Mooney factory for sale

[toto]

11 hours ago, Austintatious said:

I am not sure I agree.  Cirrus may be good at marketing,  However I think a lot of people underestimate the allure of a nice roomy cabin.  You put 10 wives in 10 different 4pSE airplanes each and not knowing anything about specs, they are going to pick that Cirrus 10 out of 10 times.   That Pipestrel is definitely cool and has nice specs.  The thing is that getting the average lady into one is a tough sell, especially if she gets to experience a cirrus cockpit/cabin.  Which is sort of my whole point... Performance is nice, but if you have to make large trades in creature comfort to get it, that is a harder sell.  I have a hard time believing that anyone that was in the market for a brand new aircraft did not explore other options.  I also have a hard time believing that anyone who sat in a new mooney and a New Turbo Cirrus would choose the Mooney.  The difference in cockpit feel and roominess is simply staggering.

So IMHO, it is fair to say that the creature comforts, the performance, BRS safety feature and the marketing all played a part in the Success of Cirrus.  We can of course disagree on how much of a role each played. 

I am definitely a big Mooney fan... I own 2 rockets for crying out loud.  But Even I have to admit, If the price between the rocket and a Turbo Cirrus was the same, I'd be flying a Cirrus. 

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said here.  I was just pointing out how easy it is to recognize in hindsight that Cirrus has been successful, and then bootstrap Cirrus characteristics into a roadmap for success in building aircraft.  It's too simple to look at Cirrus and say that a clean-sheet composite design or any particular performance metric is the key to Mooney's future success, because it flies in the face of all that we know about how hard it is to build a successful new aircraft business.

On the cabin thing..  Honestly, if you took an average person and put them in a Citation Mustang, they would be be very uncomfortable about flying in your toy plane, and looking for a sick sack.  The difference between a Mite and a Meridian seems huge to us, but to a person unfamiliar with GA, anything with less than 100 seats seems scary and tiny.  I'm not saying that a Cirrus isn't comfortable, just that it's a distinction only a few of us would recognize

 

[DCarlton]

1 hour ago, donkaye said:

Oh to reminisce...  The best sales force I can remember for Mooney was when I became interested in one in the early 1990's.  They had outstanding sales people all around the County and kept several demonstrators that got traded around to all of them.  I built a lot of time moving those demonstrators around.  In fact I ended up with a very low time one that I own to this day.

Regarding the Service Center in Kerrville; I flew from California down to Kerrville early this month to have the present Kerrville team look at a problem that I have had for the past 5 years.  Because of a long term employee, they found the problem immediately.  It was a very old issue that had not recently been communicated to the MSCs, so I can't fault mine for not being able to address it properly.  The plant was quiet, but the Service Center had quite a few planes in it being serviced.  And after 30 years, they did have the needed parts in inventory for the update.

At 11,992 hours I expect to hit 12,000 in the next few days.  Of that, 10,155 are Mooney time.  Obviously, that is not an accident.  I feel most comfortable in a Mooney, and not just because of its strength.  The design of the seats is such that I can fly all day and never feel uncomfortable.  I broke in a C182 engine a few weeks ago, and after 2 hours, even though there is more room in the plane, I was happy to get out of it.  The seat angle was just too uncomfortable.  I can't imagine flying all day in one of them.

Even though the rest of the world might not "get it", we Mooney Owners certainly do.  The Mooney is just the best single engine piston airplane ever built.  It's too bad it doesn't make economic sense to build them. 

Is there a web site for whatever is left of the Kerrville option or MSC?   I don't see anything on the Mooney web site that suggests anything is in operation yet I see folks talking about service and parts.  I haven't tried to call.  

[donkaye]

17 minutes ago, DCarlton said:

Is there a web site for whatever is left of the Kerrville option or MSC?   I don't see anything on the Mooney web site that suggests anything is in operation yet I see folks talking about service and parts.  I haven't tried to call.  

Call the main Mooney number and leave a message.  I called to set up an appointment and received a call back.  Michael Kineese is in charge of Service.

[thinwing]

with the mooneys new stamping machines....wouldnt 500,000 be a  incentive to produce bonanza elevator skins ?

[daytonabch04]

On 10/20/2021 at 8:03 PM, 1980Mooney said:

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!

How quickly the tides have turned....

[aviatoreb]

On 10/22/2021 at 2:06 AM, Austintatious said:

I am curious why you would prefer a yoke.  Is it just because you have not flown side stick?  It is one of those things that seems weird until you fly it just a short while.  It is not a difficult transition at all. 

If you have not sat in a Cirrus, I suspect when you do, you will understand.  It is like sitting in a roomy sedan vs a Corvette when compared to the Mooney.

My father is considering an airplane... He wants to buy into my Rockets but I am urging him to go with the Turbo Cirrus.  Similar performance, nice cabin that is easy to get in and out of and the BRS chute.  Heck, I may sell one of the rockets and go in on a Turbo cirrus with him.

I dislike a stick yoke in general.  They are fun in say a piper cub or a DA40 but there is a downside.  I owned and flew a DA40 for about 300 hours worth.  I found it not super easy to cross control accurately separating the axis of motion for pitch, roll and yaw with a stick for cost control when cross wind landing which calls for roll countering opposite rudder.  I would always get a tad bit of unwanted pitch control to then correct.  This is much easier with a standard steering wheel yoke.  I have flown a little in a cirrus and its the same problem for me.  Even worse in the older cirrus I flew because they had a spring restoring force that isolates you from the feel of the control surfaces but I know that was corrected in later models.  This isn't a huge issue and a stick or side stick is fun to fly but if I have a choice I choose a standard yoke and it was one of many things small and big I liked when I switched to mooney from the da40.

Edited October 23, 2021 by aviatoreb

[Guest]

1 hour ago, thinwing said:

with the mooneys new stamping machines....wouldnt 500,000 be a  incentive to produce bonanza elevator skins ?

Wouldn’t that be an irony, Mooney stamping parts for a Beechcraft.  Wasn’t it a Beechcraft guy who metallize the Mooney?

Clarence

[MooneyMitch]

13 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Wouldn’t that be an irony, Mooney stamping parts for a Beechcraft.  Wasn’t it a Beechcraft guy who metallize the Mooney?

Clarence

You are correct.  It was Ralph Harmon, creator of the Beechcraft Bonanza that did transform the Mooney to all metal. 
 

[A64Pilot]

3 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Wouldn’t that be an irony, Mooney stamping parts for a Beechcraft.  Wasn’t it a Beechcraft guy who metallize the Mooney?

Clarence

We were forming skins on our hydropress for some customer that had an STC, Beech control surface skins, were formed them I believe from .025 or maybe .020 aluminum, but not Bonanza elevators.

It’s my understanding that those have to be magnesium, aluminum of sufficient thickness to get the required stiffness is apparently too heavy.

I’m amazed at how many V tail Bo’s there are, I would have thought with all the magnesium corrosion problems we had in the military that they would have been long gone. How is it that they don’t corrode?

As it seems many that own those aren’t financially constrained there must not be a market for Bo V tails skins, or surely someone would have made them by now, it wouldn’t be hard to make the tooling and assuming magnesium sheet is available, knock them out? 

[Jocbay]

How about an Acclaim with a turbo diesel. That would one up Cirrus.  Not that that would actually happen.   I’m afraid the best we can hope for at this point is that someone will buy Mooney (for pennies on the dollar) and turn it into a parts company.  Perhaps someone with that kind of experience.  Univair?

Of course many have predicted the demise of Mooney many times before, but with great exaggeration.

 

[1980Mooney]

13 hours ago, Brandt said:

And yet, many people choose a Corvette over a roomy sedan. So, Cirrus is the Chevy Malibu of the airplane world and Mooney is the Corvette. I see a market for both. I have flown a Cirrus. I bought a Mooney. I like everything about it better than the Cirrus. And for me, a parachute is the equivalent of putting training wheels on a Kawasaki Ninja. I think this has more to do with marketing than anything, with useful load coming in a strong second.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Great analogy.  Chevy sold 20,368 Corvettes in the world in 2020 out of total worldwide sales of 6.83 million vehicles.  That is less than 0.3% of their sales.  In reality very few people want to buy a Corvette. 

Cirrus sold 347 piston singles in 2020.  0.3% of 347 is 1.....1 (One) Mooney for every 347 Cirrus.  Yes I agree that Mooney could sell one plane per year.

[carusoam]

There are plenty of Corvette pilots around MS…

Wonder how many Corvette pilots are driving around the COPA website?

 Classic corvettes, or ABS, Airbags, and traction control corvettes…?  

-a-

[Austintatious]

6 hours ago, carusoam said:

There are plenty of Corvette pilots around MS…

Wonder how many Corvette pilots are driving around the COPA website?

 Classic corvettes, or ABS, Airbags, and traction control corvettes…?  

-a-

If anyone recalls, What I suggested mooney COULD do with very little retooling right now is to actually produce a "CORVETTE".  Then you are marketing to the people that really want a corvette.  You may also tap in to smaller military's around the world that need reasonably priced trainers.

-Use the existing tooling for the wing and tail,

-make a  two place tandem Fuse with a center or right side stick, throttle on the left and a sliding canopy.  They could clip the wing down a bit perhaps since about 1.5 feet of wing would be gained with the narrow fuse. And with the lighter weight, more than that could come off.  

-Throw a 300+ hp engine on it and even even a turboprop option.  If there are any certified V8's even better.

-Certify it for aerobatics. 

   Bonus points IMHO  if they can make a tail-dragger version.  More points if it is pressurized.

I doubt cutting the fuse down to 2 place would reduce the price by much.  If The fuse was done all composite, it may reduce labor times but material cost would go up.

IF you think about it, a guy who wants something like this has nowhere to go except older aircraft or Kit planes.   The only new aircraft of this sort like The Diamond Dart-450 is a 3 million dollar aircraft.  If Mooney could produce the above for 750k or less they would have what I think would be desirable.

 

 

[toto]

17 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

If anyone recalls, What I suggested mooney COULD do with very little retooling right now is to actually produce a "CORVETTE".  Then you are marketing to the people that really want a corvette.  You may also tap in to smaller military's around the world that need reasonably priced trainers.

-Use the existing tooling for the wing and tail,

-make a  two place tandem Fuse with a center or right side stick, throttle on the left and a sliding canopy.  They could clip the wing down a bit perhaps since about 1.5 feet of wing would be gained with the narrow fuse. And with the lighter weight, more than that could come off.  

-Throw a 300+ hp engine on it and even even a turboprop option.  If there are any certified V8's even better.

-Certify it for aerobatics. 

   Bonus points IMHO  if they can make a tail-dragger version.  More points if it is pressurized.

I doubt cutting the fuse down to 2 place would reduce the price by much.  If The fuse was done all composite, it may reduce labor times but material cost would go up.

IF you think about it, a guy who wants something like this has nowhere to go except older aircraft or Kit planes.   The only new aircraft of this sort like The Diamond Dart-450 is a 3 million dollar aircraft.  If Mooney could produce the above for 750k or less they would have what I think would be desirable.

 

 

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/uncategorized/mooney-predator/

https://travelforaircraft.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/rare-predator-moodys-m20t-in-tiger-stripe/
 

(I think Don Maxwell is currently restoring this M20T.)

[Wayne Cease]

I am curious why you would prefer a yoke.  Is it just because you have not flown side stick?  It is one of those things that seems weird until you fly it just a short while.  It is not a difficult transition at all.

I thought it would take some time to adjust to the side stick. At the end of the first flight I realized I wasn't even thinking of the difference at all. I love how my hand rests on the grip when my arm is on the armrest. Comfortable and a natural feeling position for me.

And yet, many people choose a Corvette over a roomy sedan. So, Cirrus is the Chevy Malibu of the airplane world and Mooney is the Corvette. I see a market for both. I have flown a Cirrus. I bought a Mooney. I like everything about it better than the Cirrus. And for me, a parachute is the equivalent of putting training wheels on a Kawasaki Ninja. I think this has more to do with marketing than anything, with useful load coming in a strong second.

LOL.

That's why options are good. Glad you found one you like. Unfortunately you are in the minority in a niche market (general aviation).

Sad that some people have a negative view of a safety device.



Wayne

[Brandt]

LOL.

That's why options are good. Glad you found one you like. Unfortunately you are in the minority in a niche market (general aviation).

Sad that some people have a negative view of a safety device.



Wayne

Opinions vary, for sure. And everyone is entitled to their own choice. But I don’t view transitioning from being a pilot to being a passenger of an unguided soon to be wreckage as much of a safety device. It appears to me that Cirrus tried to turn a fundamental problem into an asset via astute marketing. I’ll believe otherwise when the first Gulfstream or 737 sports a parachute.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TCC]

We were forming skins on our hydropress for some customer that had an STC, Beech control surface skins, were formed them I believe from .025 or maybe .020 aluminum, but not Bonanza elevators.
It’s my understanding that those have to be magnesium, aluminum of sufficient thickness to get the required stiffness is apparently too heavy.
I’m amazed at how many V tail Bo’s there are, I would have thought with all the magnesium corrosion problems we had in the military that they would have been long gone. How is it that they don’t corrode?
As it seems many that own those aren’t financially constrained there must not be a market for Bo V tails skins, or surely someone would have made them by now, it wouldn’t be hard to make the tooling and assuming magnesium sheet is available, knock them out? 

Are you not familiar with the problem in that community on this very topic of mg ruddervator skins?

[TheAirplaneNerd]

11 hours ago, Jocbay said:

How about an Acclaim with a turbo diesel. That would one up Cirrus. 

 

 

I agree, Jet-A would be wonderful. Mooney just needs to stick an engine from Astron (https://www.astronaerospace.com) in and have it certified. That is, as long as Astron can actually produce the engine with the specs they promise, and that seems like a big if, but if they could…that would be 2,936 horsepower at the Continental IO-550-G’s weight. Then Mooney just needs to stick a counter rotating prop on the nose (for less left turning tendency), enlarge the cabin a little, install the chute, and there you go!

I believe the equation for speed is this.

New speed= the cube root of (new horsepower/old horsepower) times old speed. 

The cube root of (2936/280) times 242 knots = 529.68 knots. Gotta love that.

Of course, it’s not that simple, but it would be a lot of airplane! It would certainly deliver on “the need for speed,” and I love speed. Maybe they should call it the Mooney Maverick? 

Edited October 23, 2021 by TheAirplaneNerd

[ChrisH]

54 minutes ago, TheAirplaneNerd said:

I agree, Jet-A would be wonderful. Mooney just needs to stick an engine from Astron (https://www.astronaerospace.com) in and have it certified. That is, as long as Astron can actually produce the engine with the specs they promise, and that seems like a big if, but if they could…that would be 2,936 horsepower at the Continental IO-550-G’s weight. Then Mooney just needs to stick a counter rotating prop on the nose (for less left turning tendency), enlarge the cabin a little, install the chute, and there you go!

I believe the equation for speed is this.

New speed= the cube root of (new horsepower/old horsepower) times old speed. 

The cube root of (2936/280) times 242 knots = 529.68 knots. Gotta love that.

Of course, it’s not that simple, but it would be a lot of airplane! It would certainly deliver on “the need for speed,” and I love speed. Maybe they should call it the Mooney Maverick? 

https://red-aircraft.com/product/ 

Certified in EU, designed into the https://www.ottoaviation.com/. 

400hp @ 143lbs Jet A / hr (~22g/hour). 

Bring back a redesigned M22, bolt one of these on it and hope that you have a UL load after putting a ~1,000 lb diesel up front. But, you'd have a screamer, I'd expect ~260kts+ up high. SETP speed, with piston economy. Be a good competitor to the Piper M500/600, Epic, TBM crowd (especially as fuel prices go up).

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, TCC said:

Are you not familiar with the problem in that community on this very topic of mg ruddervator skins?

Nope, not at all. magnesium was one reason that had me shying from a Bo, but never seriously got interested, just tire kicking.

Buy Army wise I spent over a million a year changing out magnesium gear boxes, many could be saved by being treated and the corrosion pits filled, but many couldn’t. Magnesium is lightweight and strong, but there is a reason why they quit building wheels from it a long time ago.

Edited October 23, 2021 by A64Pilot

[A64Pilot]

50 years ago there was the Meyers Interceptor 400, TC could I’m sure be easily purchased,and all the work is done, just start manufacturing. It is a Certified airplane, pressurized and may meet most realistic goals, but a Meyers is a heavy constructed aircraft as it’s fully 4130 tube out past  the landing gear,but it’s Hell for strong as  is one of the very few aircraft that’s never had an AD on the structure. Pics are of the piston D model at the Albany Ga plant

https://www.flyingmag.com/interceptor-400-barn-discovery/

http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepInterceptor400.html

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/november/01/will-the-interceptor-400-only-live-twice

Edited October 23, 2021 by A64Pilot

[1980Mooney]

4 hours ago, Brandt said:

Opinions vary, for sure. And everyone is entitled to their own choice. But I don’t view transitioning from being a pilot to being a passenger of an unguided soon to be wreckage as much of a safety device. It appears to me that Cirrus tried to turn a fundamental problem into an asset via astute marketing. I’ll believe otherwise when the first Gulfstream or 737 sports a parachute.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Do you also feel that Garmin Autoland, Safe Glide, Electronic Stability and Protection, Emergency Descent Mode and Smart Rudder Bias are just astute marketing of "being a passenger of an unguided soon to be wreckage"?

[Brandt]

Do you also feel that Garmin Autoland, Safe Glide, Electronic Stability and Protection, Emergency Descent Mode and Smart Rudder Bias are just astute marketing of "being a passenger of an unguided soon to be wreckage"?

Great question. None of the items you reference make you a passenger in an unguided airplane. All preserve the airframe and I stand to be corrected but I believe can operate in a wider envelope. And none were a bandaid solution to a stall spin problem. So, no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Austintatious]

5 hours ago, toto said:

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/uncategorized/mooney-predator/

https://travelforaircraft.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/rare-predator-moodys-m20t-in-tiger-stripe/
 

(I think Don Maxwell is currently restoring this M20T.)

Thanks for those links...  I was at the Mooney factory long ago and saw that aircraft ( Not sure if it was THAT exact aircraft)

 

[Austintatious]

5 hours ago, Brandt said:

Opinions vary, for sure. And everyone is entitled to their own choice. But I don’t view transitioning from being a pilot to being a passenger of an unguided soon to be wreckage as much of a safety device. It appears to me that Cirrus tried to turn a fundamental problem into an asset via astute marketing. I’ll believe otherwise when the first Gulfstream or 737 sports a parachute.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You simply cannot look at the BRS through the lens of gulf streams and 737's.   For several reasons.

First off, the guys out flying around in the Cirrus, in large part, are not as experienced/capable or as highly trained as guys flying a 737 or Gulf stream.  There is also 2 pilots in each of those aircraft and both are IFR rated.

   So, for the Cirrus weekend warriors, the BRS is a safety measure for their more likely pilot error or momentary lack of judgement, inadvertent flight into IMC, ECT.

Secondly,  737's and Gulf streams have a LOT of redundancy.  I dont fly the 737, but I do I Fly the G650. So lets look at it.

  For starters along with REDUNDANT pilots,  we have 2 engines, which have multiple channels for the FADEC and faildown modes as well.  From there FLy by wire controls which make a flight control issue that would seriously compromise the safety of a flight almost non existent.  They also prevent over speed and stalls.  We have 3 Air data systems and a Standby ADS for a total of 4  as well as 3 IRS's all with backup batteries.  We have 4 large screens of which just 1 can provide sufficient data to fly safely AND  2 standby ADI's as well... So a loss of instruments is almost impossible.  We have QUADRUPLE redundant power sources (3 gens and a RAT) and even if all 4 somehow fail at the same time we still have 30 min of battery power for the instruments and flight controls to get on the ground.   I'm not going to go into the Hydraulics but they are triple redundant as well.

A few other considerations....

We are Pressurized with cabin alt warnings and quick don mask and an Emergency descent mode that will automatically execute a rapid descent if the aircraft  depressurizes.

Our windows are thick enough that a bird coming through is not likely.

 

Get the picture yet?  It is not even close to reasonable to compare the usefulness of a BRS in a small aircraft against that of a Gulfstream, or any other jet really.

 

So, when you look at the BRS in terms of WHO is flying WHAT sort of airplanes, they certainly seem to make sense, at least in my mind.  It is showing in Cirrus' safety record for sure.  In a perfect world were we all flew like pro pilots and planes didn't break, electronics didn't fail and no one had heart attacks or other incapacitation, then yea, a BRS would be pointless.

 

But, it aint a perfect world.

Edited October 23, 2021 by Austintatious