Mooney factory for sale

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, toto said:

I’m specifically talking about the viability of the M20 airframe. There are many on this board who have made the argument that it’s simply not possible to produce an M20 profitably today, and I’m arguing that the M20 could be manufactured profitably today if there were a market for it with some modest economy of scale. 

I wouldn’t argue that they can be produced more affordably, just not in North America.  Vans Aircraft has been having their “quick build” airframes assembled in the Philippines for ever.  The labour rate is lower and the quality is good.

The parts need to be built elsewhere and assembled and finished in Texas.

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, toto said:

They were asking 12M two years ago, according to a widely disseminated pitch deck. 

I think that was an investment that they were looking for - unknown amount of equity. And the Meijing Group still owns 20% according to the original announcement. And when you buy a company it is Debt + Equity. The Meijing Group invested reportedly about $200 million. I bet they converted about $160 million of their investment to debt. 

[Schllc]

1 hour ago, toto said:

I’m specifically talking about the viability of the M20 airframe. There are many on this board who have made the argument that it’s simply not possible to produce an M20 profitably today, and I’m arguing that the M20 could be manufactured profitably today if there were a market for it with some modest economy of scale. 

Aviation is not an average guy’s game anymore. 
Given the small quantities, litigiousness of our society, and the FAA, there is no such thing as cheap in aviation.  (I just paid $3,000 for 12 spark plugs).
If you can’t find a way to interest people with a few million in disposable income laying around you have no hope in selling anything. 
No one wants to buy the Yugo of aviation. 
 

[Fly Boomer]

22 minutes ago, Schllc said:

If you can’t find a way to interest people with a few million in disposable income laying around you have no hope in selling anything. 

It can be done -- just not with our favorite airplane.  Actually, it has already been done -- just not with our favorite airplane.

[toto]

46 minutes ago, Schllc said:

Aviation is not an average guy’s game anymore. 
Given the small quantities, litigiousness of our society, and the FAA, there is no such thing as cheap in aviation.  (I just paid $3,000 for 12 spark plugs).
If you can’t find a way to interest people with a few million in disposable income laying around you have no hope in selling anything. 
No one wants to buy the Yugo of aviation. 
 

I was suggesting a rolling backlog of 2-300 units, which would put Mooney in a top-3 spot every year. I pulled that number out of nowhere, but it seems reasonable to assume that Textron pays less for the same motor than Mooney pays simply because they can deliver repeat business. 

I think there’s a universe where a crack marketing team could interest 2-300 people a year to buy a Mooney. But that would definitely be “average” in terms of top SEP sales for a major manufacturer. If you’re suggesting that they would need 1970’s sales numbers in order to manufacture the M20 profitably, then I don’t see a path forward for that in this market. 

[toto]

2 hours ago, M20Doc said:

I wouldn’t argue that they can be produced more affordably, just not in North America.  Vans Aircraft has been having their “quick build” airframes assembled in the Philippines for ever.  The labour rate is lower and the quality is good.

The parts need to be built elsewhere and assembled and finished in Texas.

I honestly think this is what many of us assumed would happen with the Meijing investment, and I was surprised when it didn’t. I guess it’s hard to say how things would have gone if the M10 had delivered as intended. 

[ChrisH]

Cirrus and experimentals own the piston market, the hole in the market now is a pressurized turbine that fits in a 40' hangar. Look at the excitement over the evolution, sales figures for the Piper M500/600, TBM, Pilatus (even though the don't fit in a 40'). 

It's a clean sheet design, but someone will fill the hole. Or, MOSAIC will finally let experimentals become factory builds.  All I know, is i'm going to drop $1m on a plane, it's not going to be unpressurized or piston. 

[toto]

Just now, ChrisH said:

Cirrus and experimentals own the piston market, the hole in the market now is a pressurized turbine that fits in a 40' hangar. Look at the excitement over the evolution, sales figures for the Piper M500/600, TBM, Pilatus (even though the don't fit in a 40'). 

It's a clean sheet design, but someone will fill the hole. Or, MOSAIC will finally let experimentals become factory builds.  All I know, is i'm going to drop $1m on a plane, it's not going to be unpressurized or piston. 

That’s what the Mooney pitch deck basically said - that they would build a four-place composite turboprop. 

I don’t know about that though. The cost to own and operate a turboprop today is just so far out of reach for your average flyer that I don’t see it becoming a thing - even if you could buy a new certified turboprop for $1MM. 

On the sales numbers.. Cirrus does well, but so does Cessna. It’s certainly not Cirrus - Vans - Cessna or something in terms of total units. Cessna often puts up 300 SEP units in a year and is competitive with Cirrus. 

(Technically you could lump all Textron sales together, but iirc there are so few Beech aircraft sold that it hardly matters.)

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, toto said:

I know that we’ve gone round and round on this topic, but I remain convinced that the M20 line would be viable today if there was demand for it. If Mooney had firm orders for 2-300 airframes, they could negotiate various discounts on components, and if there was a consistent backlog of orders, they could certainly find efficiencies in manufacturing. 

It’s not the case that a metal airframe is impossible to make money on. As mentioned, Cessna failed with the Columbia line, and they’ve succeeded on the old metal type certificates. 

And to be honest, if Mooney were able to *sell* hundreds of airframes, there would be plenty of other companies happy to build them. It’s a sales problem, I’m convinced - not a manufacturing one. 

You said “It’s not the case that a metal airplane is impossible to make money on”. In SEL it gets harder  and harder. Apparently Piper with the Saratoga, Rockwell/Commander with the 114/115, Cessna with the 210 and Mooney were unable to see a way to make money.  I bet Textron lost money on the 3 Bonanzas they sold in the last 2 years when you add in all the “marketing “. And there was no lack of marketing for those 4 brands. This notion that “marketing “ is the only reason the sales declined for these historic models is bogus. 

[exM20K]

17 minutes ago, ChrisH said:

Cirrus and experimentals own the piston market, the hole in the market now is a pressurized turbine that fits in a 40' hangar. Look at the excitement over the evolution, sales figures for the Piper M500/600, TBM, Pilatus (even though the don't fit in a 40'). 

It's a clean sheet design, but someone will fill the hole. Or, MOSAIC will finally let experimentals become factory builds.  All I know, is i'm going to drop $1m on a plane, it's not going to be unpressurized or piston. 

The LX-7 and Production EVOT are very intriguing to me. Unfortunately the former is next to impossible to insure, and the latter doesn’t exist yet.

-dan

[toto]

10 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

You said “It’s not the case that a metal airplane is impossible to make money on”. In SEL it gets harder  and harder. Apparently Piper with the Saratoga, Rockwell/Commander with the 114/115, Cessna with the 210 and Mooney were unable to see a way to make money.  I bet Textron lost money on the 3 Bonanzas they sold in the last 2 years when you add in all the “marketing “. And there was no lack of marketing for those 4 brands. This notion that “marketing “ is the only reason the sales declined for these historic models is bogus. 

There are effective ways to spend marketing money, and ineffective ways to spend marketing money - I certainly don’t think it’s a lack of marketing spend exactly. It’s a lack of sales. The point I was trying to make is that you could solve the engineering efficiency problems and the high unit cost problems if you were doing some volume. Mooney claims to be able to produce 1000 units per year at Kerrville. I’m confident that you could make money on 1000 M20s per year. 

[Schllc]

49 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

It can be done -- just not with our favorite airplane.  Actually, it has already been done -- just not with our favorite airplane.

What I meant was when the cheapest new certified aircraft costs more than the average home in the country, it isn’t a hobby for the average joe. 
I don’t know where the point in quantity efficiency is realized it will never be high enough to make certified planes for 300k. 
I happen to believe the customers for an 1.5-2 million sexy, fast, quiet high UL plane are out there, they just haven’t been enticed/educated/sold 
like you said, you don’t need tens of thousands. You need low hundreds. 
they are out there. 
people don’t buy Ferraris because they are safe or new tech materials. 
they buy them because they are handmade, exclusive, rare and sexy. 
just like a Mooney!

PS. Not really disagreeing with anyone on this post so far, we are all just spitballing and unless one of us wants to pony up 100 million we will never know whose idea is best!

[toto]

14 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

You said “It’s not the case that a metal airplane is impossible to make money on”. In SEL it gets harder  and harder. Apparently Piper with the Saratoga, Rockwell/Commander with the 114/115, Cessna with the 210 and Mooney were unable to see a way to make money.  I bet Textron lost money on the 3 Bonanzas they sold in the last 2 years when you add in all the “marketing “. And there was no lack of marketing for those 4 brands. This notion that “marketing “ is the only reason the sales declined for these historic models is bogus. 

Also, to your point about marketing spend, I was always bothered during the Ultra marketing blitz that Mooney seemed to be marketing aircraft to aircraft owners, while some of the more interesting campaigns were from Cirrus and others (like Icon, though much less successfully) that marketed to aircraft owner wannabes and their families. 

I don’t honestly think there is a silver bullet pitch that suddenly sells 300 Mooneys a year, but it’s clear that those campaigns could have been more effective than they were. 

[Schllc]

35 minutes ago, toto said:

 

I don’t know about that though. The cost to own and operate a turboprop today is just so far out of reach for your average flyer that I don’t see it becoming a thing - even if you could buy a new certified turboprop for $1MM. 

This^^^^^^

A good friend of mine bought a TBM 850 a few years ago for 1.7. 
it was on its first engine and at 2500 hours when it went in for annual in December. 
When he dropped it off he was quoted 160k ish.
200k+ later it’s almost done. 
no major items broken or wrong just timed items and inspections required. 
not even a hot section included in this. 
that is not something the average single owner would want to tolerate. 
lot more items on pressurized turbines than pistons.   
(No it’s not 135, it’s a part 91)

[LANCECASPER]

48 minutes ago, toto said:

I was suggesting a rolling backlog of 2-300 units, which would put Mooney in a top-3 spot every year. I pulled that number out of nowhere, but it seems reasonable to assume that Textron pays less for the same motor than Mooney pays simply because they can deliver repeat business. 

I think there’s a universe where a crack marketing team could interest 2-300 people a year to buy a Mooney. But that would definitely be “average” in terms of top SEP sales for a major manufacturer. If you’re suggesting that they would need 1970’s sales numbers in order to manufacture the M20 profitably, then I don’t see a path forward for that in this market. 

The last time Mooney sold over 300 airplanes was 1981 (342) when they had two airplanes in very high demand (201 & 231). The 201 started at $63,000 and the 231 started at $69,000 that year. 

The last time Mooney sold over 200 airplanes was 1982 (218). The 201 started at $68,000 and the 231 started at $76,000 that year. 

They were selling them Factory Direct in these years so they weren't factoring in a dealer margin, but they were still losing money so in 1984 they merged with a French company.

Later in 1996 the Dopp family bought them and made a lot of changes, like going back to a dealer network, so that  dealers could order them, create a backlog and keep the assembly line working more steadily. But they still weren't making any money. 

The last time Mooney sold 100 airplanes was 2000 (100). The Bravo started at $459,000 and the Ovation started at $399,000 and the Eagle started at $299,000 that year. 

Mooney filed for bankruptcy in 2001.

Although I agree that good marketing sells airplanes, I would argue that marketing ran the company in the above years and ran it into the ground. The philosophy was "we lose a little on each one, but we make it up in volume". They never really knew back then what their true cost was to build an airplane. Obviously it was more than they were selling them for. The reason Textron now has to sell a Skyhawk for $500,000 is that they are a company that knows what it is costing them to build a basic trainer airplane and they have built in a profit margin that keeps the owners (shareholders) happy.

In way too many years of the Mooney history there has not been accountability to ownership and a lot of owners of Mooney  have lost a lot of money. (Al Mooney, American Electronics Labs, Butler Aviation, Republic Steel, Couvelaire (French), Dopp family, Advanced Aerodynamics and Structures (AASI), Allen Holding Finance, Soaring America Corporation (Chinese) just to name a few)

One of the many challenges is that the cost of airplanes has gone up at over 4 times the rate of inflation in the past 40 years. An average middle class person that was focused on aviation could have pulled off buying a new airplane 40 years ago. Although it would have been a stretch, it still could have been done with financing, etc. It's going to take a person at the high end of middle class or higher to pull off buying a new airplane today. One thing that has helped some airplanes sell in the past decade or two is that interest rates have been very low which helped to offset inflation some. That has changed - you now have both - high inflation and much higher rates. In the next few years it won't be the easiest times to sell new single engine piston airplanes. Mooney's choice to build parts and service airplanes is a wise choice for the present, in my opinion.

 

[glbtrottr]

The idea of partnering with Chinese money for me would be an instant nonstarter no matter how green the money they bring is.

Vans has done great with his airplanes - you even have a non profit having high school students and building them unpainted for you. I wonder how far off a certified model would be.

We love mooneys - but like building a battleship these days, building mooney frames in steel and aluminum is simply too expensive…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[toto]

19 minutes ago, glbtrottr said:

The idea of partnering with Chinese money for me would be an instant nonstarter no matter how green the money they bring is.

But that’s the current situation with Mooney International.

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, glbtrottr said:

The idea of partnering with Chinese money for me would be an instant nonstarter no matter how green the money they bring is.

Vans has done great with his airplanes - you even have a non profit having high school students and building them unpainted for you. I wonder how far off a certified model would be.

We love mooneys - but like building a battleship these days, building mooney frames in steel and aluminum is simply too expensive…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Chinese money is really just American money returning home to be spent here.

[glbtrottr]

The Chinese money is really just American money returning home to be spent here.

There is so much wrong with that statement I’ll avoid the landmine


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1980Mooney]

23 minutes ago, toto said:

But that’s the current situation with Mooney International.

 

43 minutes ago, glbtrottr said:

The idea of partnering with Chinese money for me would be an instant nonstarter no matter how green the money they bring is.

And partnering with Chinese money is the way with

• Cirrus
• Diamond
• Icon
• Continental
• Thielert Centurion
• Enstrom Helicopter

And with the Sutan of Brunei money

• Piper

And with Russian money

• Epic

So what is your point again?!....

[glbtrottr]

And partnering with Chinese money is the way with

• Cirrus
• Diamond
• Icon
• Continental
• Thielert Centurion
• Enstrom Helicopter

And with the Sutan of Brunei money

• Piper

And with Russian money

• Epic

So what is your point again?!....

Personal preference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, ChrisH said:

All I know, is i'm going to drop $1m on a plane, it's not going to be unpressurized or piston. 

Hmmm..so you are comparing the cost of a new $1 million SEP (turbocharged top of the line) with the cost of a pressurized turboprop.  Sounds like you won't be buying anything new then.  $1 million won't get you squat.  If you are comparing a new SEP with a new pressurized turboprop then you need another $2-5 million on top of the $1 million that you are willing to pay.  And $1 million won't get you anything used - even the old JetProp DLX conversions are more than that.

[Greg Ellis]

15 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

Just out of curiosity and a a forlorn hope that Mooney will make a comeback, I have two questions:

Is it possible for Mooney to produce a no frills E, J or K and sell it for 500,000.00?

If it was possible, would there be a market?

By no frills, I mean cloth seats, and basic IFR. Dual Nav Comms and one gps. No deice, air conditioning, parachute, leather wrapped yokes etc.

I am not sure who this would be marketing towards.  A glance at controller.com I can get a 2007 Ovation with a full glass panel and all the bells and whistles for $319,000.  I am not sure I personally would go for an E, J, K for $500,000 just because it is new, if I can get something with so much more for so much less.  This is just one example.  

So, if I have the money burning a hole in my pocket, and saw two panels, side by side, one with what you suggest and the other with full glass, autopilot, and comfortable interior for $200,000 less, even though it is 16 years old (at first glance it looks newer than your example) I think I know which I would choose but that is just me personally.

[Fly Boomer]

12 hours ago, Schllc said:

When he dropped it off he was quoted 160k ish.

That's so far out of reach for me, I laughed out loud.  Sure, 160K plus or minus 100k -- not a problem.  When can I pick it up?

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

That's so far out of reach for me, I laughed out loud.  Sure, 160K plus or minus 100k -- not a problem.  When can I pick it up?

To save on that $160K, just buy a maintenance shop.