Mooney factory for sale

[1980Mooney]

4 minutes ago, chriscalandro said:

By far the best route for healthy general aviation is the experimental route. 

I disagree. The average person, with a family, job or any sort of commitment, will need “to burn the candle at both ends” to build an experimental plane. I have a very high skill level but I know I make mistakes when fatigued. I am not interested in buying someone else’s FUp’s 

[A64Pilot]

3 hours ago, Schllc said:

 

The first part you said is probably the real reason it’s all suffering. If you can’t get people interested in the product it’s doomed. 
 

A 25 hour jet card is running about 200k+ presently. I don’t believe a single engine piston cost anywhere near that per year to own and operate. 

The point is that the person that can afford a 1 million dollar single engine piston, can afford the 200K a year for a jet card.

But by the time you insure and amortize out the 1 million plus single engine airplane and pay for everything else, it’s going to be expensive, I’d guess insurance alone on average is 20K? You don’t see million dollar airplanes in a T hangar, or I haven’t. Payment would be what, just as a pure guess 50K a year, or higher?

Apparently 1Mil at 7% for 15 years is about 9K a month, so $108,000 a year?

I have no idea at all about financing 1Mil for an airplane, just used a mortgage calculator. But think a million dollar airplane’s cost is higher than you may think, especially when kept at a high buck FBO in a high buck town, where multi millionaire’s live.

 

 

[Schllc]

18 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

The point is that the person that can afford a 1 million dollar single engine piston, can afford the 200K a year for a jet card.

But by the time you insure and amortize out the 1 million plus single engine airplane and pay for everything else, it’s going to be expensive, I’d guess insurance alone on average is 20K? You don’t see million dollar airplanes in a T hangar, or I haven’t. Payment would be what, just as a pure guess 50K a year, or higher?

Apparently 1Mil at 7% for 15 years is about 9K a month, so $108,000 a year?

I have no idea at all about financing 1Mil for an airplane, just used a mortgage calculator. But think a million dollar airplane’s cost is higher than you may think, especially when kept at a high buck FBO in a high buck town, where multi millionaire’s live.

 

 

That’s just not accurate. 
I can easily afford a new ultra, (I have owned two of them).
Insurance was only 7k a year. No mortgage.    
I have a t hangar and it only costs me 800 a month.  
if I could not pay cash for it I would not have purchased it. 
200k for a jet card is for 25 hours, extra is 6-10k per hour. 
I fly my Mooney between 150-200 hours per year. 
The two are not anywhere near the same. 
  I cannot afford 200k a year into the ether for a jet card. 

I think the biggest part of your error is that a million dollars today is not what it was when we were younger. 

PS. I live in Naples, FL.  I don’t know of many more expensive place to live than here,  but I’m not lighting cigars with $100 bills, and my ultra didn’t cost anywhere near 200k a year to own. 

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

The point is that the person that can afford a 1 million dollar single engine piston, can afford the 200K a year for a jet card.

But by the time you insure and amortize out the 1 million plus single engine airplane and pay for everything else, it’s going to be expensive, I’d guess insurance alone on average is 20K? You don’t see million dollar airplanes in a T hangar, or I haven’t. Payment would be what, just as a pure guess 50K a year, or higher?

Apparently 1Mil at 7% for 15 years is about 9K a month, so $108,000 a year?

I have no idea at all about financing 1Mil for an airplane, just used a mortgage calculator. But think a million dollar airplane’s cost is higher than you may think, especially when kept at a high buck FBO in a high buck town, where multi millionaire’s live.

 

 

@Parker_Woodruff  What is the current “approximate” cost to insure  a $1 million+ Cirrus SR22T?  For a low time non instrument rated pilot and for an experienced instrument rated pilot?! 
 

Could it approach $20k smooth  (liability plus Hull) for the experienced pilot? Or is it closer to $10-15 K?

And can a low time non-instrument rated pilot even get insurance for that model?

Edited February 27, 2023 by 1980Mooney

[Mooneymite]

9 minutes ago, Schllc said:

That’s just not accurate. 
I can easily afford a new ultra, (I have owned two of them).
Insurance was only 7k a year. No mortgage.    
I have a t hangar and it only costs me 800 a month.  
if I could not pay cash for it I would not have purchased it. 
200k for a jet card is for 25 hours, extra is 6-10k per hour. 
I fly my Mooney between 150-200 hours per year. 
The two are not anywhere near the same. 
  I cannot afford 200k a year into the ether for a jet card. 

I think the biggest part of your error is that a million dollars today is not what it was when we were younger. 
 

Comparing a single engine, single pilot propeller plane with a jet card is ludicrous.  The jet card gets you safety, speed, reliability and capabilities that no Mooney can even approach.  While the Mooney may be far cheaper, it returns far less in value in 200 hours of use.

Mooney travel fills a niche, but it is a limited niche.

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, Schllc said:

I’m pretty sure if you contacted continental or lycoming and placed an order for 1million engines you would be able to negotiate significantly less than 80k. 

They are hand assembled. They can do a few thousand a year.

[hais]

2 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

The simple answer is NO. 1 million new pilots will not go through the grief of being instrument rated and the recurrent training to being proficient /current in a pressurized turboprop. Oh and remaining  drug free. They will be killing innocent people in droves. 

Exactly - the market is small not because the product is not affordable 

[hais]

2 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Oh and @hais stipulated that the entire plane with engine and avionics (and parachute?!) needs to cost $80k in total. Garmin needs to give away their equipment. 

What I was pointing out is that the best way to get prices down is via economy of scales, but that in this case, you still won’t be able to find buyers at that price point. See @1980Mooney’s response. So since the market is fundamentally tiny, the situation we are in a natural consequence.

[Mooney in Oz]

3 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

I am not interested in buying someone else’s FUp’s

I lost a good friend who was an instructor with checking approval when he and the owner/builder of the experimental were killed when it crashed into the sea just off the coast as the result of a rudder component failure that caused the rudder to completely seperate from the tail.

I wish to God he never agreed to conduct that check.

[toto]

I have no idea how to solve any of these questions, but I’ll say that I have zero doubt there is a market capable of paying for 17,000 single-engine piston aircraft a year if we could just make them interested in buying. 

As others have said above, airplanes cost a lot of money because no one is buying them - not the other way around. 
 

 

[Pinecone]

14 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

The number of students in flight schools is increasing because they want to fly for airlines – not own an airplane.  They are reading about the salaries, and the big raises that the pilots at the majors are getting.   They want to fly the new commercial iron that basically flies itself - so they can just sit in front of the computer screens monitoring the magenta line.  

 

I agree that some of them are on this path.  But there are a large number of older folks that always wanted to fly, but kids and college and work interfered.  And now they are at a point where they have the time and money.

[Pinecone]

11 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Cessna 195’s too, there really were a lot of airplanes 30 years old or older, the WWII training fleet.

But not equal to the ones on the market at the time.

[Pinecone]

10 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

The point is that the person that can afford a 1 million dollar single engine piston, can afford the 200K a year for a jet card.

But by the time you insure and amortize out the 1 million plus single engine airplane and pay for everything else, it’s going to be expensive, I’d guess insurance alone on average is 20K? You don’t see million dollar airplanes in a T hangar, or I haven’t. Payment would be what, just as a pure guess 50K a year, or higher?

Apparently 1Mil at 7% for 15 years is about 9K a month, so $108,000 a year?

I have no idea at all about financing 1Mil for an airplane, just used a mortgage calculator. But think a million dollar airplane’s cost is higher than you may think, especially when kept at a high buck FBO in a high buck town, where multi millionaire’s live.

Hmm, we have several Cirrus's in T-hangars at my field.

$1,000,000 airplane with 15% down is $6200 to $8200 per month according to AOPA calculator.  So $74K to $98K.

Flying 100 hours per year, would be around 1500 gallons of fuel, so around $9000.  Even with insurance at $20,000, that is still a good bit less than $200K.  And that $200K gets you 25 hours.  Yes, the jet is faster, but by the time you factor ground time and such, not 4 times faster block to block.  And you are limited in the fields you can operate off.

But interestly, the lower end charter market seems to be going Vision Jet.  Single pilot, and can operate out of smaller fields.

[A64Pilot]

To try to put the economy of scale for autos in perspective, Toyota builds 23,800ish cars per day.

Sure that’s the entire world, but it’s almost 1,000 cars an hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week

https://www.autodealertodaymagazine.com/365381/car-production-around-the-world-per-hour-day-and-year

If you believe Elon Musk, Tesla didn’t hit the economy of scale until the Model 3, his Roadster was way expensive simply because it numbers weren’t high enough, and it likely exceeds what any airplane could be built at.

Years ago Toyota looked seriously at building a small four seat GA airplane, they studied it and finally decided they couldn’t make any money at it, but they wanted airplane manufacturer as a feather in their hat.

Toyota apparently has a Type Certificate for an engine and even a Production Certificate, both took years and a shed load of money, so Toyota could start producing and delivering engines any time they wanted to.

I doubt Honda will ever break even with their jet, they had the factory built for years before they could sell a jet, and they finally gave up on Certifying the engine, they partnered with GE to get that done, and they are huge crow to do that, because the partnership was GE/Honda, old man Honda was dead because he would never put another company in front of Honda.

[Brandt]

11 hours ago, Schllc said:

That’s just not accurate. 
I can easily afford a new ultra, (I have owned two of them).
Insurance was only 7k a year. No mortgage.    
I have a t hangar and it only costs me 800 a month.  
if I could not pay cash for it I would not have purchased it. 
200k for a jet card is for 25 hours, extra is 6-10k per hour. 
I fly my Mooney between 150-200 hours per year. 
The two are not anywhere near the same. 
  I cannot afford 200k a year into the ether for a jet card. 

I think the biggest part of your error is that a million dollars today is not what it was when we were younger. 

PS. I live in Naples, FL.  I don’t know of many more expensive place to live than here,  but I’m not lighting cigars with $100 bills, and my ultra didn’t cost anywhere near 200k a year to own. 

Agree.  

Opinions are like bellybuttons.  Everyone has one, but some are more attractive than others, and all are useless.  So here’s mine.

Not all millionaires who need to fly want a NetJets subscription and a pilot in the same way that very few wealthy folks want a chauffeur.  But flying takes time and commitment to learn and stay current. So the universe of people with money who love aviation and have the time to commit is somewhat limited.  However, the heyday of general aviation suggests the potential market is much bigger than current sales would suggest.

Aviation has always been expensive.  It is clearly worse due to liability and the regulatory costs imposed by the FAA.  If planes were cheaper, some additional sales could be expected, but the lamenting about how Mooney just needs to sell cheaper airplanes is not the problem. Ferrari doesn’t simply need to offer rebates And Cirrus sells a lot of airplanes at a higher list price than Mooney. 

Nor is the idea of a Cirrus “lifestyle” compelling.  In my opinion, Cirrus sells a lot of airplanes for 3 reasons.   First, they make a model line with an upgrade path.  Learn to fly in a Cirrus, you’re more likely to buy one.  Second, they have added some features, interior and exterior, that make it feel more modern than the traditional manufacturers, and third - and by far the most important - is the stupid parachute.  While educated pilots may cast doubt on the need for a parachute, uneducated spouses think they’re just wonderful, and I believe for many the parachute in the factor that convinces the spouse that it’s safe to fly in that little teeny airplane.  Ask aircraft brokers and see if they concur.  (Hint, they will)

Mooney’s don’t have that logical upgrade path, they are not for novice pilots, retractable insurance costs more, and they have struggled to get the capital necessary to upgrade the useful load, which I believe is the single biggest issue.  It still wouldn’t have six seats like a Bonanza or the hauling capacity of a Saratoga, but with a higher load you could put a ridiculous parachute on it and compete favorably with Cirrus.  That is unlikely to happen, however.

That being said, Corvettes sell with two seats, the useful load of a 911 isn’t much, and some people just like to go fast.  Mooney’s marketing, or lack thereof, over the years, hasn’t helped. Unfortunately, venture capital money thinks software is a lot more enticing than airplanes, and the marketplace other than Cirrus would support that notion.  

It’s a shame because Mooney’s are simply fantastic airplanes with a tremendous legacy.  But a lot more people buy Camrys, preferably in gray or beige,  than Corvettes because they’re “safe and reliable.”  And boring, and overhyped, and slow…. 

[A64Pilot]

37 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

But not equal to the ones on the market at the time.

We will continue to disagree.

The list price of a 172 in 1975 was $17,000. The average cost of a home in 1975 was $42,000. So a 172 cost roughly a little less than half the price of the average house. 

Right now the average cost of a house is $311,000. Not that I want a 172, but if a new one listed for $130,000 or so, I bet there would be a lot more sold. However it seems they are around $400,000 or so, or well more than the average house.

If a 172 would cost 130K you could infer a Mooney at $200K, for that price I would have bought new myself.

But maybe comparing to the price of a house isn’t fair, as average house is much larger now, an average of 1,000 sq ft larger than in the 70’s, so when you correct for that a 172 would be 1/3 the price of an average house, or 100K or so now.

For whatever reason you want to attribute it to, airplanes are at least three times more expensive now even when the price is adjusted for inflation.

It’s similar for for automobiles, but not nearly as bad, average cost of an auto in 1973 was $3,700, that's just under $25,000 in 2023 money.

https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1973?amount=3700

So does the average auto cost $25,000 today? It’s actually closing in on $50,000 or twice as much.

I can’t explain why things cost so much more now, perhaps actual inflation has been under reported?

On edit, heck with all that comparing to a house etc, it’s far simpler to just convert $17,000 in 1975 $ to 2023 $.

https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1975?amount=17000

‘Guess what? The 172 would be less than $100K, not the $400K it is, think they would sell at 100K, or a Mooney at $200K? Assuming a Mooney cost twice what a 172 does?

[Pinecone]

In the case of cars, and probably part of the equation with airplanes is that the have more "stuff" now.

A car in 1973 had a carb and a distributor with a single coil.  Manual windows and door locks, and AM radio, heater, maybe AC.  Cloth or vinyl seats, steel wheels.  And shocks that were good for maybe 20K miles.

A modern car has electronic fuel injection with all sorts of sensors and catalytic converters (price those).  Individual coil packs, power windows, power remote door locks, AM/FM/Sirius XM/BT/USB/.... radios, automatic climate control, leather interiors, alloy wheels, and the shocks last for over 100K miles.   All that "stuff" costs money.

That $17,000 172 came with a single nav/comm and a transponder, MAYBE with Mode C.  Maybe an ADF.And cloth seats.  The new one is G1000 with fuel nav/comm and GPS, glass panels, ADSB out (and maybe in), and leather interior.

 

[A64Pilot]

So if Cessna built a 172 with no Avionics and cheap seat covers they could sell it for less than 100K?

No of course not, the buying power of money is a lot less than what it used to be, methinks it’s because the actual inflation rate has been higher than calculated, or something is devaluing the dollar besides inflation. I’m no economist so I really am just guessing to be honest, but the average Joe’s buying power is significantly less than 50 years ago.

If a new 172 cost less than $100K then average Joe could afford to fly one, but at $400K he can’t.

Sure some can, but you do reach a point in wealth when people stop mowing their own grass, cleaning their homes, washing cars or whatever, only ones that fly do so for enjoyment of flying, and they are few and far in between.

Tom Cruise apparently does own a P-51 and a Pitts, but he travels in back of a Gulfstream GIV.

Maybe a Million isn’t much anymore, but it’s way out of reach for the common Man, some buy Million dollar cars, and Cirrus’s, but not the common Man.

In the 1970’s the average business owner, Dentists etc could buy a new Cessna / Piper / Mooney, and average trades people, plumbers, electricians, contractors etc could buy used ones. I grew up watching it, I know. My Father was a Dentist, he first bought a used 182, then later a new 210, and finally a new Mooney. Dentists today can’t buy a new SR22 which in my mind isn’t a 210, but in the 70’s they could easily.

But today the average trades person simply can’t afford even an old pretty well worn out airplane

[chriscalandro]

8 hours ago, Mooney in Oz said:

I lost a good friend who was an instructor with checking approval when he and the owner/builder of the experimental were killed when it crashed into the sea just off the coast as the result of a rudder component failure that caused the rudder to completely seperate from the tail.

I wish to God he never agreed to conduct that check.

I know of an examiner that died when the wing fell off a piper in the middle of a check ride. 

[redbaron1982]

48 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

The macro forces are just against us, fellas.  And I’m not just talking about Mooney.  All of aviation.  Folks don’t even want to have to drive their own cars anymore.  See the success of Tesla’s autopilot.  This is the age of automation and autonomy.  In 100 years there might not be any pilots left at all.  

Combine that with fewer military pilots being produced, costs going up (and yes, the CPI is inapplicable here), the availability of relatively low cost airline travel, and other recreational alternatives that have fewer barriers to entry and here we are.  

I was talking to my dad, who can no longer fly due to his age and health, about this the other day.  We timed this right.  We both have had a good run in aviation.  I am very grateful for that.  

I'm not so sure about people "not wanting to drive" is an issue.

Automation is a blessing for repetitive tasks (from my point of view), I would have a self driving car for sure (someone that works, not the Tesla cr4p) for commuting. I used to commute 3hs per day in my previous work. Being able to reclaim that time and use it for reading a book, start to work earlier checking emails, or just sleeping would be a huge advantage.

But for fun stuff, like doing a road trip, I would continue driving.

For me GA is mostly about fun (this is a personal thing, I know people use GA for commuting) and would continue to do so.

I think the issue with GA is that it is extremely expensive for the average guy, I still don't understand the economics of way an aircraft cost 800k and a car 40k. Is it because of all the regulations? Is it because the small volumes? For sure it is not because of technology, because except for avionics GA is a 1950's technology for the most part.

There is another factor that is that most of people don't like STEM, and to get into a so technical think like GA where you need to know why an aircraft flies, what is a gyroscope, how it works, what is a Bernoulli principle, etc. put GA into the umbrella of STEM, and people just don't want to go that way.

[Parker_Woodruff]

13 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

@Parker_Woodruff  What is the current “approximate” cost to insure  a $1 million+ Cirrus SR22T?  For a low time non instrument rated pilot and for an experienced instrument rated pilot?! 
 

Could it approach $20k smooth  (liability plus Hull) for the experienced pilot? Or is it closer to $10-15 K?

And can a low time non-instrument rated pilot even get insurance for that model?

Low time, non-instrument rated - You'll get one of two companies to quote it.  There will be significant coverage limitations (I make people acknowledge the coverage limitations prior to selling the policy...and I even tell them about these prior to them shopping)  Probably $25,000-$35,000 for the first year (are we talking brand new private pilot or student pilot?

Experienced Instrument rated pilot - probably $9000-$12,000.  It'd probably be $12K-$15K if you wanted $2MM Smooth liability.  We could probably get a total of $6-$7MM smooth liability without much trouble using an excess liability policy (as we can with Mooneys).

 

[1980Mooney]

37 minutes ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Low time, non-instrument rated - You'll get one of two companies to quote it.  There will be significant coverage limitations (I make people acknowledge the coverage limitations prior to selling the policy...and I even tell them about these prior to them shopping)  Probably $25,000-$35,000 for the first year (are we talking brand new private pilot or student pilot?

Experienced Instrument rated pilot - probably $9000-$12,000.  It'd probably be $12K-$15K if you wanted $2MM Smooth liability.  We could probably get a total of $6-$7MM smooth liability without much trouble using an excess liability policy (as we can with Mooneys).

 

This would be a hypothetical, newly minted private pilot that trained in Cirrus at a flight school and has the means to buy a brand new SR22T. 

[glbtrottr]

Many of us wish that what used to be $200k to travel to space when it first became a discussion would eventually become $10k.

Many of us wish we could fly a $70k mooney 201 when the factory made them in its heyday. This is one of the most talked about topics at the factory - how to bring back the days of the J model, but moving from a six banger to a 4 banger frame wouldn’t appreciably reduce the cost or move the needle from the $800k number. This was heard and dismissed at the factory ad nauseum.

Then the conversation moves to reducing the cost of manufacturing an entirely hand built airplane by composites, carbon fibre, etc…and it goes down the path that the cost of certificating another aircraft would be prohibitive, using other materials or build types wouldn’t be disruptive or inexpensive enough, and things die…again.

Then others raise their hand and talk about maintenance by looking at us and seeing what upgrades we would pay for: gross weight increases, power plant swaps, etc. but that’s little money and they want big money, so that conversation dies.

We love Mooneys. Sadly, the culture in Kerrville had one great product in their heyday - and not one person there will turn it around again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pinecone]

3 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

No of course not, the buying power of money is a lot less than what it used to be, methinks it’s because the actual inflation rate has been higher than calculated, or something is devaluing the dollar besides inflation. I’m no economist so I really am just guessing to be honest, but the average Joe’s buying power is significantly less than 50 years ago.I

DUH, of course.  Under a certain former President (know for a blue dress incident) they removed food and fuel from the inflation calculations.  And what is a large part of what people spend?  Food and auto fuel.

Just look at food costs over the last couple of years.  Both in the grocery store and restaurants,

[WilliamR]

@Pinecone, CPI and Core Inflation are two different things.

CPI also called headline inflation very much does include food and energy. The previously linked calculator looks like it uses CPI based on its use of the most recent TTM 6.41% published rate which includes fuel and food.

The Core Inflation rate (ex-food and fuel) was 5.6% last month (btw, up from the previous month versus the slightly lower CPI).

Note, the weighting of the individual CPI categories change regularly.

William