CEO of Mooney

[toto]

21 minutes ago, cliffy said:

Bonus question=   How many 2 door airplanes rolled out of the factory? 

I'm guessing .. less than 10?

I actually thought the two-door aircraft were almost peerless in the field.  An Acclaim Ultra for $795k was a heck of a lot of airplane for the money, especially when compared with $1M+ for a loaded SR22.  The problem with the Ultras is that there were so many questions about factory viability right when they were doing a big marketing splash to launch the new models.

Sinking money into the M10 was probably the right move, and getting a legit foothold in the trainer market could well have spurred more step-up buyers to the M20s.  But they just seemed to run out of money right when they needed to be closing sales, and if I were a buyer in that market, I would have been nervous.

It's easy to Monday-morning QB this all now, but if they had had a press release saying they got a $100M infusion to modernize the factory and announce the two-door M20s, that might have helped ease any concerns about viability.  But announcing the Ultras right after spending a ton of money developing the M10 and then canceling it might have doomed the M20s.

I really enjoyed learning about this period from Ron Blum's posts here on MS and in the Mooney Flyer, and it's a shame we can't hear more from him today.

[LANCECASPER]

I'm guessing .. less than 10?

No need to guess.

The FAA search on M20V (Acclaim Ultra) shows 18 registered in the U. S. There may be a few that were exported.



 
The FAA search on M20U (Ovation Ultra) shows 12 registered in the U. S. There may be a few that were exported.



 
 
So at least 30 two door Mooneys were made. 

[Shadrach]

6 hours ago, toto said:

I'm guessing .. less than 10?

I actually thought the two-door aircraft were almost peerless in the field.  An Acclaim Ultra for $795k was a heck of a lot of airplane for the money, especially when compared with $1M+ for a loaded SR22.  The problem with the Ultras is that there were so many questions about factory viability right when they were doing a big marketing splash to launch the new models..

Apparently the discount it was not enough. I think factory viability was an issue for sure, but t might also have also had something to do with the typical SR22T having a chute and 200lbs of useful over a fully loaded M20TN. 

[Matthew P]

18 hours ago, dkkim73 said:

When I visited in February, they were doing outside contract manufacturing. There is a lot of tooling capability and space there. Felt like few people, but sounded like a lot of them were highly-skilled. And there was a parts cage with parts they continue to make for Mooneys. 

Except for the parts the MSCs and customers are asking for..i.e. 40:1 gears and actuator motors

[LANCECASPER]

5 minutes ago, Matthew P said:

Except for the parts the MSCs and customers are asking for..i.e. 40:1 gears and actuator motors

In its entire history Mooney has never made 40:1 gears or actuator motors and I’m pretty sure they never will.

Eaton is the latest company that has made actuator motors. Another maker in the past that made them was Plessey.

[Matthew P]

3 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

In its entire history Mooney has never made 40:1 gears or actuator motors and I’m pretty sure they never will.

Eaton is the latest company that has made actuator motors. Another maker in the past that made them was Plessey.

I didn't mean that they make them literally, that have them made, like for the 40:1 gears, in discussion with Mr. Pollack about the issue of getting them to contact their manufacturer of the gears to get a run done.

 

[WilliamR]

15 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Do tell? What areas is the build quality “mid”? What year is your Mooney?  Given the tech at the time they were designed, I think they show remarkably well.

Currently, I own an 86 M20K. Purchased with no changes from the factory other than a new engine and overhauled prop.

Lots of plastic on the interior compared to a same year Beechcraft. Fit and finish inside of the cabin including placement of certain accessories/wiring is meh. Lots of screws in interior panels when clips would have been much better and looked cleaner. Some skin joints and fairings aren't very smooth.

Also know of two people that bought new Mooneys about 10-15 years ago. They ran into things like an inspection panel not being painted, etc.

The wrinkles in the leather interior panels and fit of some panels in the most recent Acclaim demonstrator a few years ago didn't show well either. Paint on one panel was slightly mis-matched, too. When I looked at the Cirrus G7 demonstrator, it was very clean. Everything fit; interior and exterior.

Gear system with no back spring clutch isn't the most robust system out there.

So....mid.

Not trying to pick a fight. If people feel Mooneys are the pinnacle of quality and refinement, bully. Clearly, I see some value as I've been an owner for 20+ years and have been flying them for 35+. 

William

 

[Texas Mooney]

1 minute ago, Matthew P said:

I didn't mean that they make them literally, that have them made, like for the 40:1 gears, in discussion with Mr. Pollack about the issue of getting them to contact their manufacturer of the gears to get a run done.

Only one continuing problem for Mooney - no spare cash to invest in inventory - and when they do pay a third party to set-up a manufacturing run, they don't have the cash to order in a large economic order quantity that would drive price down.  This is the same story with the "No Back Spring" in the landing gear actuators, the air intake boot on the F, the dial faces in the wing fuel gauges, etc., etc.....  They live "hand to mouth".

[LANCECASPER]

10 minutes ago, Matthew P said:

I didn't mean that they make them literally, that have them made, like for the 40:1 gears, in discussion with Mr. Pollack about the issue of getting them to contact their manufacturer of the gears to get a run done.

 

Mooneys biggest years of production were in the 1960s and 1970s, meaning much of the fleet is 50-60 years old.

General Motors or Ford has no obligation to go out and try to get vendors to produce parts for cars were made that many years ago. If you own one of those cars you’ll have to get creative and source used parts to keep that car going. 

The latest corporation to use the Mooney name has only made Ovations and Acclaims. They are keeping the airplanes they sold flying, and to their credit they are producing necessary airframe parts, that Mooney of old originally made, to help support the older airplanes. If you want to convert an airplane that never had 40:1 gears you’ll have to do what many others have done and find them. There are also used actuators that come up through aircraft salvage yards. You would not want to pay the price for a new actuator if they were available, at least $20,000.

[LANCECASPER]

2 minutes ago, Texas Mooney said:

Only one continuing problem for Mooney - no spare cash to invest in inventory - and when they do pay a third party to set-up a manufacturing run, they don't have the cash to order in a large economic order quantity that would drive price down.  This is the same story with the "No Back Spring" in the landing gear actuators, the air intake boot on the F, the dial faces in the wing fuel gauges, etc., etc.....  They live "hand to mouth".

The biggest problem with the no back spring is that a number of months ago Eaton said that they were nine months behind on production at the plant that makes those parts.

[Shadrach]

3 minutes ago, WilliamR said:

Currently, I own an 86 M20K. Purchased with no changes from the factory other than a new engine and overhauled prop.

Lots of plastic on the interior compared to a same year Beechcraft. Fit and finish inside of the cabin including placement of certain accessories/wiring is meh. Lots of screws in interior panels when clips would have been much better and looked cleaner. Some skin joints and fairings aren't very smooth.

Also know of two people that bought new Mooneys about 10-15 years ago. They ran into things like an inspection panel not being painted, etc.

The wrinkles in the leather interior panels and fit of some panels in the most recent Acclaim demonstrator a few years ago didn't show well either. Paint on one panel was slightly mis-matched, too. When I looked at the Cirrus G7 demonstrator, it was very clean. Everything fit; interior and exterior.

Gear system with no back spring clutch isn't the most robust system out there.

So....mid.

Not trying to pick a fight. If people feel Mooneys are the pinnacle of quality and refinement, bully. Clearly, I see some value as I've been an owner for 20+ years and have been flying them for 35+. 

William

 

No brand is the pinnacle of quality.  System and materials change. Some things age better than others. Some model years age better than others.

I think your Bonanza comparison is a bit ridiculous.  I don't know what a new A36 sold fore in 1986, but I do know that in 1970 (first year) that a new, well equipped A36 would top 45K while the F model was just under 30K.  I would expect a finer fit and finish with a price delta of >50%. Having several hours in a box stock 1971 A36, I can tell you that it is bit better but it's not that significant.

Most of the things that you mention are pretty easily remedied by decent interior shop.

[A64Pilot]

A mooney is similar to the Meyers 200 in manufacture. I’m pretty familiar with the Meyers as I ran the plant that made them for 15 years. It was long before my tenure but there was a lot of records etc still there and even a couple of Employees that built them still working.

For those that aren’t familiar the Meyers AKA Commander 200 was and may still be the fastest single engine NA airplane that had way more steel tubing than any Mooney, it’s sort of unusual as even though the majority were produced 50 or more years ago it’s never had an airframe AD.

Aero Commander ceased production when it became clear that they could never recoup the cost of production, it took many, many hours to produce that steel cage and wing structure etc.

These type of aircraft are sort of like Ferrari’s and other Supercars in that they are very intensive in labor, and there is just no way without a complete redesign to get those hours out of it.

But you know even Cirrus that brought modern manufacturing to an airplane and greatly simplified them still has to get seven figures to make money, and even they aren’t making tons of it.

I have a friend that was in on the Toyota airplane years ago, bottom line Toyota wanted badly to build a single engine piston airplane for the prestige, got real far into the development phase, ended the project not because they couldn’t, they ended it because they decided it would never make a profit. Honda built the Jet for Prestige, and I doubt they will ever break even even though the bizjet market as a whole has always been profitable.

I’m afraid that the dream of the common man being able to buy a new “real” airplane is dead and has been for a long time.

I put real in parenthesis because I just can’t get excited about a Rotax powered plastic airplane myself, I can’t consider them as “real”

Every year that goes by our airplanes get older and most deteriorate, a few are well kept at ever increasing costs, but those are becoming unicorns. Every year there are fewer and fewer airworthy GA common man type of aircraft.

If you have one, cherish and enjoy it because we might just be among the last Generation that can live the dream

[Texas Mooney]

10 hours ago, toto said:

I actually thought the two-door aircraft were almost peerless in the field.  An Acclaim Ultra for $795k was a heck of a lot of airplane for the money, especially when compared with $1M+ for a loaded SR22.  ....

Sinking money into the M10 was probably the right move, and getting a legit foothold in the trainer market could well have spurred more step-up buyers to the M20s.  

Peerless?  Every airplane is a balancing act of compromises.  Shine/excel in one area but not in all - maybe ever weak in some.  It's like beauty or art - in the eye of the beholder.  Useful load is important to many.  There is a reason that Beechcraft sold over 18,000 Bonanza's.  

I fail to see how training in a composite M10T trainer with a Continental CD-135 diesel engine would spur a new pilot to seek out an old steel and aluminum Mooney with a Lycoming (or maybe Cont 6) avgas motor.

3 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Apparently the discount it was not enough. I think factory viability was an issue for sure, but t might also have also had something to do with the typical SR22T having a chute and 200lbs of useful over a fully loaded M20TN. 

The notion that Mooney Ultra's sold at a discount or bargain to Cirrus is rubbish.  The touted "$795,000" price for an Ultra Acclaim announced in 2016 was for a plane without AC or FIKI.  AC was a $29,000 option and FIKI was $65,000.  Add those options and that takes the price to $889,000.  

The price list for a loaded GTS SR22T with FIKI and AC in 2017 was $877,00.  And useful load was still over 1,200 lbs. with a chute and full options.

2017-SR22T-International-Pricelist - CIRRUS Aircraft - PDF Catalogs | Technical Documentation | Brochure (aeroexpo.online)

The bigger problem was that on the Mooney, FIKI and AC cut into the marginal 980 lbs UL without options.  Even Flying Magazine claimed that they were happy to not have AC on the Ultra due to the 66 lbs. weight penalty.  FIKI weighs another 95 lbs.  Fully loaded an Ultra Acclaim UL drops to about 820 lbs.  Imagine telling your spouse that you are going to pay $800,000 for a new plane WITHOUT AC.  

Actually the biggest problem is that Mooney was selling every Ultra at a loss.....

The Mooney M20U Ovation Ultra is a Product of Big Investment - FLYING Magazine

Mooney Acclaim Ultra: Tops in Raw Speed - Aviation Consumer

Edited June 11 by Texas Mooney

[cliffy]

Let's not forget that the impetuous for the M10 was a perceived Chinese market   IIRC

[Shadrach]

9 minutes ago, Texas Mooney said:

Peerless?  Every airplane is a balancing act of compromises.  Shine/excel in one area but not in all - maybe ever weak in some.  It's like beauty or art - in the eye of the beholder.  Useful load is important to many.  There is a reason that Beechcraft sold over 18,000 Bonanza's.  

I fail to see how training in a composite M10T trainer with a Continental CD-135 diesel engine would spur a new pilot to seek out an old steel and aluminum Mooney with a Lycoming (or maybe Cont 6) avgas motor.

The notion that Mooney Ultra's sold at a discount or bargain to Cirrus is rubbish.  The touted "$795,000" price for an Ultra Acclaim announced in 2016 was for a plane without AC or FIKI.  AC was a $29,000 option and FIKI was $65,000.  Add those options and that takes the price to $889,000.  

The price list for a loaded GTS SR22T with FIKI and AC in 2017 was $877,00.  And useful load was still over 1,200 lbs. with a chute and full options.

2017-SR22T-International-Pricelist - CIRRUS Aircraft - PDF Catalogs | Technical Documentation | Brochure (aeroexpo.online)

The bigger problem was that on the Mooney, FIKI and AC cut into the marginal 980 lbs UL without options.  Even Flying Magazine claimed that they were happy to not have AC on the Ultra due to the 66 lbs. weight penalty.  FIKI weighs another 95 lbs.  Fully loaded an Ultra Acclaim UL drops to about 820 lbs.  Imagine telling your spouse that you are going to pay $800,000 for a new plane WITHOUT AC.  

Actually the biggest problem is that Mooney was selling every Ultra at a loss.....

The Mooney M20U Ovation Ultra is a Product of Big Investment - FLYING Magazine

Mooney Acclaim Ultra: Tops in Raw Speed - Aviation Consumer

You're preaching to the choir. Read my earlier post. It always been my contention that Mooney's evolved into a machine the appealed to a very small segment of the market at a price point that narrowed the appeal further. They hung their hat on being the fastest and and most efficient. Perhaps it was the lowest hanging fruit.  I admire the aircraft a great deal but if I found myself in a situation where it made financial sense to buy a new aircraft in the 1mm range, there are others that would be on my short list.

[Texas Mooney]

On 6/8/2024 at 2:01 PM, cliffy said:

We don't fly biplanes anymore like we did in the 1920s. Anymore than a sheet metal, hand built airplane out of the 1950s is viable as a marketable product today compared to the industry leader Cirrus with a plastic airframe (regardless of performance).

The technology moves on as does the market. We can have our heads buried in the sand from nostalgia of things that were BUT that won't change the market place demand. Take a hard look at who and why they are buying new plastic airplanes. Ponding rivets into sheet metal has no future as a wide marketable product

 

On 6/9/2024 at 4:53 PM, A64Pilot said:

If you look at a Cirrus they should take a fraction of the time to build.

Fuselage pops out of a mold and is glued together, no retract mechanisms, not even a steerable nose wheel to build parts for, rig etc. I heard  here that there even isn’t a mechanical elevator trim.

 

On 6/9/2024 at 8:39 PM, toto said:

... but there are definitely examples of current metal aircraft designs that compete with composites.

 

41 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I’m afraid that the dream of the common man being able to buy a new “real” airplane is dead and has been for a long time.

I put real in parenthesis because I just can’t get excited about a Rotax powered plastic airplane myself, I can’t consider them as “real”

In GA single engine piston, yes there are still examples of current metal aircraft designs that compete with composites.  But those are legacy designs with sunk cost.  Eyeballing the GAMA numbers, about 950 of the 1,508 SEP (and electric) delivered in 2023 were composite or "plastic" as many label them.  Some have gone "hybrid" like TECNAM which has retained metal wings and empennage but converted the fuselage to composite in their 244 deliveries.  The direction of new models or entrants seems to be clear.

[toto]

8 minutes ago, Texas Mooney said:

Some have gone "hybrid" like TECNAM which has retained metal wings and empennage but converted the fuselage to composite in their 244 deliveries.  The direction of new models or entrants seems to be clear.

To be fair, the hybrid approach was also used by the Mooney Ultra models.

 

[M20F]

I heard from this guy at an airport I stopped randomly at to get gas, who knows a guy whose brother dates a girl in Canada, who knows this guy, who knows the CEO of Mooney, and he told me they are raffling a new Acclaim at Osh Kosh.  
 

The only bummer is apparently you need to use bitcoin to buy a ticket.  Anyone know anything about getting bitcoin? 

[Texas Mooney]

32 minutes ago, toto said:

To be fair, the hybrid approach was also used by the Mooney Ultra models.

I was referring to "hybrid" composites as structural load bearing members. The composite shell on the Ultra is not structural load bearing.  It is wrapped over the 1950's era steel frame which is load bearing.

[KSMooniac]

2 hours ago, Texas Mooney said:

I fail to see how training in a composite M10T trainer with a Continental CD-135 diesel engine would spur a new pilot to seek out an old steel and aluminum Mooney with a Lycoming (or maybe Cont 6) avgas motor.

 

1 hour ago, cliffy said:

Let's not forget that the impetuous for the M10 was a perceived Chinese market   IIRC

 

The 2014+ version of Mooney International had a great vision and plan IMO, but failed on the execution, unfortunately.  I thought the M10T/M10J idea was a great idea to enter a rapidly-growing market AND drag Mooney into the modern era for GA manufacturing.  If the M10T had succeeded, it likely would have taken a lot of market share from the 172/PA-28 trainer sales in the US and international markets.  Pilot training is still dominated by the US market due to our freedoms, lower costs, and large number of training options/locations.  It was thought that the Chinese market would open to train more of their own pilots too, and establishing a parallel production line over there was a good idea.

Not many know it, but Jerry Chen had a vision for M20 replacement models as well that would make Mooney relevant to customers like us that use the planes for personal and business travel.  He knew the M20 had a limited life left as a new production model, and wanted to leverage the M10 development into the step-up airplanes like we dream about as replacements for our vintage birds.  I'm glad that some money was invested back into Kerrville and the M20 line, even if it didn't prove to be successful.  I believe it was setting the table for a new era there, but obviously did not fully succeed.

IMO, they missed a golden opportunity on the Ultras... yes, a second door was needed, but what was needed more was a gross weight increase (and/or airframe weight reduction!!) AND a cabin width increase.  Ron Blum and I talked about this all the time, and he swore that they could have bumped the new composite cabin shell width out noticeably, and not lost any measurable cruise speed.  It's a shame that was not done.  I don't know if the new gear design was started back then or not, but it would have helped.  I also believe weight could be removed from the wing and still maintain a ridiculous factor of safety.  Combine all of those and imagine a 310 hp long body with a 3600 lb gross weight and more cabin width... now you have a class-leader, even at $1 mil.  (I'll even begrudgingly admit adding a damn chute would help with sales, and that was being studied too.) 

Regrettably, the M10T POC was not a good airplane for a number of reasons, and apparently was not salvageable economically.  It was a great concept, but IMO got off to a bad start with the initial design that was off-loaded to a 3rd-party company consisting of professors and students or new grads with little or no experience working real projects.  It was incredibly overweight and did not fly real well from what I gathered.  The engineering staff on that program was fairly large relative to the size of the project, and had a lot of people dedicated to things like interior design and other non-critical tasks before the basic plane was optimized and flying well.   (my opinion only!)  Mooney International was trying to do too much right out of the gate and simultaneously, and had they gotten the M10T right, perhaps it would have evolved much differently, and we'd be seeing hundreds of them fly away every year right now from a healthy factory in Kerrville that would also be producing some M20's and parts for all of us.

If I had a few hundred million to spare, I'd happily buy Mooney today and try to execute that vision.    (I also have another part of that dream but I'll keep that to myself)

[jetdriven]

This M10T program was a disaster from the beginning, you could look at the thing and tell you that some engineering and design students had scaled  down the M20J airplane. but they scaled down the wing too, and it’s too thin and it was too small and it would never work. You don’t have to actually fly something like this to realize it wouldnt work, but I guess if you want it bad enough if you can make it happen right? But they are still required to obey the laws of physics.  After they start flying it and realize it needs a whole new wing, They don’t really have an airplane anymore. Not to mention the CD-135 engine engine I’m not sure it was all that worked out yet either.

But what they should’ve done is use that money to modernize their obsolete current products.

[M20F]

11 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

But what they should’ve done is use that money to modernize their obsolete current products.

It ain’t a 737 they need a whole new plane ala Cirrus-like which ain’t gonna happen.  I seriously have made Orville Reddenbacher rich over the years because of these threads.

Cirrus is selling $1B in new planes a year, think the market has spoken and it ain’t Beech, Cessna, Piper, and certainly not Mooney.   

[Matthew P]

Well, maybe China has all of the drawings for the parts we need and we can start buying them from China to keep our fleet flying...anyone know how to say "Do you have any 40:1 gear sets laying around/" in Chinese

 

[201Mooniac]

3 hours ago, Texas Mooney said:

Only one continuing problem for Mooney - no spare cash to invest in inventory - and when they do pay a third party to set-up a manufacturing run, they don't have the cash to order in a large economic order quantity that would drive price down.  This is the same story with the "No Back Spring" in the landing gear actuators, the air intake boot on the F, the dial faces in the wing fuel gauges, etc., etc.....  They live "hand to mouth".

I'm not even sure if lack of cash is the problem.  I was speaking with one MSC and they offered to collect up pre-paid orders for the parts run from their customers and other MSCs and Mooney turned them down.  This would not have been a lack of cash issue for the factory, they just didn't seem to want to get the parts run done, I have no explanation for why that might be the case.

[EricJ]

1 minute ago, 201Mooniac said:

I'm not even sure if lack of cash is the problem.  I was speaking with one MSC and they offered to collect up pre-paid orders for the parts run from their customers and other MSCs and Mooney turned them down.  This would not have been a lack of cash issue for the factory, they just didn't seem to want to get the parts run done, I have no explanation for why that might be the case.

It's likely another resource limitation, then, perhaps just not enough people.    If they're busy with their contract manufacturing business and they're making money at it, dealing with Mooney parts may be a distraction.