What is going to happen to Mooney's?

[LDJones]

I fly an M20C. I get 150 kts TAS anywhere between 7 and 10K ft burning 8 gph. Mine is an exceptionally slicked up Mooney, and that means it's fast and efficient. At $50k valuation, make that cheap, fast, and efficient. I only carry 52 gal useable, but that's more range than my bladder so enough.

In addition to the above, I like the fit and seating position in the Mooney. I also like the retractable gear. I think they just look cool.

I'd not turn down a ride in any airplane, but I love owning a Mooney.

What mods do you have? I'd guess all of them! I had a '75 C model (with the "dirty" wing) and it was a solid 135 knot machine at 9.1 GPH over the 1,000 hours I flew her. That was with the 201 style windshield that was supposed to be worth 5 kts, A buddy had a stock '66 with the clean wing and had me by 5 knots (140 knots) at the same power setting.

 

[LDJones]

I have a friend that's been looking at 22s and mentioned partnering. As you mentioned, they're not cheap. If I sold my mooney, I'd get a plane with a little more speed and more fuel burn, but much better ergonomics and higher useful load. The thing I love about the mooney is the lower hull value and the fact that I can comfortably afford it by myself.

The older Mooneys are the most bang for the buck in G.A. 15 kts faster than a 172 on close to the same fuel burn for half to two-thirds the cost.

 

[FastEddieB]

Why not partner with someone?

I just turned 66. I'm accepting I'm towards the end of my flying career, and am happy with the simplicity of Light Sport.

It's actually a relief to no longer have to keep up with all the CFI and IFR stuff and just fly around for fun when the weather is decent.

It's also a relief to not worry every year about passing a medical and getting a Special Issuance.

Works for me. Phases of life and all that!

 

[FloridaPilot]

I just turned 66. I'm accepting I'm towards the end of my flying career, and am happy with the simplicity of Light Sport.

It's actually a relief to no longer have to keep up with all the CFI and IFR stuff and just fly around for fun when the weather is decent.

It's also a relief to not worry every year about passing a medical and getting a Special Issuance.

Works for me. Phases of life and all that!

It's not over yet my friend, 66 is young!

I met a pilot over the phone from a co-worker of mine which is his brother. He flies a Cirrus SR-22 T at the young age of 75! Flies to work (IFR as well). He loves to fly Can't wait to go up with him.

 

[LDJones]

It's not over yet my friend, 66 is young!

I met a pilot over the phone from a co-worker of mine which is his brother. He flies a Cirrus SR-22 T at the young age of 75! Flies to work (IFR as well). He loves to fly Can't wait to go up with him.

I mentioned here the 96 year old pilot I met from Alaska who flew a P51 on his 96th birthday. Fast Eddie has another half of a lifetime of flying yet to go!

 

[brien23]

But that could run into tens or even hundreds of dollars in wages.

China wages are not the bowl of rice of yesterday.

 

[steingar]

I attended the Mooney owners forum at Oshkosh, and I was quite underwhelmed. The CEO seemed like a functionary sent here to ride herd on the round-eyes. Dude doesn't speak free words of English. I don't think the guy was even a pilot.

The M10 seems like a bad idea all around. A two person trainer (three if you don't need any luggage) that's supposed to fly at 160 knots on a Continental engine (I believe the speed claims, the thing is slick). A trainer that flies at 160 knots seems like a bad idea, as does a two-seat aircraft not for the trainer market. This is somewhere near half their resources, by the way. And its made out of glass, which Mooney doesn't know how to do.

I really truly wish them the best. I just didn't like what I saw.

 

[Tmpendergrass]

Well the DA40 is considered a good trainer and goes 150kt. Seems like what a lancair or Glasair would look like if it was certified.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Henning]

I attended the Mooney owners forum at Oshkosh, and I was quite underwhelmed. The CEO seemed like a functionary sent here to ride herd on the round-eyes. Dude doesn't speak free words of English. I don't think the guy was even a pilot.

The M10 seems like a bad idea all around. A two person trainer (three if you don't need any luggage) that's supposed to fly at 160 knots on a Continental engine (I believe the speed claims, the thing is slick). A trainer that flies at 160 knots seems like a bad idea, as does a two-seat aircraft not for the trainer market. This is somewhere near half their resources, by the way. And its made out of glass, which Mooney doesn't know how to do.

I really truly wish them the best. I just didn't like what I saw.

Huh, from what I've read about the M-10 I think the functionary was confusing kph with kts.

 

[bnt83]

**Right now there's a thread on COPA about Cirrus wanting $450 for the drawings needed to drill a hole in the belly for an additional antenna. Some feel it's justified. I think to nickle and dime owners who may have spent over $700,000 for your product has got to leave a bad taste.

On the contrary, if you blow $3000 for say an alternator, the owner might not feel as screwed when its going on a 2010 SR-xx that cost them $700k vs putting it on a 1980 __________ that they paid $150k for.

I'm pretty sure that's the way Cessna prices parts for airplanes that are out of production.

You need a part for a 1965 Cessna 172? Our brand new 172s cost $350k so that part you want will be priced accordingly...

 

[steingar]

Well the DA40 is considered a good trainer and goes 150kt. Seems like what a lancair or Glasair would look like if it was certified.

No, the DA40 is a good replacement for a Skylane. The DA20 is indeed thought of as a good trainer, though you have a point. DA20s are quite quick.

 

[denverpilot]

On the contrary, if you blow $3000 for say an alternator, the owner might not feel as screwed when its going on a 2010 SR-xx that cost them $700k vs putting it on a 1980 __________ that they paid $150k for.

I'm pretty sure that's the way Cessna prices parts for airplanes that are out of production.

You need a part for a 1965 Cessna 172? Our brand new 172s cost $350k so that part you want will be priced accordingly...

The Cessna pricing changes are indeed in line with Cirrus stuff lately.

There was a very good article about why Cessna pricing jumped so significantly on parts from CPA.

Basically the former GE execs that took over are no longer interested or willing to allow any part to be sold below cost.

Goodwill, selling parts cheap for old trainers so there'd be pilots to fly the bigger stuff, whatever reasons Cessna used to do it... are gone.

Factoring insurance and other costs elsewhere on the company's books as overhead, also gone.

Everything ties to COGS now.

Some of the rarely purchased parts like parts only found on the retracts, have gone up thousands of percent in price with the new pricing structure.

 

[Henning]

The Cessna pricing changes are indeed in line with Cirrus stuff lately.

There was a very good article about why Cessna pricing jumped so significantly on parts from CPA.

Basically the former GE execs that took over are no longer interested or willing to allow any part to be sold below the highest dollar the market would bear.

Goodwill, selling parts cheap for old trainers so there'd be pilots to fly the bigger stuff, whatever reasons Cessna used to do it... are gone.

Factoring insurance and other costs elsewhere on the company's books as overhead, also gone.

Everything ties to COGS now.

Some of the rarely purchased parts like parts only found on the retracts, have gone up thousands of percent in price with the new pricing structure.

FTFY, I can't recall Cessna ever selling a part below cost.

 

[denverpilot]

FTFY, I can't recall Cessna ever selling a part below cost.

New management claims they were. Insurance and liability plus legal costs were added to most of the parts about a year ago. Certain single components in the retract landing gear were well less than $1000 before the sea change and are now pushing $6000 each.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

New management claims they were. Insurance and liability plus legal costs were added to most of the parts about a year ago. Certain single components in the retract landing gear were well less than $1000 before the sea change and are now pushing $6000 each.

We have the option of owner produced parts, with the availability of CNC machines and 3D printing owners can make their own. I wait for day you can walk into Kinkos, put your part into a 3D scanner, use the computer to make any repairs, hit print....10 minutes later walk out with a brand new part.

 

[LevelWing]

We have the option of owner produced parts, with the availability of CNC machines and 3D printing owners can make their own. I wait for day you can walk into Kinkos, put your part into a 3D scanner, use the computer to make any repairs, hit print....10 minutes later walk out with a brand new part.

Except that the FAA will never allow it. They'll cite a reason such as not being able to verify the quality of the materials used, or a non-approved machine being used, etc. It would be nice to be able to do this, and certainly far more cost effective.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Except that the FAA will never allow it. They'll cite a reason such as not being able to verify the quality of the materials used, or a non-approved machine being used, etc. It would be nice to be able to do this, and certainly far more cost effective.

They allow it today, there is a section of the code that allows it. Otherwise all the old planes whose companies have gone out of business would eventually non fixable. FAA does have verbiage that states the part must be of same construction and specs as the original.
Somebody on MS did it for the Klidex,ETA switch covers.

 

[Henning]

Except that the FAA will never allow it. They'll cite a reason such as not being able to verify the quality of the materials used, or a non-approved machine being used, etc. It would be nice to be able to do this, and certainly far more cost effective.

It's already doable, though the 3D printing method would only be applicable to non structural/trim parts at this time. 3D CAD/CAM mills on the other machining parts from billet stock are usable for a variety of things as are traditional fabrication methods.

 

[LevelWing]

It's already doable, though the 3D printing method would only be applicable to non structural/trim parts at this time. 3D CAD/CAM mills on the other machining parts from billet stock are usable for a variety of things as are traditional fabrication methods.

I'm surprised by this. I really figured the FAA wouldn't allow it given that anybody with a 3D printing machine can get a set of prints and then print the part out. That means I, or anybody else, could just be at home printing parts. I also foresee there being issues if someone in their garage started trying to sell the parts, from a liability stand point.

 

[Henning]

I'm surprised by this. I really figured the FAA wouldn't allow it given that anybody with a 3D printing machine can get a set of prints and then print the part out. That means I, or anybody else, could just be at home printing parts. I also foresee there being issues if someone in their garage started trying to sell the parts, from a liability stand point.

Like I said, 3D printing you could make trim parts with like to replace rotten plastic interior components. The technology in metal printing is developing nicely, but not at a stage of acceptability without proving quality through expensive testing.

 

[Mike Smith]

Yes, steingar! Pictures here or there! We can compare notes about our Cs.

I have some very good pictures of your airplane!

 

[steingar]

I have some very good pictures of your airplane!

I put mine up in another thread. My M20C has not speed modifications at all. It does sport a very nice paint job, a very nice interior and a reasonably functional IFR panel. Most importantly, it features fuel bladders. If there's one thing my of which I have been convinced by my shopping, its that vintage Mooneys leak. I'll bet with that wet wing vintage Cirri will leak too when they come to exist.

Bladders are the only permanent solution I know.

 

[Henning]

I put mine up in another thread. My M20C has not speed modifications at all. It does sport a very nice paint job, a very nice interior and a reasonably functional IFR panel. Most importantly, it features fuel bladders. If there's one thing my of which I have been convinced by my shopping, its that vintage Mooneys leak. I'll bet with that wet wing vintage Cirri will leak too when they come to exist.

Bladders are the only permanent solution I know.

Big difference in the construction of a fiberglass 'wet wing' and a riveted aluminum one.

 

[JHW]

I'm surprised by this. I really figured the FAA wouldn't allow it given that anybody with a 3D printing machine can get a set of prints and then print the part out. That means I, or anybody else, could just be at home printing parts. I also foresee there being issues if someone in their garage started trying to sell the parts, from a liability stand point.

It's a given that you can't sell the parts. On "owner produced part" is exactly that, the owner of the plane making a part for his/her own plane. Note that "making the part" means participating in the construction of the part, not necessarily doing all the work yourself. That participation could include providing someone else instructions on how to make the part or providing the original part to someone else to duplicate. Also note that the part must be a "duplicate" as near as possible. No you can't change something that was mild steel to stainless because you think it would be better. You have to duplicate the original, warts and all.

 

[chartbundle]

I have the pleasure of having a SR-22 Turbo for rent locally. And it's a very nice plane. But at 2-3x the purchase price of a M20J or K I'm pretty sure I won't be buying a Cirrus.

 

[denverpilot]

We have the option of owner produced parts, with the availability of CNC machines and 3D printing owners can make their own. I wait for day you can walk into Kinkos, put your part into a 3D scanner, use the computer to make any repairs, hit print....10 minutes later walk out with a brand new part.

So Cessna has released their engineering specs for these "current" products that you can use to conform to the original?

 

[Henning]

I have the pleasure of having a SR-22 Turbo for rent locally. And it's a very nice plane. But at 2-3x the purchase price of a M20J or K I'm pretty sure I won't be buying a Cirrus.

Wait a couple more years. The earlier SR-22s are already cheaper than an M20K.

 

[Henning]

So Cessna has released their engineering specs for these "current" products that you can use to conform to the original?

Reverse engineering most things is simple enough. Remember, Cessna isn't making the sheet metal or extrusions, they buy them from the lowest bidder.

 

[denverpilot]

Wait a couple more years. The earlier SR-22s are already cheaper than an M20K.

Maybe an SR-20, but not really the -22 yet.

 

[Henning]

Maybe an SR-20, but not really the -22 yet.

You can buy a G2 SR22 for $150k these days, what does a M20K go for? Last I saw they were going $175k+.

 

[Hank S]

I have some very good pictures of your airplane!

Yes you do! Ain't she pretty?

 

[Tmpendergrass]

You can buy a G2 SR22 for $150k these days, what does a M20K go for? Last I saw they were going $175k+.

It's amazing how much those have depreciated. Isn't that about what an early G1000 Skyhawk goes for?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chartbundle]

You can buy a G2 SR22 for $150k these days, what does a M20K go for? Last I saw they were going $175k+.

The 231s are pretty consistently below $125k, the 252 looks to have about 80% of them at or below $150k

 

[bnt83]

It's a given that you can't sell the parts. On "owner produced part" is exactly that, the owner of the plane making a part for his/her own plane. Note that "making the part" means participating in the construction of the part, not necessarily doing all the work yourself. That participation could include providing someone else instructions on how to make the part or providing the original part to someone else to duplicate. Also note that the part must be a "duplicate" as near as possible. No you can't change something that was mild steel to stainless because you think it would be better. You have to duplicate the original, warts and all.

You can build and sell any part you wish for a certified aircraft to anyone but you better tell the buyer that the part is not PMA'ed in any way and installation eligibility and approval must be determined by the installer.

If an A&P IA is happy to install a fiberglass interior panel that was originally cheap ABS by calling it a minor alteration, so be it.


There was a guy selling stainless steel battery box relocation kits for Cessna 180s and never received an STC for them despite spending a few $k attempting the process. He still sold hundreds of them and used prior field approvals from previous customers to aid new customer sales & installation.

If you can get a few field approvals and run with it, why bother with STC/PMA?

 

[paflyer]

I'm surprised by this. I really figured the FAA wouldn't allow it given that anybody with a 3D printing machine can get a set of prints and then print the part out. That means I, or anybody else, could just be at home printing parts. I also foresee there being issues if someone in their garage started trying to sell the parts, from a liability stand point.

Making parts for your own plane is different than selling them to others.