Wing development.

[Parker_Woodruff]

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

 

At least that money for the M10J was well spent. 

The M10T remains one of the most crushing thoughts in my mind RE: Mooney.

[MooneyMitch]

4 minutes ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

The M10T remains one of the most crushing thoughts in my mind RE: Mooney.

It was so exciting and we had such high hopes for Mooney back then.  

[jetdriven]

If I recall, a couple of aeronautical engineers on here said you cannot scale one of these planes down in that manner expecting it to fly properly and guess what it did not. It's like first year aero math,For a trainer you need a Piper sport wing not a 66% scale M20J wing which doesn't stall all that greatly. 
 

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, KSMooniac said:

You are substantially correct.  For an M20-size plane, the chute would be in the ballpark of 80 lbs or so, plus whatever parasitic weight that would have to be added to integrate it, such as frangible covers for the risers and the rocket/canopy/etc.  It's just not practical for our planes with the current weight limits.  If I were given the task to modernize the M20, I would change the new Ultra shell to make it wider, add the retrofit oleo gear, and reduce some structural weight of the wing.  A longbody M20 with a 3600 lb MGW and 2200-2300 lb empty weight AND more shoulder room would be a much easier sale today.  And an optional chute for those so inclined...

 

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

You might as will be design a whole new plane this point and there's already one in that market segment that sells hundreds per year.
 

At least that money for the M10J was well spent. 

If the dream is to create a new Mooney, that is better than Cirrus (retractable gear, more useful load, and faster) it is entirely plausible that they may need to invest $200 million (after all it has been stated many times did the Chinese pissed away approximately $200 million on the development of the M20T and ultra). 
 

Given the risk of trying to re-enter the slow growing market with a clear leader, I would think investors would run their numbers based on a 30% return over 10 years. If Mooney could sell 200/yr (2,000 total) then that means $316,000 would need to be added to every plane sold in order for the investors to recover their development investment.  That would be on top of the variable costs of materials, engine, prop, avionics etc and labor, amortization of manufacturing facilities and equipment, and a return on those manufacturing investments and working capital. 
 

I suspect the price of a new base ovation would need to be way over $1 million. Yes, I’m sure they would sell a few but I don’t know how they could gain share.

[KSMooniac]

The economics are terrible.  I think $200 mil estimate to make a re-vamped M20 is higher than it would take, but I doubt a business case would close if $50-100 mil were the number either.  I believe a G36 is >$1 mil now, and they're not really moving at all.  The only way an M20 would thrive again is if it offered more than an SR in terms of speed and payload, and matched it with a chute perhaps.  Then it might sell at a premium price, but who knows if it would be enough to overcome the 2-3x factor on labor hours.  The design is such that it does not lend itself to automation at all, and to re-design it to support modern automated manufacturing would change the design enough to require a new airplane and certification cycle.  I believe my wish list could be accomplished with minimal re-cert activity and make it competitve, but it will still take too many thousands of hours to assemble and that is hard to overcome.

My powerball dream would have me purchase Mooney, AND the Lancair/Columbia/Corvalis IP and tooling from Textron and move it to Kerrville.  I would love to fix some of the issues with that great plane and put it back in production as a modern Mooney.  For those that don't know, it was originally lofted for an RG version down the road, and it would look great with a Mooney bird on the tail. 

[EricJ]

Beech can't sell Bonanzas, and they'll make one for anybody willing to pony up.    Piper still makes Archers, etc., but stopped making Arrows, which aren't much different and so there's probably not a big production barrier to cranking some out if it made sense to do so.   Likewise Cessna still makes fixed-gear Skylanes and Stationairs, but no 210s or RGs.  Diamond makes the DA50 and has been promoting it reasonably well, but nobody is saying much about sales.

If there was a market, these guys, and others, would be participating.   There just doesn't seem to be a market.

 

[Fly Boomer]

2 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

I suspect the price of a new base ovation would need to be way over $1 million. Yes, I’m sure they would sell a few but I don’t know how they could gain share.

That would be a trick.  Offering an airplane as good as, or even slightly better won't cut it.  And we haven't even discussed their dealer network, maintenance network, standardized instruction, and R&D (jet anyone?).  It's more than just an airplane -- it's a lifestyle.  I went to LXT to check out the latest MSC.  Spoke to three people on the airport property, and more than just "not sure", they were adamant that there was no Mooney Service Center on the field, and there was no hangar with a bunch of Mooneys parked around.  I was at Maxwell's once when he had 40 Mooneys sitting around waiting to get in, being worked on, or waiting to be picked up.  I'll bet if you go to an airport where there is a Cirrus facility, anyone you run into can point you in the right direction.  My point is that just being knighted with the Mooney logo and getting your name on a web site isn't enough.  Based entirely on external evidence, I'll bet there are no "invisible" Cirrus Service Centers.  In spite of all this, if someone gave me a Cirrus, I would probably sell it and get a newer Mooney, but they are doing everything right.  It's a juggernaut.

[aviatoreb]

Let’s 3D print a whole airplane.

[PT20J]

A while back, I was flying around and dropped in to KTIW for lunch. The ramp was full of Cirrus airplanes. I crossed paths with a young woman who was leaving the restaurant and she turned out to be the Cirrus regional sales rep and was delivering a brand new Cirrus from Deluth to it’s new owner. She had let the local Cirrus owners know and many had flown in for lunch and a look at the latest Cirrus. She asked to see my airplane and then showed me “hers.”

She didn’t get contact info from me. I thought that strange. I’ve run a sales team and the first rule is always get contact info for any potential prospect. Then it dawned on me: Cirrus doesn’t have to contact prospects; prospects contact them.

Skip

[T. Peterson]

2 hours ago, EricJ said:

Beech can't sell Bonanzas, and they'll make one for anybody willing to pony up.    Piper still makes Archers, etc., but stopped making Arrows, which aren't much different and so there's probably not a big production barrier to cranking some out if it made sense to do so.   Likewise Cessna still makes fixed-gear Skylanes and Stationairs, but no 210s or RGs.  Diamond makes the DA50 and has been promoting it reasonably well, but nobody is saying much about sales.

If there was a market, these guys, and others, would be participating.   There just doesn't seem to be a market.

 

It seems to me many can’t afford a million dollar airplane, and those who can will not spend it on a single engine piston. Those that have the wealth can probably afford a turbine or a twin. Therefore these manufacturers are in the unenviable position of selling a product to those that either can’t afford it or don’t want it.

[jetdriven]

Million dollar Cirrus SR-22s are sold out for 3 years 

[1980Mooney]

Per GAMA reported deliveries, the last Bonanza sold was in Q4 2020. And the Beechcraft Division of Textron has been marketing the Bonanza hard.

https://investor.textron.com/news/news-releases/press-release-details/2022/Textron-Aviation-Brings-New-Upgrades-to-Iconic-Piston-Product-Lineup/default.aspx
 

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2022/april/04/textron-announces-bonanza-gross-weight-increase
 

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/the-latest/2022/04/05/beechcraft-bonanza-and-baron-get-big-updates/

 

https://www.controller.com/blog/aircraft-news/2022/07/beechcraft-goes-back-in-time-at-eaa-airventure-2022-with-limited-edition-bonanza-g36

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/textron-introduces-75th-anniversary-beech-g36/

I love the Avweb lead-in “Embracing a retro theme, Textron has announced a 75th anniversary version”  And the Controller headline  “Beechcraft Goes Back In Time At EAA AirVenture 2022 With Limited-Edition Bonanza G36” 

“Retro” and “Back in time” Bonanza has added “three new interior schemes and a new cockpit layout with a standalone autopilot controller.” and  “a carbon monoxide detector integrated in the Garmin avionics system, USB ports at every seat, powered headset plugs in the cockpit”. And even with a “paper” GW increase that still leaves its UL short of the SR22 and SR22T, the Bonanza can’t seem to attract any buyers  

But in the 7 quarters of deliveries reported since then Cirrus has sold and delivered 785 SEP, (384 of those being SR22T costing about $1 million or more depending on options.)
 

And for those who have $3 million to spend Cirrus also sold and delivered 139 SF50 Vision Jets in the same period. 
 

Edited February 7, 2023 by 1980Mooney

[carusoam]

Was the death knell of the Mooney M10T…

1) Total MGTW and UL related…. Composites are not very light in their A design…

2) Did it use a laminar flow wing for a trainer?

Laminar flow is great for an AT version… (advanced trainer)

3) Did the engine live up to its HP promises?

4) Wish @Blue on Top could get WiFi connected where he is…. 

 

Best regards,

-a-

[0TreeLemur]

It seems to me that piston general aviation as we knew and loved it is dying a slow death.  At my field most of the GA moving people around does it with jets and turboprops.

People that can afford a >$1M airplane own or hold high-level positions in a large business.  Their aviation expenses provide a write-off.   The one Cirrus owner in my hangar is a real estate developer in a growing college town.  The rest of us schmucks are retired, near-retirement, or in one case, a surgeon who likes to fly Cessna's.  We're nursing our 30-50 year old airframes and struggling to get them worked on.  The big name FBO on our field does not care much about piston aviation.

As we know, many of us love our Mooneys.  Some fantastically wealthy people love them too.   But, at its heart, Mooney is a 60+ year old design that has just enough quirks to appeal to nerds, but not enough utility to fit a wide range of missions.

Sigh.

 

 

[MooneyMitch]

We miss Ron as a valuable wonderful person to humanity.

[Fly Boomer]

6 hours ago, PT20J said:

Cirrus doesn’t have to contact prospects; prospects contact them.

Pretty sure there is no cold calling from a list of prospects.  We used to call them “suspects” because we were chasing them — not the other way around.

[mccdeuce]

3 hours ago, 0TreeLemur said:

But, at its heart, Mooney is a 60+ year old design

To me the issue is more the 60+ year old engines or avionics that are still put into aircraft. The challenge is more that nothing has been done to keep certified aircraft affordable.

In 1960 a brand new M20A cost $16,000. (that's $156,000 today) but a brand new M20V costs well over a million and yet the overall airframe and engine are not that different. 

 

Ultimately this is where my retirement project goes.  I loved flying my Mooney, the flight characteristics are what I want. So can I build a family flier with modern composite wing? 

[T. Peterson]

7 hours ago, jetdriven said:

Million dollar Cirrus SR-22s are sold out for 3 years 

Absolutely true, but the gaping difference is that those airplanes have a parachute which provides a similar sense of security as a turbine or a twin. Note, I am not saying they are, or are not as safe as a turbine or twin, only that the perception of safety is much greater than the Bonanza’s, Pipers etc that were quoted as languishing in sales.
I should have said that the market is discriminating against million dollar single engine piston airplanes that are not parachute equipped.

[Pinecone]

Just remember, in 40 years there will be 60 year old Cirruses that may be affordable to the average person.

 

[EricJ]

46 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Just remember, in 40 years there will be 60 year old Cirruses that may be affordable to the average person.

 

And nearing or past their airframe life limit! 

[0TreeLemur]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

Just remember, in 40 years there will be 60 year old Cirruses that may be affordable to the average person.

 

And the required maintenance of the BRS will come with it's own attorney!   Oh, and you'll pay their salary too.

[1980Mooney]

5 hours ago, EricJ said:

And nearing or past their airframe life limit! 

12,000 hour life.  40 years - that is 300 hours/year.  How many Mooney’s fly anywhere close to that?!

I bet the average GA pilot struggles to fly 60 hours a year. Let’s ask @Parker_Woodruff  
 

Ok if it’s in a partnership, the plane will fly more - I get that.  I bet that the average Mooney will need 100 years to hit 12,000 hours. 
 

A P58 Baron life is limited to 10,000 hours 
 

Seems like a non-issue. 

[EricJ]

24 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

12,000 hour life.  40 years - that is 300 hours/year.  How many Mooney’s fly anywhere close to that?!

I bet the average GA pilot struggles to fly 60 hours a year. Let’s ask @Parker_Woodruff  
 

Ok if it’s in a partnership, the plane will fly more - I get that.  I bet that the average Mooney will need 100 years to hit 12,000 hours. 
 

A P58 Baron life is limited to 10,000 hours 
 

Seems like a non-issue. 

I was responding to the "60-year-old Cirruses" comment, as that's how long Cirrus thinks the 12000 life limit hours will last.

https://whycirrus.com/engineering/useful-life-inspections.aspx

As also mentioned, the parachutes will probably be prohibitively expensive to keep going for airplanes that old.    It probably shouldn't be expected that the same 60-year old repacks and pyrotechnics will still be available.

Composites don't tend to age as well as aluminum structures, too, and are harder to inspect.   I'd be pretty suspicious of a decades-old composite airframe.

I think of Cirrus and similar airplanes like Mercedes/Audi/Rover/etc., they're great to own when they're new, but not so much as they age.    Our fifty-year old beer cans are far easier to inspect and maintain than a fifty-year old composite structure.

[1980Mooney]

5 hours ago, EricJ said:

I was responding to the "60-year-old Cirruses" comment, as that's how long Cirrus thinks the 12000 life limit hours will last.

Hmmmm - that’s not what they said. They said that they have tested the components to 24,000 hours which is TWICE the “Life Limit” at which time more testing will be prescribed.  They clearly said it will last longer  

This safe “Life Limit” is a conservative number in which no testing -ZERO - is required.  

[Hank]

12 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Hmmmm - that’s not what they said. They said that they have tested the components to 24,000 hours which is TWICE the “Life Limit” at which time more testing will be prescribed.  They clearly said it will last longer  

This safe “Life Limit” is a conservative number in which no testing -ZERO - is required.  

And yet our old-fashioned aluminum airplanes also had no testing, and yet there are no Mooney parts / assemblies / airplanes that have Life Limits, or that require additional testing to use beyond a certain time frame or usage amount. Lycoming, Continental, Hartzell, McCauley and accessories excepted, and these same limitations apply to the various Cirri also.