philiplane Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 (edited) The reality is that Mooney will likely never build another airplane. There aren't enough buyers at the price Mooney needs to make a profit. The price Mooney needs is more than you'd pay for a more-capable Cirrus. Beech put the Baron and Bonanza lineup on ice. Cessna hasn't made competitive high performance piston planes in 40 years. And then they tried, and choked, with the TTx challenger to Cirrus. Piper put the Six/Saratoga/6X line on ice years ago, and now the Arrow and Seneca as well. The market has changed, older designs are out of production, and the winner is Cirrus. They are the only one introducing new capabilities to the light aircraft market. Mooney gave it one good, last go, with the last Acclaims. The large, dual door was a significant attempt to woo Cirrus customers. Let's face it, getting in and out of a Mooney was never easy, and now that pilots are bigger than ever, ease of entrance is a key factor. If that's a hassle, it doesn't matter how nice the interior is, or what cool gadgets are in the panel. Passengers want ease of use, creature comforts, connectivity, and safety if the pilot becomes incapacitated. Well, Cirrus gives them all of that. Big doors, big windows, satellite radio, phone, and texting. Air conditioning. A parachute, airbags, an envelope protection autopilot, and now, Auto Land. Push the button and land, and collect the pilot's life insurance policy payout. At a price point of $730k to $1.3 million. (SR20, SR22, to SR22T) That is the bar to meet, or exceed, for new airplane sales. The real challenge is keeping the Mooney Type Certificate alive to support the existing fleet. It really should be consolidated with as many legacy TC's as possible to lower total overhead costs. One manufacturing location making parts for a dozen or so legacy airplanes. Like Univair, but on steroids. The company should also make components for larger aerospace companies, like Mooney used to do. Making flight controls for F16's or ailerons for Boeing would be a good business that keeps the lights on. Edited January 23 by philiplane 2 1
Schllc Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 1 hour ago, philiplane said: The real challenge is keeping the Mooney Type Certificate alive to support the existing fleet. It really should be consolidated with as many legacy TC's as possible to lower total overhead costs. One manufacturing location making parts for a dozen or so legacy airplanes. Like Univair, but on steroids. The company should also make components for larger aerospace companies, like Mooney used to do. Making flight controls for F16's or ailerons for Boeing would be a good business that keeps the lights on. with chinese ownership, defense contracts are not permissible.
PeterRus Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 3 hours ago, hazek said: Well we all know what the answer is, don't we: Small market, huge costs to certify new stuff. New stuff breaks and people sue. I think a big part of the problem is public unwillingness to buy "new stuff": diesel engines, FADECs, etc. Someone said "I enjoy fiddling with mixture". I personally don't, and would much rather have a single power lever with "go faster" and "go slower" marks.
philiplane Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 26 minutes ago, PeterRus said: I think a big part of the problem is public unwillingness to buy "new stuff": diesel engines, FADECs, etc. Someone said "I enjoy fiddling with mixture". I personally don't, and would much rather have a single power lever with "go faster" and "go slower" marks. New stuff? Not a problem. But with regard to diesels, it's not because they're new. It's because they don't make any sense. You give up useful load, you save a tiny amount on fuel costs, and then you give it back times three on maintenance. Diesels are expensive to maintain. They have single-source parts ($$$$), life limited components, and a throw-away engine at TBO. There is only one supplier for that throw away engine.
Justin Schmidt Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 4 hours ago, Schllc said: FAA should be looking for ways to facilitate a transition. You are assuming faa doesn't want to end GA
Justin Schmidt Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 3 hours ago, philiplane said: and the winner is Cirrus I think sling is a very comparable plane, though wish they had a retractable. With the rotax 916. And experimental. 1
toto Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 1 minute ago, Justin Schmidt said: I think sling is a very comparable plane, though wish they had a retractable. With the rotax 916. And experimental. I generally think of an RV-10 as the closest to a Cirrus if you’re considering E-AB and not just certified aircraft. But it’s not really a fair fight. If you’re going E-AB you could have an RV-10 with a Corvette engine or a Lancair Evolution with a PT-6 and still be around the new Cirrus price point.
Justin Schmidt Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 Just now, toto said: I generally think of an RV-10 as the closest to a Cirrus if you’re considering E-AB and not just certified aircraft. But it’s not really a fair fight. If you’re going E-AB you could have an RV-10 with a Corvette engine or a Lancair Evolution with a PT-6 and still be around the new Cirrus price point. I'm comparing more with mooney capabilities. I believe a sling build assist is roughly $230k give or take. Performance is similar to pre k
Schllc Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 1 hour ago, Justin Schmidt said: You are assuming faa doesn't want to end GA Actually I do believe you are correct. I have said for years if someone came up with a list of orders to phase pistons out, this is exactly what they would do. I sincerely believe it’s an unwritten goal of the FAA to eliminate piston ga.
MikeOH Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 7 hours ago, Schllc said: I sincerely believe it’s an unwritten goal of the FAA to eliminate piston ga. Sadly, I agree. The question is why.
Justin Schmidt Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 26 minutes ago, MikeOH said: Sadly, I agree. The question is why. Just look at history since the 30s. Death by 1000 cuts. And the airlines now blame GA for any issue they have.
toto Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 9 hours ago, Justin Schmidt said: I'm comparing more with mooney capabilities. I believe a sling build assist is roughly $230k give or take. Performance is similar to pre k They say “under $400k” or “$330k for flat rate” (not sure what that means). Call it $350 ish. https://customaircraftbuilders.com/how-much-does-a-sling-tsi-high-wing-cost/ The Sling is interesting. I’ve watched Sling content from Mike Ojo and Josh Flowers + Chelsea on YouTube. Cool planes. My only concern would be the longevity of the company - and the viability of their dealer network in the US.
MikeOH Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 Just now, Justin Schmidt said: Just look at history since the 30s. Death by 1000 cuts. And the airlines now blame GA for any issue they have. Sure, but that doesn't really explain the reason why the FAA would want to eliminate GA. If the airlines want a scapegoat, then why would they pressure the FAA to get rid of us? And, while not nearly as large, we are still a revenue source. My opinion is that they only want to eliminate private small GA, not fractional/bizjet and commercial Part 135 and ag.
Justin Schmidt Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 8 minutes ago, MikeOH said: My opinion is that they only want to eliminate private small GA, not fractional/bizjet and commercial Part 135 and ag. I will concede that yes their target has been "smaller" ga. As to why, well that can get political and class and political warfare; nothing new. So without dragging too much in politics the simple and quick is power. Govt or those in power never have liked those that have money and pull that do not align with them. Our history is riddled with this. We are seen as those with too much, unfair, pull, and whatever else you want to assign to it for the flavor of the month. Matter of fact entire human history is exactly this.
1980Mooney Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 16 hours ago, MikeOH said: Sure, but that doesn't really explain the reason why the FAA would want to eliminate GA. If the airlines want a scapegoat, then why would they pressure the FAA to get rid of us? And, while not nearly as large, we are still a revenue source. My opinion is that they only want to eliminate private small GA, not fractional/bizjet and commercial Part 135 and ag. 16 hours ago, Justin Schmidt said: I will concede that yes their target has been "smaller" ga. As to why, well that can get political and class and political warfare; nothing new. So without dragging too much in politics the simple and quick is power. Govt or those in power never have liked those that have money and pull that do not align with them. Our history is riddled with this. We are seen as those with too much, unfair, pull, and whatever else you want to assign to it for the flavor of the month. Matter of fact entire human history is exactly this. The answer is simple. The amount of cash that small private GA (piston) contributes to the FAA is microscopic compared to time and resources that we consume. The latest total avgas deliveries that I can find was bout 412,000 gallons per day in early 2020's. The tax is 19.4 cents per gallon. That is $29 million per year which may sound big but is not that much today. I bet sales are down and the total is less today. But the 2026 ATC budget is $10.3 billion for daily operations plus another $12.5 billion for modernization capital spending this year alone (anyone that thinks that is all the FAA will need for ATC modernization is bonkers). Per FAA "Air Traffic by the Numbers", in 2024 General Aviation accounted for 16.3 million operations out of a total 48.3 million operations. GA accounts for about 1/3 of all daily operations Does GA take 1/3 of ATC time and resources? - NO but we take a significant portion and clutter up airspace that ATC has to monitor for Commercial Operations. Do we take up 10% of ATC time and resources - including keeping commercial aircraft away from us? - You can make a case that we do. GA pays for only 0.06% of the ATC daily operations but accounts for much much more of consumed resources. Commercial operators pay virtually all of the ATC budget. If GA paid 10% of the ATC budget with fuel taxes then we need to add $6.72 in tax to every gallon of AvGas that we buy. AvGas is about $5.90 today nationwide. So we need to start paying about $12.60/gallon. The average Mooney owner that flies 60 hours per year and burns about 10 gph needs to pay an additional $4,000/year. Let's take the ATC Modernization CAPEX spend that everyone is talking about - If GA pays for just 10% of it then we all need to write $7,000 checks to the FAA ($12 billion x 10% divided by about 170,000 GA piston aircraft including Experimental and Rotor). We always forget about the money that the FAA doles out to airports in the form of Grants for infrastructure. That was about$7 Billion in 2024. About $4 Billion of that is for Small airports - i.e General Aviation. Anytime it is discussed here most say "My tax on fuel pays for that - why should I pay fees or local taxes". Right - the "tax on fuel" that doesn't come close to covering ATC costs is also covering airport infrastructure - complete BS. We should be writing checks of about $23,000 each every year to reimburse the FAA for the airport infrastructure that we are using. Sum it up From the perspective of Commercial operators and DOGE, General aviation does not pay their way - not by a long shot. The view is that GA is being heavily subsidized by the Government. The typical Mooney owner should pay $4K more per year in fuel taxes to cover ATC operating costs $23K more per year for airport infrastructure upkeep and repair Another $7K right now for ATC Modernization (and you know the "Modernization" project will blow way past the overly optimistic budget" so it will need more and more and more....) Commercial operators and DOGE see GA as freeloaders. There are not many in the current administration that have a passion for flying at all let alone General Aviation on a budget. Their perspective of "general aviation" is from the back of a luxury jet flown by pro pilots. And the mantra of the current administration is that everyone should pay their way - "no government handouts". AirNav: Fuel Price Report Air Traffic by the Numbers_ FY2024
hammdo Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 Taxes pay that billion $ budget for the FAA so in essence, tax payers have paid — just so everyone takes that into account… but yes ‘little’ GA is a small part of the ‘repayment’… 3
MikeOH Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 @1980Mooney Yours is a perfect government answer. And, since the government is running things, not the people, I suspect you are correct. There are flaws in the argument, however: 1) Do you really believe the FAA budget would actually go down if GA was suddenly gone? Of course not. We are a scapegoat even if not a cash cow. The money is going to come from somewhere; if we are eliminated then even our paltry $29 million in avgas tax is going to come from the rest of aviation's users. 2) As I mentioned, GA is more than us 'rich folk'. Much of GA is actually NEEDED by the public. I don't see those businesses being eliminated by FAA edict. 3) This logic leads to the conclusion that each of us should be paying even more directly for each and every government service we use. If so, then my question is where is our GENERAL income tax going if not for services provided by the government to the public? When I was working over 50% of every incremental dollar of my income was taken by income taxes, not to mention sales tax, gas tax, property tax, etc. Thus, I rather bristle at the idea that I'm not paying my "fair share" and that I should be more than happy to pay for ATC services on top of that! Or, they just eliminate our small corner of the GA flying world and save what? Nothing. I simply don't believe, for a second, that the FAA's cost for ATC would drop one cent. 2
N201MKTurbo Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 54 minutes ago, MikeOH said: @1980Mooney Yours is a perfect government answer. And, since the government is running things, not the people, I suspect you are correct. There are flaws in the argument, however: 1) Do you really believe the FAA budget would actually go down if GA was suddenly gone? Of course not. We are a scapegoat even if not a cash cow. The money is going to come from somewhere; if we are eliminated then even our paltry $29 million in avgas tax is going to come from the rest of aviation's users. 2) As I mentioned, GA is more than us 'rich folk'. Much of GA is actually NEEDED by the public. I don't see those businesses being eliminated by FAA edict. 3) This logic leads to the conclusion that each of us should be paying even more directly for each and every government service we use. If so, then my question is where is our GENERAL income tax going if not for services provided by the government to the public? When I was working over 50% of every incremental dollar of my income was taken by income taxes, not to mention sales tax, gas tax, property tax, etc. Thus, I rather bristle at the idea that I'm not paying my "fair share" and that I should be more than happy to pay for ATC services on top of that! Or, they just eliminate our small corner of the GA flying world and save what? Nothing. I simply don't believe, for a second, that the FAA's cost for ATC would drop one cent. With two major airline maintenance facilities. And two major aircraft manufacturers in town along with a bunch of airline piece part manufacturers and repair stations, most of the FAA folks I deal with seem glad to talk about GA stuff. It is like a vacation for them.
Will.iam Posted January 25 Report Posted January 25 Just fly vfr and don’t talk to atc now you are not using their resources. 1
1980Mooney Posted January 25 Report Posted January 25 2 hours ago, hammdo said: Taxes pay that billion $ budget for the FAA so in essence, tax payers have paid — just so everyone takes that into account… but yes ‘little’ GA is a small part of the ‘repayment’… 2 hours ago, MikeOH said: @1980Mooney Yours is a perfect government answer. And, since the government is running things, not the people, I suspect you are correct. There are flaws in the argument, however: 1) Do you really believe the FAA budget would actually go down if GA was suddenly gone? Of course not. We are a scapegoat even if not a cash cow. The money is going to come from somewhere; if we are eliminated then even our paltry $29 million in avgas tax is going to come from the rest of aviation's users. 2) As I mentioned, GA is more than us 'rich folk'. Much of GA is actually NEEDED by the public. I don't see those businesses being eliminated by FAA edict. 3) This logic leads to the conclusion that each of us should be paying even more directly for each and every government service we use. If so, then my question is where is our GENERAL income tax going if not for services provided by the government to the public? When I was working over 50% of every incremental dollar of my income was taken by income taxes, not to mention sales tax, gas tax, property tax, etc. Thus, I rather bristle at the idea that I'm not paying my "fair share" and that I should be more than happy to pay for ATC services on top of that! Or, they just eliminate our small corner of the GA flying world and save what? Nothing. I simply don't believe, for a second, that the FAA's cost for ATC would drop one cent. You miss a major point. Commercial aviation pays to the US Govt (in fuel taxes and passenger fees and other fees) all or all of the ATC Operating Budget. Commercial aviation reimburses the General Fund the entire expense of ATC. In 2022 they paid $11.4 Billion vs our $29 million. I am sure that recently arrested "fake pilot" that was catching flights for free for the past 3 years will use your same argument in his defense - "Do you really think the Airline would have saved money if I wasn't riding in the jump seat"!..."
hammdo Posted January 25 Report Posted January 25 Technically, the flying public/freight pays those fees/taxes (again) + profit but yes, it does go back to the feds… -Don
1980Mooney Posted January 25 Report Posted January 25 48 minutes ago, Will.iam said: Just fly vfr and don’t talk to atc now you are not using their resources. Fly VFR and don't talk?.... also don't land at a towered airport...also don't land at a untowered airport where any commercial aircraft operate... basically don't get in any airspace where a commercial flight might operate. Otherwise you have to be monitored, flights diverted around you since you are not talking to anyone and you are using their resources.
MikeOH Posted January 25 Report Posted January 25 57 minutes ago, Will.iam said: Just fly vfr and don’t talk to atc now you are not using their resources. Not too practical in the Los Angeles area, I'm afraid 1
MikeOH Posted January 25 Report Posted January 25 11 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said: I am sure that recently arrested "fake pilot" that was catching flights for free for the past 3 years will use your same argument in his defense - "Do you really think the Airline would have saved money if I wasn't riding in the jump seat"!..." You can't be serious. That's absurd to equate a crook that is committing theft from a corporation with my expectation of services from a government agency my taxes pay for. My argument is not a defense to an illegal action, but to the reality that the elimination of recreational GA wouldn't affect the FAA budget one bit.
Schllc Posted January 25 Report Posted January 25 There is no way ga will ever be anything but an expense, this is a fact. But there is also an industry based on this genre, they participate in keeping a lot of the rural airports maintained and current. There is a national security element to functional airports as well, many only accessible with our little pistons. Then there is the training and practice for air traffic controllers and the pipeline for pilots. The whole thing is an ecosystem, can’t just eliminate a part without consequences. the challenge I see is that they have the 135, and 121 rules that are incredibly stringent and expensive, which is 90% of their work, of course they are annoyed with the 10%. Nobody really wants to touch the issue for whatever reason. It would be much better to have a different set of rules for piston GA. I mean even part 91 is just not conducive to innovation. Everyone on every level and side knows that this is a functional deterrent. If it doesn’t get any easier, and keeps getting more difficult it will die. 2
Recommended Posts