Mooney back in American hands!

[JOhnH]

It seems to me it would behoove companies like Mooney and Textron, Cessna et al to set up departments within their sales department to help establish local clubs and partnerships with the express goal of selling those clubs and partnerships new airplanes. I don't know how to go about starting one, but if Textron could help put me in touch with several other potential new plane purchasers, I might go in on one. I would love to buy 20-25% of a new airplane.

 

[LevelWing]

It seems to me it would behoove companies like Mooney and Textron, Cessna et al to set up departments within their sales department to help establish local clubs and partnerships with the express goal of selling those clubs and partnerships new airplanes. I don't know how to go about starting one, but if Textron could help put me in touch with several other potential new plane purchasers, I might go in on one. I would love to buy 20-25% of a new airplane.

Mooney already has something similar to this: https://www.mooney.com/mooney-shares

 

[Juliet Hotel]

I thought it was well known the easiest way to make a small fortune in aviation is to start with a large fortune and work your way down. But there's always someone who refuses to believe it until they prove it for themselves.

 

[JOhnH]

Mooney already has something similar to this: https://www.mooney.com/mooney-shares

Darn. I thought I had a great new idea. I guess it goes to prove, there ARE NO NEW IDEAS!

I wish the concept would take off with more manufacturers and become a common way of selling new airplanes.

I aslo wish Textron would sell of BeechCraft, or at least the Bonanza line to a group like the one that bought into Mooney.

 

[Bell206]

the conversation is about their success, not PoA's purchase plans.

FYI: Used PoA as an averaging example of GA owners. So unless you get a similar percentage of PoA'rs wanting to buy a new Mooney equal to those PoA'rs who buy/live all things Cirrus, any Mooney success will amount to wishful thinking only.

 

[jrcox19]

Darn. I thought I had a great new idea. I guess it goes to prove, there ARE NO NEW IDEAS!

I wish the concept would take off with more manufacturers and become a common way of selling new airplanes.

Diamond does it too (Diamondshare)
And Cirrus actively promote club/partnerships, and is happy to put you on a list to create new groups in your area.

 

[MBDiagMan]

Using a 60+ year old design. That’s the problem.

An old design, yes, but it is an ultra strong one. Ever hear the story about what happened when Rockwell sent engineers to do a destructive test on the structure?

 

[FastEddieB]

I don’t think I’ve seen mentioned in this thread how highly labor-intensive it is to rivet these legacy planes together. In the Cirrus factory the fuselage is made in molds - a left and a right which are then “glued” together. Lots of precise and demanding techniques involved, to be sure, but certainly a lot quicker and straightforward compared with these older planes. And all those man-hours can’t help but be reflected in the bottom line.

 

[MajorTurbulence]

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.

Besides the aerodynamic positive, there must be a weight penalty for a retractable that might give the Cirrus/Corvallis the edge.

 

[cowman]

I'm amazed any light piston aircraft manufacturer stays in business these days. Even if you can afford new, who's buying new? The only significant market I know of would be flight schools buying up trainer fleets which Cessna and Piper would seem to have well covered. If I was a wealthy person looking for a personal aircraft and I had the kind of money it takes to buy a $750k airplane I'd be looking for a used turbine single not a piston airplane based on 50 year old designs.

 

[NordicDave]

I'm amazed any light piston aircraft manufacturer stays in business these days. Even if you can afford new, who's buying new? The only significant market I know of would be flight schools buying up trainer fleets which Cessna and Piper would seem to have well covered...

Actually most new purchase GA aircraft are businesses. If you own a legit business, the aircraft is purchased with pre-tax dollars and 100% expensed in the same tax year. If the business earned $3M, with $1M in profit, after buying a new Cirrus taxable income just dropped to $150K. Plus the business funds all fixed & variable costs with pre-tax dollars as well.

 

[Utah-Jay]

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.

Piper, Cessna, et al are not selling a lot of planes, but the LSA world is on fire. Kitfox and Rans have a 12-18 month waitlist for planes, there are others too that have waitlists. It seems folks looking for non-certified in relatively solid numbers.

 

[Shepherd]

Not to be a curmudgeon, but I give it a year.

 

[FastEddieB]

Even if you can afford new, who's buying new?

I think Cirrus has shown there’s a decent market for new planes. What’s unknown is their profitability.

 

[Bell206]

Piper, Cessna, et al are not selling a lot of planes, but the LSA world is on fire.

Curious where you got your information from. The last GAMA shipment Report I saw showed over 1000 certified single piston shipped world wide with over 325 from just Cessna and Piper. While they do track some LSA producers like Flight Design and Tecnam they don't track all of them. However, the total LSA numbers based on new registrations I've seen are usually less than 250 units every year.

 

[Utah-Jay]

Curious where you got your information from. The last GAMA shipment Report I saw showed over 1000 certified single piston shipped world wide with over 325 from just Cessna and Piper. While they do track some LSA producers like Flight Design and Tecnam they don't track all of them. However, the total LSA numbers based on new registrations I've seen are usually less than 250 units every year.

Just based on wait times, and you can throw Cub Crafters in there too with a 12 month wait

 

[Kenny Phillips]

It seems to me it would behoove companies like Mooney and Textron, Cessna et al to set up departments within their sales department to help establish local clubs and partnerships with the express goal of selling those clubs and partnerships new airplanes. I don't know how to go about starting one, but if Textron could help put me in touch with several other potential new plane purchasers, I might go in on one. I would love to buy 20-25% of a new airplane.

You can probably do better than Textron right here on PoA. But 20% of a new 182 could get you your very-own, not shared, used 182.

 

[LevelWing]

FYI: Used PoA as an averaging example of GA owners. So unless you get a similar percentage of PoA'rs wanting to buy a new Mooney equal to those PoA'rs who buy/live all things Cirrus, any Mooney success will amount to wishful thinking only.

"I used a non-statistical sampling of POA users to determine that Mooney will not succeed" is an interesting take.

 

[MBDiagMan]

Not to be a curmudgeon, but I give it a year.

You have a reasonable chance of being correct, but it depends on the business model. If they gear up with the purpose of supporting the fleet with new aircraft production a secondary goal, they might make it.

 

[Bell206]

"I used a non-statistical sampling of POA users to determine that Mooney will not succeed" is an interesting take.

Ha. It’s not often I’m quoted with someone else’s words.

Would it have given my “non-statistical sampling” more credibility if I had referenced MooneySpace instead of PoA? They’re having a similar discussion as PoA with the same results--no one looking to buy new Mooney’s with some stating that’s a non-issue. Most appear to only want parts and upgrades to old models. Then there are the diehards that are only happy that “Mooney is still Alive!”

Unfortunately, history has been brutal to legacy OEMs which don’t produce new models that people want to buy. But if that is all you Mooney guys want is spare parts and “upgrades” perhaps band together and convince Univair to buy the Mooney TC. They’re already doing a great job keeping the Mooney M10, Ercoupe, Forney, Alon and Stinson 108 in spare parts/upgrades and should provide a solid foundation to keep your M20s supplied as well.

 

[GRG55]

GA piston production clawed its way back from the early 1990s (621 piston airplanes sold in 1994) to the high water mark of 2755 piston planes in 2006. It's been a rocky ride since - 1509 total piston airplanes last year. Even the much admired Cirrus is selling barely over 1/2 of the piston airplanes it pushed out the door 13 years earlier.

https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/GAMA_2019Databook_Final-2020-03-20.pdf

To its credit Piper is the only company that has exceeded its 2006 piston aircraft production volume. By focusing on and taking training market volume from Cessna most likely.

Cessna is down from 865 piston airplanes sold in 2006 to 196 airplanes last year.

Beech sold 2 Barons for every Bonanza in 2019 - but at 22 airplanes total its piston assembly line is now a cottage industry and presumably eligible for official endangered species status.

Diamond sold a credible 233 airplanes last year, an impressive 99 more than the previous year.

TECNAM has done surprisingly well as a newcomer. The consistency with which it has moved ~190 airplanes each of the last 7 years is impressive.

But at the end of the day it is largely a bifurcated market - volume sales of training fleet airplanes and few personal piston airplanes, except Cirrus. In 2019 Cirrus sold more than 6 SR22s for every SR20 it flogged, with the more expensive turbocharged SR22 outselling the NA version 3:2. Last year Piper sold 44 turboprop M500-600s, once again 2 of them for every piston engine M350, itself a pretty nice personal airplane. And Daher sold 48 TBMs. All of which says something about where the high performance personal airplane market has moved. I don't see the differentiated niche that Mooney can carve out for itself - and gawd knows it has tried repeatedly.

 

[GRG55]

I think Cirrus has shown there’s a decent market for new planes. What’s unknown is their profitability.

Or their Return on Capital Employed.

Cirrus just barely made it back over 50% of the piston engine sales volume it did in 2006, 13 years back. And that is with what most here consider THE premier sales, marketing, promotion, product delivery and after sales support organization in the business. In ANY other business nobody would call that outcome "a decent market".

But it is a better market than anyone else has got for piston engine airplanes. Which should tell us all something about how pathetic things are for piston GA manufacturers overall.

Just based on wait times, and you can throw Cub Crafters in there too with a 12 month wait

According to the GAMA statistical report Cub Crafters sold 16 airplanes in 2019. 5 years ago they sold 60. That's a hobby, not a business.

 

[TCABM]

If I was Mooney, the only new airframe I’d consider putting on the market today would be a two-door E-AB 205 kit in a slow build and quick build, especially if the landing gear retrofit/gross weight increase come through.

Next step would be a factory builder assist program a la Two Weeks to Taxi.

 

[Racerx]

If I was Mooney, the only new airframe I’d consider putting on the market today would be a two-door E-AB 205 kit in a slow build and quick build, especially if the landing gear retrofit/gross weight increase come through.

Next step would be a factory builder assist program a la Two Weeks to Taxi.

I am no Mooney aficionado, but isn't the only difference airframe wise from 1966 until the present a couple fuselage extensions?

 

[GRG55]

I don’t think I’ve seen mentioned in this thread how highly labor-intensive it is to rivet these legacy planes together. In the Cirrus factory the fuselage is made in molds - a left and a right which are then “glued” together. Lots of precise and demanding techniques involved, to be sure, but certainly a lot quicker and straightforward compared with these older planes. And all those man-hours can’t help but be reflected in the bottom line.

When I look at the hours required to put together a plastic kit such a Lancair compared to riveting together something like an RV-7, I'm not so sure the Cirrus, with all its systems, is really all that much less labor hours to build and complete than a Piper Mirage.

Be thankful they aren't still assembling 1500 different glued wood parts to make up a Bellanca Viking wing, and then hire dozens of nimble fingered staff to sew the fabric envelopes and cover that darn work of art and the rest of the airplane.

Those were the days my friend, we thought they'd never end...

 

[GRG55]

I am no Mooney aficionado, but isn't the only difference airframe wise from 1966 until the present a couple fuselage extensions?

And bigger engines. Much bigger engines.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

I am no Mooney aficionado, but isn't the only difference airframe wise from 1966 until the present a couple fuselage extensions?

Actually they continually made changes every year during their heyday, just like automobiles. Ahhhhh, the good old days.

 

[FastEddieB]

When I look at the hours required to put together a plastic kit such a Lancair compared to riveting together something like an RV-7, I'm not so sure the Cirrus, with all its systems, is really all that much less labor hours to build and complete than a Piper Mirage.

Point taken.

But I think there’s a huge difference between a hobbyist laying up a “plastic” kit for the first time and a production line stamping them out one after another. But I admit I don’t really know. I do know the Cirrus factory tour was quite impressive*.


*For the most part. After being temporarily grounded in my Cirrus due to a really cheap ring terminal breaking - the one supplying DC voltage to ALT1 - I was dismayed to see years later the same cheapie part was being used in new ones. They seemed to be putting more time and attention towards chrome steps and interior niceties and “Centennial” paint schemes than in fundamental upgrades. Admittedly that was a long time ago - hopefully they’ve improved.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Point taken.

But I think there’s a huge difference between a hobbyist laying up a “plastic” kit for the first time and a production line stamping them out one after another. But I admit I don’t really know. I do know the Cirrus factory tour was quite impressive*.


*For the most part. After being temporarily grounded in my Cirrus due to a really cheap ring terminal breaking - the one supplying DC voltage to ALT1 - I was dismayed to see years later the same cheapie part was being used in new ones. They seemed to be putting more time and attention towards chrome steps and interior niceties and “Centennial” paint schemes than in fundamental upgrades. Admittedly that was a long time ago - hopefully they’ve improved.

Because quality ring terminals don’t sell airplanes....the glitzy stuff does. Like it or not...Cirrus knows what sells...and that includes the chute.

 

[Bell206]

I was dismayed to see years later the same cheapie part was being used in new ones.

Or considering the ring terminals are standard parts, Cirrus bought a box of 10,000....

 

[FastEddieB]

Because quality ring terminals don’t sell airplanes....

Re: Pictures vs 1,000 words...

This is what was stock in 2003 in a nearly $400k all-electric IFR platform to provide ALT1 with power:

Seriously. “Robust” is not the word that comes to mind.

 

[Bell206]

Seriously.

FYI: then you may not want to look under the hood on most other IFR platforms regardless the type or price as they use the same type terminals.

 

[FastEddieB]

FYI: then you may not want to look under the hood on most other IFR platforms regardless the type or price as they use the same type terminals.

What was slightly different and significant here is the small gauge wire was largely unsupported and in the airstream right at the cowling opening. On repair I sandwiched the ring terminal between two washers and tywrapped it nearby and put shrink wrap on it, all to give it more support:

The stock arrangement just seemed shoddy is all.

 

[Bell206]

The stock arrangement just seemed shoddy is all.

This. If there was that much flexing (work-hardening) to break the terminal a stronger terminal would have simply moved the flex to the wire. Proper wire routing and security is always the ticket.

 

[GRG55]

FYI: then you may not want to look under the hood on most other IFR platforms regardless the type or price as they use the same type terminals.

...The stock arrangement just seemed shoddy is all.

I see the same thing in my Husky. Really well built airframe that's repeatedly absorbed my ham-fisted attempts to emulate a bush pilot ( ), but some of the OEM parts are junk. As one example I've tossed the master and starter solenoids and replaced with Lamar, after the former factory part failed - apparently one of a number of well known failure modes among experienced owners.

 

[brcase]

Or their Return on Capital Employed.

Cirrus just barely made it back over 50% of the piston engine sales volume it did in 2006, 13 years back. And that is with what most here consider THE premier sales, marketing, promotion, product delivery and after sales support organization in the business. In ANY other business nobody would call that outcome "a decent market".

But it is a better market than anyone else has got for piston engine airplanes. Which should tell us all something about how pathetic things are for piston GA manufacturers overall.



According to the GAMA statistical report Cub Crafters sold 16 airplanes in 2019. 5 years ago they sold 60. That's a hobby, not a business.

I believe it was one of the Cub crafters reps stopped our airport today so I asked how many planes they have sold this year. He said about 60 planes and 35 kits. Said due to the COVID thing he thinks a number of buyers have held off and as result expects next year could be a record year for them for production.

Interestingly he said 2008 was a very good year for them, remember the economy thing then? He says what happens when the economy drops that people flying/operating TBM’s, Pilatus, even Gulfstreams decide they and keep flying the one the got for a couple more years until the ecomomy improves so instead they buy a Cub style aircraft as a play toy in the mean time.

 

[PaulS]

Re: Pictures vs 1,000 words...

This is what was stock in 2003 in a nearly $400k all-electric IFR platform to provide ALT1 with power:

Seriously. “Robust” is not the word that comes to mind.

And some things never change....