Mooney factory for sale

[MooneyMitch]

2 hours 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...

And that was the intent of the Chino project.

[exM20K]

3 hours ago, TheAirplaneNerd said:

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.

This is not correct, at least in the Diamond instance.  The DA42 tapers rapidly.  The DA62 does not.  After the DA62 proved to be surprisingly fast in the initial flight tests, someone taped yarn bits to the back of the DA42 fuselage.  That rapid taper was causing turbulent airflow and drag to a much greater extent than the plumper DA62.  I may still have the pictures around but will have to dig for them.

 

-dan 

[exM20K]

2 hours ago, MooneyMitch said:

And that was the intent of the Chino project.

Margins on fleet deals for trainer aircraft suck.

The M10 did little or nothing better / cheaper than a DA20, with its huge installed base.  It's a good thing they quit that project.

-dan

 

[1980Mooney]

5 hours ago, daytonabch04 said:

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

He is one of the Sellers. He is not going to say anything in public (I.e. here on MS in print) that contradicts any of the rosy projections they have made to prospective Buyers in private presentations. He is going to avoid us like the Plague…..err Covid!

[carusoam]

I can sense the opportunity calling…  

The factory’s best hope is an aviation company that is not already a plane manufacturer… and that is Run by a Team that knows plane sales…

Generous financing supplied by that guy who knows GS… acquisitions and divestitures… 15mil spread out over 15 years or so…

Let MS write the headline before USAToday gets it all wrong….

“Chicago area aviation business acquires slumbering Mooney Aircraft… the Sun is Shining in TX…”

Going to need to get a few people back in the Mooney saddle…. 

Is there a Diamond Aircraft sales organization in TX already?

PP thoughts and dreams only… not a corporation builder…

Best regards,

-a-

[philip_g]

10 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.  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.

Spot on and I wouldn't either. 

The g5 and newer sr22t is simply a better airplane. Sorry. Easy 190ktas on 17.5ish up high.

Edited October 21, 2021 by philip_g

[GeeBee]

I should think there is a good revenue stream in updating old Mooneys. Tooling and space is there and ready. 

[exM20K]

11 minutes ago, philip_g said:

Spot on and I wouldn't either. 

The g5 and newer sr22t is simply a better airplane. Sorry. Easy 190ktas on 17.5ish up high.

Meh.  I could have bought a S22T when I got my Acclaim S.  While Mr. Market clearly prefers the S22T, I don’t. Quite a bit less range, 20kts slower, much poorer climb rate, and greater useful load. They are both good aircraft, but each does stuff better at the expense of what it does worse.  With a dozen years of M20K ownership, Mooney is the “devil I know.” So for this eccentric, the M20TN is better than anything this side of a a TBM or King Air.

-dan

 

[Brandt]

He is one of the Sellers. He is not going to say anything in public (I.e. here on MS in print) that contradicts any of the rosy projections they have made to prospective Buyers in private presentations. He is going to avoid us like the Plague…..err Covid!

Or he could be busy trying to save the company, which is a higher priority than satisfying our curiosity.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

I should think there is a good revenue stream in updating old Mooneys. Tooling and space is there and ready. 

Many airframes have had some form of modification already, hence some of the popular kits are not longer available.  Mooney obviously didn’t go after that market years ago as it would be completion to their production models.  Who would buy a new J if you could buy a factory moded E or F model?

Clarence

[toto]

(Not really responding to anyone in particular, just kind of thinking out loud..)

It's interesting to me that we often assume Mooney has trouble with sales because they haven't embraced composite structures more fully, or created more modern "looking" aircraft.  But Cessna (which is the second-most-popular SEP manufacturer by sales - about 300 units last year versus 350ish for Cirrus) tried twice to embrace the more modern approach through acquisition.  The 350/400 nee Columbia models never sold well, despite impressive performance numbers, and the 162 "Skycatcher" was targeting the training market and never sold well.

Cessna seems to continue selling the heck out of metal-and-rivet designs from the 1940's.  Granted, plenty of these aircraft are going to flight schools that have an existing fleet of 172s and 182s, but there are also issues with dispatch reliability and specialty knowledge/experience/tooling required for composite airframe repairs that you sidestep with a metal design.

In any case, I'm pretty well convinced that the problem with Mooney isn't the product.  Adding a parachute or a gross weight increase might make the product incrementally more attractive to buyers, but ultimately you just have to sell the thing.  The early Cirrus aircraft had lackluster payload and good-but-not-great performance.  But a crack sales team kept moving product, and incremental improvements with positive cash flow got them to the dominant position they are today.

Today Cirrus is making jets and stuff, to the tune of 70 airframes last year, and still selling more SEP aircraft than anyone else.

[GeeBee]

12 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Many airframes have had some form of modification already, hence some of the popular kits are not longer available.  Mooney obviously didn’t go after that market years ago as it would be completion to their production models.  Who would buy a new J if you could buy a factory moded E or F model?

Clarence

Agreed, but they all need paint, interiors, updated avionics packages. Heck an easy and cheap pickoff is updating G1000's to NXi. There is also some folks that would probably spring for a TKS system etc.

[TheAirplaneNerd]

4 hours ago, exM20K said:

This is not correct, at least in the Diamond instance.  The DA42 tapers rapidly.  The DA62 does not.  After the DA62 proved to be surprisingly fast in the initial flight tests, someone taped yarn bits to the back of the DA42 fuselage.  That rapid taper was causing turbulent airflow and drag to a much greater extent than the plumper DA62.  I may still have the pictures around but will have to dig for them.

 

-dan 

I’m sorry, I must have phrased my statement poorly. I was talking about the extent of the aircraft’s taper, not the rate of the taper. I was thinking of an aircraft like the Pipistrel Panthera.

6 hours ago, ZuluZulu said:

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.

I would happily donate to Mooney if I knew they would be able to provide support and parts to their aircraft. And in reference to Garmin in Continental, I was wondering why their products cost so much. These engines have been around for decades, why aren’t they cheaper?! Why does a brand new Continental engine cost from roughly $50K to $100K? Are the material and labor costs really that high, or does Continental just make a massive profit with each engine they sell? I honestly don’t know.

 

Hypothetical question here, but if you were in charge of Mooney, how would you continue operations?

[dominikos]

On 10/19/2021 at 9:03 PM, 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

Good point Clarence! Vans or Sling can be had for quite reasonable amount with latest avionics and through factory build assist or similar programs. A good example is vision 10 from Saint Aviation. With minimum effort you can have fully equipped RV10 for $310K. It’s hard to compete with that. For 4 seater, why would you need more?  And I would expect much less maintenance in the first few years with less insurance cost. RV10 supposedly can fly at 165kts for those needing speed 

[smccray]

1 hour ago, exM20K said:

Meh.  I could have bought a S22T when I got my Acclaim S.  While Mr. Market clearly prefers the S22T, I don’t. Quite a bit less range, 20kts slower, much poorer climb rate, and greater useful load. They are both good aircraft, but each does stuff better at the expense of what it does worse.  With a dozen years of M20K ownership, Mooney is the “devil I know.” So for this eccentric, the M20TN is better than anything this side of a a TBM or King Air.

-dan

 

I couldn't agree with this sentiment more- 100%.  The M20TN is an amazing airplane.  However, when my wife says "not another Mooney" when I started talking about an upgrade, plus 2 young kids, I needed useful load :).

 

48 minutes ago, TheAirplaneNerd said:

Hypothetical question here, but if you were in charge of Mooney, how would you continue operations?

I would buy Mooney as a whole valued only as a parts business only.  Shut down access to as many parts as possible to sources outside the Mooney factory and raise prices by 300%.  Any desirable upgrade, including G1000 NXI upgrades, or 300 HP upgrades to Ovations (etc) just got a lot more expensive, potentially becoming available only at the "factory."  Setup one of the well known MSCs (DMax, whatever Dugosh is now) as the "Mooney Factory" and take a cut of the revenue.

As soon as I get sued for a faulty part, declare bankruptcy and walk away.  Assuming the lawyers could get it done (and I have no idea if it's possible), isolate the type certificates from the parts business from the production facilities. Sell the production certificate to Uber, other VC, or even to Moller (the skycar is going to happen this time!). Retain the type certificates and STCs in some sort of IP holding company and see what happens long term, or find someone to sell them to after the initial pop of upgrades.

I have zero interest in doing that, even if the current owners would sell me the company for $1.  I would figure out how to build one more airframe which I would immediately donate to a captive 501c3 flying museum which I would fly to promote aviation and to preserve the Mooney history.  Everywhere I go supports the mission of the museum, so it would of course be paid for using funds donated to the museum.

If the strategy above is legally possible, I suspect someone will buy the production facility, then sell off the Mooney parts later.  Under this scenario, the seller wouldn't sell for only the value of the parts business.

[DCarlton]

A lot of discussion here about improved performance, modern materials, and various business strategies, but I'd like to better understand why these aircraft, whether they are Cirrus, Cessna, or Mooney, cost $1M.  The objective should be to cut the cost of these airplanes in half with the same capability and performance a M20J had in 1980.  What would it take?  Automation?  How many man-hours does it take to build a Mooney currently? 5000?

Edited October 21, 2021 by DCarlton

[ArtVandelay]

A lot of discussion here about improved performance, modern materials, and various business strategies, but I'd like to better understand why these aircraft, whether they are Cirrus, Cessna, or Mooney, cost $1M.  The objective should be to cut the cost of these airplanes in half with the same capability and performance a M20J had in 1980.  What would it take?  Automation?  How many man-hours does it take to build a Mooney currently? 5000?

Ferrari builds about 8000 cars per year, Mooney would be lucky to build a 100…Ferraris still cost $250K…its a low volume business.

[toto]

7 hours ago, DCarlton said:

A lot of discussion here about improved performance, modern materials, and various business strategies, but I'd like to better understand why these aircraft, whether they are Cirrus, Cessna, or Mooney, cost $1M.  The objective should be to cut the cost of these airplanes in half with the same capability and performance a M20J had in 1980.  What would it take?  Automation?  How many man-hours does it take to build a Mooney currently? 5000?

Yep, they’re all essentially hand built. Every one is a little bit different. The number I’ve seen quoted is 5000 hours, which is still astounding to me. That’s 2.5 person years of full-time work to make a little single-engine plane. 

There’s also the manufacturer’s liability number, which is often estimated at about 1/3 the retail cost of a new airplane. So your $900 plane is actually a $600 retail plane with a set-aside for liability. 

Icon tried to address the liability exposure (which is capped at 18 years per the GA revitalization act) by forcing buyers to sign a lengthy purchase agreement, but they had a tough time with the PR and backed way down. Seems like it’s probably a non-starter for other manufacturers. (Also probably not super effective.)

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, toto said:

Yep, they’re all essentially hand built. Every one is a little bit different. The number I’ve seen quoted is 5000 hours, which is still astounding to me. That’s 2.5 person years of full-time work to make a little single-engine plane. 

There’s also the manufacturer’s liability number, which is often estimated at about 1/3 the retail cost of a new airplane. So your $900 plane is actually a $600 retail plane with a set-aside for liability. 

 

Now historically they relied on low labor costs in sleepy Kerrville to keep costs down - maybe only pay $50k - 60k/year all in (benefits, vacation, holidays etc).  The problem is the labor intensity - that the design does not allow for much more automation than they already have.  Low labor cost in the Texas hill country is not that easy to find any more.  That is why in many past topics there was always the suggestion to move manufacturing to really low labor cost countries.

So if you do the math.  If skilled manufacturing employees cost Mooney fully burdened with benefits now cost $80k/year then that is $400,000 in direct labor cost....at $60k/year average fully burdened labor cost then that is still $300,000.  Add the cost for the engine, prop, avionics, tires, Lord disks, batteries, wiring, landing gear motor/system, all parts and materials, paint, etc. - $250k for an Ovation?, $325k for an Acclaim?...More?  Then add Mooney Corp overhead - all that management, accounting, insurance, Kerrville lease, marketing and of course Legal.  It is easy to see why they were losing money (actually negative cashflowing) on every plane.

 

Edited October 21, 2021 by 1980Mooney

[mike_elliott]

12 hours ago, exM20K said:

Meh.  I could have bought a S22T when I got my Acclaim S.  While Mr. Market clearly prefers the S22T, I don’t. Quite a bit less range, 20kts slower, much poorer climb rate, and greater useful load. They are both good aircraft, but each does stuff better at the expense of what it does worse.  With a dozen years of M20K ownership, Mooney is the “devil I know.” So for this eccentric, the M20TN is better than anything this side of a a TBM or King Air.

-dan

 

and here I thought it was because the Acclaim has speed brakes

 

[LANCECASPER]

40 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Now historically they relied on low labor costs in sleepy Kerrville to keep costs down - maybe only pay $50k - 60k/year all in (benefits, vacation, holidays etc).  The problem is the labor intensity - that the design does not allow for much more automation than they already have.  Low labor cost in the Texas hill country is not that easy to find any more.  That is why in many past topics there was always the suggestion to move manufacturing to really low labor cost countries.

So if you do the math.  If skilled manufacturing employees cost Mooney fully burdened with benefits now cost $80k/year then that is $400,000 in direct labor cost....at $60k/year average fully burdened labor cost then that is still $300,000.  Add the cost for the engine, prop, avionics, tires, Lord disks, batteries, wiring, landing gear motor/system, all parts and materials, paint, etc. - $250k for an Ovation?, $325k for an Acclaim?...More?  Then add Mooney Corp overhead - all that management, accounting, insurance, Kerrville lease, marketing and of course Legal.  It is easy to see why they were losing money (actually negative cashflowing) on every plane.

 

The Mooney general labor wishes they got that kind of money. Cut that in half and you're close 

[Hank]

26 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

The Mooney general labor wishes they got that kind of money. Cut that in half and you're close 

$10/hr = $20K. Add benefits (insurance, holidays, vacation, uniforms, etc.) is typically another 50%. So 60K is really 40 to the employee before taxes.

[KB4]

Didn’t some of the 50M in Chinese capital get used to automate some processes?  I admire and respect the new owners for trying to save what Art and Al started 70 years ago, but without a business PLAN, failure was imminent.  Let’s do a Blog, how about refurbish older fleet, how about weight decrease for landing gear.  All over the place.
 

 We will not see any new Mooney’s until the processes are automated, but by then the type certificates will be gone because there will be no factory support cause it’s also gone.  

[MooneyMitch]

Add the wing and tail, and you’ve got the new electric Tesla Mooney 

[chriscalandro]

I get the feeling that @TheAirplaneNerd is not a business owner. 
 

So in order for Mooney to create a better, faster, more marketable product, all they need to do is take what they have but do it a little better?

In order for Mooney to be a viable parts business they need to make sure nobody else sells parts, control the flow of parts, and take a cut off the top of the people they DO allow to sell parts and do service?

 

You should present these ideas to Harvard.