Mooney factory for sale

[donkaye, MCFI]

What a useless thread and people like the previous poster, who probably doesn't even own a Mooney, doesn't help it one bit.  Why he's even on Mooneyspace is a good question.

[WilliamR]

Yikes, I'm sorry I offended.  I doubt I (or anyone on here) hurt the company's investor/ownership prospects.  I neither stated my financial analysis credentials nor provided anything more than a high level analysis based on a short deck.

Btw, I've owned a couple Mooney's. I've owned a 252 for awhile (15+ years) and a C model for a few years before that.  The current 252 is N252D.  Please go ahead and look it up on the FAA registry and note the address.  Then, feel free to look up my name; William P. Rutkowski in the pilot database. Note the address.  

Thought this forum was inclusive. But, Mr. Kaye, you're right.  I clearly don't belong here. I've learned my lesson.

William

[MikeOH]

5 minutes ago, WilliamR said:

Yikes, I'm sorry I offended.  I doubt I (or anyone on here) hurt the company's investor/ownership prospects.  I neither stated my financial analysis credentials nor provided anything more than a high level analysis based on a short deck.

Btw, I've owned a couple Mooney's. I've owned a 252 for awhile (15+ years) and a C model for a few years before that.  The current 252 is N252D.  Please go ahead and look it up on the FAA registry and note the address.  Then, feel free to look up my name; William P. Rutkowski in the pilot database. Note the address.  

Thought this forum was inclusive. But, Mr. Kaye, you're right.  I clearly don't belong here. I've learned my lesson.

William

@WilliamR

I, for one, thought you presented a cogent high-level view.  Certainly not one that deserved the rather less than civil response from Mr. Kaye.

I hope you don't let his personal opinion drive you off.

[donkaye, MCFI]

I'll tell you what bothers me.  Since I bought my Mooney in August of 1992, the management and ownership of Mooney has changed at least 5 times.  Each group tried "turnaround 101" with the early groups, lean and mean, letting the buildings fall apart to the latest group who fixed the building and had terrible sales efforts.

Listening to "know it alls" tell how easy it would have been to make Mooney successful don't have a clue in my opinion.

Mooneys with their roll cage, substantially overbuilt wing, and thousand of man hours of careful assembly just aren't economically feasible to build.  Thank goodness we own one from a time when they probably weren't economically feasible to build, but they were built anyway, most likely at a loss.  It looks like there won't be any future new Mooney owners to benefit from those who loved the Mooney more than they loved their money.

[EricJ]

10 minutes ago, donkaye said:

I'll tell you what's offensive to me.  Since I bought my Mooney in August of 1992, the management and ownership of Mooney has changed at least 5 times.  From the French to a Jewish Group from New York to the Chinese to the present Group, with a Father/Son team somewhere in the middle.  Each group tried "turnaround 101" with the early groups, lean and mean, letting the buildings fall apart to the Chinese who fixed the building and had terrible sales efforts.

Listening to "know it alls" tell how easy it would have been to make Mooney successful don't have a clue in my opinion.

You might consider staying off the internet if this sort of thing offends you.   It's essentially full of this stuff.

 

[1980Mooney]

7 hours ago, Brandt said:

It gets less gray when you consider that the Acclaim Ultra costs more than $100K less than the Cirrus. It is also faster than the Cirrus while only asking for 280 hp out of the same engine rather than 315 hp, it should last longer.

Once again I will point out the the Acclaim Ultra does not "cost less" than the Cirrus....It was "Priced Less".  The new management/owners admitted that the company lost money on every one of these planes sold.

Edited October 26, 2021 by 1980Mooney

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, WilliamR said:

Yikes, I'm sorry I offended.  I doubt I (or anyone on here) hurt the company's investor/ownership prospects.  I neither stated my financial analysis credentials nor provided anything more than a high level analysis based on a short deck.

Btw, I've owned a couple Mooney's. I've owned a 252 for awhile (15+ years) and a C model for a few years before that.  The current 252 is N252D.  Please go ahead and look it up on the FAA registry and note the address.  Then, feel free to look up my name; William P. Rutkowski in the pilot database. Note the address.  

Thought this forum was inclusive. But, Mr. Kaye, you're right.  I clearly don't belong here. I've learned my lesson.

William

I thought your post contributed more and was better thought out than many here.   Your opinion and inputs are as good as anyone else's, but it's the intarwebz, so... 

 

[philip_g]

8 hours ago, Austintatious said:

That graph literally makes my point for me... Look at the Ovation vs the Cirrus at 10,000 feet.  we are talking an 8 knot difference.  Yea, we would all like 8 more knots on our planes, but to put it in perspective... A 3 hour flight in the Ovation would be a 3h 8m flight in the Cirrus.

 

Now, as for the Sr22 vs the Acclaim.... I simply do not believe that Acclaim line.  It differs from the charts on AVweb and the lower altitudes are Drastically different from Either of my Rockets.  Which are only about 10 knots slower than the Acclaim Ultra.  Jumping over to the modern mooney forums, I found a post on an Acclaim with the 310 hp STC... and the following

At those altitudes (18-20,000) real-world performance is this: at 29"MP and 2500rpm I see 215KTAS at 18gph ROP, and 205KTAS at 14.5gph LOP. 

This is not much faster than what I see in the Rocket.  At FL210 I typically true 210 knots  burning about 17 gph.

Here is a read on Cirrus performance, data gathered from pilot surveys https://nyclab.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-copa-cirrus-sr22-performance-report.html  

Graph shows a 195 knot cruise at  FL180   The synopsis towards the bottom says a 202 Knot cruise at FL220 on 16.5 GPH in the Cirrus.  as a comparison, in the avweb video on the acclaim, a good cruise is 16,000 feet 202 knots on 16.5 GPH.

So, I am still convinced that while the Acclaim beats out the SR22, in the flight regimes that will typically be flown, it is in fact mostly negligible, especially when you look at in terms of how much longer you will have to fly in the slower aircraft.  For the ranges these aircraft fly, we are talking 20 more min in the cirrus. 

It gets even more gray when you consider a 3 or 4 person flight in the two aircraft. considering the higher useful load of the cirrus.  Put 4 people in each aircraft and the Mooney might not even be able to out range the Cirrus.

 

190-195 tas in the flight levels matches my g5 ownership experience. I’ll sit the extra 8 minutes in the cirrus, it’s much more comfortable to me. Though I haven’t flown the ultra with two doors. The J is barely tolerable but I don’t fly more than 1.5 hours. To be fair part of my problem is that I have pedal extensions and I’m 6’2. Sadly the j is the best I can afford right now or I’d have a newer 22 or even a 20

Edited October 26, 2021 by philip_g

[amillet]

The J is barely tolerable but I don’t fly more than 1.5 hours.
 

Try putting new conforfoam in the seat cushion. I flew 12 hours (3 legs) coming back from KOSH this year. I was ready to get out of the airplane but it was tolerable

[philip_g]

1 hour ago, amillet said:

The J is barely tolerable but I don’t fly more than 1.5 hours.
 

Try putting new conforfoam in the seat cushion. I flew 12 hours (3 legs) coming back from KOSH this year. I was ready to get out of the airplane but it was tolerable

I have a new airtex interior coming. that might help or make it worse, I don’t have a ton of head room

 

also I’m sure our seat frame is cracked. It has the “lean” they get when they break. Well weld it

 

the foot well is the bigger problem for me. I’m tall and my leg is always jammed into the pedestal where the nose gear sits. It’s fine for my purposes now. Whatever. The citrus I’d fly 4-5 hour legs no problem. I don’t need to do that now

Edited October 26, 2021 by philip_g

[Mac80]

10 hours ago, donkaye said:

I'll tell you what's offensive to me.  Since I bought my Mooney in August of 1992, the management and ownership of Mooney has changed at least 5 times.  Each group tried "turnaround 101" with the early groups, lean and mean, letting the buildings fall apart to the latest group who fixed the building and had terrible sales efforts.

Listening to "know it alls" tell how easy it would have been to make Mooney successful don't have a clue in my opinion.

Mooneys with their roll cage, substantial overbuilt wing, and thousand of man hours of careful assembly just aren't economically feasible to build.  Thank goodness we own one from a time when they weren't economically feasible to build but they were built anyway most likely at a loss.  It looks like there won't be any future new Mooney owners to benefit from those who loved the Mooney more than they loved their money.

I was one of those investors when I held a bit of Mooney common stock. Still a believer in Mooney plane.

Kind of went the way of Alcan aluminum. Never thought state of Missouri would let them fold but they did.

 

 

[takair]

9 hours ago, philip_g said:

I have a new airtex interior coming. that might help or make it worse, I don’t have a ton of head room

 

also I’m sure our seat frame is cracked. It has the “lean” they get when they break. Well weld it

 

the foot well is the bigger problem for me. I’m tall and my leg is always jammed into the pedestal where the nose gear sits. It’s fine for my purposes now. Whatever. The citrus I’d fly 4-5 hour legs no problem. I don’t need to do that now

When I did my Airtex interior I lost head space…..but it is very comfortable otherwise.  If you have head room concerns, you may need to trim the foam that comes with the seats, in advance.  You also mentioned pedal extensions, can you remove them?  I can see how that would be uncomfortable at your height.

[philip_g]

4 hours ago, takair said:

When I did my Airtex interior I lost head space…..but it is very comfortable otherwise.  If you have head room concerns, you may need to trim the foam that comes with the seats, in advance.  You also mentioned pedal extensions, can you remove them?  I can see how that would be uncomfortable at your height.

I had read about trimming the foam. I'll probably do that. It doesn't make the vinyl fit funny?

 

My co-owner is short. I can fly uncomfortably with the extensions. He would be unable to fly without them. It is what it is.

[takair]

3 minutes ago, philip_g said:

I had read about trimming the foam. I'll probably do that. It doesn't make the vinyl fit funny?

 

My co-owner is short. I can fly uncomfortably with the extensions. He would be unable to fly without them. It is what it is.

It might make the cover fit funny, but perhaps they can customize in advance?   Or perhaps just trim a little and see how it fits.  The covers are pretty tight..

[philip_g]

1 hour ago, takair said:

It might make the cover fit funny, but perhaps they can customize in advance?   Or perhaps just trim a little and see how it fits.  The covers are pretty tight..

Well I guess I'll see how it goes installed as is. As it stands now I get thrown into the ceiling easily. Maybe the foam will break in over time 

[Wayne Cease]

How do you calculate how many of them would have actually been able to land safely without the CAPS?  How many died even though they tried to use the CAPS?  The bottom line is that 220 is a dubious number.

The first is almost impossible to truely answer. A number based on averages could be used. Too many people think they can land engine out safely, but don't. Not all of them die, some are merely maimed.

Crazy part is people seem to increase their risk because they have a safety device.

I've heard everyone that used the Cirrus chute inside the envelope (altitude, speed) has lived except for one accident; I forget what happened in that one. Some outside the envelope have lived as well.

Would all 220 have died? No, but that's marketing for you. Plus it's used to get people to use it when they need it instead of being macho and dying or being maimed. Not a bad trade.



Wayne

[smwash02]

1 hour ago, philip_g said:

My co-owner is short. I can fly uncomfortably with the extensions. He would be unable to fly without them. It is what it is.

Perhaps an unconventional answer, but if you managed to procure a set of passenger brakes you could fly from the right side and be more comfortable.

I'm 6'3 and sometimes in cruise I'll move my seat back to give myself more room. Works if there's no one behind me, of course.

[Wayne Cease]

Is this everyone’s experience with the Cirrus?
I’ve never encountered a non-flyer who said anything interesting about a Cirrus, and certainly never anything about the composite materials looking modern. 

Not sure about "ramp appeal" to non-flyers, but they love flying in them. I fly Angel Flight missions; in 172s, Arrow, Seneca, Baron and SR22s. Passengers love the wider cabin, two doors and no yoke in front of them.

While the passengers are all appreciative for the flights, the SR22s get far more compliments than the others. It seems many people think if they touch the yoke the plane will fall out of the sky. *sigh*



Wayne

[philip_g]

17 minutes ago, smwash02 said:

Perhaps an unconventional answer, but if you managed to procure a set of passenger brakes you could fly from the right side and be more comfortable.

I'm 6'3 and sometimes in cruise I'll move my seat back to give myself more room. Works if there's no one behind me, of course.

I always felt with the seat full aft. I can't get my knees under the panel otherwise.

Flying from the right not be a bad way to go but the g500 is kinda hard to reach 

[philip_g]

18 minutes ago, Wayne Cease said:

 

Not sure about "ramp appeal" to non-flyers, but they love flying in them. I fly Angel Flight missions; in 172s, Arrow, Seneca, Baron and SR22s. Passengers love the wider cabin, two doors and no yoke in front of them.

While the passengers are all appreciative for the flights, the SR22s get far more compliments than the others. It seems many people think if they touch the yoke the plane will fall out of the sky. *sigh*



Wayne

 

 

My wife loves the 22t. She'll fly anywhere in it. She won't get in the mooney.

 

Every angelflight I flew in the Mooney all they ever commented on was how small it looked. The cirrus sits up higher and looks bigger on the ramp. Along with the car like interior non pilots really like them in my experience. I've own them in a 231, a 231 rocket, a j, a G3 sr22tn and a g5 22t. I flew one lady several times in the rocket that seemed to really like it.  Her husband had been a pilot and she liked to fly and I liked flying her because she was an easy passenger. I hope she's well. I often wonder how her treatment worked out 

Edited October 26, 2021 by philip_g

[Guest]

21 hours ago, WilliamR said:

Yikes, I'm sorry I offended.  I doubt I (or anyone on here) hurt the company's investor/ownership prospects.  I neither stated my financial analysis credentials nor provided anything more than a high level analysis based on a short deck.

Btw, I've owned a couple Mooney's. I've owned a 252 for awhile (15+ years) and a C model for a few years before that.  The current 252 is N252D.  Please go ahead and look it up on the FAA registry and note the address.  Then, feel free to look up my name; William P. Rutkowski in the pilot database. Note the address.  

Thought this forum was inclusive. But, Mr. Kaye, you're right.  I clearly don't belong here. I've learned my lesson.

William

Don’t leave the forum on account of one person.  I don’t own a Mooney but I hang out here from time to time.  If you come across someone disagreeable, consider the ignore feature.

Clarence

[Guest]

20 hours ago, philip_g said:

190-195 tas in the flight levels matches my g5 ownership experience. I’ll sit the extra 8 minutes in the cirrus, it’s much more comfortable to me. Though I haven’t flown the ultra with two doors. The J is barely tolerable but I don’t fly more than 1.5 hours. To be fair part of my problem is that I have pedal extensions and I’m 6’2. Sadly the j is the best I can afford right now or I’d have a newer 22 or even a 20

What suffering we must endure, having to fly a J model!  At least you don’t have to fly a Piper like me!

Clarence

[toto]

2 hours ago, Wayne Cease said:

 

Not sure about "ramp appeal" to non-flyers, but they love flying in them. I fly Angel Flight missions; in 172s, Arrow, Seneca, Baron and SR22s. Passengers love the wider cabin, two doors and no yoke in front of them.

While the passengers are all appreciative for the flights, the SR22s get far more compliments than the others. It seems many people think if they touch the yoke the plane will fall out of the sky. *sigh*



Wayne

 

 

Interesting. Thanks for that. 

I have never been in a Cirrus, and certainly haven’t flown in one with non-flying passengers. But I have been with non-flyers seeing Cirri parked on the ramp, and heard the plastic thing and the thing about the doors. 

I personally think Mooneys look badass, and Cirri look cheesy (especially when they were all generic white), but I’ll also readily admit that flying passengers in the Mooney requires more explanation of the seating position than in the Piper, where it’s more upright and natural. 

[philip_g]

48 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

What suffering we must endure, having to fly a J model!  At least you don’t have to fly a Piper like me!

Clarence

Idk what it is in Canada but a gas is 8.50 a gallon by me. I couldn’t feed a 720. I’d imagine it’s worse up north 

 

I have access to a comanche 180. I’ll fly it one of these days

Edited October 26, 2021 by philip_g

[Wayne Cease]

12 minutes ago, toto said:

Interesting. Thanks for that. 

I have never been in a Cirrus, and certainly haven’t flown in one with non-flying passengers. But I have been with non-flyers seeing Cirri parked on the ramp, and heard the plastic thing and the thing about the doors. 

I personally think Mooneys look badass, and Cirri look cheesy (especially when they were all generic white), but I’ll also readily admit that flying passengers in the Mooney requires more explanation of the seating position than in the Piper, where it’s more upright and natural. 

That's funny.  They all look like planes to me.    The paint jobs on the newer Cirrus planes definitely look nicer.

I've never heard a non-flyer refer to them as "plastic".  They like that they are smooth like their cars and not riveted; shows how little they know about planes.   Only pilots with aluminum planes refer to them as "plastic".  That's not limited to Mooneys in any way.  Some Beech folks feel the same way.

I like Mooneys.  I really wanted one originally.  The rental I've flown was a beat-up rental and not close to home.  I knew my wife wouldn't be pleased, as she wasn't wild about the Arrow with a bad interior (really bad).  I got a great deal on a 2002 SR22 with a 6-pack, only bad part was it wasn't as close to home as the Arrow, but way faster and roomier too.

We might like one of the new Ultras with two doors, but that's a bit more coin than I have to drop on a plane.  For those that haven't flown a plane with two doors, it really is a nice feature when you have 2-4 people flying.  The barn doors on the Baron 58 I flew for while were nice too, but if some numb-nut (i.e. me) forgot the chocks my wife would have to get out so I could get out to pull the chocks.  Even outside of that uncommon event it's just nicer getting in with two doors.  I moved our middle daughter out of her freshman year dorm with that Baron.  

I like lots of different planes.  The Cirrus just does a good job of the type of flying I do.  We travel and I do Angel Flight missions.  Now that the kids have graduated college I really only need 3-4 seats for Angel Flight missions.  When the kids were younger we flew with all four seats filled regularly.  Having room for that is helpful.

I've even been thinking about building an RV-8 or Velocity when I retire.  Need to have something to fill my time.