Schllc

I never suggested 300knts. I don’t think it’s necessary.

I’m pretty sure if you contacted continental or lycoming and placed an order for 1million engines you would be able to negotiate significantly less than 80k.

Mooney has been trying to sell to people who know exactly what they want, and that market is small. Cirrus had been selling to people that didn’t know they wanted one, which is an exponentially larger market.

1000 thumbs up for the Mooney service center. well worth the trip. I will be bringing mine there for annual in may.

The first part you said is probably the real reason it’s all suffering. If you can’t get people interested in the product it’s doomed. A 25 hour jet card is running about 200k+ presently. I don’t believe a single engine piston cost anywhere near that per year to own and operate.

For some reason I thought it was 20k instead. Thanks for the correction.

This is your target market. If you only had 10% of that interested in aviation, you couldn’t make enough planes to satisfy even 1% of that 10%. That would be 22,000 people…. That’s about the amount of planes Mooney has built in total over 70 years!

Epic didn’t have a manufacturing certificate or a certified TC, that was what took seven years. Trying to compete with the TBM is once again, doing the same thing. It’s proven that won’t work. As I recall, they had no problem securing the deposits needed to move forward. As you’ve already pointed out, the demand for the same old thing is pretty lackluster, A really different product is the only hope, and even then…. All a moot point really, no one is dumping 10 million, much less 100 into Mooney. Private pilots in single engine pistons are rapidly becoming an anachronisms.

Exactly. They did it different. They created an experience beyond a buying transaction. People buy Ferrari’s and Pillipe Patelle watches because they are the epitome of quality and exclusivity. they like having the “best”. The catch is, that it actually has to be the best!

I don’t disagree unfortunately, I just mean that doing the same thing isnt going to work. The only hope for success, is to do something different. That is exactly what Cirrus did.

I feel you may have missed my point entirely. The point wasn’t to compete. Make something different, you don’t have to make more planes than Cirrus, you only need to make enough to be profitable, and if you cant do quantity, do it in quality

You left out the rest of the sentence.

Here is my two cents… I believe Mooney could revive its brand and cater to the same people buying bonanza’s and four million dollar watches if they could figure out how to market to them. People with money always want the “best”. The days of the average joe buying a new plane are gone forever, market to the rich or give it up. Cirrus did something completely different. They “created” a market where it didn’t exist. The average cirrus owner didn’t choose from the available aircraft, they bought a “Cirrus”, along with the Cirrus culture. Cirrus created a marketing, finance, investment product wrapped around an airplane. The fact that it had a parachute was more window dressing than it was the primary factor. I am not knocking the parachute, you can’t ignore the reality that it probably pushed a lot of people over the finish line. But people are not buying the Cirrus because it is the best of anything, they are buying it because there isn’t a viable option. I’m not talking about comparable airplane performance, I mean a total package, of financing training, tax consulting, leaseback/rental. If you want to compete with Cirrus you would have to compete on their terms, and create a cheaper Cirrus that is even easier to finance and buy. If Mooney were to revive, it would not be by persuading Cirrus owners to switch fan clubs, it would be by courting an entirely different group of buyers. Given the relatively small numbers of buyers needed (compared to something like cars), the product would have to be something unmatched in the market in either ability, quality or both. A turbine would only be a plus if it added to performance and useful load. Make it like a real high quality machine, good form and fit, quiet, well appointed and unique. People pay insane amounts of money for custom cars, and they depreciate by 50% or greater within five years. They don’t even care, they throw them away and get another. Produce a product that is truly better. I can promise you this, no one shows off a cirrus for its quality of build, comfort, quiet, performance or looks. Making it cheaper is a losing strategy. A 1200# UL, 250 knot, super quiet, 1200 mile range, fadec, autoland 4 person plane for 1.5 or even 2 million would be different! A parachute wouldn’t hurt but I don’t think it’s necessary. If you made something fine, rare and exclusive, people would want it, it’s human nature. If I had 100 million laying around I’d give it a go!

Buy the plane you want, and find a Mooney specific instructor. Then fly until you are very comfortable in the plane, insurance required hours or longer. Not sure of your complete experience level, but going from a 172 with zero complex or rg time may require more time than insurance demands. Be safe and thorough, the stakes are high. I got my ovation before finishing my ppl, with about 30 hours total time, and flew with an instructor for close to 50 hours. A good part of that was because I did my IFR training immediately after, but I easily needed 20+ before I was comfortable solo with passengers. There’s a lot going on between a flight school 172 and your average well kept mooney.

I had two ultras, the second door is grossly overrated. It took me about four months to stop walking around to the passenger side. The carbon fiber was a much better fit than the aluminum, the size of the door on the ultra is a winner but two of them is just more things to break and more places to leak. The NXI was great as was the panel layout, but in my opinion (and budget) not worth double the cost of a legacy Mooney. Mooney would have been better served by making the single door larger and avoiding all the expense and time they went through for two doors. Maybe they could have built more when the market was hot…

It appears to just be the normal learning curve. When you enter aviation, it’s hard to believe just how onerous and obtuse the rules are for things. I bought a g1000 ovation before I got my ppl, and a I remember all the patient people explaining to me why I couldn’t just bolt a turbo or turbo engine onto my plane. The scale of the market, along with some of the idiotic rules in the FAR’s, is just very different from anything else in our world. What often seems simple and logical, is complex and impossible, not to mention financially unjustifiable.

That is redundant….

I do not believe this to be the case. I go their frequently and signature is the only option. You may want hangar space, which they usually have. KARA is pretty close, and the fbo there is very friendly and cheaper , it’s just not as close to Lafayette, but only about 15 miles away.

I don’t really disagree with what you wrote and my statement was definitely limited in scope and experience (I am also a mechanical engineer). I do disagree with your assessment of my understanding I know what I meant by moduli, I mean that after it is exceeded in metal, the metal retains an exponentially higher strength that the composite. I know the methods of composite construction have been advanced well beyond my experience. But what I witnessed was not purely anecdotal. The properties of the base materials are the same, and metal is much more predictable than composite. The incidence of defects in material and workmanship are more forgiving in metal than composite as well, and the ability to both observe exeedence of capacity and the strength of utility post exeedence is greater in metals than composites. Does this mean metal is superior? In all honesty, I cannot argue this is true. While metals deform after exeedence, the still retain a large portion of their strength, composites do not. They are usually barely a fraction after. I understand metal much better, and with what I have seen and experienced I would prefer metal, but I’m rapidly approaching an anachronism so…..

With regard to cirrus’s success… My opinion is that it has very little to do with performance, and everything to do with marketing. They were smart enough to create a network of flight school training, financing, leasebacks and targeted advertising that converted and entire segment of people who would have likely never even considered owning a plane, much less becoming a pilot. It really was a stroke of genius. The parachute definitely didn’t hurt them, I personally believe the pure role of the parachute in the success is debatable.

The reservation I have with composites is a residual from my days with bicycles. Aluminum and steel frames always showed very clear signed of imminent failure from over stressing, and always had significant utility after those signs appeared. Composites showed zero sign until complete failure, and then they were unusable. Under ideal conditions, composites are clearly superior, but ideal conditions do not always exist. There is no reliable way to check to see if a composite airframe has ever been overstressed unless it has failed. Reason being, composites have no modulus of elasticity, and when the limit is exceeded there is a wildly variable range of strength retained. With metals, this is much more predictable. Does this make one better than the other? I’m not experienced or smart enough to make that determination. Metals are defiantly more predictable, and while I don’t mean to denigrate the modality of current convention, I know which I prefer.

I’ve read “manifesto” and “engines”. regardless of the regard you have for Mike Busch, both are filled with immutable principles, and excellent basis for understanding airplane engines.

There is no difference in the engine. the stc is only a prop governor adjustment, fuel flow and different prop. If there is a difference in cylinder life it would be luck of the draw or how it’s run. my two ovations were well past 1500 hours on original cylinders and they have been flying for four and two years since I sold them. I haven’t had any issues with my turbo 550’s cylinder either. But obvioulsy I’m a small sample…

A year and a half ago is a lifetime… everything has ballooned like crazy. I do believe it will correct to an extent. the cost of the panel spec’d may not change as much. it’s all of the “well while you have it torn open”…. that’s what really adds up! In for a penny, in for a pound.

Is it invisible to radar!?