When the Kerrville Daily Times reported “Mooney furloughs its employees, future in doubt,” the ripple across the aviation industry was near immediate.
And a good many owners — especially those who just bought a shiny new model — and Mooney fans are, I’m sure, in shock. But should they be?
After all, the company has experienced multiple production shut downs and bankruptcies, not to mention more owners than can be counted on two hands.
None of those facts cultivate a sense of confidence. At least not for me.
To be clear, the Mooney is one of my all-time favorite aircraft. It was the Porsche of the skies. A few were even literally powered by Porsche engines.
Alas, the rocket ship that is Mooney is again no more. Permanently? Who knows?
I hope not, but it’ll take more than an announcements of re-started operations and a slick marketing campaign to produce sales.
[UPDATE: I wrote this not long after Mooney furloughed all their employees and closed the factory. As of the first week of December, the factory lights are back on and employees are back at work. No doubt management is working to either sell the company or raise fresh capital.]
I took a look at delivery numbers from 2000 through the third quarter of 2019 for Mooney as reported to the General Aviation Manufacturers Association. Mooney reported just six deliveries of the M20V Acclaim Ultra in the first three quarters this year.
No doubt the recent upgrades Mooney added, such as a second door on the pilot side, larger windows and upgraded avionics made a sweet ride even sweeter.
But overcoming a troubled history, I believe, proved too hard.
I read more than a few comments on Twitter that wondered — basically — if this was the first step to moving all Mooney tooling, production, and technology out of the United States to the owner’s homeland. China in this case.
I hope not. But whether Mooney’s future falls outside U.S. borders, or simply continues apace — starting and stopping — I won’t be shocked.
As a millennial I’d like to think I have a unique perspective. For me, what does an M20 acclaim have over older models? It’s sort of the plight Harley Davidson currently faces. Planes like motorcycles don’t really wear out. What has Mooney done to advance what they brought in 1983? Is it noticeably bigger, faster, safer, haul more, or easier to fly? Why would you pay 800k for something new where you could buy an M20k 231 for 1/10 that price. Even if you had to do an overhaul, put in a new panel, new paint and interior you’re roughly 200k into it. They never really advanced the model. It’s what nearly led to Ford’s demise, not wanting to design past the model t. All Mooney has done is throw different engines in and minor tweaks, but nothing substantial. Is another door worth 600k?
They pigeon holed themselves into one market. They were never abld to come up with an effective training model. They never got past a 4 place. One wonders if they did develope the 301 and not SOCATA if things would have gone differently. They stuck with what it was then and that turned into what is now now. An expensive complex plane that is expensive to insure. Sure it’s fast, but as Cirrus and Columbia/Cessna have found out…you can be fast without having to be retractable. Both the Cirrus and 350/400 are quite a bit more roomy than the Mooney. So what does the M20 give over the others?
I don’t want to rag on Mooney. The GA industry as a whole hasnt really done anything substantial design wise since the 60’s, Look at the Piper Pilot 100. It’s essentially a 1962 Cherokee with nice glass. It’s probably partly why Cirrus exploded. They were innovative and were first to the party. Marketing obviously helps too.
I’ve flown earlier model Mooney’s, and they were fairly good ships. Pilots learned (Sometimes the hard way…) to flare and keep the nose up, despite the plane’s tendency to float during landings. All in all, the Mooney was fast, economical and had a fairly good load-carrying capability. It’s a shame they couldn’t find a market for these newer, Big Pony Continental Engine models, but not everyone has 800 thousand bucks laying around, especially for a single engine aircraft.
I think the design choices made by Mooney lack understanding of the potential buyers for this kind of airplane. The cabin is tiny. This would be a great idea if potential owners value speed efficiency and great fuel consumption. I think the reality is anyone who can pay nearly a million dollars for a light plane is more likely to value comfort and load capacity (people) than great fuel mileage. That leaves them choices like Bonanzas and even larger Cessnas which haul more people and cargo for similar prices.
Isnt it obvious? Chinese “investors“ have taken the technology and manufacturing know-how and will apply it in China for their own markets. It’s another example of the hollowing out of the US’s manufacturing and industrial expertise. we’ve done it to ourselves-how many young American kids do you know who are studying actual engineering? our society worships flashy money, athletes, celebrities and demagogue politicians. where are the values of personal responsibility and discipline upon which GA is based?
You sir I believe have hit the nail on the head! It appears to me that very few youngsters I have met have the slightest interest in aviation and only care to take life as easy as possible. They only admire over paid sports figures and creepy sick looking rock figures.
All the big GA companies are making the same mistake: chasing pilots who have half a million or more to spend on a piston single with every possible upgrade included. There’s a market there, sure, but it’s not a big one. Bring back simpler models with modern production methods and a decent price, and they’d get much higher volume—and the economy of scale to also offer those niche models at a much larger profit margin.
The new Mooneys are a great product but still lag in a couple of critical areas. Even despite their alleged higher performance and fuel efficiency, and somewhat lower prices.
First the author notes a manufacturer that seems to be teetering on insolvency puts a big pause in anyone investing in a product costing hundreds of thousands. Without cash flow Mooney is hard pressed to offer the post sales support and training that Cirrus does, for example, or give the customer comfort in regard to ensuring decades of parts and support that most will need over the years.
Second, despite the carbon fiber cockpit upgrade and much needed second door, and upgrade to the latest Garmin panels, the Mooney still lacks a parachute and an integrated prop control.
Third, retractable gear are more costly to insure and to maintain. And worse? Insurance carriers require 100 hours of CFI time in a retractable before they will cover a pilot without retractable gear experience.
I was the Mooney Dealer in the Houston Texas market from 1976 – 1984. This was the Roy LoPresti era, and he made the older M20 series into a “performing” airplane with his aerodynamic wizardry.
Fast forward to 2019 and let’s look at who is buying high performance singles and shelling out $800K. For the most part it is the tech crowd with boat loads of disposable income. They also do a “boat load” of research and due diligence. What does this indicate to them? Ask yourself this question, is it prudent to put $800K+ in a hand built airplane, from a less than totally solvent manufacturer, that has a history of closing and reopening?
Last observations…there is absolutely no way to keep the doors of any company open with the small numbers produced, no matter how great a product your putting out to market. Finally, I know a number of the folks on the floor assembling new Mooneys, and what happens when the “old” hands retire and the line loses all that skill and talented knowledge?
Sorry for the soapbox dialogue, just some observation from an old airplane guy.
The implication that ‘tech’ kiddies are buying planes and ignoring the Mooney is not entirely true. For example. Most of Cirrus aircraft are bought by experienced pilots who have owned most of the other brands at one time or another, even former Mooney owners. Sure there are the doctors, lawyers and sports celebs who can afford the big ticket piston singles, but by and large few get into the high performance planes unless they can actually fly them.
Hi Gordon.
First off, Roy Lopresti did not create the aerodynamic improvements to the mid-body money airframe that became the “201” J model.
All those mods were created and tested on the airframe by Mooney factory floor workers and factory engineers at various times prior to Lopresti coming to Mooney. Roy simply authorized the mods to be incorporated at one time in order to increase the speed of the airplane.
The only modification Roy created was the Mooney winglet.
The above information is per the beloved late Mooney guru Bill Wheat. Bill worked in various positions, including factory floor worker, test pilot and engineer for over 50 years.
In addition, as we interviewed many retired, and younger Mooney workers during filming of Boots On The Ground, The Men and Women Who Made Mooney, the “old hands” Mooney workers were happy to teach and pass along their skills and knowledge to newer workers.
Being a longtime Mooney owner and Mooniac (lol), we hope the brand will continue.
There isn’t a mystery about what mooney needs. It needs to be made out of composite and that will require certification. But certification will take long and cost a lot. As for the parachute, I would rather have a plane that can recover from a Spin.
Thumbs-up!
Sorry, but unless they start from scratch with a clean sheet, a composite Mooney would still be a Mooney. Small cabin, uncomfortable seating position, tricky to land, no parachute, and backed by – whom? They are being vastly outsold by Cirrus because the Cirrus doesn’t have all the drawbacks mentioned above. Unless they came up with a new model that addresses all these shortcomings, a composite airframe would not help Mooney’s sales.
“Tricky to land?” Though my Mooney time is minimal (flew one for owner from repair station to owners to home airport),, and did a few check rides (me, a CFII,SEL/MEL FLT instructor, I never had any problems landing a Mooney. I like the Mooney, and I sure hope that they can find a way to keep it operating, and in production.