Hours to build a Mooney

[201Steve]

I hear a lot of folks talk about the viability of Mooney having to do with man hours required to produce these made-by-hand airframes. I was just reading the latest AOPA issue that has a nice article on the DA50RG. They are saying 4-5,000 hours per plane. That’s about the same as Mooney? No?

 

 

[toto]

Yep, the number I always hear is 5000 hours.

[M20F]

Thank God I just put a bag of popcorn in the microwave. 

[GeeBee]

 Jonny Pollack said at Mooney Max it takes 9000 man hours to create a Mooney. He said it is a very labor intensive airplane to produce and if they do their best, their gross margin is about 15%. Not viable in today's market.

 

[T. Peterson]

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

 Jonny Pollack said at Mooney Max it takes 9000 man hours to create a Mooney. He said it is a very labor intensive airplane to produce and if they do their best, their gross margin is about 15%. Not viable in today's market.

 

It may be impossible, but I hope some technology or innovation will come along that can knock those hours in half. 

Maybe a return to the basic J model without huge engines and hand stitched leather interiors would help?

It doesn’t matter what the profit margin is if no one buys the airplane. A 4 place single is simply not viable at almost a million a copy. Sure, Cirrus seems to have cracked that nut, but I suspect that niche is tapped out.

Totally my uneducated opinion, but if Mooney can’t produce a J type model for less than 500,000.00, the game is up. I am not even sure that price point is viable, especially with the consummate crushing of the middle class.

[LANCECASPER]

11 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

Totally my uneducated opinion, but if Mooney can’t produce a J type model for less than 500,000.00, the game is up. I am not even sure that price point is viable, especially with the consummate crushing of the middle class.

What's good about only building one length Mooney is that that airframe can be quite a ways down the assembly line before they have to commit to whether it's going to be an Ovation or an Acclaim.

The J airframe would cost roughly as much to build as the Acclaim or Ultra. The extra aluminum for the long body can't be more than a few hundred dollars. The wing is the same. The engine might be $30,000 - $50,000 less.

Twenty five years ago when they built the last Allegro you could run the price up to $350,000 fully loaded. Just accounting for inflation that's $650,000 today and aviation parts have gone up more than inflation. Ironically if Mooney had Ovations and Acclaims they could sell them right now. Any used Mooney that's a good airframe is selling right now including the ones at the very high end. The highest Cirrus SR22T you can load up all the way up to 1.3 million and there's at least a year wait to get one. New Cessna 172s are $470,000 and the wait is almost two years. We don't have to understand it, but we can't deny it's happening.

[A64Pilot]

A or the problem is there isn’t much difference in cost to manufacture a J than one of the 550 powered airplanes, Would you buy a J if you could have the same airplane pretty much with a big motor for 10% more? Assuming of course identically equipped.

I hate to say it but the secret to getting costs down is automation, and to pay for automation you would probably have to build one an hour or more, build means sell of course. Plus a ground up design, cause you couldn’t automate existing design.

Which takes us to the real problem, how many you can build is irrelevant if you can’t sell them.

Back in the day (1960’s) North American Rockwell built a Thrush an hour for a limited time, stacked them up all over the plant, then across the airfield at the FBO then started parking them on a taxi way. I guess they then laid everyone off for awhile until they sold them, many didn’t have engines.

They also built the Meyers 200, now that defines a labor intensive airplane as it has way more tube steel structure than a Mooney, lost money on every airplane.

In the 1940’s I think Cessna built over 5,000 little 140’s in a couple of years, parked them all over the place too.

Sorry a quick Google says over 7,700 with 300 surviving in 2015, less now I guess https://cessnaowner.org/cessna-140/

Aircraft just have never reached the saturation that Henry got with his Model T, which is interesting to see how the pricing of them fell as production reached crazy proportions.

When I first started at Thrush all the dealers were clambering for a 400 gl machine, said they could sell “starter” Crop Dusters, of course they assumed pricing would be 20% less as it carried 20% less, but the truth was I could build one for maybe 5% less, the aircraft was the same pretty much and the smaller turbine was cheaper, by about 5% or 8%. So who would buy a 400 gl airplane that cost 5% less than a 500? No one.

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by A64Pilot

[GeeBee]

8 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

What's good about only building one length Mooney is that that airframe can be quite a ways down the assembly line before they have to commit to whether it's going to be an Ovation or an Acclaim.

The J airframe would cost roughly as much to build as the Acclaim or Ultra. The extra aluminum for the long body can't be more than a few hundred dollars. The wing is the same. The engine might be $30,000 - $50,000 less.

Twenty five years ago when they built the last Allegro you could run the price up to $350,000 fully loaded. Just accounting for inflation that's $650,000 today and aviation parts have gone up more than inflation. Ironically if Mooney had Ovations and Acclaims they could sell them right now. Any used Mooney that's a good airframe is selling right now including the ones at the very high end. The highest Cirrus SR22T you can load up all the way up to 1.3 million and there's at least a year wait to get one. New Cessna 172's are 470,000 and the wait is almost two years. We don't have to understand it, but we can't deny it's happening.

You are correct. My late wife was a cost accountant for the Ford Motor Company. The build cost difference between a Lincoln and a Pinto was 900 dollars at that time. They both need 4 tires, they both need seat belts, they both have to be painted.  It just a few extra fasteners and some metal. Labor for the extra stuff in a Lincoln was minuscule. 

[T. Peterson]

9 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

What's good about only building one length Mooney is that that airframe can be quite a ways down the assembly line before they have to commit to whether it's going to be an Ovation or an Acclaim.

The J airframe would cost roughly as much to build as the Acclaim or Ultra. The extra aluminum for the long body can't be more than a few hundred dollars. The wing is the same. The engine might be $30,000 - $50,000 less.

Twenty five years ago when they built the last Allegro you could run the price up to $350,000 fully loaded. Just accounting for inflation that's $650,000 today and aviation parts have gone up more than inflation. Ironically if Mooney had Ovations and Acclaims they could sell them right now. Any used Mooney that's a good airframe is selling right now including the ones at the very high end. The highest Cirrus SR22T you can load up all the way up to 1.3 million and there's at least a year wait to get one. New Cessna 172's are 470,000 and the wait is almost two years. We don't have to understand it, but we can't deny it's happening.

I certainly don’t deny any of this. I did not know there was such a demand for either the Cirrus or the Cessna, but that simply deepens my confusion. Why is Mooney perpetually in and out of business in the face of such overwhelming demand? We all agree it’s a wonderful airplane, but apparently we are the only ones to know this??

Something doesn’t add up, but I certainly have no idea what is the disconnect. On one hand two different manufacturers can’t fill their orders and on the other hand Mooney can’t succeed. Something doesn’t make sense.

[Steve0715]

A few thought to add to this discussion.

My son ordered a new catamaran built in South Africa just a year ago.  Price…1.3 mil.  Delivery Sept of 23.  Approximately 30 months.  If you order the same today, delivery is still 30 months.  It’s the same for most of the higher end boats.

I called a Diamond dealer and found a new da40 ng delivery about 9 months and a da42 12 months plus.  I amazed at how strong the demand remains.

This can change overnight.  Literally overnight.

pure speculation on my part but I think Mooneys financial issues stem from management not the aircraft.  Poor management can kill a great brand.  
 

you guys probably know this but mooneyspace is an incredibly valuable resource.  I could probably start a thread on balancing tires that would garner some great answers.

 

[LANCECASPER]

15 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

I certainly don’t deny any of this. I did not know there was such a demand for either the Cirrus or the Cessna, but that simply deepens my confusion. Why is Mooney perpetually in and out of business in the face of such overwhelming demand? We all agree it’s a wonderful airplane, but apparently we are the only ones to know this??

Something doesn’t add up, but I certainly have no idea what is the disconnect. On one hand two different manufacturers can’t fill their orders and on the other hand Mooney can’t succeed. Something doesn’t make sense.

I've owned Mooneys for 30 years and followed them longer than that . I've even gone back and studied them when they were producing hundreds of airplanes a year at times in the 60's and 70's because I was confused also as to why Mooney isn't a household word when it comes to airplanes. In one word what they have lacked over the years is stability. Stability in company ownership, capital, vision, etc. 

They've had it at times (late 60's, late 70's-early 80's) and done well, but have never had it long term. They have also been victims of notoriously bad timing. They would just get things going with good products and marketing (early 90's) and then the company would get sold ('96-'97) to someone that wanted to change everything. Then they got it going again and 9/11 happens which leads to bankruptcy. They restructured and get things rolling again with the GX Mooneys (G1000) and have a backlog to produce and introduced the Acclaim shortly thereafter and have another backlog and then the financial crisis of 2008 hits and everything comes to a screeching halt. I think at that time they had 45 unsold airplanes sitting around. They keep a skeleton crew and in a few years get new ownership and decide to start making airplanes in 2014 and they start to sell a few, but in less than two years into it they announce, well before certification, that they are going to produce the Ultra, which immediately halts sales of existing units. (Marketing 101: Keep it under wraps until you can deliver it) No sales while the long wait for certification happens and the owners rightfully become impatient and pull out. 

It's been a roller coaster ride for sure but if they can produce parts for the fleet and make parts for others on a contract basis to demonstrate profitability, who knows? Maybe they can raise the capital to once again make airplanes. This time maybe custom-made for the individual with a 90 day to 6 month wait. Hard to do though on such an emotionally-driven purchase. (The personality of most aircraft buyers is such that they believe that the only thing wrong with instant gratification is that it takes too long.)

[Rick Junkin]

Since we're reviving old discussions I'd like to add this bit of info on ways to make Mooney production viable.

I'm working with a client in his DA40 NG, a 160hp liquid cooled turbo diesel powered DA40. From an engine operation perspective it's like driving a car. Turn the key, the engine starts, move the single power lever to where you need it to be, measured in % load on the engine. No mixture control, no prop control, those are controlled by redundant Electronic Engine Control Units. Which means no need to monitor/control EGT or CHT as those are monitored and controlled by the EECUs. EGT and CHT aren't even displayed in the cockpit. You set the desired % power and monitor the RPM for overspeed. While this makes teaching a primary flight student a bit of a challenge with regards to learning the ins and outs of mixture and prop control for the purposes of passing his written and practical oral exams, it makes a huge difference in ownership and operation by eliminating many of the fine detail skills we have to develop for priming, cold starts, hot starts, leaning, temperature management, you name it. All of the PITA stuff associated with managing our non-EECU controlled engines.

Like build time reductions, we've talked diesel engine options before. But now that I've been exposed to an airplane with one I am a huge fan.

Marketing seems to be everything in the contemporary aviation market. If a Mooney could be powered by an essentially care-free EECU controlled diesel it could be spun into a good marketing campaign. Unfortunately cockpit access ease and useful load will still be a competitive disadvantage, and then there's the 'chute thing.

If I can identify a suitable turbo diesel maybe I'll take my Bravo experimental and play. Sure I could pursue an EECU controlled gas engine but I believe diesel has a better chance of surviving the current fuel politics.

Cheers,
Rick

 

[LANCECASPER]

14 hours ago, GeeBee said:

 Jonny Pollack said at Mooney Max it takes 9000 man hours to create a Mooney. He said it is a very labor intensive airplane to produce and if they do their best, their gross margin is about 15%. Not viable in today's market.

 

In recent years with such low volume that's probably true. In times where they were making 100 or more Mooneys a year I think they got the hours/Mooney down to less than 5000 hours. They used to talk about this number a lot at the MAPA seminars back in the mid to late 90's.

This subject has come up many times before:

 

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/uncategorized/mooney-reset-cutting-build-costs/

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5r0fpcfhyvlb18s/Richard Collins Flying magazine Mar 1974.jpg?dl=0

[GeeBee]

There is no question of management issues in the past and Pollack mentioned that pointing out how much capital was wasted on the Chino project etc. Probably the best management was Republic Steel. As it stands now, Mooney is an under capitalized company and without new capital it cannot build airplanes again. At 15% gross margins it is difficult to attract new capital.  The plan right now is to use the manufacturing capability to build for 3rd parties, build parts, develop product improvements and service the fleet and use that money to boot strap up. Tough to do. Yeah, Cessna and Cirrus build airplanes but Cessna is hugely capitalized via Textron and Cirrus is a cheap airframe to build requiring half the man hours of a Mooney. I am willing to bet Cessna jets subsidize a lot of the production capability of the singles. 

[Fly Boomer]

4 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

demonstrate profitability, who knows? Maybe they can raise the capital to once again make airplanes. This time maybe custom-made for the individual with a 90 day to 6 month wait

At MooneyMAX, Jonny said it takes 9000 man-hours to build one.  In many businesses, people are at the top of the expense sheet.  There just isn't anywhere to go from here.

[A64Pilot]

10 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

 I am willing to bet Cessna jets subsidize a lot of the production capability of the singles. 

Look up the numbers, it’s Bizjets that are about the only real profit in GA, and they are VERY profitable. People carrying airplanes anyway

Edited June 13, 2022 by A64Pilot

[EricJ]

12 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

At MooneyMAX, Jonny said it takes 9000 man-hours to build one.  In many businesses, people are at the top of the expense sheet.  There just isn't anywhere to go from here.

Even at a burdened rate of $75/hour, which is probably too low, that's $675000 per aircraft just for labor.  I wouldn't be surprised if the actual burdened rate is higher, but with that much labor requirement it looks like a difficult proposition for economic success.

 

[T. Peterson]

39 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Even at a burdened rate of $75/hour, which is probably too low, that's $675000 per aircraft just for labor.  I wouldn't be surprised if the actual burdened rate is higher, but with that much labor requirement it looks like a difficult proposition for economic success.

 

No doubt, but what if there was a way to cut those hours by 75%?

I read an old thread where a former factory supervisor claimed it took a little over 1200 hours to build a J model in the 1970’s. Even if he was wrong by half, and with advanced technology could that goal not be attained?

 I no expert, just a hopeful fan!

[LANCECASPER]

58 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

No doubt, but what if there was a way to cut those hours by 75%?

I read an old thread where a former factory supervisor claimed it took a little over 1200 hours to build a J model in the 1970’s. Even if he was wrong by half, and with advanced technology could that goal not be attained?

 I no expert, just a hopeful fan!

I believe that could have been done back then. From 1977 - 1981 they were building between 350-400 Mooneys per year. With holidays and weekends that's 1.5 completions per day.

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

No doubt, but what if there was a way to cut those hours by 75%?

I read an old thread where a former factory supervisor claimed it took a little over 1200 hours to build a J model in the 1970’s. Even if he was wrong by half, and with advanced technology could that goal not be attained?

 I no expert, just a hopeful fan!

With a Billion dollar investment in redesign and automation, yes it could be done, maybe more I guess a Billion isn’t what it used to be.

Tesla’s Fremont plant was / is building 8,500 cars a week, that’s the volume it takes to really use modern methods etc

https://insideevs.com/news/562848/teslafremont-most-productive-plant-northamerica/ I think they are approaching one car per minute now.

Could Mooney sell several thousand airplanes a week even if they could sell them at less than half what a Cirrus or Cessna cost?

The sales are the issue, they just aren’t there.

Edited June 13, 2022 by A64Pilot

[T. Peterson]

7 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

With a Billion dollar investment in redesign and automation, yes it could be done, maybe more I guess a Billion isn’t what it used to be.

Tesla’s Fremont plant was / is building 8,500 cars a week, that’s the volume it takes to really use modern methods etc

https://insideevs.com/news/562848/teslafremont-most-productive-plant-northamerica/ I think they are approaching one car per minute now.

Could Mooney sell several thousand airplanes a week even if they could sell them at less than half what a Cirrus or Cessna cost?

The sales are the issue, they just aren’t there.

I don’t for a minute question your logic or conclusion, but I sure wish there was a way for Mooney to succeed. What a great airplane to go the way of the dinosaur.

[flyboy0681]

Wasn't the original intention of the Chinese buyer in 2013 to move the factory to China where labor is dirt cheap?

[A64Pilot]

30 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

I don’t for a minute question your logic or conclusion, but I sure wish there was a way for Mooney to succeed. What a great airplane to go the way of the dinosaur.

I agree it’s sad. What’s worse is it’s not just Mooney’s. Aviation has been my life, it’s given me a good living, and I hate to see it slowly go away.

That’s why I get upset with people who aren’t taking care of what I consider a disappearing resource. The Cessna article I posted a link to said that 7,700 120’s and 140’s were built and there were 300 still flying in 2015.

I’ve had people here on this forum tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, that hangars are so expensive it’s cheaper to tie down in South Fl and throw away the airplane every few years and just buy another, to them it’s justification to knowingly and intentionally destroy a Mooney. I think that’s just plain wrong, all the Mooney’s there are is all there will likely ever be and every year there are less. Sure it’s their money, just squandering a disappearing resource just seems wrong. Like that idiot who trashed a T-cart for popularity, hey “look at me”, one less T-cart in existence.

Again I’m told I don’t know what I’m talking about better, more modern aircraft are being manufactured every day “the market has spoken”

I’ll pass on the better part, but it’s a fact that current production rate doesn’t even come close to meeting the number that are retired / destroyed each year, means every year there are fewer and fewer small GA aircraft.

Both my little airplanes I plan on out living me, and I hope whoever ends up with them will take care of them, cause when they are gone, they are gone.

I’m afraid there will be no resurgence, Million dollar single engine pistons are beyond the reach of average Joe, and he was what GA was all about.

I believe Cessna and Cirrus know enough to not get into the position of outbuilding the demand, they have to have a book of business to stay in the game, and I believe they know a down turn is coming. Bad idea to spend money increasing production to watch demand dry up, they have seen that happen before.

Edited June 13, 2022 by A64Pilot

[T. Peterson]

6 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I agree it’s sad. What’s worse is it’s not just Mooney’s. Aviation has been my life, it’s given me a good living, and I hate to see it slowly go away.

That’s why I get upset with people who aren’t taking care of what I consider a disappearing resource. The Cessna article I posted a link to said that 7,700 120’s and 140’s were built and there were 300 still flying in 2015.

I’ve had people here on this forum tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, that hangars are so expensive it’s cheaper to tie down in South Fl and throw away the airplane every few years and just buy another, to them it’s justification to knowingly and intentionally destroy a Mooney. I think that’s just plain wrong, all the Mooney’s there are is all there will likely ever be and every year there are less. Sure it’s their money, just squandering a disappearing resource just seems wrong. Like that idiot who trashed a T-cart for popularity, hey “look at me”, one less T-cart in existence.

Again I’m told I don’t know what I’m talking about better, more modern aircraft are being manufactured every day “the market has spoken”

I’ll pass on the better part, but it’s a fact that current production rate doesn’t even come close to meeting the number that are retired / destroyed each year, means every year there are fewer and fewer small GA aircraft.

Both my little airplanes I plan on out living me, and I hope whoever ends up with them will take care of them, cause when they are gone, they are gone.

I’m afraid there will be no resurgence, Million dollar single engine pistons are beyond the reach of average Joe, and he was what GA was all about.

I believe Cessna and Cirrus know enough to not get into the position of outbuilding the demand, they have to have a book of business to stay in the game, and I believe they know a down turn is coming. Bad idea to spend money increasing production to watch demand dry up, they have seen that happen before.

I wish you were wrong, but my gut tells me you are right on.

 I so appreciate your approach to stewardship of a disappearing resource.

On a different topic I started a thread on the vacation forum requesting advice about the Arkansas Ozarks. If you or anyone else reading this wouldn’t mind taking a quick gander over there I would be grateful.

Torrey

[GeeBee]

14 minutes ago, flyboy0681 said:

Wasn't the original intention of the Chinese buyer in 2013 to move the factory to China where labor is dirt cheap?

Yes. There are a number of "hustles the Chinese play in the United States. See "The China Hustle" on Netflix. In a lot of ways it was what happened to Mooney.  They bought Mooney on the cheap, used its existing R&D and capital in hopes of developing a trainer they would then build in China, then when it all fell apart walked away. Left the company starved for capital and talent.