Mooney factory for sale

[TCC]

Nope, not at all. magnesium was one reason that had me shying from a Bo…

Good choice. Some v tails have an AL re-skin STC, but many of the later models don’t. Textron is out of mg skins and not real interested in producing more as their corrosion treatment can’t be done in the US due to environmental restrictions.

Their type club estimates 30 sets of skin/year is the market and has pony’d up $500K to anyone who can deliver a long-term solution. None of the big shops are taking it on and neither is Textron.

Meanwhile guys with serviceable sets are commanding a huge premium and anyone trying to sell an aftected Bo is taking a hit on offers.

[TheAirplaneNerd]

5 hours ago, ChrisH said:

https://red-aircraft.com/product/ 

Certified in EU, designed into the https://www.ottoaviation.com/. 

400hp @ 143lbs Jet A / hr (~22g/hour). 

Bring back a redesigned M22, bolt one of these on it and hope that you have a UL load after putting a ~1,000 lb diesel up front. But, you'd have a screamer, I'd expect ~260kts+ up high. SETP speed, with piston economy. Be a good competitor to the Piper M500/600, Epic, TBM crowd (especially as fuel prices go up).

Well I love the idea of 400hp, but aren’t the dimensions for the A03 fairly large? Will it fit on a Mooney? Or is that why you’re saying to bring back the M22?

In addition, about Astron’s engine that I mentioned earlier, according to Motor Trend future versions of Astron’s engine will be able to produce 4,500hp while weighing only 250 lbs. (https://www.motortrend.com/features/might-new-concept-rotary-range-extender-fly-technologue/) I have no idea what the fuel consumption numbers would be for that, but regardless, a Mooney Acclaim equipped with that engine should reach a top speed of 610.71 knots. If we remove 10% for extra structural support, cabin space, etc, the top speed becomes 549.637 knots.  I’m sold. Besides, if the new Mooney weighed 4,500 lbs at gross, that 1:1 thrust ratio would be nice. 

Edited October 23, 2021 by TheAirplaneNerd

[MooneyMitch]

Anyway...... about that Mooney factory for sale.....   

[Wayne Cease]

Great question. None of the items you reference make you a passenger in an unguided airplane. All preserve the airframe and I stand to be corrected but I believe can operate in a wider envelope. And none were a bandaid solution to a stall spin problem. So, no.

Old wives tale. The Cirrus doesn't have a spin problem. The Europeans didn't accept the chute as a replacement for spin testing, so Cirrus showed it could be recovered from a spin for them.

There are places where landing engine out is not safe. There are many pilots each year that try to land engine out and don't do it well, some to the point of fatalities.

The chute is merely another safety option.



Wayne

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Brandt said:

Opinions vary, for sure. And everyone is entitled to their own choice. But I don’t view transitioning from being a pilot to being a passenger of an unguided soon to be wreckage as much of a safety device. It appears to me that Cirrus tried to turn a fundamental problem into an asset via astute marketing. I’ll believe otherwise when the first Gulfstream or 737 sports a parachute.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think that the market place has spoken loud and clear on Cirrus versus any other production high performance GA aircraft and has so for the last decade.  
 

As for a BRS system on a 737, I’d bet that it would have been appealing to the hundreds who perished on the two 737 Max crashes.

Clarence

[PilotX]

39 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

I think that the market place has spoken loud and clear on Cirrus versus any other production high performance GA aircraft and has so for the last decade.  
 

As for a BRS system on a 737, I’d bet that it would have been appealing to the hundreds who perished on the two 737 Max crashes.

Clarence

Maybe give an individual parachute to a person on an airline that allows somebody with 250 hours into the right seat of a 737. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, PilotX said:

Maybe give an individual parachute to a person on an airline that allows somebody with 250 hours into the right seat of a 737. 

Do they allow 250 hour right seaters to touch the controls?

Clarence

[PilotX]

3 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Do they allow 250 hour right seaters to touch the controls?

Clarence

No of course not. I just made that part up out of thin air in order to sell more parachutes. :)

[Brandt]

1 hour ago, Wayne Cease said:

 

Old wives tale. The Cirrus doesn't have a spin problem. The Europeans didn't accept the chute as a replacement for spin testing, so Cirrus showed it could be recovered from a spin for them.

There are places where landing engine out is not safe. There are many pilots each year that try to land engine out and don't do it well, some to the point of fatalities.

The chute is merely another safety option.



Wayne

 

 

 

49 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

I think that the market place has spoken loud and clear on Cirrus versus any other production high performance GA aircraft and has so for the last decade.  
 

As for a BRS system on a 737, I’d bet that it would have been appealing to the hundreds who perished on the two 737 Max crashes.

Clarence

The marketplace also spoke on pet rocks and gangsta rap.  Popular is not equal to good idea.  But I may just be hopelessly counterculture. 

 

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, Brandt said:

 

The marketplace also spoke on pet rocks and gangsta rap.  Popular is not equal to good idea.  But I may just be hopelessly counterculture. 

 

Ah, so Cirrus had a plan to be successful, executed that plan, and became wildly successful...how is that NOT a good idea???  Seems like Mooney should have gone down a similar path; perhaps they were hopelessly counterculture

 

[Brandt]

45 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Ah, so Cirrus had a plan to be successful, executed that plan, and became wildly successful...how is that NOT a good idea???  Seems like Mooney should have gone down a similar path; perhaps they were hopelessly counterculture

 

Think many are asking the very same question about social media right now, but I digress…

[GeeBee]

Three rules of marketing

1.Product

2.Price

3.Promotion

Two out of three will not cut it. 

 

[A64Pilot]

I don’t pretend to be any kind of expert,but it’s my opinion that Cirrus sold mostly because it looks modern, where most everything else doesn’t, Cessna, Mooney etc are your Grandfathers airplanes, sure they may have full color big displays, but still aluminum riveted together, Plastic airplanes look cool and Modern and the Cirrus interior is very much like say a Lexus interior.

Mooney, Piper, Cessna etc are like trying to sell a 57 Chevy with new interior and maybe a big “infotainment” screen, but it’s still a 57 Chevy

Many years ago I read an article that Cirrus pulled their sales people from the RV world, they were after of course wealthy, but not real experienced pilots, us old experienced types don’t go so much for plastic and parachutes for example, but newer pilots (younger) do.

Don’t throw rocks at me because I’d love for someone to give each Cirrus, I’d sell it and buy an aluminum airplane, I got enough repairing composites in the Military. Aluminum is so much easier and more straightforward.

Edited October 24, 2021 by A64Pilot

[toto]

23 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I don’t pretend to be any kind of expert,but it’s my opinion that Cirrus sold mostly because it looks modern, where most everything else doesn’t, Cessna, Mooney etc are your Grandfathers airplanes, sure they may have full color big displays, but still aluminum riveted together, Plastic airplanes look cool and Modern and the Cirrus interior is very much like say a Lexus interior.

Mooney, Piper, Cessna etc are like trying to sell a 57 Chevy with new interior and maybe a big “infotainment” screen, but it’s still a 57 Chevy

Many years ago I read an article that Cirrus pulled their sales people from the RV world, they were after of course wealthy, but not real experienced pilots, us old experienced types don’t go so much for plastic and parachutes for example, but newer pilots (younger) do.

Don’t throw rocks at me because I’d love for someone to give each Cirrus, I’d sell it and buy an aluminum airplane, I got enough repairing composites in the Military. Aluminum is so much easier and more straightforward.

Cirrus sold just under 350 SEP aircraft last year, and Cessna sold just under 300. Cirrus is clearly the leader in the composite space, but Cessna is no slouch. 

https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2020ShipmentReport-02242021.pdf

[A64Pilot]

2 minutes ago, toto said:

Cirrus sold just under 350 SEP aircraft last year, and Cessna sold just under 300. Cirrus is clearly the leader in the composite space, but Cessna is no slouch. 

https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2020ShipmentReport-02242021.pdf

I contribute that to there are a lot of people out there like me that really don’t want a plastic airplane, However if I had new airplane money, I’d want a Complex airplane, I don’t believe there isn’t a speed increase when you suck the gear up into a airplane, Sure a Cirrus is fast, because it’s a big motor in a small airplane, I bet it would be faster with the gear up, and yes I’ve heard about the RV built with retracts and didn’t gain any speed.

[philip_g]

13 hours ago, Wayne Cease said:

 

I thought it would take some time to adjust to the side stick. At the end of the first flight I realized I wasn't even thinking of the difference at all. I love how my hand rests on the grip when my arm is on the armrest. Comfortable and a natural feeling position for me.



LOL.

That's why options are good. Glad you found one you like. Unfortunately you are in the minority in a niche market (general aviation).

Sad that some people have a negative view of a safety device.



Wayne

 

 

Most pilots vastly overestimate their ability to safely land off airport and exit an aircraft without dying

 

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, toto said:

Cirrus sold just under 350 SEP aircraft last year, and Cessna sold just under 300. Cirrus is clearly the leader in the composite space, but Cessna is no slouch. 

https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2020ShipmentReport-02242021.pdf

Let's use 2021 sales data from GAMA for the first half of the year.

In the first six months of 2021 Cirrus sold 172 SEP and Cessna/Beech sold 104.   In 2020 Cirrus sold 128 SEP in the first half and Cessna/Beech sold 114.  So Cirrus is pulling away with an increase of 34% over last year.  Cessna/Beech is falling behind rapidly with a decline of 10% in sales vs. last year.  Textron sold zero Bonanza's and Baron's in the first half of 2021 so it really is all Cessna. 74 of Cessna sales were 172's....70% of their sales going to trainers.

Aluminum continues to lose ground - but it is not just because they are aluminum - it is because the entire design and features are not competitive for the price

[Austintatious]

12 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I contribute that to there are a lot of people out there like me that really don’t want a plastic airplane, However if I had new airplane money, I’d want a Complex airplane, I don’t believe there isn’t a speed increase when you suck the gear up into a airplane, Sure a Cirrus is fast, because it’s a big motor in a small airplane, I bet it would be faster with the gear up, and yes I’ve heard about the RV built with retracts and didn’t gain any speed.

I understand the feeling that the aircraft would be faster with the gear up.  But, you have to remember, everything is a trade off.  Retractable gear adds weight and complexity.  Also, when a RG aircraft's gear is out, yea, there is a LOT of drag because of the open wells and un-faired tires/brakes.

When You commit to fixed gear, you save some weight and make the gear aerodynamic.  The loss of speed is negligible in the speed ranges these aircraft fly at... For a 300knot IAS jet that is a different story.

There is a youtube video of a guy who built an aircraft to break a speed record... it was fixed gear and faster than even a mooney rocket on 90 hp.

 

[exM20K]

11 hours ago, philip_g said:

Most pilots vastly overestimate their ability to safely land off airport and exit an aircraft without dying

 

Many also wildly overestimate the likelihood of a pure mechanical failure (not fuel starvation) leading to a forced landing.  

[exM20K]

37 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

I understand the feeling that the aircraft would be faster with the gear up.  But, you have to remember, everything is a trade off.  Retractable gear adds weight and complexity.  Also, when a RG aircraft's gear is out, yea, there is a LOT of drag because of the open wells and un-faired tires/brakes.

When You commit to fixed gear, you save some weight and make the gear aerodynamic.  The loss of speed is negligible in the speed ranges these aircraft fly at... For a 300knot IAS jet that is a different story.

There is a youtube video of a guy who built an aircraft to break a speed record... it was fixed gear and faster than even a mooney rocket on 90 hp.

 

All true.  Also, having room inside the wing to hide the gear often requires a thicker wing.  Diamond ran into this with the DA50 retract design and ultimately had big blisters on the bottom of the wing to accommodate the wheels.  Thicker wing =more drag, and the drag associated with well-faired gear is very, very small.

-dan

[Brandt]

16 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Ah, so Cirrus had a plan to be successful, executed that plan, and became wildly successful...how is that NOT a good idea???  Seems like Mooney should have gone down a similar path; perhaps they were hopelessly counterculture
 

The Kardashians are quite successful, but I don't consider them to be a good idea.  

Nonetheless, I'm surprised by many of the comments on this thread about the design of the Mooney, aluminum airplanes, etc.  

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.  

I suspect the challenges Mooney has faced include poor timing, poor marketing, and useful load, along with a perception of being hard to fly and cramped.  Useful load is an issue as a family hauler for sure, but I don't find the later models cramped nor hard to fly.

While the labor involved in building is a profits problem, it is not a customer problem insofar as Mooney's are cheaper than a Cirrus, and often substantially so.  The greater issue, I suspect in the often tenuous future of the company which impacts considerations for resale and parts supply.  
There is nothing inherently better about a composite airplane, and some things that are worse.  As for being outdated, my Acclaim has received unsolicited praise on virtually every ramp I've parked.

If Mooney had the capital to reengineer the gear to add useful load, which might include a parachute - although I'd never buy one,  a good marketing team, and greater customer confidence in the future of the brand, I suspect it could sell airplanes.  

 

[DCarlton]

Someone would have to do the research, but if you dial back the clock, wasn't the Cirrus significantly cheaper than the Mooney's that were being produced when they first hit the market?  It seems like Cirrus has creeped up in price relative to Mooney's as more capabilities were added and the market embraced the design.  Which model was Mooney building when Cirrus first introduced the SR20?  I still feel like the J was the pinnacle of the Mooney design (speed, efficiency, performance, etc) if only they could have simplified the design and kept the cost down.  Going for max speed at max price with the long body, may not have been the best overall strategy.  

[DoctorEvil]

Another link here Re the sale: https://www.flyer.co.uk/mooney-aircraft-company-up-for-sale/

[LANCECASPER]

3 minutes ago, DoctorEvil said:

Another link here Re the sale: https://www.flyer.co.uk/mooney-aircraft-company-up-for-sale/

Nice, they quote Mooneyspace

[1980Mooney]

3 hours ago, Brandt said:

Nonetheless, I'm surprised by many of the comments on this thread about the design of the Mooney, aluminum airplanes, etc.  

While the labor involved in building is a profits problem, it is not a customer problem insofar as Mooney's are cheaper than a Cirrus, and often substantially so.

It is not the aluminum itself - it is the many parts, complexity and 10's of thousands of rivets and screws that make an aluminum plane very labor intensive.  The design is complex.   Labor is cost.

Mooney's seeming to be "cheaper" is an illusion.  The company admitted that they lost money on every plane built in the last years of production.  You are mixing "price" with "cost'.  Any viable company will price accordingly to pass the cost ("profits problem") to the buyer.

If Mooney's were substantially cheaper to manufacture than Cirrus or others then the new owners would be selling product as fast as possible.  Instead they are giving up and and selling the company (again)

This is like the E-Type Jaguar of the 60's.  Aluminum,  largely handmade and labor intensive.  It is fast and efficient with just enough room to fit - not a family hauler.... If you park it on the ramp everyone will admire it.  But could you make it the same way profitably today? - no.  And would anyone buy it? - ok a few maybe out of nostalgia.  But the market has moved on to more capable products that better meet the market needs with acceptable cost.

BTW - Textron has not sold any Bonanza's this year either per GAMA

Edited October 24, 2021 by 1980Mooney