Mooney factory for sale

[MooneyMitch]

17 hours ago, exM20K said:

The M10 did little or nothing better / cheaper than a DA20, with its huge installed base.  

And that was NOT the initial intent of the project 

[DCarlton]

8 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

Ferrari builds about 8000 cars per year, Mooney would be lucky to build a 100…Ferraris still cost $250K…its a low volume business.

That's what makes it an engineering and production challenge.  What's the cost breakdown now?  $500K in labor.  $200K in parts and materials.  $200K in admin, overhead and insurance.  $100K in profit?  If the best we can do is $800K to $1M for a aircraft equivalent to a M20J, general aviation will be forever stuck where it has been for the last 30 years (except for all the expensive avionics that have been developed).  

[DCarlton]

1 hour ago, MooneyMitch said:

Add the wing and tail, and you’ve got the new electric Tesla Mooney 

But you'll need software to get it to fly.  Just stay no to software.  

[Parker_Woodruff]

21 hours ago, MooneyMitch said:

And that was the intent of the Chino project.

Measure twice cut once...

Do it right the first time...

sadly, none of that happened...

[Will.iam]

2 hours ago, chriscalandro said:

In order for Mooney to be a viable parts business they need to make sure nobody else sells parts, control the flow of parts, and take a cut off the top of the people they DO allow to sell parts and do service?

Sounds like communism to me. 

[LANCECASPER]

Mooney already controls the flow of parts (through MSCs). They already take a cut off the top by making a profit on the parts they sell to MSCs.  Taking a cut off the service (labor) would never fly.

Opening a viable Factory Service Center again would allow them to make full profit on parts and service.

 

On 10/21/2021 at 12:21 PM, Will.iam said:

Sounds like communism to me. 

More like a monopoly.

[ZuluZulu]

16 hours ago, TheAirplaneNerd said:

Hypothetical question here, but if you were in charge of Mooney, how would you continue operations?

I'm under no illusion that I have all the answers.  I'm very skeptical of the current management team but just because I don't think they have the qualifications doesn't mean that I do, either.  But your question is fair so I'll try to answer it.  I might want to pursue a clean-sheet design for the "next-generation Mooney," designed from the ground up to appeal to today's buyers that not only remains true to the Mooney brand but is profitable to manufacture.  Figure out what we can do to take advantage of the Cirrus's weaknesses or at least match their offerings.

With the M20 type certificate I would explore an advanced trainer to compete with Piper and Cessna, since the training market only continues to expand, and looking to avoid the mistakes Mooney made the last time they tried to market the AT.  Give it a parachute and simplify the design as much as possible to help buyers lower their cost of operation (bladders to eliminate resealing, re-design the landing gear to not require expensive pucks, etc.).

And to do all of this I would hire the absolute best engineers I could find, including recruiting some from Cirrus, Textron, Pipistrel, Diamond, whoever I could convince to leave for the chance to build something new.  Would this work?  I don't know!  But I would hire the smartest and most skilled people I possibly could and listen to them.  Turn amazing people loose on your problems and see what they come up with.  I would also focus on only a couple projects at first.  Even the two I mentioned above might be too unfocused and we might have to pick one or the other until reaching a point where it's appropriate to bite off more to chew on.  But without the capital, it's all academic anyway.

[MooneyMitch]

36 minutes ago, ZuluZulu said:

I'm under no illusion that I have all the answers.  I'm very skeptical of the current management team but just because I don't think they have the qualifications doesn't mean that I do, either.  But your question is fair so I'll try to answer it.  I might want to pursue a clean-sheet design for the "next-generation Mooney," designed from the ground up to appeal to today's buyers that not only remains true to the Mooney brand but is profitable to manufacture.  Figure out what we can do to take advantage of the Cirrus's weaknesses or at least match their offerings.

With the M20 type certificate I would explore an advanced trainer to compete with Piper and Cessna, since the training market only continues to expand, and looking to avoid the mistakes Mooney made the last time they tried to market the AT.  Give it a parachute and simplify the design as much as possible to help buyers lower their cost of operation (bladders to eliminate resealing, re-design the landing gear to not require expensive pucks, etc.).

And to do all of this I would hire the absolute best engineers I could find, including recruiting some from Cirrus, Textron, Pipistrel, Diamond, whoever I could convince to leave for the chance to build something new.  Would this work?  I don't know!  But I would hire the smartest and most skilled people I possibly could and listen to them.  Turn amazing people loose on your problems and see what they come up with.  I would also focus on only a couple projects at first.  Even the two I mentioned above might be too unfocused and we might have to pick one or the other until reaching a point where it's appropriate to bite off more to chew on.  But without the capital, it's all academic anyway.

You’ve pert near described the plan in Chino...... smart guys from other companies, a clean slate, plenty of dough, etc...... we have one of dem former Chino team smart guys here on MS.  He does pop up sometimes (blue on top).   He knows where the left turns were made .

[Geoff]

Lancair Evolution showed that even in kit form a 4 place pressurized TP will cost ~$1.5 MM.  Add the cost of factory labor and certification and you are in the same price range as the M500/M600.  So you may not need the extra seats but you get them for free in the Piper just in case. 
 

[Austintatious]

The problem as I see it for mooney is that even with a clean sheet design, they wont have a product that is better than what is out there...  They have to compete with Cirrus... and while the newest moonies are certainly faster and more efficient than the Turbo cirrus, it is not by a great deal and you give up a TREMENDOUS amount of cabin space AND the ballistic chute to choose the mooney over the Cirrus.

Until Cirrus came along, the Mooney had a massive speed/efficiency advantage over the competition and the relative cabin size was not that far off.  So you didn't really give up anything for those advantages.

If Mooney was to go with a clean sheet design... what is that going to be?  A cirrus with a backwards tail and retracts?   They would be playing catch up and trying to steal BACK sales and doing so without being able to offer a superior product...Possibly equal but not superior.

The fact is that the only thing a Cirrus lacks is Retracts.  Beyond that it is just about as perfect as one can get for a SE 4 place aircraft.  Other than retracts there is not much that can be done to make it considerable faster or more efficient.

So, they can either figure out how to make a 200 Knot Mooney cost half that of a new turbo Cirrus... OR likely fade into the history books.  I think we are seeing the obvious of those 2 happening.  Yes It is sad.

I just don't see how buying Mooney would possibly be a smart move.  There is no clear future for the company.  If your plan was to buy it and go with a clean sheet design, what, other than a name does your money buy?  You woudl be better to invest the money into a completely new venture for whatever design you have in mind.

The ONLY idea I can come up with is that Mooney could potentially tap into a smaller more niche market.... Perhaps use the tooling for the existing wings and build a Tandem 2 place version with heaps of power.  Maybe clip the wing a bit and have an efficient 250+ knot 2 place aerobatic aircraft.  I would buy one in a heartbeat especially if it was a Taildragger with retracts.  This would be a phenomenal training platform that even some military's might buy, a great cross country aircraft for a Couple and a fun 100$ burger airplane to go bore holes in the sky on weekends.  Paint em like a P51 and go have a blast.

[DCarlton]

34 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

The problem as I see it for mooney is that even with a clean sheet design, they wont have a product that is better than what is out there...  They have to compete with Cirrus... and while the newest moonies are certainly faster and more efficient than the Turbo cirrus, it is not by a great deal and you give up a TREMENDOUS amount of cabin space AND the ballistic chute to choose the mooney over the Cirrus.

Until Cirrus came along, the Mooney had a massive speed/efficiency advantage over the competition and the relative cabin size was not that far off.  So you didn't really give up anything for those advantages.

If Mooney was to go with a clean sheet design... what is that going to be?  A cirrus with a backwards tail and retracts?   They would be playing catch up and trying to steal BACK sales and doing so without being able to offer a superior product...Possibly equal but not superior.

The fact is that the only thing a Cirrus lacks is Retracts.  Beyond that it is just about as perfect as one can get for a SE 4 place aircraft.  Other than retracts there is not much that can be done to make it considerable faster or more efficient.

So, they can either figure out how to make a 200 Knot Mooney cost half that of a new turbo Cirrus... OR likely fade into the history books.  I think we are seeing the obvious of those 2 happening.  Yes It is sad.

I just don't see how buying Mooney would possibly be a smart move.  There is no clear future for the company.  If your plan was to buy it and go with a clean sheet design, what, other than a name does your money buy?  You woudl be better to invest the money into a completely new venture for whatever design you have in mind.

The ONLY idea I can come up with is that Mooney could potentially tap into a smaller more niche market.... Perhaps use the tooling for the existing wings and build a Tandem 2 place version with heaps of power.  Maybe clip the wing a bit and have an efficient 250+ knot 2 place aerobatic aircraft.  I would buy one in a heartbeat especially if it was a Taildragger with retracts.  This would be a phenomenal training platform that even some military's might buy, a great cross country aircraft for a Couple and a fun 100$ burger airplane to go bore holes in the sky on weekends.  Paint em like a P51 and go have a blast.

A Cirrus with a LYC IO-540 and a conventional center mounted yoke (not a side stick) might be something to consider.  Without those, I've never been interested or even looked closely at a Cirrus.  Maybe I need to give an SR-22 a chance since folks seem to think so highly of them.  I like your idea of a tandem two place Mooney with good power though... and fuel tanks that won't ever leak.  

Edited October 22, 2021 by DCarlton

[toto]

We have to be very careful not to look at where Cirrus is today and presume that it was an obvious and inevitable success story due to some stroke of engineering genius in 1998.

There are a ton of new aircraft out there with amazing specs, and most of them will fail miserably. They have clean-sheet designs with impressive performance, and it’s easy to say that those steps are the magic elixir for aviation sales. I’m thinking about aircraft like the Pipistrel Panthera, which is an interesting engineering achievement, but has a long way to go before it’s selling 400 units a year.

Cirrus has outsold a whole bunch of competing products because they’re better at sales and marketing than everyone else. 

[carusoam]

Word on the street…

 

[Austintatious]

1 hour ago, toto said:

We have to be very careful not to look at where Cirrus is today and presume that it was an obvious and inevitable success story due to some stroke of engineering genius in 1998.

There are a ton of new aircraft out there with amazing specs, and most of them will fail miserably. They have clean-sheet designs with impressive performance, and it’s easy to say that those steps are the magic elixir for aviation sales. I’m thinking about aircraft like the Pipistrel Panthera, which is an interesting engineering achievement, but has a long way to go before it’s selling 400 units a year.

Cirrus has outsold a whole bunch of competing products because they’re better at sales and marketing than everyone else. 

I am not sure I agree.  Cirrus may be good at marketing,  However I think a lot of people underestimate the allure of a nice roomy cabin.  You put 10 wives in 10 different 4pSE airplanes each and not knowing anything about specs, they are going to pick that Cirrus 10 out of 10 times.   That Pipestrel is definitely cool and has nice specs.  The thing is that getting the average lady into one is a tough sell, especially if she gets to experience a cirrus cockpit/cabin.  Which is sort of my whole point... Performance is nice, but if you have to make large trades in creature comfort to get it, that is a harder sell.  I have a hard time believing that anyone that was in the market for a brand new aircraft did not explore other options.  I also have a hard time believing that anyone who sat in a new mooney and a New Turbo Cirrus would choose the Mooney.  The difference in cockpit feel and roominess is simply staggering.

So IMHO, it is fair to say that the creature comforts, the performance, BRS safety feature and the marketing all played a part in the Success of Cirrus.  We can of course disagree on how much of a role each played. 

I am definitely a big Mooney fan... I own 2 rockets for crying out loud.  But Even I have to admit, If the price between the rocket and a Turbo Cirrus was the same, I'd be flying a Cirrus. 

[Austintatious]

3 hours ago, DCarlton said:

A Cirrus with a LYC IO-540 and a conventional center mounted yoke (not a side stick) might be something to consider.  Without those, I've never been interested or even looked closely at a Cirrus.  Maybe I need to give an SR-22 a chance since folks seem to think so highly of them.  I like your idea of a tandem two place Mooney with good power though... and fuel tanks that won't ever leak.  

I am curious why you would prefer a yoke.  Is it just because you have not flown side stick?  It is one of those things that seems weird until you fly it just a short while.  It is not a difficult transition at all. 

If you have not sat in a Cirrus, I suspect when you do, you will understand.  It is like sitting in a roomy sedan vs a Corvette when compared to the Mooney.

My father is considering an airplane... He wants to buy into my Rockets but I am urging him to go with the Turbo Cirrus.  Similar performance, nice cabin that is easy to get in and out of and the BRS chute.  Heck, I may sell one of the rockets and go in on a Turbo cirrus with him.

[rpcc]

I am amazed honestly at how the management has let their employees down and of course their customers.  

In the current market - 

You can't build clean sheet planes without 200mm behind you so - let's table that.

You can't build a business around 1mm in revenue and untold liability problems - let's table that. ( the dunkin doughnuts where I bought my coffee this morning makes more revenue each year than that and I can't recall the last time someone was killed drinking coffee or eating a doughnut)

Most of your customer base is quite happy with their 80-200k aircraft and there is supply to meet demand on the used market.

You do have a highly skilled workforce that is capable of doing lots of things - perhaps the future is not in servicing the mooney fleet and building clean sheet craft, but in figuring out how to monetize your production facilities and workforce.  Maybe someone could tell the current management that there is a big problem producing parts for all sectors of the economy.   How about building parts for lets say the automotive industry or the aviation industry - but pick a big company like GM or Boeing to work with so you have constant demand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ReconMax]

So, we're NOT all chipping in to buy it? 

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, rpcc said:

I am amazed honestly at how the management has let their employees down and of course their customers.  

In the current market - 

You can't build clean sheet planes without 200mm behind you so - let's table that.

You can't build a business around 1mm in revenue and untold liability problems - let's table that. ( the dunkin doughnuts where I bought my coffee this morning makes more revenue each year than that and I can't recall the last time someone was killed drinking coffee or eating a doughnut)

Most of your customer base is quite happy with their 80-200k aircraft and there is supply to meet demand on the used market.

You do have a highly skilled workforce that is capable of doing lots of things - perhaps the future is not in servicing the mooney fleet and building clean sheet craft, but in figuring out how to monetize your production facilities and workforce.  Maybe someone could tell the current management that there is a big problem producing parts for all sectors of the economy.   How about building parts for lets say the automotive industry or the aviation industry - but pick a big company like GM or Boeing to work with so you have constant demand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One major issue is that there is no work force to speak of.  We've been waiting for a gear door for an Ovation.  The parts are available, but there is no one to assemble them in to a useable door.

Clarence

[Brandt]

I am curious why you would prefer a yoke.  Is it just because you have not flown side stick?  It is one of those things that seems weird until you fly it just a short while.  It is not a difficult transition at all. 
If you have not sat in a Cirrus, I suspect when you do, you will understand.  It is like sitting in a roomy sedan vs a Corvette when compared to the Mooney.
My father is considering an airplane... He wants to buy into my Rockets but I am urging him to go with the Turbo Cirrus.  Similar performance, nice cabin that is easy to get in and out of and the BRS chute.  Heck, I may sell one of the rockets and go in on a Turbo cirrus with him.

And yet, many people choose a Corvette over a roomy sedan. So, Cirrus is the Chevy Malibu of the airplane world and Mooney is the Corvette. I see a market for both. I have flown a Cirrus. I bought a Mooney. I like everything about it better than the Cirrus. And for me, a parachute is the equivalent of putting training wheels on a Kawasaki Ninja. I think this has more to do with marketing than anything, with useful load coming in a strong second.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rpcc]

14 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

One major issue is that there is no work force to speak of.  We've been waiting for a gear door for an Ovation.  The parts are available, but there is no one to assemble them in to a useable door.

Clarence

Lacking the ability to monetize the existing inventory says to me that there is little or no value in this company other than real estate.  

Hope you get your gear door soon - perhaps they could send you the parts and assembly instructions - but I'm sure you could figure that out as well.

I'm not familiar with the FAA regs on manufacture, but could the factory license the construction of component parts to businesses like yours?    

[Austintatious]

18 minutes ago, Brandt said:

And yet, many people choose a Corvette over a roomy sedan. So, Cirrus is the Chevy Malibu of the airplane world and Mooney is the Corvette. I see a market for both. I have flown a Cirrus. I bought a Mooney. I like everything about it better than the Cirrus. And for me, a parachute is the equivalent of putting training wheels on a Kawasaki Ninja. I think this has more to do with marketing than anything, with useful load coming in a strong second.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

When I evaluated the chute for Myself, I agree, it seemed like training wheels that was only useful in a few situations.   But that is thru the lens of my experience and circumstances.  In the case of my older father for example, he could be flying with a lady and have a heart attack.  The chute would certainly be a lifesaver in that scenario, if only for the lady.

 

Don't get me wrong, there are things I like better about the mooney.  But, at the end of the day, it is a tool I use to travel.  Sitting in it alone for 3.5 hours it starts to feel pretty tight.  I end up straddling the center console to get comfortable.  I cant do that if I have a passenger, and if one is in the seat behind me I cannot even move the seat rearward.

 

 

[Brandt]

When I evaluated the chute for Myself, I agree, it seemed like training wheels that was only useful in a few situations.   But that is thru the lens of my experience and circumstances.  In the case of my older father for example, he could be flying with a lady and have a heart attack.  The chute would certainly be a lifesaver in that scenario, if only for the lady.
 
Don't get me wrong, there are things I like better about the mooney.  But, at the end of the day, it is a tool I use to travel.  Sitting in it alone for 3.5 hours it starts to feel pretty tight.  I end up straddling the center console to get comfortable.  I cant do that if I have a passenger, and if one is in the seat behind me I cannot even move the seat rearward.
 
 

Fair enough. I’m spoiled because I have an Acclaim Ultra. Two doors helps and I understand it feels a little more spacious than earlier models. I’m perfectly happy with the room. Recently flew with backseat passengers who were happy as well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DCarlton]

9 hours ago, Austintatious said:

I am curious why you would prefer a yoke.  Is it just because you have not flown side stick?  It is one of those things that seems weird until you fly it just a short while.  It is not a difficult transition at all. 

 

Because you can use a yoke with either your left hand or your right hand.  Redundancy is a good thing; especially if you've ever experienced a shoulder injury.

[KB4]

51 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

One major issue is that there is no work force to speak of.  We've been waiting for a gear door for an Ovation.  The parts are available, but there is no one to assemble them in to a useable door.

Clarence

We have the parts but cannot send them to you.  To me that’s the same as Not available. How long is reasonable to wait before OPP becomes the only viable option. 

[donkaye]

Oh to reminisce...  The best sales force I can remember for Mooney was when I became interested in one in the early 1990's.  They had outstanding sales people all around the Country and kept several demonstrators that got traded around to all of them.  I built a lot of time moving those demonstrators around.  In fact I ended up with a very low time one that I own to this day.

Regarding the Service Center in Kerrville; I flew from California down to Kerrville early this month to have the present Kerrville team look at a problem that I have had for the past 5 years.  Because of a long term employee, they found the problem immediately.  It was a very old issue that had not recently been communicated to the MSCs, so I can't fault mine for not being able to address it properly.  The plant was quiet, but the Service Center had quite a few planes in it being serviced.  And after 30 years, they did have the needed parts in inventory for the update.

At 11,992 hours I expect to hit 12,000 in the next few days.  Of that, 10,155 are Mooney time.  Obviously, that is not an accident.  I feel most comfortable in a Mooney, and not just because of its strength.  The design of the seats is such that I can fly all day and never feel uncomfortable.  I broke in a C182 engine a few weeks ago, and after 2 hours, even though there is more room in the plane, I was happy to get out of it.  The seat angle was just too uncomfortable.  I can't imagine flying all day in one of them.

Even though the rest of the world might not "get it", we Mooney Owners certainly do.  The Mooney is just the best single engine piston airplane ever built.  It's too bad it doesn't make economic sense to build them.