Mooney factory for sale

[BravoWhiskey]

I don't know much about aircraft production or engineering but as a relatively new pilot and now aircraft owner I can say that Cirrus marketing had my attention the entire time.  It was my own research and curiosity that got me into the Mooney.  Arranging for transition training was painful.  Insurance for a new Mooney owner with no Mooney time was painful.  Insurance gave me a long list of restrictions for my CFI handling the transition.  Cirrus has a certified transition training.  While engineering and manufacturing is important, there is something to be said for the level of marketing that Cirrus has and Mooney lacked.

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, toto said:

It's interesting.  I've always understood the mid-20th century success of GA to result from returning WWII servicemen who developed a passion for aviation in the service and wanted to continue that passion in civilian life.  But the peak of GA piston sales was in the late 70's, 30 years after the war ended.

So you've got to think that some of the 1970's success was early Boomer kids who inherited their parents' passion for aviation and went to buy their own airplanes.

What happened after that?  Did the Gen X kids not inherit that aviation passion?  Or their kids?

I dunno, but I keep thinking that it's more about the price of admission than lack of interest.

True - the WWII vets!  

I was thinking of the sputnik era / Apollo era / pan am fly the world / fighter pilot chic that made being a pilot seem so cool.  So it seemed in the movies from the 50's and 60's since I am not old enough to know that era directly.  Pilots were just chic and kids wanted to be pilots so it seemed.  (That or Davey Crocket... hahah).

I met a WWII B24 bomber pilot here in lil ol potsdam about 10 years ago at the village festival.  He was 96 at the time.  Local guy, and a farmer who spent his entire life right here except for a few years during WWII when he became a pilot in the Army Air Corp and did some combat flying.  Then at the end of the war he didn't fly again.  Not for lack of interest but for lack of opportunity.  He looked great - stood tall and straight and bright eyes.  He saw my airplane shirt and came right up to me and starting talking about airplanes.  So I took him for a ride - and he took the controls and ... seemed like he had done it before!   I have a picture around here somewhere - but I can't seem to find it.  I'm a little sad thinking that I can't imagine he is still around now 10 years on, but who knows.  He seemed to be in great shape!

 

[philiplane]

On 10/25/2021 at 11:31 AM, AH-1 Cobra Pilot said:

According to this chart, it does not appear to be negligible.

I'm not sure where this chart draws from, but I can state from personal experience that any SR22T or SR22TN does 210-215 KTAS at FL250, not the 190 on the chart. Nor will the Acclaim make 230 at 65 percent power.

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, toto said:

Well, yes - somewhat. Cessna and Piper stopped making SEP aircraft from 86-96 or so, and that certainly had some impact. The General Aviation Revitalization Act got them back in the game.

Other manufacturers never stopped making SEP aircraft, but unfortunately the relative lack of competition didn’t translate into a huge increase in sales for Mooney afaict. 

The increase in cost for the associated increase in product liability insurance certainly had a significant negative impact on the market.   I don't think we've seen a recovery from it yet.    

[exM20K]

33 minutes ago, philiplane said:

I'm not sure where this chart draws from, but I can state from personal experience that any SR22T or SR22TN does 210-215 KTAS at FL250, not the 190 on the chart. Nor will the Acclaim make 230 at 65 percent power.

Chart says 65% best power, which looks accurate per POH for cirrus. 
M20TN POH doesn’t list percent power, but the Aviation Consumer data look like an 18-20 GPH setting ROP.  That’s not how many fly the plane,in my experience, but it is what is in the book.  Holding FF constant, the book has the TN 15 ish knots faster up where nobody regularly flies.
 

[exM20K]

55 minutes ago, philiplane said:

I'm not sure where this chart draws from, but I can state from personal experience that any SR22T or SR22TN does 210-215 KTAS at FL250, not the 190 on the chart. Nor will the Acclaim make 230 at 65 percent power.

 

 

LOked at another way, the S22T POH says 16.5 GPH at 16,000 is 185 KTAS.  That’s where and how I fly.  Even with TKS, I see 200 KTAS indicated on the G1000, at 16.5 GPH and 16,000, and that’s without the +2 KTAS adjustment called for in the POH.

The Mooney is faster and climbs better.
 

Edited October 31, 2021 by exM20K

[Urs_Wildermuth]

GA is in decline, certified GA is on it's deathbed. It has been for years. And it is not really a surprise.

The reason is easy: The insane prices. We keep claiming that GA is not a rich man's spoils and that is halfways correct as there is a plentiful used market, but new airplanes which cost as much as a block of houses simply don't make sense.

The reason for these insane prices are manigfold, many have been named:

- Labour cost and inefficient production

- Monopolies (Engines and Avionics in particular)

- exhaustive certification programs which no small GA company in recent years has survived without either massive cross-financing or bancruptcy/buy out

- product liability costs

and most importantly: the extremely low production numbers, which don't allow to distribute the fixed costs adequately.

 

This is not a Mooney thing. All of GA suffers from this. There is just some companies which have a better product for the "mass" market and scrape by selling still comparatively low numbers but have a potent and faithful followership. That is Cirrus. Mind: Cirrus also almost went bust and were bought by the Chinese. The difference was, Cirrus had a marketable product and a top marketing campaign.

Needless to say, the other thing which sets Cirrus apart is that shute. And that "aviation authority" which rules most pilots life much more strictly than the FAA ever could has long decided, no shute, no plane. I am of course talking of "the spouse" and also a growing number of passengers.

Mooney has, like others, missed the bus on this, either by gung-ho talk of pilots who snub the shute or simply think they know better or by the fact that the M20 landing gear can't take a shute crash the way cirrus can. I personally think the shute is the single most important development in GA in the last 30 years and the FAA might as well mandate it for new airplanes. It would get some manufacturers out of trouble maybe, as they would have to finally implement it. In fact I have the idea that if they had done that when Cirrus first hit and consequently the Columbia and the new Mooneys had gotten the shute as a mandate, the market today would be a different one.

Another thing is insurance, which is a MAJOR headache today. We keep hearing of Mooney pilots rejected because it is "complex". Cirrus does not have this problem, fixed gear. Could Mooney overcome this? The insurance market imho could well turn into the "product liability" crisis which at the time put just about everyone out of business.

 

Generally however, Mooney could have a product if it wants to.

All that would be required is to remember how Mooney got the reputation it has. And the most sold Mooneys were the C and J model. Killing those in reality killed Mooney. The C flew 30 kts faster than any other O360 powered plane until the AA5B came along, the J flew 30 kts faster than the Arrow or similarly powered airplanes, at less consumption. I own a C, for me it is the ideal airplane which i can afford both to buy and maintain. The J is very similar in cost and affordability.

Many of us have said it over and over again, to no avail however. Mooney lacks an "affordable" entry model. At the time I talked to Tom Bowen about it and he then said, yea, well that is the M10. only, the M10 never made it. Frankly, I thought the M10J a great product, even if even here on Mooneyspace nobody even talked about it, but a plane like that, with a Diesel, a good 3 seater with approximately the M20J performance would have been BIG news, had it had the shute. As it did not, nobody gave a warm wind about it.

What Mooney imho would have to be able to do is to return to it's roots, produce the most efficient, affordable and desirable entry level complex there is. When Mooney came into the market with the early vintage models, it outclassed it's competition in efficiency an speed, with a comparable cabin. Nowadays, I am sure it could do it again by e.g. producing a SR20 equivalent M20 with a 200-210 hp engine, payload for 4 real adults (800 lb full fuel payload approx), Shute, a basic good avionics set and about J performance. Diesel might be a variant quite attractive for countries which have few or no Avgas (it would sell in Europe, that is sure). However, a price tag for a plane like this could not be more than a SR20 or preferrably below it. Realistically, in order to bring GA back on track, prices should go back to "J" levels corrected for inflation, so around 180-200k. At that price, any plane with "J" kind of performance (actually any plane at all these days) would sell like warm bread.

Only, is that feasible? Personally I doubt it.

In fact, it would be a very good initiative if there was a movement put afood, possibly headed up by AOPA or someone else with enough clout not to be shown the door, to get ALL GA stakeholders together and get the pricing problem sorted out. Personally, I think no single manufacturer can really fundamentally change the over and outpricing today, it only works if EVERYONE pulls along: Engine, Avionic, Airframe makers together with the FAA and the Insurances. I think it would be a total game changer if a GA initiative could be launched which stops the monopolist behaviour of all the stake holders and puts prices back to a realistically affordable range, where also people of the middle class could envision buying a new plane, therefore getting production figures back to where they were before the insurances killed them. The only thing which can bring prices down significantly and remain profitable is mass production and a support environment (FAA, Insurers) which don't break the bank either.  But I guess this remains wishful thinking.

 

 

 

[philiplane]

4 hours ago, exM20K said:

 

 

LOked at another way, the S22T POH says 16.5 GPH at 16,000 is 185 KTAS.  That’s where and how I fly.  Even with TKS, I see 200 KTAS indicated on the G1000, at 16.5 GPH and 16,000, and that’s without the +2 KTAS adjustment called for in the POH.

The Mooney is faster and climbs better.
 

Well, at gross, we can do 193 KTAS in the SR22TN (which ALL come with TKS) at 16000 on 17 GPH. I really mean gross weight too, maybe a little more...but even faster at lighter weights of course. The SR22TN climbs LOP at 800-1000 FPM all the way to FL250. Done it dozens of times. Comparing the Acclaim to the SR22T on an 800 mile max range trip, the Cirrus will be within 20 minutes of the Mooney, but it will carry much more weight ( at least 120 pounds more) in a larger cabin the whole way. It's why Mooney is dead again, while Cirrus sells 300+ per year. I love Bravos and Acclaims too, but they just don't compete in the overall market anymore. Mooney never made a continuous improvement program like Cirrus has. People buy new Cirrus every few years just to get the latest and best. 

Edited November 1, 2021 by philiplane

[Ragsf15e]

7 hours ago, toto said:

It's interesting.  I've always understood the mid-20th century success of GA to result from returning WWII servicemen who developed a passion for aviation in the service and wanted to continue that passion in civilian life.  But the peak of GA piston sales was in the late 70's, 30 years after the war ended.

So you've got to think that some of the 1970's success was early Boomer kids who inherited their parents' passion for aviation and went to buy their own airplanes.

What happened after that?  Did the Gen X kids not inherit that aviation passion?  Or their kids?

I dunno, but I keep thinking that it's more about the price of admission than lack of interest.

We desperately need that new Top Gun movie to come out!  The original motivated me!

[aviatoreb]

2 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

We desperately need that new Top Gun movie to come out!  The original motivated me!

or

The Right Stuff.

[Steve Yucht]

Let me share my 2c as a capitalist business owner and used 2000 Ovation 2 owner.  Mooney can be profitable but not by going after Cirrus. They will never be able to produce a market changing trainer, so just give up on that. The future of “cheap” in aviation is experimental. If you look at any new certified aircraft today expect to pay at least 500K.  Realistically the price of admission for a new certified high performance GA piston is now $750,000 to 1.2mil. Don’t be discouraged or mad about this, because in 20 years those aircraft will sell for 1/3 of that price.  Mooney shouldn’t focus on bargain hunters.  There’s enough wealthy pilots to sell 50-100 planes a year. For the rest of us this keeps the parts pipeline flowing and if you are so lucky as to be able to buy a new plane in the future, then you can stay in a Mooney. 
The smart thing from this point would be to pick one model such as the Ovation or Acclaim and work on increasing the useful load. Preferably make it with a Jet-A diesel. Forget the chute.  There’s plenty of us who wouldn’t be discouraged by not having one.  Just make sure it has the nicest seats and latest avionics.  Don’t overthink it and aim for a small niche or the future of the Mooney will already have been written.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 1, 2021 by Steve Yucht

[aviatoreb]

It blows my mind that an io360 is something like 60k new.  Is that right?

It seems like a really big lawn mower engine.  Old tech.  What about it costs that much?

[Schllc]

32 minutes ago, Steve Yucht said:

Let me share my 2c as a capitalist business owner and used 2000 Ovation 2 owner.  Mooney can be profitable but not by going after Cirrus. They will never be able to produce a market changing trainer, so just give up on that. The future of “cheap” in aviation is experimental. If you look at any new certified aircraft today expect to pay at least 500K.  Realistically the price of admission for a new certified high performance GA piston is now $750,000 to 1.2mil. Don’t be discouraged or mad about this, because in 20 years those aircraft will sell for 1/3 of that price.  Mooney shouldn’t focus on bargain hunters.  There’s enough wealthy pilots to sell 50-100 planes a year. For the rest of us this keeps the parts pipeline flowing and if you are so lucky as to be able to buy a new plane in the future, then you can stay in a Mooney. 
The smart thing from this point would be to pick one model such as the Ovation or Acclaim and work on increasing the useful load. Preferably make it with a Jet-A diesel. Forget the chute.  There’s plenty of us who wouldn’t be discouraged by not having one.  Just make sure it has the nicest seats and latest avionics.  Don’t overthink it and aim for a small niche or the future of the Mooney will already have been written.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would add one goal, noise. 
I would suggest they make it the quietest piston plane ever made. 
noise is a huge part of comfort and the Mooney isn’t quiet and the Cirrus is worse. 
Wonder if they ever tried the same path epic and cirrus did when starting. 
See if you can get say 500 people to lay deposits on a future production, make It cheap enough to be appealing, but not so expensive it chases away people who would finance. 
say $25-30k.

make half refundable if they cancel prior to production, and 100% refundable after the first 100 made. 

this provides the factory with $15,000,000 to start production, and enough to cover the other 400 deposits if people canceled or production stopped before they got to all the deposits. 
even if you only made 100 planes it would cover the operation. 
commit to higher UL, noise reduction, maybe only one model with standard features to simplify production. 
price it what it needs to be priced, let the market decide. 
seems like they could make this offering for no cost. 

[Schllc]

4 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

It blows my mind that an io360 is something like 60k new.  Is that right?

It seems like a really big lawn mower engine.  Old tech.  What about it costs that much?

I would wager it’s all the compliance and liability regulation that chokes this business to death with arcane, nonsensical rules that were written for our grandfathers technology.
Add idiotic bureaucratic interpretations of said rules and you have a perfect shit storm of ”government progress”.

[Urs_Wildermuth]

On 10/24/2021 at 5:22 PM, Brandt said:

I suspect much of the success of the Cirrus has to do with non-pilot passengers who are seduced by the "safety" of a parachute.  Is it just another tool?  Yes, and if it works for you, great.  But it is not a panacea.  

Yes. Primarily spouses who will not fly in a plane not equipped  with a BRS once they know about them. And one can't deny that the Cirrus cabin is larger and looks more modern. This is important to people who have to share the passion of their significant other but are not too enthusiastic about it. In many cases, even on the used market, when talking to prospective first time owners and their wifes, they go for Cirrus or bust for that reason. I'll spare you the gory details, but some of the discussions between pilot and wife have shown to me that their confidence in the pilot's flying skills are no better than their driving or hitting their thumb while hanging a picture.

As for selling 1950ties models, it works for the engines. They are still of that vantage. As for Mooney (and Piper/Cessna) marketing 1960ties Chevies, yes and no. The difference is: A 1960 Chevy and the whole generation were inefficient like hell. Mooneys still are the kings of efficiency (Up to the J model anyway) and therefore still very much competitive towards other planes. What has changed is perception of safety and the prices, which are outrageous throughout the whole spectrum. If you must compare it, sell a 1960 chevy for 300k $ would maybe come close.

To get back in the market, Mooney would have to bring a model which is affordable, efficient, has a chute and get the speeds of at least the J model. Affordable means so that the middle classes can get back into the new airplane market. Whether it's aluminium or plastic does not matter at all.

 

[Will.iam]

46 minutes ago, Urs_Wildermuth said:

Yes. Primarily spouses who will not fly in a plane not equipped  with a BRS once they know about them. And one can't deny that the Cirrus cabin is larger and looks more modern. This is important to people who have to share the passion of their significant other but are not too enthusiastic about it. In many cases, even on the used market, when talking to prospective first time owners and their wifes, they go for Cirrus or bust for that reason. I'll spare you the gory details, but some of the discussions between pilot and wife have shown to me that their confidence in the pilot's flying skills are no better than their driving or hitting their thumb while hanging a picture.

As for selling 1950ties models, it works for the engines. They are still of that vantage. As for Mooney (and Piper/Cessna) marketing 1960ties Chevies, yes and no. The difference is: A 1960 Chevy and the whole generation were inefficient like hell. Mooneys still are the kings of efficiency (Up to the J model anyway) and therefore still very much competitive towards other planes. What has changed is perception of safety and the prices, which are outrageous throughout the whole spectrum. If you must compare it, sell a 1960 chevy for 300k $ would maybe come close.

To get back in the market, Mooney would have to bring a model which is affordable, efficient, has a chute and get the speeds of at least the J model. Affordable means so that the middle classes can get back into the new airplane market. Whether it's aluminium or plastic does not matter at all.

 

This wife safety chute effect I experience first hand from a guy that had a 2014 Cirrus T22 and his Ferrari parked in the back of the hanger. He was telling me that he wanted to upgrade to a TBM and the first question out of his wife’s mouth was does it have a chute? Then she said I’m not going unless the plane has a chute. I asked why not get her flying lessons and her own PPL? He said he tried but she was not interested. She knew how to turn the HDG bug, talk on the radio to find out what heading to take to get over an airport and then activate the parachute. 

[Brandt]

This wife safety chute effect I experience first hand from a guy that had a 2014 Cirrus T22 and his Ferrari parked in the back of the hanger. He was telling me that he wanted to upgrade to a TBM and the first question out of his wife’s mouth was does it have a chute? Then she said I’m not going unless the plane has a chute. I asked why not get her flying lessons and her own PPL? He said he tried but she was not interested. She knew how to turn the HDG bug, talk on the radio to find out what heading to take to get over an airport and then activate the parachute. 

Think I’d forego the parachute and seek an STC to upgrade to Wife 2.0.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[exM20K]

8 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Look at the title : PERFORMANCE DATAT FOR 65 PERCENT CRUISE POWER, BEST POWER MIXTURE

Any Mooney owner should know that an Acclaim and an Ovation both operating at 65% Power will have basically the same performance up through 8,000 ft. and maybe a bit more.  Both engines have 550 cu in displacement, same airframe, same wings, Acclaim is heavier.   The key is that both are throttled for 65% power until the Ovation engine hits critical altitude and can't make 65% power.  THE CURVEs OF THE ACCLAIM AND THE OVATION SHOULD BE ROUGHLY THE SAME UP THROUGH 8,000 FT.  But they are not because it is an "apples and oranges comparison"  - An Ovation at 65% Power and an Acclaim at 100%.

THAT CURVE FOR THE ACCLAIM IS WIDE OPEN 100% POWER

The curve shows that the Acclaim is making approx. 235 KTS at 25,000 ft.

Not correct, and no, it is not a 100% power setting.  The Acclaim's low-compression engine burns significantly more fuel, and as I noted earlier in this thread, there is no "65%" power setting set out in the POH. It appears that what Av Consumer has done is to take the 3rd highest power setting off the chart and called that 65%. (2500x26 @ 18.9 GPH)

ISA standard

s/l 173 KTAS

2000 179 KTAS

4000 184 KTAS

.

8000 193 KTAS etc.

The speed/fuel/altitude table you copied is not for the Type S.  Type S 25,000 best power copied below.

The CMI chart you copied suggests that the 18.1 burn is 75% rather than 65% ,but really... who cares?  I don't have access to an IO550G manual.  Does CMI permit 85% power?  Does the POH call out 65% and 75%?

 

.

 

 

[Mooney in Oz]

The following is extracted from the just released November 2021 edition of The Mooney Flyer and is presented with the kind permission of the editor, Phil Corman. It is an interview between Phil and Jonny in late October 2021 regarding the status of Mooney. 

Interview with Jonny Pollack, CEO of Mooney International

In late October, I called Jonny to get a sense of Mooney’s current status.

I found Jonny to be an extreme devotee of Mooneys and Mooniacs. This came through very clear as he spoke. He agrees that Mooniacs have more love for their aircraft than pretty much any other GA model.

Mooney is definitely up for sale with an asking price of $15M. Jonny is the owner of an Acclaim, and although he is the CEO, he works for no salary. Mooney recently had a potential buyer with “all of the right motivations and ideas,” but ultimately could not come up with the necessary capital.

The current ownership does not have the amount of capital that is required to truly restart Mooney aircraft production. A well-financed buyer, committed to the Mooney brand, is needed.

In the meantime, Jonny’ primary goal has been to keep intact the valuable components of Mooney, and this is significant. The Production Certificate, the factory, the Mooney brain trust, and the equipment investments that the Chinese made over the past several years are still intact.

Jonny indicated that the Kerrville facility is still the best place to bring your Mooney for service. I didn’t know that.

Parts availability is more complicated. I told him that our readers were sharing that it is increasingly more difficult to get parts. He indicated that it’s difficult not to lose money on some parts. If a part is sourced and a reorder requires Mooney to buy, say 20 units, then it’s difficult to make that purchase immediately. This is an area he would like to improve.

End of interview.

[MikeOH]

11 hours ago, Brandt said:

Think I’d forego the parachute and seek an STC to upgrade to Wife 2.0.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm pretty sure, for someone that owns a Ferrari and can afford a TBM, that STC is going to be insanely high priced

[jetdriven]

12 hours ago, Will.iam said:

This wife safety chute effect I experience first hand from a guy that had a 2014 Cirrus T22 and his Ferrari parked in the back of the hanger. He was telling me that he wanted to upgrade to a TBM and the first question out of his wife’s mouth was does it have a chute? Then she said I’m not going unless the plane has a chute. I asked why not get her flying lessons and her own PPL? He said he tried but she was not interested. She knew how to turn the HDG bug, talk on the radio to find out what heading to take to get over an airport and then activate the parachute. 

Perhaps he can show her the new piper Meridian with auto land. Because you know turbine engines are about 15 times or 20 times more reliable than pistons, and the auto land is kind of like a parachute in a way... it gets you to the runway and even stops. So it's even better, you don't have to hike out of the woods.

[toto]

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

Perhaps he can show her the new piper Meridian with auto land. Because you know turbine engines are about 15 times or 20 times more reliable than pistons, and the auto land is kind of like a parachute in a way... it gets you to the runway and even stops. So it's even better, you don't have to hike out of the woods.

While we're at it, they could just buy a Vision Jet - it's cheaper than an M600, and it has both a parachute and autoland.....

[Urs_Wildermuth]

On 11/1/2021 at 2:37 PM, Will.iam said:

He was telling me that he wanted to upgrade to a TBM and the first question out of his wife’s mouth was does it have a chute? Then she said I’m not going unless the plane has a chute.

Yup.

In that case, he should probably consider upgrading to a Vision Jet. Otherwise he'll be on the SR22 for the rest of his flying days.

Pal of mine was discussing buying a Piper Cheyenne, but his wife would not hear of it since she had heard of that "shute plane". She said if you must fly, that is the airplane I'll allow. And she would not even fly with him in an SR22, she was merely concerned about his own safety.

And I have had quite a few discussions with wifes who were brought into the "buying an airplane" thing who were totally clear on the fact that it's either a BRS equipped plane or nothing.

When I told one of them that I flew a soon 60 year old Mooney she just shook her head and said, "I don't know how your wife allows that."

 

 

 

[Will.iam]

On 11/1/2021 at 8:33 PM, MikeOH said:

I'm pretty sure, for someone that owns a Ferrari and can afford a TBM, that STC is going to be insanely high priced

Just goes to show you any STC is usually insanely expensive no matter if it’s wifes or airplanes. 

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

On 11/1/2021 at 8:33 PM, MikeOH said:

I'm pretty sure, for someone that owns a Ferrari and can afford a TBM, that STC is going to be insanely high priced

Never get divorced!  Divorce is just plain wrong!  It is also stupid!

Don't you know that hitmen are cheaper than lawyers?

Edited November 3, 2021 by AH-1 Cobra Pilot