Mooney factory for sale

[philip_g]

4 hours ago, exM20K said:

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

Tell that to the 220 people alive today because of CAPS

[Brandt]

33 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

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

I didn’t say Mooneys were cheaper to build, I said they are sold for less.  So, it’s almost a certainty that Cirrus makes more profit per plane, especially considering their volume.  But it also means a Mooney is a relative bargain for the buyer.  And I dispute that the Cirrus is a more “capable” product than a Bonanza or a Mooney.  Just a slightly different product.  Compared to a Mooney, slower, larger inside, and a heavily marketed parachute.  Compared to a Bonanza, I’m guessing cheaper, and cheaper to repair, but I don’t know that for certain. 

[EricJ]

D'oh.   Posted in wrong section.

 

Edited October 24, 2021 by EricJ

[exM20K]

19 hours ago, philip_g said:

Tell that to the 220 people alive today because of CAPS

Good grief.  What an appeal to reason you present. It is a tragedy whenever there is a fatality.  But it is grotesque the way these exaggerated “saves” are used to promote a product and tut-tut those who choose otherwise.  Here’s why:  you assume that all chute pull incidents would have meant certain death without the life-saving chute.  This is absolute nonsense. 18% of non commercial fixed wing accidents included fatalities, according to the 2020 Nall report.

100 ish CAPS deployments in what the company reported in 2020 as 11 million flight hours on the fleet.  That’s pretty good odds to me…. And this tiny number of fatal accidents prevented , < 1 per 100,000 hours, or .2 per 100,000 hours if scaled by the fatal:non-fatal rate across the GA fleet) should be viewed in the context of 3-4 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours in the cirrus. It’s fan boy and marketing nonsense.

your snark is un persuasive.  Have a nice day, and fly safely, whatever it is you fly.

-Dan

 

Edited October 25, 2021 by exM20K

[DoctorEvil]

Living just down the road from BRS in the UK, here is my 2 pence. . .

Mooney clearly were ahead in terms of innovation in the early days, to the tune of a couple of decades.
Over time this advantage has eroded due to a lack of manufacturing process innovation and overall R&D.

The latest owners have proved that currently Mooney simply can't manufacture, market or ultimately sell a M20 for a silly ticket price.
They have a still competitive product, for which if they could outsource the manufacturing to "masters at it" such as Toyota, Ford, GM or even Mitsubishi (who have industry experience) it would be the smart way forward.

The current factory should be scaled down and used for testing and R&D with the manufacturing done by those with the required expertise.

Another advantage is the brand strength, which is a bit of a Carroll Shelby story and the opportunity to not have to start from zero, as a modern M20 would currently be a hot seller at a competitive ticket price.

I get the feeling the current owners have simply ran a garage sale of Mooney parts.  And, if the new owners can't innovate the manufacturing as described above, the existing, ageing fleet will end up running out of parts and support much sooner than we would all like.

Toes crossed someone with a lot of sway steps in to pick up this potentially great opportunity, Elon, Cathy Wood - where are you :-]

TTFN  

[LANCECASPER]

 

This is an interesting read from just three years ago: https://www.aviationconsumer.com/industry-news/editorial/mooney-acclaim-ultra-tops-in-raw-speed/

[toto]

15 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

 

This is an interesting read from just three years ago: https://www.aviationconsumer.com/industry-news/editorial/mooney-acclaim-ultra-tops-in-raw-speed/

Thanks for posting. I remember reading this review when it came out and being really excited for the future of the new models (if a bit apprehensive about the obvious payload concerns). 

[Austintatious]

24 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

 

This is an interesting read from just three years ago: https://www.aviationconsumer.com/industry-news/editorial/mooney-acclaim-ultra-tops-in-raw-speed/

This clippet from that article 

 

Mooney’s turbocharged models have never been payload workhorses and neither is the Acclaim Ultra. With AC, the demonstrator I flew had an empty weight of 2511 pounds for a useful load of just 857 pounds on a max weight of 3380 pounds. Fill it with 89 gallons and the airplane has a payload of 323 pounds. Without the AC, it would be 389 pounds. That makes it a two-people-with-baggage airplane. Down fueled to, say, 50 gallons, you can put three people into the airplane, with moderate baggage. That’s three hours at middling power settings or four at economy speeds.

 

This is a serious problem for them... I have 1050 lbs useful in my rocket... how they went backwards from that is beyond me.

This is also why I think making a tandem 2 seat is the way to go for Mooney.  They can make a faster more efficient airplane that can have a larger range and fit 2 people AND bags with full fuel.  

I have put 3 people in my rocket, but it is not the most comfortable and for all intents and purposes, It is a 2 person airplane. My wife sits in the back half the time as well because she has more leg room.  Id just assume go faster, burn less gas and have her directly behind me.

Edited October 24, 2021 by Austintatious

[Guest]

My more than 55 year old Comanche weighs 2100 empty even with an 8 cylinder engine and has a 1500 LB useful load.  Mooney airframes simply too heavy, and overbuilt, a double edged sword.

Clarence

[Schllc]

On 10/20/2021 at 8:29 PM, philip_g said:

Spot on and I wouldn't either. 

The g5 and newer sr22t is simply a better airplane. Sorry. Easy 190ktas on 17.5ish up high.

Better plane?  
Full disclosure......heavily biased opinion coming

When I sold my last plane I couldn’t deliver it on the date necessary so I asked a friend of mine who is a long time cirrus owner and Cfi to deliver for me. 
He had about 40 hours in an acclaim, like mine,  but it was all short hops and local ifr training flights, he had never done a long cross country. 
When he returned he could not stop raving about the handling, speed, comfort and overall quality of the airplane compared to the cirrus. 

I have about 80 hours in the newer cirrus, much of that is long cross country. The Mooney is a better made piece of machinery, hands down, and every cirrus owner that has been in my plane has commented to that effect.  Its undeniable, kind of like the way a Mercedes or Lexus “feels” when driving, it’s difficult to convey in words.  
 

It’s unfortunate that the appointments and strategy, like a parachute, marketing genius, and finance/training system wasn’t available for the Mooney because that’s really what has been cirrus’s success, not the characteristics of flight.  
I would have to reluctantly agree that cirrus has the best wrapper in the business, but I’ve never been one to buy the wrapper.  

[A64Pilot]

Speaking of Toyota, they were going to build GA aircraft at least three times that I know of, the last serious look was I believe I about 2002, first look was maybe 1980’s then again in the 90’s. First one was to use a Lexus based auto engine

I don’t think anyone could argue that Toyota are fools, nor are they not masters of manufacturing, but Toyota still can’t make a business model of small airplane manufacturing being profitable. They keep looking, so it’s obvious that they want to. Four place retractable, complex airplane BTW.

Honda for example had to team with GE to get their engine certified, and if you look it’s a GE / Honda, old man Honda is rolling over in his grave with GE being named first I’m sure.

Speaking of jets, that part of GA is booming and has been for a long time. every new model of Gulfstream is sold out for years when they start production, some were smart and bought production slots of the 650 that they sold at a huge profit (think Superbowl ticket scalpers) as it was they only way to get one without waiting for over a year.

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

20 hours ago, philip_g said:

Tell that to the 220 people alive today because of CAPS

I would be curious to find out how these 220 have fared since.  (Obviously, only some fraction were the PICs, and we need not consider the passengers.)  How many have used the CAPS again?  How many have crashed since?  How many have not flown since?

As I have written elsewhere on MooneySpace, I am under the impression that the first guy to use CAPS did it just because he wanted to be the first.  How do you calculate how many of them would have actually been able to land safely without the CAPS?  How many died even though they tried to use the CAPS?  The bottom line is that 220 is a dubious number.

I used to fly with a parachute, and that often included an ejection seat.  Did I feel safer?  Did I fly any differently?  I suppose I felt safer with one when I was getting shot at.

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

On 10/24/2021 at 9:06 AM, Austintatious said:

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.

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

[A64Pilot]

The larger an aircraft and faster it  is, the more retracts make a difference, a small light especially tail wheel airplane it may not make much difference if the wheel and gear are faired in really well

Retracts obviously do add weight, expense and complexity, other than the engine the retractable system is likely the most complex mechanical system on a small aircraft.

A C-210 that nose gear doors close when the gear are down, and there are no main gear doors, drop the gear on one and it makes a huge difference in speed, so it’s not just doors or open holes, it’s the gear and wheels.

 

[Austintatious]

2 hours ago, AH-1 Cobra Pilot said:

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

That graph literally makes my point for me... Look at the Ovation vs the Cirrus at 10,000 feet.  we are talking an 8 knot difference.  Yea, we would all like 8 more knots on our planes, but to put it in perspective... A 3 hour flight in the Ovation would be a 3h 8m flight in the Cirrus.

 

Now, as for the Sr22 vs the Acclaim.... I simply do not believe that Acclaim line.  It differs from the charts on AVweb and the lower altitudes are Drastically different from Either of my Rockets.  Which are only about 10 knots slower than the Acclaim Ultra.  Jumping over to the modern mooney forums, I found a post on an Acclaim with the 310 hp STC... and the following

At those altitudes (18-20,000) real-world performance is this: at 29"MP and 2500rpm I see 215KTAS at 18gph ROP, and 205KTAS at 14.5gph LOP. 

This is not much faster than what I see in the Rocket.  At FL210 I typically true 210 knots  burning about 17 gph.

Here is a read on Cirrus performance, data gathered from pilot surveys https://nyclab.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-copa-cirrus-sr22-performance-report.html  

Graph shows a 195 knot cruise at  FL180   The synopsis towards the bottom says a 202 Knot cruise at FL220 on 16.5 GPH in the Cirrus.  as a comparison, in the avweb video on the acclaim, a good cruise is 16,000 feet 202 knots on 16.5 GPH.

So, I am still convinced that while the Acclaim beats out the SR22, in the flight regimes that will typically be flown, it is in fact mostly negligible, especially when you look at in terms of how much longer you will have to fly in the slower aircraft.  For the ranges these aircraft fly, we are talking 20 more min in the cirrus. 

It gets even more gray when you consider a 3 or 4 person flight in the two aircraft. considering the higher useful load of the cirrus.  Put 4 people in each aircraft and the Mooney might not even be able to out range the Cirrus.

 

[Brandt]

14 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

That graph literally makes my point for me... Look at the Ovation vs the Cirrus at 10,000 feet.  we are talking an 8 knot difference.  Yea, we would all like 8 more knots on our planes, but to put it in perspective... A 3 hour flight in the Ovation would be a 3h 8m flight in the Cirrus.

 

Now, as for the Sr22 vs the Acclaim.... I simply do not believe that Acclaim line.  It differs from the charts on AVweb and the lower altitudes are Drastically different from Either of my Rockets.  Which are only about 10 knots slower than the Acclaim Ultra.  Jumping over to the modern mooney forums, I found a post on an Acclaim with the 310 hp STC... and the following

At those altitudes (18-20,000) real-world performance is this: at 29"MP and 2500rpm I see 215KTAS at 18gph ROP, and 205KTAS at 14.5gph LOP. 

This is not much faster than what I see in the Rocket.  At FL210 I typically true 210 knots  burning about 17 gph.

Here is a read on Cirrus performance, data gathered from pilot surveys https://nyclab.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-copa-cirrus-sr22-performance-report.html  

Graph shows a 195 knot cruise at  FL180   The synopsis towards the bottom says a 202 Knot cruise at FL220 on 16.5 GPH in the Cirrus.  as a comparison, in the avweb video on the acclaim, a good cruise is 16,000 feet 202 knots on 16.5 GPH.

So, I am still convinced that while the Acclaim beats out the SR22, in the flight regimes that will typically be flown, it is in fact mostly negligible, especially when you look at in terms of how much longer you will have to fly in the slower aircraft.  For the ranges these aircraft fly, we are talking 20 more min in the cirrus. 

It gets even more gray when you consider a 3 or 4 person flight in the two aircraft. considering the higher useful load of the cirrus.  Put 4 people in each aircraft and the Mooney might not even be able to out range the Cirrus.

 

It gets less gray when you consider that the Acclaim Ultra costs more than $100K less than the Cirrus. It is also faster than the Cirrus while only asking for 280 hp out of the same engine rather than 315 hp, it should last longer.

[Austintatious]

20 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

Edited because for some reason it re-posted a previous post.

For fun, I fired up foreflight and using the performance profiles for both aircraft, 65% power... From KDPA to KFTW (697 miles) at FL180  the Mooney makes it in  3:31 min burning 64.5 gallons and the Cirrus does it in 3h55 min  burning 66 gallons.... At an 85% power setting the cirrus does it in 3:38 burning 72 gallons and the Mooney does it  in 3h 15 min burning 69.4 gallons at the highest power setting available in foreflight.

 

 

 

Edited October 25, 2021 by Austintatious

[Austintatious]

3 minutes ago, Brandt said:

It gets less gray when you consider that the Acclaim Ultra costs more than $100K less than the Cirrus. It is also faster than the Cirrus while only asking for 280 hp out of the same engine rather than 315 hp, it should last longer.

I was unaware anyone can actually buy a brand new Mooney Acclaim ultra right now.  But yes, you are right, there are many many differences between the two aircraft.  The reality is that the things you and I value in The Mooney Take a back seat for a lot of people.  The Cirrus has more ramp appeal to the average person.  It has a much nicer cabin to the average person.  It has more safety features for the average person.  It looks more modern to the average person.  To blame the relative failure of Mooney against cirrus because of "clever marketing" is in my opinion to ignore the simple fact that people will choose a product based on things other than raw speed and efficiency.

[EricJ]

1 minute ago, Austintatious said:

I was unaware anyone can actually buy a brand new Mooney Acclaim ultra right now.  

They might sell you one, but delivery might be an issue. 

[Brandt]

2 minutes ago, EricJ said:

They might sell you one, but delivery might be an issue. 

No need.  Already have one.

[Brandt]

5 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

I was unaware anyone can actually buy a brand new Mooney Acclaim ultra right now.  But yes, you are right, there are many many differences between the two aircraft.  The reality is that the things you and I value in The Mooney Take a back seat for a lot of people.  The Cirrus has more ramp appeal to the average person.  It has a much nicer cabin to the average person.  It has more safety features for the average person.  It looks more modern to the average person.  To blame the relative failure of Mooney against cirrus because of "clever marketing" is in my opinion to ignore the simple fact that people will choose a product based on things other than raw speed and efficiency.

True. Many folks have been seduced by Teslas as well. Having driven one, as well as having flown a Cirrus, I’ll stick with the Vette and the Mooney.

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, Austintatious said:

I was unaware anyone can actually buy a brand new Mooney Acclaim ultra right now. 

If you go to Mooney.com, the factory has a new Acclaim for sale, inquire at sales@mooney.com

[GeeBee]

8 minutes is a long time when your wife has to pee....just saying.

[toto]

3 hours ago, Austintatious said:

The Cirrus has more ramp appeal to the average person. 

Is this everyone’s experience with the Cirrus?

I’ve never encountered a non-flyer who said anything interesting about a Cirrus, and certainly never anything about the composite materials looking modern. 

I’ve heard people say the doors look “weird” or that the plane “looks like plastic.” But I think people are generally familiar with metal aircraft and rivets - that’s what most current airliners look like, after all. 

Anyway, not challenging the ramp appeal comment that has appeared several times from several people in this thread - just curious what others have encountered.

[WilliamR]

So, reading this, Mooney makes airplanes that take 50% - 100% longer to build than it's strongest competitor, sales price is less, they're terrible at marketing, and the product offering is inferior (see page 15 of the deck).  Can't imagine what went wrong with that formula. I did like the slide deck, save the typo on page 17 (I hope an analyst was beaten for that mistake) and that page 5 makes it look like the Acclaim doesn't have the GFC700 autopilot. However, the slide deck was only designed to see what investors would be interested in learning more. Road show would come way later after an NDA and likely a QofE is produced.

Love the parts business gross margins. $1MM in FY'20 projected sales with a 55% GM.  Nice! Too bad that business is strangled with $12MM in "Existing Buildings", a long term lease, plus inventory turnover of 0.05x or DSI of almost 7,000 days (assumes all inventory is parts since a plane hasn't been made in awhile). Yeah, 7000 days....bit heavy on the inventory. Scale back the RE holdings (does this company really need capacity to build 1,000 planes per year?) and the inventory, and you've improved cash materially by that alone. Why didn't the CEO fix those things first? They are the easiest to fix that doesn't require much capital. Stop the bleeding is turnaround 101. Did the CEO and investors never do an analysis on the fixed costs and working capital? Guessing not, since the last capital raise was friends and family.  Of course, the inventory balance could be B.S. which would hurt the equity value of the owners. A QofE would ferret that out, though.

You'd think the VTOL drones would generate investor enthusiasm. Didn't Joby just raise several billion and now has an EV of $4+ Bn with a proof of concept? If Mooney can't raise money in this market, they never will. The market is so frothy with so many sponsors (and SPACS for that matter) throwing out money looking for return. If you took the product knowledge of management, threw out the capital intensive undertakings of a "cheap turbine", and paired it with a sponsor that knows manufacturing turnarounds, this company could possibly make it. Further upside is it's likely there's no debt on the balance sheet except the RE lease and AP is very small (who would sell to this company on terms? Ha!).

Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of my firm being involved here, I have no MNPI, and most of this analysis I pulled out of my butt.  I just like aviation and finance.

William