Mooney factory for sale

[0TreeLemur]

It isn't hard to gaze off into the future and see a time when all our old airframes are gone except for flying museum piece here and there.  Avgas of any flavor is no longer sold except at a very few airports.  Virtually everything in the air runs on Jet A and flown by charter pilots who mostly carry around clients who can afford $1200/h plus for transport, of course adjusted upward for future inflation.

Hate to be drag on the discussion, but it doesn't take much imagination to envision that in two generations the thing that we are passionate about will disappear.  I see grass growing through the cracks in many runways today.

[0TreeLemur]

On 11/22/2021 at 3:00 PM, 0TreeLemur said:

It isn't hard to gaze off into the future and see a time when all our old airframes are gone except for flying museum piece here and there.  Avgas of any flavor is no longer sold except at a very few airports.  Virtually everything in the air runs on Jet A and flown by charter pilots who mostly carry around clients who can afford $1200/h plus for transport, of course adjusted upward for future inflation.

Hate to be drag on the discussion, but it doesn't take much imagination to envision that in two generations the thing that we are passionate about will disappear.  I see grass growing through the cracks in many runways today.

And that's how you kill a thread.

[Alan Fox]

On 10/18/2021 at 11:25 AM, toto said:

They mentioned a four-place turbine, but did they also mention a pressurized four place?

It kind of sounded like they were talking about selling a Meridian for the price of a Matrix (but losing two seats and a pressure vessel).

I actually think there’s probably a market for this sort of thing. Many of the SETP owners fly solo or with a single passenger, given the limited useful load of some of these planes. Losing two seats might bring the insurance down a hair.

The icon they used for the four-place turbine gap actually looks like a PC-12 to me, which is *not* an aircraft that suffers from limited useful load

You already are VP

[A64Pilot]

Look at all the markets, boat show in Fl was just a week or so ago, news reported that boats under 26 feet weren't selling, but multi million dollar yachts were sold out years in advance.

Gulfstream has for years been sold out way in advance.

Cessna is very profitable, building “biz” jets, Beech is profitable, building jets as is pretty much every jet manufacturer.

Cirrus is an anomaly, most Cirrus buyers aren’t pilots that have been flying for a very long time, they figured out how to tap into a market no one else did, or just as likely they created a market, but it’s actually a tiny market

Average Joe can’t afford to fly, and the majority of those that can, have enough money to be chauffeured around in Luxury. They don’t fly, they have people for that.

Since the 70’s the actual purchasing power of the average Joe has been decreasing. I believe it’s called wage stagnation, but in the 70’s everyone bought boats, campers and airplanes etc. no more, from the end of WWII every year for the average person they had more wealth than the year before, that trend reversed about 1980.

Now only the top percent or two can, and they aren’t buying single engine pistons.

Sure Cirrus is selling, but their numbers are a joke compared to the industry 40 or 50 years ago.

So the only way is to make airplanes cheaper, LSA’s and Experimental some few average Joe’s can afford, but even them are out of the reach of most.

That leaves us, a few that fly what most wouldn’t back in the day, antique, many would consider junk out dated aircraft.

‘Not to be ugly, but who drives a 40 yr old pickup with worn paint and interior with an AM radio, no AC, power steering etc?

That’s what most of our aircraft are, 40+ yr old relics. because if your like me, you don’t have seven figures for a new airplane.

[MikeOH]

@A64Pilot

I just couldn't bring myself to "Like" your post....but, you are spot on, I'm afraid

[donkaye]

The main structure and form of the Mooney hasn't changed much, especially the long bodies.  If course the Acclaim Ultra can go faster than mine by 20 knots, but it cost more than 3 times as much.  I don't think you can compare a 30 year old Mooney to a 30 year old car.

We all are very lucky.  We have airplanes that we got for less than the cost to manufacture them.  That's why Mooney went bankrupt so many times and why it is unlikely that we will ever see a new mooney built.  Add the newest avionics packages and a new engine and prop and you have what amounts to a new airplane.  

With my avionic's package and new engine and prop I feel like that's what I have--a true magic carpet.

[Schllc]

Here is my two cents…

I believe Mooney could revive its brand and cater to the same people buying bonanza’s and four million dollar watches if they could figure out how to market to them.
People with money always want the “best”.  
The days of the average joe buying a new plane are gone forever, market to the rich or give it up.

Cirrus did something completely different. They “created” a market where it didn’t exist. 
The average cirrus owner didn’t choose from the available aircraft, they bought a “Cirrus”,  along with the Cirrus culture. 
Cirrus created a marketing, finance, investment product wrapped around an airplane. 
The fact that it had a parachute was more window dressing than it was the primary factor. 
I am not knocking the parachute, you can’t ignore the reality that it probably pushed a lot of people over the finish line.
But people are not buying the Cirrus because it is the best of anything, they are buying it because there isn’t a viable option. I’m not talking about comparable airplane performance, I mean a total package, of financing training, tax consulting, leaseback/rental.  If you want to compete with Cirrus you would have to compete on their terms, and create a cheaper Cirrus that is even easier to finance and buy. 

If Mooney were to revive, it would not be by persuading Cirrus owners to switch fan clubs, it would be by courting an entirely different group of buyers. 
Given the relatively small numbers of buyers needed (compared to something like cars), the product would have to be something unmatched in the market in either ability, quality or both. 
A turbine would only be a plus if it added to performance and useful load. 
Make it like a real high quality machine, good form and fit, quiet, well appointed and unique. 
People pay insane amounts of money for custom cars, and they depreciate by 50% or greater within five years. They don’t even care, they throw them away and get another. 
Produce a product that is truly better. 
I can promise you this, no one shows off a cirrus for its quality of build, comfort, quiet, performance or looks.  Making it cheaper is a losing strategy. A 1200# UL, 250 knot, super quiet, 1200 mile range, fadec, autoland 4 person plane for 1.5 or even 2 million would be different!  A parachute wouldn’t hurt but I don’t think it’s necessary.  
If you made something fine, rare and exclusive, people would want it, it’s human nature. 
 

If I had 100 million laying around I’d give it a go!

[TGreen]

22 minutes ago, Schllc said:

Here is my two cents…

I believe Mooney could revive its brand and cater to the same people buying bonanza’s 

How many people is that?

[Schllc]

1 minute ago, TGreen said:

How many people is that?

You left out the rest of the sentence. 

[TGreen]

2 minutes ago, Schllc said:

You left out the rest of the sentence. 

The part about the wrist watches? I figured that sales of the other single engine high performance retractable was the more relevant data point. 

[T. Peterson]

3 hours ago, MikeOH said:

@A64Pilot

I just couldn't bring myself to "Like" your post....but, you are spot on, I'm afraid

I am in the same boat. I think @A64Pilot is right, but it sure is depressing.

[Schllc]

18 minutes ago, TGreen said:

The part about the wrist watches? I figured that sales of the other single engine high performance retractable was the more relevant data point. 

I feel you may have missed my point entirely. 
The point wasn’t to compete.  
Make something different, you don’t have to make more planes than Cirrus, you only need to make enough to be profitable, and if you cant do quantity, do it in quality  

 

[Guest]

I’ve got 7 newer (2021-2022) SR 22T in my shop at the moment at almost $2M Canadian each when you add exchange and taxes.  

Possibly the newest Mooney in Canada, a 2016 just left for Texas.  

I see little hope for any of the other traditional manufactures to make a comeback.
 

 

[toto]

42 minutes ago, Schllc said:

Here is my two cents…

I believe Mooney could revive its brand and cater to the same people buying bonanza’s and four million dollar watches if they could figure out how to market to them.
People with money always want the “best”.  
The days of the average joe buying a new plane are gone forever, market to the rich or give it up.

Cirrus did something completely different. They “created” a market where it didn’t exist. 
The average cirrus owner didn’t choose from the available aircraft, they bought a “Cirrus”,  along with the Cirrus culture. 
Cirrus created a marketing, finance, investment product wrapped around an airplane. 
The fact that it had a parachute was more window dressing than it was the primary factor. 
I am not knocking the parachute, you can’t ignore the reality that it probably pushed a lot of people over the finish line.
But people are not buying the Cirrus because it is the best of anything, they are buying it because there isn’t a viable option. I’m not talking about comparable airplane performance, I mean a total package, of financing training, tax consulting, leaseback/rental.  If you want to compete with Cirrus you would have to compete on their terms, and create a cheaper Cirrus that is even easier to finance and buy. 

If Mooney were to revive, it would not be by persuading Cirrus owners to switch fan clubs, it would be by courting an entirely different group of buyers. 
Given the relatively small numbers of buyers needed (compared to something like cars), the product would have to be something unmatched in the market in either ability, quality or both. 
A turbine would only be a plus if it added to performance and useful load. 
Make it like a real high quality machine, good form and fit, quiet, well appointed and unique. 
People pay insane amounts of money for custom cars, and they depreciate by 50% or greater within five years. They don’t even care, they throw them away and get another. 
Produce a product that is truly better. 
I can promise you this, no one shows off a cirrus for its quality of build, comfort, quiet, performance or looks.  Making it cheaper is a losing strategy. A 1200# UL, 250 knot, super quiet, 1200 mile range, fadec, autoland 4 person plane for 1.5 or even 2 million would be different!  A parachute wouldn’t hurt but I don’t think it’s necessary.  
If you made something fine, rare and exclusive, people would want it, it’s human nature. 
 

If I had 100 million laying around I’d give it a go!

This all sounds about right. Cirrus built a “lifestyle” brand that has little to do with airplane innovation, per se. Some of the things they do differently seem preposterous - like keyless entry with a push-button fob. But if you’re a person who will drop $100k on a luxury car, you might expect similar luxury treatment on your $1MM airplane. 

Cirrus has their whole delivery center thing in Knoxville, where you get a fancy red carpet treatment — they hand you the keys and the flight manual and a glass of champagne or whatever. And this seems to have nothing to do with building good airplanes, but it’s a part of the lifestyle brand that looks good on social media. And it’s removed from the airplane factory, so feels more like a luxury purchase from a high-end shop.

Cirrus has done a very respectable job selling airplanes in a tough market, and most of that is about better *selling* - not necessarily about making a better airplane. 

[Schllc]

1 minute ago, M20Doc said:

I’ve got 7 newer (2021-2022) SR 22T in my shop at the moment at almost $2M Canadian each when you add exchange and taxes.  

Possibly the newest Mooney in Canada, a 2016 just left for Texas.  

I see little hope for any of the other traditional manufactures to make a comeback.
 

 

I don’t disagree unfortunately, I just mean that doing the same thing isnt going to work. 
The only hope for success, is to do something different. 
That is exactly what Cirrus did. 

[Schllc]

2 minutes ago, toto said:

This all sounds about right. Cirrus built a “lifestyle” brand that has little to do with airplane innovation, per se. Some of the things they do differently seem preposterous - like keyless entry with a push-button fob. But if you’re a person who will drop $100k on a luxury car, you might expect similar luxury treatment on your $1MM airplane. 

Cirrus has their whole delivery center thing in Knoxville, where you get a fancy red carpet treatment — they hand you the keys and the flight manual and a glass of champagne or whatever. And this seems to have nothing to do with building good airplanes, but it’s a part of the lifestyle brand that looks good on social media. And it’s removed from the airplane factory, so feels more like a luxury purchase from a high-end shop.

Cirrus has done a very respectable job selling airplanes in a tough market, and most of that is about better *selling* - not necessarily about making a better airplane. 

Exactly.  They did it different.
They created an experience beyond a buying transaction. 
People buy Ferrari’s and Pillipe Patelle watches because they are the epitome of quality and exclusivity. they like having the “best”.  
The catch is, that it actually has to be the best!

[mkerian10]

20 minutes ago, Schllc said:

Exactly.  They did it different.
They created an experience beyond a buying transaction. 
People buy Ferrari’s and Pillipe Patelle watches because they are the epitome of quality and exclusivity. they like having the “best”.  
The catch is, that it actually has to be the best!

A big issue is what's the utility of owning an airplane? It's very useful if you have a lot of 3-8 hour drives without direct airline flights but the amount of people who are in GA due to its utility is tiny. I'm not saying that there isn't a lot of utility, but that utility comes at a substantial price. Even if you're someone who has a couple million in the bank and has a realistic reason to own a plane you'd have to devote a lot of time to training and ownership.

 

I don't like the way the GA market is trending. If it's not a trainer or a luxury aircraft then it's useless since the market for a relatively affordable, fast XC type plane is

 

• Wealthy (can essentially cut out bottom 70% of pop. immediately)
• Loves aviation
• Has demand for XC trips

There's not a ton of people who fulfill all of these

 

Realistically the biggest success I could see out of Mooney is if they deliver a 300+ TAS plane that's pressurized and can carry a family for < $2M. Basically if they can make a TBM and charge half the price. That seems impossible though 

Edited February 26, 2023 by mkerian10

[rickseeman]

If they build new Mooneys they won't be cheap. But that's ok. Rich folks can buy them and we can wait around for used ones. I just want them to be able to stay around. More Mooneys and Bonanzas are being lost to wrecks/tornados/hurricanes than are being built. Enjoy your airplane and take care of it. Someday there won't be many left. Like warbirds. One thing that is hurting us is low volume. (No assembly line volume.) They make so few it's like buying anything one-off and handmade. Expensive. There was a time when they were selling more. Around 1969 I went to the local Mooney dealer in Long Beach for their new model reveal/open house. I sat in all of them. I remember the Statesman and the Chaparral. The window sticker was $25,000. Expensive. But wow, then you could fly places. Magical.

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, Schllc said:

I believe Mooney could revive its brand and cater to the same people buying bonanza’s

 

2 hours ago, TGreen said:

How many people is that?

All 3 of them.....

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, mkerian10 said:

Realistically the biggest success I could see out of Mooney is if they deliver a 300+ TAS plane that's pressurized and can carry a family for < $2M. Basically if they can make a TBM and charge half the price. That seems impossible though 

The idea of building a "cheaper" Piper M600 SLS or smaller/cheaper Epic E1000 for the market of "poorer" multimillionaires that can't afford a real Epic E1000 or TBM 960 has been discussed. 

Epic started with the kit based Epic 1000LT and it still took 7 years and $200 million to get it certified.  

[Schllc]

8 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

The idea of building a "cheaper" Piper M600 SLS or smaller/cheaper Epic E1000 for the market of "poorer" multimillionaires that can't afford a real Epic E1000 or TBM 960 has been discussed. 

Epic started with the kit based Epic 1000LT and it still took 7 years and $200 million to get it certified.  

Epic didn’t have a manufacturing certificate or a certified TC, that was what took seven years.

Trying to compete with the TBM is once again, doing the same thing. It’s proven that won’t work. As I recall, they had no problem securing the deposits needed to move forward. 
 

As you’ve already pointed out, the demand for the same old thing is pretty lackluster, A really different product is the only hope, and even then….

All a moot point really, no one is dumping 10 million, much less 100 into Mooney.  
Private pilots in single engine pistons are rapidly becoming an anachronisms. 

[Sixstring2k]

11 hours ago, Schllc said:

Exactly.  They did it different.
They created an experience beyond a buying transaction. 
People buy Ferrari’s and Pillipe Patelle watches because they are the epitome of quality and exclusivity. they like having the “best”.  
The catch is, that it actually has to be the best!

To your point, here is a guy picking up his new cirrus sr22t. I don’t know if it was just for this one guy because he is on you tube but they pulled all the stops, but that helps sell planes with todays culture.

like you said picking up this plane was a experience:

starts at around the 3 min mark.  

[BravoWhiskey]

Cirrus sales and marketing found a way to tap into a few different markets.  Airlines use them for trainers. Their transition training is well established for new buyers.  But something I am noticing is the number of used Cirrus on Controller.  Seems to me to be a lot of inventory.  I don’t know if that means their owners a less attached to the brand or if they have a lease or buyback program.

IF Mooney were to try and re-enter the market they would need to look at the various ways to regain market share.  I think a short body to compliment the Ovation and Acclaim models would be smart.  Have Fleet sales for some schools and promote the idea of getting their clients the IFR ticket with complex and maybe high performance endorsements.  Have A Mooney transition training program.  I don’t think trying to create a new model is going to help the company do anything other than lose money.  I don’t even know if my ideas above would work… but if I were adventurous enough those are a few snippets of my roadmap for Mooney.

[1980Mooney]

51 minutes ago, Schllc said:

Epic didn’t have a manufacturing certificate or a certified TC, that was what took seven years.

That wasn't the issue - the issue is a clean sheet pressurized carbon fiber design.  Just look at Cessna.  They announced the start of "new clean sheet Denali" in 2015.  Late last year they announced that they delayed certification yet again another year into 2023. Cessna, an established manufacturer of pressurized "aluminum" airplanes with all the technology and resources in aviation is taking at least 8 years.

"First announced in 2015 by Textron Aviation as the Cessna Denali and Model 220 at the EAA AirVenture Oshkosh, the Beechcraft Denali features a completely new design to compete with single-engine turboprops (SETP) including the with Pilatus PC-12 and Daher-Socata TBM."

Beechcraft Denali Certification Extended by a Year | Business Aviation News: Aviation International News (ainonline.com)

[1980Mooney]

23 minutes ago, BravoWhiskey said:

Cirrus sales and marketing found a way to tap into a few different markets.  Airlines use them for trainers. 

Good point.  Cirrus, along with Diamond, Piper and Cessna, have proven that you don't need retractable gear to train professional pilots.  Apparently, they want fixed gear - less cost, less weight, more robust and less insurance.  Everyone talks about Mooney needing to "do something different" than they are currently yet most lose their mind at the suggestion of any change.