March 2012: Flying Magazine Article On The M20J

[fantom]

 Much to early to be posting...

[John Pleisse]

Quote: Mitch

I'd love to know more about this.... If they keep all of the jigs and still can make the wing and the empenage, it's relative. If they sold wing jigs, etc..... I find that disconcerting.....very.

[jetdriven]

Wasn't it Bill Wheat that said their macheinery had been either been sold or was so broken down, and "they would never build airplanes again"??     Or am i miataken.

Quote: DonMuncy

From what authoritative source did you get the information that they had sold off tooling.

[aviatoreb]

Not saying I want to see the Mooney become composite - I don't - but just for discussion I pointing out an interesting parallel story.  Here is a company called Saravin that copied the Piper Comanche and turned it into an all composite kit with just a few minor aerodynamic modern twists.

http://www.saravin.com/img/Image%20Gallery%20Planes/index.html

[Hank]

Quote: KSMooniac

The OEM cost difference between an IO-360 and IO-550 is less than $10,000.  An M20R airframe costs just a little bit more than an M20J airframe b/c of the stretched fuselage, but otherwise they are nearly identical in terms of labor and raw material costs.  We could argue about avionics and that is a legitimate debate, but the stripped-down Eagle didn't sell very well, so I think there isn't much of a debate unless a ground-up new panel with an Aspen or Avidyne or whatever *might* get the price down compared to G1000 or steam gauges.  

Three major ingredients are truly needed to revitalize our little slice of the universe:  more tort reform (to reduce liability costs), more demand (more pilots, and especially "regular" people realizing how useful and rewarding GA can be), and a step-change in manufacturing and regulation to drive down production costs.  

I thought we would get there in production costs with the modern composite airframes, but neither Cirrus or Columbia/Cessna have figured out how to reduce the labor and integrate parts with better composite design to the extent that is required to make things less expensive.  Perhaps the next generation of GA airframes will get there...if there are any customers in 10+ years.  Mooney is certainly stuck with a legacy plane that requires a lot of skilled man-hours to produce and is not suited to automation due to low-volume and huge capital expense to set up equipment.  Obviously they don't have the capital or man power to develop a replacement, either, and I'm afraid it will be a minor miracle if they ever re-start the lines.  (I certainly hope so of course, and they've risen from ashes a few times already.)  I've always wondered if they could "tweak" the design a bit to stretch the fuselage WIDTH, and strengthen the landing gear or revise the flaps (not sure which limits the gross weight) in order to make a roomier plane with more useful load...

[sellis]

Quote: jetdriven

Supposedly mooney sold a lot of the high value tooling to raise cash, so they will never build airplanes again.    I heard that at the mapa homecoming.  

[Seth]

Thank you Stacey!  Always good to hear from the Mooney Aviation Company!  We all love our Mooneys.

-Seth

[David Mazer]

Quote: sellis

 We have not sold any machines, jigs, tooling, etc. Why do people start rumors that have no clue?

[PTK]

Quote: jetdriven

Supposedly mooney sold a lot of the high value tooling to raise cash, so they will never build airplanes again.    I heard that at the mapa homecoming.  

[jetdriven]

I am glad it is not true.   I heard it at the MAPA homecoming to the effect the expensive tooling was sold or raided.   Which is why I wanted to post and see if it was true, hence, the "supposedly" part.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: sellis

 We have not sold any machines, jigs, tooling, etc. Why do people start rumors that have no clue?