Mooney back in American hands!

Maybe this group can finally get the tails on right way 'round
 
So the chinese investors who are 'in it with a 20 year vision' are already tired of the company ? Did they find out that there is zero innovative technology to steal ?
 
mooooooooonnneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyy

c6ddbe72284597.5be229f8bf959.gif
 
Lowflynjack said:
Oh wow... someone is going to take over Mooney and make it more competitive! That's never been promised before.
Click to expand...

They are?:eek: I read nothing about that in the linked story. The story I read indicated that their primary function will be to support the existing fleet.
 
More likely, based on the statement release, it appears just merely a Fletchair, Webco (et al) styled niche PMA/part support outfit focus for orphany types, M20 variant fleet in this case. Which in fairness, has been a clamor among mooniacs for the longest time. But a substantive OEM player going forward? Facts not in evidence.

The guy is not wrong in highlighting the theoretical importance of BRS inclusion, and useful load re-certification in order to market better vis a vis Cirrus. But those are universally agreeable market research abstractions that have zero bearing on these type-owner-investors' ability to actually bring products to market, given the history of this moribund manufacturer. I'd say capturing the plant to provide a facility to support the type is about as good a deal mooney owners will get going forward, until the money runs out again.

Now I don't know anything about how Webco and Fletchair stay in business (nor for how long they even intend to in the first place, based on their ownership line of succession) serving their respective fleets, but I'd say the footprint Mooney's got in Kerville is unlikely to be solvent long term on just a fleet support basis. I wish them well, but I don't foresee bona fide OEM offerings coming out of this "type-owner focused" iteration. At some point the merciful thing for your loved one is to sign that standing DNR release already. :D
 
MBDiagMan said:
They are?:eek: I read nothing about that in the linked story. The story I read indicated that their primary function will be to support the existing fleet.
Click to expand...
They want to build a lighter cowling and lighter plane so they can start putting parachutes in them to compete with Circus.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Using a 60+ year old design. That’s the problem.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's proven, works very well for its intended purpose, has already been paid for long ago, and has a cult following. Might be a market for a cheaper Cirrus. Wish them well.
 
WDD said:
Yeah, but it's proven, works very well for its intended purpose, has already been paid for long ago, and has a cult following. Might be a market for a cheaper Cirrus. Wish them well.
Click to expand...

Mooney, as well as others, participated in their own obsolescence.

But their are all sorts of those cults out there. Old cars, old tractors, old motorbikes, all have a "cult following". I don't participate in cults.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Mooney, as well as others, participated in their own obsolescence.

But their are all sorts of those cults out there. Old cars, old tractors, old motorbikes, all have a "cult following". I don't participate in cults.
Click to expand...

You got an Iphone or a Samsung?
 
It's almost certain that the vast majority of buyers that wanted and purchased a Mooney in the past decade or two...didn't buy a new one from Kerrville.

Hope springs eternal, but the prospects of Mooney ever again selling any material quantity of new airplanes in the world we live in today is pretty slim. The "bones" they are working with are just too aged.

sarangan said:
...Were these Chinese investors actually interested in aviation, or were they just investors looking to make money?
Click to expand...

I had to chuckle when I read this. Any "investors", regardless of nationality, that aren't looking to make money need to have their heads examined. Only charities can survive with that mentality.

Perhaps that's the way we should view the light airplane manufacturing industry today... a bunch of marginal cottage industry companies desperately trying to avoid becoming charity cases.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't this same thing tried with Bellanca? Where there was an ownership group of dedicated owners that decide to buy the assets to make parts and update the fleet in the hopes they'd gain approval to start manufacturing again.

I like the idea of being a service center and becoming a hot rod shop. Buying/refurbishing the old. Adding mods, avionics, and paint. But I don't think that really goes far enough. The M-20 was designed in 1953. That's the biggest problem. They've had one model for 65 years. They were really close to making breakthroughs a few times. First with the 301, then more recently with the M-10t/j. If the M10 was a four place, or an option to enlarge to a 4 place it might have had more of a chance. It looked really sharp. Retractable just doesn't have the same luster in a 4 place as it once did. You have Cirrus, Columbia/Corvallis/TTX, and Diamond showing you can go pretty quick keeping the wheels down. Less to insure, less to maintain, less to remember. The overweight, forgetful, and aesthetically needy Americans of 2020 have passed the design from 1953 by.
 
Lowflynjack said:
They want to build a lighter cowling and lighter plane so they can start putting parachutes in them to compete with Circus.
Click to expand...
They already tried with the two doors. The people with money who are pilots and interested in buying a new plane are limited in numbers, and they're not Mooney obsessives or care solely about speed V fuel burn. They want a modern comfortable platform that their wife thinks is safe and has a fantastic support network. A new cowl "wow!" ain't gonna do it

Doc Holliday said:
Using a 60+ year old design. That’s the problem.
Click to expand...
Yup! Even if they juice up the weights and throw a chute on there are many reasons it won't sell..

WDD said:
Yeah, but it's proven, works very well for its intended purpose, has already been paid for long ago, and has a cult following. Might be a market for a cheaper Cirrus. Wish them well.
Click to expand...
The cult following is old and thinning out. And it really hasn't proven anything in the last 15 years, at least not according to their sales even with their proven design and cult following

It's not just Mooney though. People just aren't buying "new" 70 year old planes. Bonanza, Baron, Stationaire, none are selling in viable numbers.
 
I'm hopeful that this will work out and I wish them the best. Unfortunately their track record as of late hasn't shown them to be achieving much success. As a Mooney owner and a Mooney fan, I'd certainly like to see things like a retrofit gross weight increase or purpose a re-purposing of some of the older popular models, such as the M20J. I'll be rooting for their success.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Using a 60+ year old design. That’s the problem.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how this is a problem. Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft have all been using the same designs in some form for the same amount of time and yet Piper is still selling new Archers, Cessna is still selling new 172's, and Beechcraft is still selling new straight tail Bonanzas. They may not be as great in number as they once were, but I don't attribute that to being an old design.
 
LevelWing said:
I'm not sure how this is a problem. Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft have all been using the same designs in some form for the same amount of time and yet Piper is still selling new Archers, Cessna is still selling new 172's, and Beechcraft is still selling new straight tail Bonanzas. They may not be as great in number as they once were, but I don't attribute that to being an old design.
Click to expand...
Piper and Cessna only sell to flight schools. The Bonanza is not selling, a total of only seven were sold in 2019, that's actually less than the nine Mooney that were sold.. https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2019ShipmentReport03162020.pdf

You have to alsor remember that in addition to these designs being old and generally uncomfortable and no longer tolerable to the current buyer pool, there's also plenty of used aircraft available at a fraction of what these cost new.. there's absolutely no reason to spend $1000000 on a new Bonanza
 
LevelWing said:
I'm not sure how this is a problem.
Click to expand...
Anytime one tries to put new lipstick on a 60 year design, to compete with a 20 year design history tends to favor the newer design. And remember Cirrus came out of the AGATE project run by NASA which gave them a jump over any other new design. But the question remains, will you and every Mooney owner buy a new Mooney with a CAPS if they start producing new aircraft?
 
Bell206 said:
Anytime one tries to put new lipstick on a 60 year design, to compete with a 20 year design history tends to favor the newer design. And remember Cirrus came out of the AGATE project run by NASA which gave them a jump over any other new design. But the question remains, will you and every Mooney owner buy a new Mooney with a CAPS if they start producing new aircraft?
Click to expand...
I’d buy it before I’d buy a new cirrus or Cessna.
 
Salty said:
I’d buy it before I’d buy a new cirrus or Cessna.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, after each resurrection and restart Mooney hasn't been able to convince enough of you well intentioned folks to actually write the check.

The company has for some years lacked the development capital for true new models. Its withdrawal from the TBM joint venture is an example. If it intends to be an OEM airframe parts supplier it will be competing with the salvage dealers. I don't see how they grow the business as attrition continues to shrink the fleet over time.

Depending on hope and good intentions is rarely a sound business strategy. From commercial air carriers across the spectrum to personal GA airplanes, "the romance of aviation" is one of the most efficient destroyers of capital we've ever created.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
Unfortunately, after each resurrection and restart Mooney hasn't been able to convince enough of you well intentioned folks to actually write the check.

The company has for some years lacked the development capital for true new models. Its withdrawal from the TBM joint venture is an example. If it intends to be an OEM airframe parts supplier it will be competing with the salvage dealers. I don't see how they grow the business as attrition continues to shrink the fleet over time.

Depending on hope and good intentions is rarely a sound business strategy. From commercial air carriers across the spectrum to personal GA airplanes, "the romance of aviation" is one of the most efficient destroyers of capital we've ever created.
Click to expand...
Didn’t say I thought they would succeed. Just answered the question.
 
Tantalum said:
Piper and Cessna only sell to flight schools. The Bonanza is not selling, a total of only seven were sold in 2019, that's actually less than the nine Mooney that were sold.. https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2019ShipmentReport03162020.pdf

You have to alsor remember that in addition to these designs being old and generally uncomfortable and no longer tolerable to the current buyer pool, there's also plenty of used aircraft available at a fraction of what these cost new.. there's absolutely no reason to spend $1000000 on a new Bonanza
Click to expand...

The piston aircraft contribution to Textron's income statement has to be completely irrelevant now, it has shrunk so much. I'm surprised it hasn't already announced it's going to terminate production of the Bonanza and Baron, or put the TCs and tooling up for sale.
 
Salty said:
Didn’t say I thought they would succeed. Just answered the question.
Click to expand...

Obviously I didn't say I thought they would succeed either. ;)
But you didn't answer the question, which actually requires a simple yes or no.
 
GRG55 said:
Obviously I didn't say I thought they would succeed either. ;)
But you didn't answer the question, which actually requires a simple yes or no.
Click to expand...
The question isn’t entirely valid, so I can’t answer yes or no. I’m not likely to buy any new aircraft, so there is no answer. However, if I had the money, I’d buy a Mooney with two doors and a chute before I’d buy anything else.
 
Salty said:
The question isn’t entirely valid, so I can’t answer yes or no.
Click to expand...
But the question is valid to those asked. Everyone who wants Mooney to succeed doesn't appear to be part of that solution and will actually buy a new aircraft. The only way Mooney and Cessna and Piper, and... are going to invest money for new designs is if people buy new airplanes. Everyone complains about no new GA aircraft but only a few seem to step up and spend the money to support it.
 
GRG55 said:
I'm surprised it hasn't already announced it's going to terminate production of the Bonanza and Baron, or put the TCs and tooling up for sale.
Click to expand...

As to the former, agreed; I have no idea why they still produce the 36 and 58 in such niche quantity. As to the latter (my emphasis), the reason is I don't think Textron is at all interested in allowing comprehensive open source PMA efforts to pick up the mantle for life-supporting the legacy retracts they inherited from the gobbling up of Cessna and Beechcraft. That would go against their desire to vanish those types from the planet/liability pool (see ruddervators on BE-35, cantilever carrytrough on C-xxx.). They're playing the long con here, and giving the street another shot at keeping those things around is not part of the play. They're not aviation fans, they're in the business of making money. Aviation is just a shtick for many manufacturers, Boeing being the ultimate example of this.
 
Bell206 said:
But the question is valid to those asked. Everyone who wants Mooney to succeed doesn't appear to be part of that solution and will actually buy a new aircraft. The only way Mooney and Cessna and Piper, and... are going to invest money for new designs is if people buy new airplanes. Everyone complains about no new GA aircraft but only a few seem to step up and spend the money to support it.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't you want an aircraft manufacturer to succeed? Their success is a net positive for general aviation.

I reject the premise that rooting for their success requires I be part of the solution. I'm not the target market for a brand new Mooney or any brand new aircraft, but that doesn't mean there aren't other benefits that come from their success to the larger community.
 
I could see some smart enthusiastic owners marketing it well succeeding better than before. But I don’t expect anybody to succeed in that market anymore.
 
LevelWing said:
Why wouldn't you want an aircraft manufacturer to succeed? Their success is a net positive for general aviation....
Click to expand...

exactly my take, whether it be mooney or cirrus or heck, even those high wing manufacturers. I'm not in the market for any new plane but of course I want them to succeed. unfortunately I don't see it happening if their direction is just a few tweaks like a chute or new lightweight cowl. it won't be near enough.
 
I think if Mooney were well funded and well run there might be some hope for it. I'm not holding my breath but I am hopeful these guys make good decisions and have the money to get Mooney back on their feet.

As far as the Cirrus vs Mooney question, money not an object and viability of the companies not part of the question, without a doubt Cirrus, hands down.
 
LevelWing said:
Why wouldn't you want an aircraft manufacturer to succeed?
Click to expand...
Never said I was against their success. GA in general kept me solvent for almost 40 years and would hate to see it disappear. But it takes more than moral support to succeed.;)
LevelWing said:
I reject the premise that rooting for their success requires I be part of the solution.
Click to expand...
LevelWing said:
I'm not the target market for a brand new Mooney or any brand new aircraft,
Click to expand...
Then who? It's obvious no one on PoA will buy a new aircraft. The only way Mooney will succeed is if people buy their new aircraft in numbers where they can realize a profit in order to build more new aircraft. That's about as basic business 101 as it gets.
 
hindsight2020 said:
They're not aviation fans, they're in the business of making money.
Click to expand...
Ha. Name one aviation business who sells for the fanfare and not the money.

FYI: you don’t need factory tooling or drawings to enter the PMA market. Most do without but only make parts that they can make money on. Oops there’s that money word again…..:eek:
 
Bell206 said:
...Then who? It's obvious no one on PoA will buy a new aircraft. The only way Mooney will succeed is if people buy their new aircraft in numbers where they can realize a profit in order to build more new aircraft. That's about as basic business 101 as it gets.
Click to expand...

no one claimed PoA will be buying new planes. the conversation is about their success, not PoA's purchase plans. I don't see droves of PoAers buying new Cirrii either. or new Cezznas either. come to think of it, it's hard enough to get some PoAers to buy u a friggin beer, much less a brand new GA plane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top