are going to be measured in minutes and not hours... So you are looking at a new airframe with a new type cert and people are repeatedly proving this can't be done for under $100mm and 7-10 years ... so I'm not hopeful that that would work.  Also when you get done you probably aren't anywhere around $1mm as the engine is easily over half of that and the systems would be complicated.  There is also the TBM, Piper M600, Piper M500, etc that do exist in this segment.  There are $2-3mm airplanes.  If you want a turbine at $1.5 you are looking at an M20 airframe with a turbine on it which means no pressurization... I have flown in a Bonanza with the Alisson turbine and looked at the 210 Silver Eagles so it's not unheard of and there would be a market for a 4-place turbine at $1.5mm, even if it were unpressurized, but I doubt the M20 airframe is the ticket for that.

 

Anyway, I was intrigued but you would need a very clear plan to profitability and I don't think VTOL designs are there yet and don't know if they ever will be and the turbine I don't think is going to profitable for years so, yeah, you need an Elon who takes a flyer on getting the certs or something and the money doesn't really matter.  As a private investor this is right up there in no f'ing way territory because the returns would be modest at best and the risk is huge.

Just my 2c...

[eman1200]

The Mooney business plan looks about as realistic as mine, so I’m optimistic. 
 
2023 - convert time machines from Deloreans to teslas
2027 - wheel-less fully self powered time machines
2030 - time machines that create a clone so the operator can be 2 places at once. 

I’d invest….

[smccray]

24 minutes ago, Bentonck said:

There is a market for Ovations and Acclaims, I would guess that if you could produce them 100 airframes a year at a million a pop would fly away. 

I don't believe that Mooney could sell 100 air frames per year.  The current product just isn't competitive in this environment.  If Mooney couldn't make it in the last 10 years with easy/cheap money, the combination of what Mooney is selling just doesn't work.  We can argue about the timing of the next recession, but the business cycle isn't dead.  A recession is coming- how does Mooney make it through?

If I were looking at a new airplane, I wouldn't consider a Mooney.  That's a tough reality on a Mooney forum, but Mooney wouldn't even be in the running.  Beech wouldn't be in the running either.  I don't have any confidence that the companies will still be supporting the aircraft in 3 years.  I hate to say it, but if I were to buy a new plane (or nearly new plane for that matter) the only thing out there I would consider is a Cirrus.  Even if Mooney announced a fully certified in production 4 seat pressurized turboprop with full FIKI, air conditioning, and enough useful load to fly 1000 miles @ 300 ktas with IFR reserves and 750 lbs of baggage for $1.5M, I still wouldn't trade with the company- without someone with deep pockets that can demonstrate that the company has the staying power (and at $1.5M price tag I don't think they do).

I assume the value here is the production certificate.  Someone will buy it and sell a new aircraft build to venture capital.  Maybe Raptor Aircraft will move to Kerrville and start building planes...  I wish the greatest success to the eventual buyer.

[LANCECASPER]

Another way of looking at this is: What would it take in development costs to get a startup, clean-sheet-of-paper, company to the point where they can make airplanes like the Ovation Ultra and Acclaim Ultra? Waaaaaaay more than $15 million. Probably into the hundreds of millions to get something like these certified.

There are a lot of if's, but if someone had enough capital, and if they could get manufacturing more efficient, and most importantly if they could market Mooney as a lifestyle . . . who knows? But then a lot of people have thought they could do this in the past.

One thing I know for sure is that in the past year with everything selling like crazy,  if they would have had airplanes to sell and they had any marketing whatsoever, they could have sold airplanes.,

[ArtVandelay]

Another way of looking at this is: What would it take in development costs to get a startup, clean-sheet-of-paper, company to the point where they can make airplanes like the Ovation Ultra and Acclaim Ultra? Waaaaaaay more than $15 million. Probably into the hundreds of millions to get something like these certified.

1. Development costs can’t be that much, lots of experimental options shows this.
2. Assuming you are using already certified engines, you only have to certify the airworthiness of the plane: flight tests, drop tests.

José had to do flight tests to get the extended tanks STC, certainly he didn’t spend a million or anywhere close to it.

I think an existing experimental company could certified a model they already have for less than a million. Probably the certification of manufacturer procedures/processes would be a most tedious.

[A64Pilot]

13 hours ago, M20Doc said:

The point I’m trying to make is that there is still a market for airplanes.  Not everyone wants or needs a $750,000 to $1,000,000 one.  Not everyone needs an instrument rated airplane to have fun flying.

Vans is not the manufacturer, the average Joe and Jane are.  Most aluminum airplane manufacturers could learn a bunch from Van’s.

Clarence

I think you can now buy a factory built LSA from Van’s and if so that makes them a manufacturer.

I do concede your point about there being a market, and the fact that the common man is priced out of it. If that was your point.

That is THE issue and is in my opinion why GA is dyeing, back in the 60’s and 70’s when I was growing up every weekend at the airport you would meet the local Druggist, maybe a building contractor, the guy who owned the local HVAC business and maybe even a owner of the local garage, and they flew relatively new aircraft, not antiques like most of us do today.

My Google fu is messed up, someone look up what the price of a C-172 was in the late 60’s and early 70’s, I bet it was about the average Joe’s salary for one year, then look up what a new one costs today and see what the average Joe’s one year salary is.

On edit, I did find this article just now and it explains better than I could

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2021/04/28/prices-for-new-general-aviation-aircraft-may-be-pricing-pilots-out-of-the-market/?sh=4c41bd6a3722

Apparently a new 172 should cost 85K, but costs 400K. 

New GA airplanes are the 1% er toys now, because only they can afford one. Not knocking that, but at that level why not just buy a fractional Net Jets membership? 

Edited October 20, 2021 by A64Pilot

[A64Pilot]

Ref the EVTOL thing, Elon Musk has looked into it and according to him it would take a battery that produces 400W per Kilogram I think to work, and the Tesla automobile isn’t close that, I think 1/3 of that maybe? Read that awhile ago so maybe misremembering the numbers, point being the power to weight ratio of current batteries isn’t even close, yet.

But there has been HUGE amounts of money spent by some rather large companies on these things so far? So are they stupid? Are they scams, or do they know something Elon doesn’t? Maybe a turbine spinning a generator for sustained flight and some kind of super capacitor for short hover times?

Sure you can build a tiny ultralight type of electric fixed wing trainer but it doesn’t have the endurance to actually go anywhere, but to actually hover requires a rather large amount of power and due to the square cube ratio a four passenger vehicle capable of vertical flight takes buko power to weight ratio. Electric motors can do it easily. but your limited the length of the extension cord, in my opinion.

I think Elon’s right.

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I think you can now buy a factory built LSA from Van’s and if so that makes them a manufacturer.

I do concede your point about there being a market, and the fact that the common man is priced out of it.

That is THE issue and is in my opinion why GA is dyeing, back in the 60’s and 70’s when I was growing up every weekend at the airport you would meet the local Druggist, maybe a building contractor, the guy who owned the local HVAC business and maybe even a owner of the local garage, and they flew relatively new aircraft, not antiques like most of us do today.

My Google fu is messed up, someone look up what the price of a C-172 was in the late 60’s and early 70’s, I bet it was about the average Joe’s salary for one year, then look up what a new one costs today and see what the average Joe’s one year salary is.

On edit, I did find this article just now and it explains better than I could

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2021/04/28/prices-for-new-general-aviation-aircraft-may-be-pricing-pilots-out-of-the-market/?sh=4c41bd6a3722

Apparently a new 172 should cost 85K, but costs 400K. 

New GA airplanes are the 1% er toys now, because only they can afford one. Not knocking that, but at that level why not just buy a fractional Net Jets membership? 

In December 1985 I paid $22,500 for a 4 year old Cessna 172, which was a lot of money for a 22 year old kid, but with a lot of hard work it was possible. I put $5000 down and paid it off in a few years.

The next September I paid about $22,000 for a new Acura Legend (first year they were out). So a 4 year old 172 was worth about the price of a nicer new car. 

Now a four year old Cessna 172 is somewhere between $350,000 and $400,000 and a new comparable Acura (comparably equipped TLX would be closest model) is about $40,000. 

Admittedly there are a lot of variables in play, yes the 172 panel is a lot nicer now, but I agree with @A64Pilot, that in my lifetime, recent model airplanes have gone from being attainable for the average person to attainable only for the very few. A lot has to do with economy of scale. It costs a lot less to produce an airplane when you are making 1000 per year, than when you are making just a few. That's what keeps mainstream cars affordable, since there are 100's of 1000's made.

[N201MKTurbo]

If they would put the overhead wires for the trollies back in, the electric cars could use that to charge while they drive. They would need to add a ground plate in the street.

[mike_elliott]

6 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Ref the EVTOL thing, Elon Musk has looked into it and according to him it would take a battery that produces 400W per Kilogram I think to work, and the Tesla automobile isn’t close that, I think 1/3 of that maybe?

The 2170 cells are 300wh/kg now, the 4680's will be darned close with room to run as they improve the tech. Jeff Dahm seems to think this energy density is achievable within a couple years. Elon has stated as recently as last week he really wants to do an EVTOL and has a design in mind, but his rather plump brain is currently saturated with immediate attentive needs at SpaceX, Tesla and Nueralink.  Perhaps in a few years he said...just in time to spool up mass production in Kerrville I say.... If anyone could pull it off, I would bet it would be him.

#dontbetagainstelon

[1980Mooney]

There seems to be a big misconception by many here.  The "$15 Million Asking Price" is to buy the equity of Jonny, the other clowns at US Financial and the Chinese Meijing Group which are still minority partners.  Anything paid for equity GOES INTO THEIR POCKETS.  NOTHING - NADA- ZIP - ZERO DOLLARS GOES INTO THE MOONEY COMPANY.

Mooney Corp will still be starved of cash to support daily operations.  It will need cash for the many years of development of a clean sheet plastic airplane before the first is ever sold.  The PDF attachment appears designed to raise money for the COMPANY and Not the Owners.   The "bizquest" for sale ad is designed to raise money for the Owners and NOT THE COMPANY>

On 10/19/2021 at 11:43 AM, M20Doc said:

There are approximately 50 MSC’s world wide, myself included.  Just what would each of us get for our $300,000 investment in the company?

The airframe mod business is pretty much dried up, with many kits no longer available.

Clarence

You would get nothing. - It needs more cash to survive.

3 hours ago, Bentonck said:

...it made a very interesting read but $15mm just get's you the license to spend. 

Exactly

3 hours ago, smccray said:

I don't believe that Mooney could sell 100 air frames per year.  The current product just isn't competitive in this environment. 

True - just like the Bonanza - they could sell a few a year just like Textron does.  Raise the price like them.  There is a market for nostalgia for what is essentially 1960's performance.  Like Morgan motor cars of the UK or the people that make aluminum body AC Cobra replicas, they continue to sell a few a year

I think it was a big mistake to stop production.  They could have created some cashflow.  Revenue of $1 million for parts doesn't support much.

3 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Another way of looking at this is: What would it take in development costs to get a startup, clean-sheet-of-paper, company to the point where they can make airplanes like the Ovation Ultra and Acclaim Ultra? Waaaaaaay more than $15 million. Probably into the hundreds of millions to get something like these certified.

True - as a guide how much did Mooney lose on the development of the failed M10T composite development.?  Maybe Chinoguy knows.  $30 million? $40 million? ..More?  Composite...overweight...handling issues...etc. And it was NEVER CERTIFIED.  It just takes knowhow, time and MONEY.  

2 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

1. Development costs can’t be that much, lots of experimental options shows this.

Really?  A pressurized composite turboprop...essentially a shorter, smaller, cheaper EPIC 1000 with fewer seats....

"The US Federal Aviation Administration awarded the E1000 its type certification in November 2019. The certification effort had been initially estimated by King to take three years and cost US$20M, but took seven years and about US$200M."  OK - I will be optimistic and cut it in half to $100 million....which is exactly what Bentonck speculated.

Edited October 20, 2021 by 1980Mooney

[Parker_Woodruff]

The trainer market will be strong for awhile.  That's where 95% of efforts need to go for Mooney.  They've missed a massive opportunity, but it's not too late...

[TheAirplaneNerd]

Okay, we can all agree that Mooney has some problems (right?), but I think that it’s possible for them to bounce back.

First off, Mooney needs to realize that “debt” is a four letter word. If Mooney has any debt, they should work at paying it off before they work on any other projects. In addition, if they can actually own their land and factory, that would be one less liability to deal with.

Second, 15 million dollars is a lot of money. And while that money could come from just one person or group, if several people contributed, then that would relieve stress from one individual, and could possibly attract more investors if they know that they won’t have to pay the whole figure. I propose that everyone who wants to see Mooney continue to support current aircraft as well as build new planes, donate at least 100 dollars to Mooney. Most likely, there will be some people who are willing to donate more than others, and that 15 million dollar figure could sufficiently be whittled down if enough people donate.

But it won’t take just 15 million to restart Mooney. Let’s estimate that it will take 30 million for Mooney to continue to support aircraft as well as build new airplanes. Once again, this extra 15 million could be had if investors and owners/operators donated money to the Mooney. (Remember Epic Aircraft? It would take a lot of money, but I believe it can be done.)

On to production! Mooney not only needs to be able to catch up to competition (in terms of performance, useful load, parachutes, de-icing, etc), but it needs to provide something that consumers see as more valuable than what the competition has. Much more valuable. Whether this is just a little bit better of everything, or a massive upgrade in one or two particular areas, Mooney needs something that will catch buyer’s eyes.

Mooney needs to upgrade specs and performance, but at the same time, underpromise. If Mooney believes that they can get their airplane to break 300 knots, then they should tell potential buyers that they believe their aircraft can hit 275 knots. Why? Let’s say that no matter how hard Mooney tries, they can’t achieve their speed goal, but now they have some wiggle room to be able to keep their promises. In addition, as long as the aircraft can fly faster than 275 knots, then buyers are pleasantly surprised with this accomplishment. In a similar manner, if Mooney thinks they can bring their product to market in 5 years, then tell consumers 7 years. That way you still have wiggle room, and if you do finish in 5 years, you’re ahead of schedule!

Once again about airplane performance upgrades. If Mooney has ever played with numbers or fiddled with a fluid dynamics program (I tried this once with X-Plane’s X-Plane Maker) then they should be able to realize that they can significantly reduce drag on their aircraft. The fast back on the Mooney looks cool, but it doesn’t allow laminar flow to work well. Take a look at the Diamond DA-50 or the Pipistrel Panthera. Do you notice how their empennage tapers in quickly from the cabin to a stinger tail? If Mooney could produce a similar shape in their aircraft, they could significantly increase their speed. (For reference, in X-Plane, I got this basic shape with a a Mooney wing and tail feathers to 292 knots at 20,000 feet at 2,500 lbs and 350hp.) See? There is room for improvement! And yes, composites are definitely the way to go. Unless Mooney uses a different material that has a lower coefficient of kinetic friction. (I actually don’t know if this would work, but I don’t see why not. If you can think of a reason it wouldn’t, please let me know!) A quick google search revealed that Aluminum has a coefficient of kinetic friction of 0.47 while Boron-Aluminum-Magnesium (BAM) has a coefficient of kinetic friction of 0.02. I don’t know if this material would work on aircraft, but if it did, it would make sense to me that the aircraft in question would have a significant speed boost.

This is not specific to just Mooneys, but it would be really nice if the price of their products could be decreased significantly. It is unacceptable that the price of a small single engine piston costs that of a house. So what drives aircraft’s prices up so much? The engine, avionics, and the certification. Why is it that a rebuilt Continental TSIO-550-G costs over one hundred thousand dollars, and a Continental IO-550-G costs roughly fifty five thousand dollars? https://www.airpowerinc.com/search?pagenumber=5&viewmode=grid&orderby=0&q=IO-550&advs=false That’s too expensive, you can get a really nice car for that!

Or what about avionics? Only one Garmin G500TXi costs about $18,500. (https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/612862/pn/TXi-0G500-04) And then there’s the price of certification. According to General Aviation News, for a Part 23 aircraft, certification costs are roughly 25 million dollars. (https://generalaviationnews.com/2012/09/09/the-cost-of-certification/) (I believe that certification costs are much less for an updated aircraft that has already been certified.) And while certification costs would be hard to lower, something can be done about the other two. Let’s talk about a hypothetical situation here. Let’s say that Mooney goes to Continental (or Garmin) and has a conversation like this. “Hi, I’m interested in buying your product. However, I would like to keep the price of my own product down. Is there some way that we can reach an agreement on lowering the price of your product for us?”  Surely it couldn’t hurt to try this approach.

 

Those are just my two cents. Long live Mooney!
 

Edited October 20, 2021 by TheAirplaneNerd

[mike_elliott]

1 hour ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

The trainer market will be strong for awhile.  That's where 95% of efforts need to go for Mooney.  They've missed a massive opportunity, but it's not too late..

I have a student pilot with a 2009 Acclaim. Its a nice trainer

 

[daytonabch04]

Why hasn't Jonny been on here lately to provide an update if things are this dire with a sale? 

[carusoam]

10 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

I have a student pilot with a 2009 Acclaim. Its a nice trainer

 

There are a few MSers that have used their Acclaims to train in before moving up to turbines…

 

Welcome aboard TAN! Or should we call you Elon?   
your writing style is being analyzed to unmask the MSer with a new identity….  

 

Just kidding…

Best regards,

-a-

[ZuluZulu]

34 minutes ago, daytonabch04 said:

Why hasn't Jonny been on here lately to provide an update if things are this dire with a sale? 

I think you just answered your own question. 

[ZuluZulu]

1 hour ago, TheAirplaneNerd said:

Okay, we can all agree that Mooney has some problems (right?), but I think that it’s possible for them to bounce back.

First off, Mooney needs to realize that “debt” is a four letter word. If Mooney has any debt, they should work at paying it off before they work on any other projects. In addition, if they can actually own their land and factory, that would be one less liability to deal with.

Second, 15 million dollars is a lot of money. And while that money could come from just one person or group, if several people contributed, then that would relieve stress from one individual, and could possibly attract more investors if they know that they won’t have to pay the whole figure. I propose that everyone who wants to see Mooney continue to support current aircraft as well as build new planes, donate at least 100 dollars to Mooney. Most likely, there will be some people who are willing to donate more than others, and that 15 million dollar figure could sufficiently be whittled down if enough people donate.

But it won’t take just 15 million to restart Mooney. Let’s estimate that it will take 30 million for Mooney to continue to support aircraft as well as build new airplanes. Once again, this extra 15 million could be had if investors and owners/operators donated money to the Mooney. (Remember Epic Aircraft? It would take a lot of money, but I believe it can be done.)

You first. I’m willing to donate precisely $0 to a failing, for-profit company for nothing in return. 

Perhaps Mooney should have hired you since it turns out all of this was actually so easy and obvious.

EDIT: That was a little glib, but what I'm saying is: this is an extremely difficult industry to succeed in and it requires a lot of capital to do so.  I'm sure the new Mooney team pursued discounts from Garmin and Continental and everyone else, but it's just not that simple.  You can't just fire up X-Plane and give the Ovation a Diamond DA40 tail fuselage.  All of this costs major money and only fools "donate" to a for-profit company just to keep its doors open.