Mooney Factory

[aviatoreb]

Perhaps what they could save in weight/material by eliminating the steel roll cage they could put into the chute... I for one would never choose that because the majority of accidents (cirrus included) happen on landing or takeoff and are over before you know it. I'll take the sturdiest frame over a parachute gimmick any day.

 

Let's face it, the chute is mostly meant for enroute issues that are almost certain to be blatant pilot error (flight into IMC, fuel starvation, loss of control enroute, etc). The chute absolutely will not help in a departure stall, approach to landing stall, cfit, thunderstorm entry, fuel contamination or powerplant failure on departure, etc. Easily 90% of the time accidents occur the chute cannot help and the 9% of the time when it could help, a little common sense can easily help avoid the situation in the first place. There may be a rare case of in-flight structural failure, instrument failure in IMC, etc where it comes in as a preferred solution but extremely rare. Otherwise it does little more than embolden pilots to replace good decision making and airmanship with a false sense of security.

 

201er I agree with everything you said.  Completely.  And I also purchased a Mooney, and I love the steel cage....wish I could also have the airbag seatbelts...but that is another active thread.  I am not speaking as a product for me - I would not imagine it as a retrofit STC and I would not plan on selling my wonderful airplane N10933 for a new one.  I agree completely with your assessment of the red-herring that is the Cirrus parachute.  And for all the reasons you said, and for several other reasons too, Cirrus has a poor safety record, despite the chute.

 

I still think from a marketing standpoint it would sell Mooney airplanes to people who don't understand the nuances of all the excellent reasons you stated.  And customers are customers.

[aviatoreb]

Holy Cow ... Pilots! I just read all six pages ...

It's me!

It's the guys I work with ...

It's the guys at the local FBO ...

it's the guys on here ...

Yes we ARE smart ...

... but are we really engineering experts ... Production and tooling experts ... Labor cost/ hour cost analysis experts ... market analysis experts ... Advertising experts ... Experts in historical data for failure of aviation manufacturers ... Experts in market demand, pricing and production cost mark-ups ... Experts in finance ... Experts in world markets ... ? Are we ... 

 

Great news for Kerrville, TX and for us!

 

:-)  Aren't forums fun - its a place that we can all pretend we are chief engineer and CEO and expert market analysis, and speak our peace for fun.

[201er]

201er I agree with everything you said.  Completely.  And I also purchased a Mooney, and I love the steel cage....wish I could also have the airbag seatbelts...but that is another active thread.  I agree completely with your assessment of the red-herring that is the Cirrus parachute.  And for all the reasons you said, and for several other reasons too, Cirrus has a poor safety record, despite the chute.

 

I still think from a marketing standpoint it would sell Mooney airplanes to people who don't understand the nuances of all the excellent reasons you stated.  And customers are customers.

You're right. And I do see your point about using the chute as a marketing gimmick far more so than an actual safety device. However, I don't think Mooney is or even can be in direct competition with Cirrus or Cessna. Cessna makes trainers. Cirrus makes doctor killers (for lack of a better term that summarizes the experience of good looks, speed, super gadgetry, false sense of security, jump in and go attitude, etc). Mooney on the other hand is an optimal blend of speed, efficiency, and safety. That means not putting in something that doesn't serve a vital function.

 

Even if Mooney puts in the chute, gadgets, etc... why should it convince a perspective cirrus buyer to switch brands? It's still an older design, not as exciting looking, not as simple, etc. It takes a different kind of buyer to get excited over the fact that the Mooney will pass the cirrus and burn less gas at the same time. To that buyer, I don't think the chute really makes or breaks the sale. So what I am saying is not that I disagree with you that chutes help sell Cirruses to the kinds of people who want to buy that sort of plane but rather that it does not make the Mooney particularly more appealing to Mooneyminded people and does little/nothing to convert Cirrusminded people.

 

BTW, I find it crazy to spend $700k on a SR22 when a faster, more efficient, sleeker Acclaim can be had for the same price. I am a Mooniac.

[DS1980]

Will the factory be able to repair damaged airplanes?

[Jamie]

:-)  Aren't forums fun - its a place that we can all pretend we are chief engineer and CEO and expert market analysis, and speak our peace for fun.

 

It's fairly well known that that a large part of the cost comes from liability and FAA certification requirements. When -I- assert that it ought to be possible to build a plane for less, I'm not wishing it to be true, and not disagreeing with the people who's job it is to determine if it is true in the current regulatory environment. I'm saying that, absent ridiculous and arbitrary man made law, it should be possible to build a plane for less... a lot less.

 

Consider homebuilts an existence proof that inexpensive high performance aircraft are possible. I do, at least.

[ghovey]

Mooney needs to sell what they have been good at-SPEED. They also have a great opportunity to market fuel EFFICIENCY. But if you have been to one of the air shows back when all of the manufacturers displayed product and watched the potential buyers (and their spouses) look at the various airplanes--and try and sit in them you will know the biggest issue Mooney faces. Airplanes designed before America got FAT don't have general appeal because they are not comfortable. Mooney has to have an employee sit by the door of the airplane just to show a potential customer how to get in. And please don't try and sit in the back seat.

When I talk to people about my Ovation all they want to know is how fast I go. Then I tell them my fuel burn LOP and they are stunned. And if I can get them in the airplane (which isn't that easy) they find it to be roomier than they thought. But if a Cirrus were sitting next to me, or a 210 or a Cessna 400 or a Bonanza almost everybody would say those airplanes were more comfortable. Comfort sells.

Mooney cannot succeed on price. The new Mooney's will be expensive. So let's go with what brought us the reputation we have and keep making sexy looking, smokin fast airplanes for people who want to FLY.

[201er]

Don't forget that Mooney pilots go on diets to go faster and to improve their useful load

[Jamie]

I diagree. Mooney needs to get on board the Fat Acceptance train. Aviation advocacy groups are laboring under the misapprehension that flying is too expensive, when in fact aircraft are simply too small. They need to be roomier and capable of lifting an average American.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[triple8s]

THAT I could have soooo done without!

[marks]

Obviously, a new 201 may go a little faster, but the real competition would be with all the used 201s available.  How much faster would a new 201 be than a used 201 and how much more would a new 201 cost? This thread points out to me how little we all know about the aircraft business.  As a used aircraft buyer I have no idea back in the late 70's the difference in price between a new Arrow vs. a new 201.  Obviously a Mooney wing costs more to build than an Arrow wing.  So perhaps the market for trainers wouldn't support a fixed gear 201.  But then again Piper sold a six cylinder 235 hp fixed gear Cherokee for many years, so I thought a 200 hp fixed gear 201 would help sell more 201s.  But then again what about a parachute?  How about two doors?  -  I can tell you that I'm glad it's not my money involved in this new Mooney venture.  The sad story is that we are losing pilots and sales of all airplanes are falling.

[aviatoreb]

Something - anything to draw the conversation away from those eye searing pictures....

 

Continuing to play chief engineer/CEO...

 

How about a complete redesign - an all carbon fiber Mooney "M20".  Same basic shape and same basic wing shape, esp the backward tail so it looks just like our current Mooneys, but all carbon fiber which could significantly speed up the build time, and make a smoother airplane and therefore a faster airplane, and possibly lighter too.  So if 

 

2 doors would help sell airplanes.

 

P.S. I am not personally a fan of carbon airplanes.  My previous airplane was a Diamond DA40 and I was horrified to learn that carbon airplanes corrode!!!  The DA40 for example has a metal sheet under the carbon in the wing and many other place to serve as wicking for possible electrical in clouds to allow the airplane to be IFR cert.  Well the thin metal sheet can and does corrode, under the carbon, causing the carbon to bubble - so it is a very great expense and labor to mitigate that.  So while not a fan, I bet it would sell.

 

201er, I am basically agreeing with you, that while I am suggesting these things for fun and discussion - parachute, carbon fiber, etc, I agree it would pull the airplane away from the true thoroughbred line that attracts the breed of pilots that we celebrate here.

 

But I also wonder, in a world where Mooney may sell 5, 10, maybe 15 airplanes a year, that some option like a parachute obviously may not be enough to snarf the entire massive Cirrus customer base, even say 5 or 10 a year would be a large increase in sales for a much smaller Mooney sales line.  I think a few would be swayed.

[ChrisH]

For all the Marketing/CEO folks, here's data from aeroweb on what's selling past two years. Figure that anyone that want's a new airplane is buying one from existing choices, Mooney has to take share from someone in this list. I like how the discussion is moving from C172 (bring back the D), to Cirrus. 

 

Also, while a lot of people are talking on aircraft merits, I wonder how much of Cirrus's success is product related (e.g. parachute, two doors, etc.) vs sales strategy related (http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2013/04/cirrus-launches-ownership-program-for-non-pilots/, http://www.planesmart.com/aircraft/shared-aircraft/. 

 

Chris, M20k N1163D. 

[201er]

Interestingly enough neither the cherokee nor the bonanza made that list either. Is it over for post-world war II designed aircraft?

[aviatoreb]

Interestingly enough neither the cherokee nor the bonanza made that list either. Is it over for post-world war II designed aircraft?

 

Almost it seems - except for the very notable exception - the ever popular C172 is top of the list for 2012.

 

Interestingly the C162 is in some sense a modernized, carbonized version of the C150/152, it goes straight to the front of the class.  Maybe that is what Mooney should do?  A carbon M20.

 

I point out to everyone who wants a brand new M20J - see also that it must compete against the DA40.  My first airplane I owned was a DA40.  My airplane flew faster than book - it did an easy 150TAS without wheel pants - and they say it would be 5kts faster with pants - and on a Lyc-IO360MIA it had essentially the same fuel flow as a M20J, maybe a bit less since it is a 180hp variant.  The DA40 is tough to compete against since it is quite suitable for primary training - easier to land and more robust than a M20J for bounced landings - but fast enough to not be boring.  In my book if buying new a DA40 is a much better airplane than a SR20. 

[bnicolette]

It will be interesting to see what changes they make.  In my opinion they have to do something to compete with the Cirrus that has a supreme cabin.  I also think that they are going to have to add a chute. 

 

A client of the company I used to work for sold his Lear31 and purchased a Cirrus SR22T GTS as he wanted to fly his own airplane.  At the time we had an Acclaim Type S for sale which he demo'd and he absolutely hated it.  When he put his wife and two teenage children in it he thought they were too cramped.  His perception was that the cabin in the Cirrus was huge in comparison and was also in love with the ergonomics that the cockpit offered.  He also brought up the chute that the Cirrus offered, that to him gave his family that added level of safety in the event something happened to him during the flight.  

 

Whether real or perceived the benefits of the chute are there and in my opinion needed to be competitive.

 

BTW that poor Acclaim was crashed/totaled within the first month with the new owner.

[DaV8or]

The new Mooney's will be expensive. So let's go with what brought us the reputation we have and keep making sexy looking, smokin fast airplanes for people who want to FLY.

 

And how would that be any different than the marketing strategy Mooney has used prior to 2008? The sales numbers were not impressive. Clearly, the modern buyer is willing sacrifice speed for comfort, better appointments and safety features. Mooney can stay in a little niche market and eventually go bankrupt again, or compete with innovation. Time for a new Mooney.

[ghovey]

Make the Ovation faster. If mooney is going to certify a new airplane it will take years, MONEY and will not be anything like a current Mooney. Oh, it will also be more expensive. A new Cessna 172 is selling for $364,000. You want a new clean sheet Mooney with two doors, larger cabin, 200 kts and all the necessities to be able to compete-garmin avionics, oxygen, a/c, leather, fadec engine controls, jet A fueled power plant. They have that plane already it is a TBM 850 only it goes a little faster.

[Bob_Belville]

Jolie posted this interview on FB... www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcfCnGbnLvE

[201er]

I don't think it's such a good idea to use a new long body Mooney as a "comprex trainer"

[Bob_Belville]

I don't think it's such a good idea to use a new long body Mooney as a "comprex trainer"

I really hope this works out though there sure are hints that something is fishy. 

[fantom]

Well, I have to agree with Bennett and the others here who have met him in person that Dr. Chen presented very well.  So, in summary, he sees long term value in the Mooney brand, which he wants to expand awareness of internationally.  In the Asian short term of 10 to 20 years, he sees the primary role of the M20 as being in the international complex trainer market.  He is committed, though, to maintaining the existing fleet.  I couldn't agree with him more, FWIW.  Cirrus and Cessna can't compete in that market with their current offerings.  

 

As an aside, the idea of resuming M20J production has pretty much been beaten to death here as a non-starter in the U.S. owner flown market, where the cost savings over the long bodies is not significant enough to attract buyers.  In fleet operations, though, the cost of the aircraft themselves, I would think, would be much less important than their long term operating costs.  Here a M20J Lean Machine could be viable again, especially if it were powered by a diesel engine.  Something I think that Mooney International should seriously consider if this is truly the market that they want to capture. 

 

Jim        

 

Totally agree, Jim.

 

We have beaten it to death around here, and regardless of what some of us would like, Dr. Chen seems to have a viable production vision for Mooney, a plane that can serve developing countries very well as a complex airline pilot trainer. That's what he seems to have in mind, and it will work, I believe.

 

New pilot starts, young GA mechanics, a user friendly FAA, and new plane buyers are in short supply in the USA, and not predicted to climb, at least by realistic people. The future is overseas, and if Kerrville can play a part in it......GREAT!!!!

 

It can only help us legacy owners.

[jlunseth]

They should make some aircraft that make sense.  The move towards hyperpower in the couple of years before the factory shut down did not make sense to me.  Some of those aircraft, when fit with TKS, air conditioning, plus the big engine, had 100 lb. payloads, you needed to be a horse jockey to fly alone in one, and a small jockey at that. 

 

A turbo aircraft with a better useful load and an engine that would allow LOP, would be a great Mooney.  Sounds like the pre-S Acclaim to me.

[Mcstealth]

Not to be politically incorrect on purpose, but, comparing the average weight of the Chinese population as opposed to Americas, the Mooney will be positively spacious.

 

Just saying.

[RobertoTohme]

Why not?  I did it...  Jumped on my Screaming Eagle with a whopping 43 hours on my log and never felt threathed or uneasy with it.  After 7 years, 2000 hours, ATP and 2 type ratings, I can tell you there's no better foundation for precise flying techniques than a Mooney.

 

If I was able to do it, I don't see why anybody else can.

 

I don't think it's such a good idea to use a new long body Mooney as a "comprex trainer"

[RobertoTohme]

I think that Mooney going back to production is a great thing, and couldn't care less about nationality of the new owner; there's a legacy to upkeep, and someone with the technical background is the right person to carry it out.  Over time, I'm sure there'll be changes to the M20 but those won't come quickly thanks to the FAA lenghty approval process.  My view is that they're going to try to streamline the manufacturing process and product improvement rather than go with a brand new design which will take years and hell of a lot of money to certify; it's always easier, cheaper and quicker to amend the M20 Type Certificate to attain different versions of the same airframe.  Want an example?  The TBM850, vastly superior to the 700, is still officially a TBM700N...  It's faster and carries more weight farther than the previous versions, all this with an amendment to the original TC instead of seeking a new one...  Of course, it's greatness has solid Mooney roots, the M30; it's sad that they had to part out of that venture back then due financial reasons.