Mooney factory = worst website ever

[Tony Armour]

Why would I buy a $750,000 airplane from them when the website is not only sloooow but when it does load it's horrible. Little windows to the side, hunt for the menu, text about the Acclaim U is overlaid on other text. I mean really, half of the 15 year olds in America could build a better website in 30 minutes ! 

 

[Hector]

It really is an awful website. They have invested over 100 million on the company over the last couple of years. You think they could afford to hire a high school student to redo their website. Really inexcusable.

[carusoam]

Check the hardware you are viewing it on.  The IPad seems to handle it pretty well using it in portrait mode.

Then again, if they want to sell to you, they should make it work on your preferred hardware's viewer...

Hmmm, maybe I'm the customer they are looking for....

I sent an email to their sales group a few days ago, still awaiting a reply.  So maybe, I'm not their target audience either...

Best regards,

-a-

[Joe Zuffoletto]

The real question is: Even if the website was perfect, how will Mooney compete against Cirrus?

Disclaimer: No one has drank the Mooney Kool-Aid more than I have. Those of you who know me know the details. Mooneys are in my blood. I ask this question as a businessman.

I just checked Controller.com and a fully loaded 2013 FIKI Cirrus SR-22 G5 with low time can be had for $689,500. This plane has the same panel as the Acclaim V and more or less the same engine, plus BRS and twice the useful load.

I'm no Cirrus fan, but that's a formidable competitor for a company that's trying to sell M20V seats to pilots in the market for these kind of aircraft.

I remember back in the early 1990's Mooney's advertising tagline was, "Your personal airliner." I thought that was very cool, very accurate and certainly unique to Mooney based on their performance vs. the competition at that time. But times have changed and they don't hold the performance differential they used to. What should their new message be? It's a tough question. I hope for all of our sake as Mooney owners and pilots that they find the answer.

[CaptainAB]

An SR22 GTS with FIKI starts at 735 an Sr22t GTS 835. Price isn't the problem. Cirrus has a story of safety and innovation. They focus on it. I would imagine if mooney would tell their story of speed through efficiency and focus on it, they too could be successful. 

As great as the Cirrus is, the single best selling model is still the 172. It's simple, safe, reliable. In fact whenever I rent one it's like hanging out with your oldest and best friend. A new one starts at something like 420 reasonably equipped. 

[Jeff_S]

To Tony's point, the website doesn't work well in a phone/tablet environment, but it works fine on a browser, and I don't find it slow at all. And in defense of Mooney, I know all too well the challenge in getting a website that can satisfy all the requirements to be totally cross-platform and still provide the level of usability and information that people want. Mooney has gone to the new style of website design that is all the rage these days, using vertical scrolling as a key navigational element. When I was designing webpages, the old adage was that if you can't get it on one screen people will never see it. But with the rise of the smaller devices, scrolling has become "de rigeur" again. The more things change...

[aviatoreb]

4 hours ago, Joe Zuffoletto said:

The real question is: Even if the website was perfect, how will Mooney compete against Cirrus?

Disclaimer: No one has drank the Mooney Kool-Aid more than I have. Those of you who know me know the details. Mooneys are in my blood. I ask this question as a businessman.

I just checked Controller.com and a fully loaded 2013 FIKI Cirrus SR-22 G5 with low time can be had for $689,500. This plane has the same panel as the Acclaim V and more or less the same engine, plus BRS and twice the useful load.

I'm no Cirrus fan, but that's a formidable competitor for a company that's trying to sell M20V seats to pilots in the market for these kind of aircraft.

I remember back in the early 1990's Mooney's advertising tagline was, "Your personal airliner." I thought that was very cool, very accurate and certainly unique to Mooney based on their performance vs. the competition at that time. But times have changed and they don't hold the performance differential they used to. What should their new message be? It's a tough question. I hope for all of our sake as Mooney owners and pilots that they find the answer.

A 2013 airplane while yes, it is almost new, is used.  If I am spending $689k, I want the warranty and new car smell, and the right to break my new engine and new everything in from scratch.  I want to go to the factory and enjoy picking up the new product.  If I had $689, then I assume I would have $789 and I would buy the new Cirrus, or $750 and buy the brand new Mooney if that is what I want (which is what I would want).  When I am spending $100, 200, 300, yeah even 400, then I think wow I saved 400-600 over new and so it is worth it to me to buy a used airplane.

Separate, Mooney M20V is faster, by a lot.  Some people value that.  They should push that.  But if they had put a parachute, that would have taken even more Cirrus prospective buyers.

Yeah - they need an excellent website and given they are not so expensive, a summer intern could do, it is a shame.

[Bravoman]

If I had 750k to spend on a single it would probably be a cabin class bird like a nice used Malibu, matrix  or even an older Meridian. As much as I would love to see Mooney succeed I just don't know how many takers there will be for an M20 at that price point.

[Tony Armour]

6 hours ago, Jeff_S said:

To Tony's point, the website doesn't work well in a phone/tablet environment, but it works fine on a browser, and I don't find it slow at all. And in defense of Mooney, I know all too well the challenge in getting a website that can satisfy all the requirements to be totally cross-platform and still provide the level of usability and information that people want. Mooney has gone to the new style of website design that is all the rage these days, using vertical scrolling as a key navigational element. When I was designing webpages, the old adage was that if you can't get it on one screen people will never see it. But with the rise of the smaller devices, scrolling has become "de rigeur" again. The more things change...

It is 100 times better on my laptop !!

Now will someone loan me 750k on a solid handshake ? For collateral I have two chicken nuggets and an old 201 flap.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Tony Armour

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, Bravoman said:

If I had 750k to spend on a single it would probably be a cabin class bird like a nice used Malibu, matrix  or even an older Meridian. As much as I would love to see Mooney succeed I just don't know how many takers there will be for an M20 at that price point.

I think the Malibu is 1.15M for the pressurized piston version, new.  2.2M for the turbo prop version - new - yes less for used..  It is only fair to compare new to new or used to used as far as selling price, but fair enough regarding buying price (what would I buy?)  For an acclaim, I would be thinking of buying a 2008 used acclaim for 400k?.... or a 1981 rocket for a lot less.  But for tax depreciation reasons, and also just because they can, some people buy new airplanes.  Then Malibu vs M20V is 1.15M vs 0.75M.  Different but overlapping missions.

[IndyTim]

I advise on digital commerce for a living, and our mantra is: design for mobile first, desktop second.

I also personally know the principals of the company who did Mooney's website redesign.. I may pass along the feedback at the right time.

I think Mooney has an interesting marketing/product roadmap challenge: how to leverage the brand's core value proposition (speed/efficiency/style/safety) but meet 21st century benchmarks like that of Cirrus.  I would argue that, despite my faith in the strength of the Mooney cockpit, in the eyes of Joe Aircraft Buyer, Mooney gets no better than a "C" compared to Cirrus without BRS on the safety dimension.  In other words I think Mooney has an uphill battle claiming they are at market parity, let alone a leader, on the single most critical attribute.

I really think Mooney has to find a way to add BRS.. I know the poll here said *we* don't care that much, but we're the folks who already bought Mooneys.. we have a self-selecting bias.  Had we cared that much about BRS we wouldn't be on this forum.

But there were 204 Cirrus buyers last year who voted with their wallets for an aircraft with BRS.. I have to assume it was BRS that won them over - can't see any other reason to have a Cirrus. ;-)

I really look forward to seeing how Mooney sales figures stack up against Brands B, C, and C, now that capacity is ramping back up.

[Bravoman]

1 minute ago, IndyTim said:

I advise on digital commerce for a living, and our mantra is: design for mobile first, desktop second.

I also personally know the principals of the company who did Mooney's website redesign.. I may pass along the feedback at the right time.

I think Mooney has an interesting marketing/product roadmap challenge: how to leverage the brand's core value proposition (speed/efficiency/style/safety) but meet 21st century benchmarks like that of Cirrus.  I would argue that, despite my faith in the strength of the Mooney cockpit, in the eyes of Joe Aircraft Buyer, Mooney gets no better than a "C" compared to Cirrus without BRS.

I really think Mooney has to find a way to add BRS.. I know the poll here said *we* don't care that much, but we're the folks who already bought Mooneys.. we have a self-selecting bias.  Had we cared that much about BRS we wouldn't be on this forum.

But there were 204 Cirrus buyers last year who voted with their wallets for an aircraft with BRS.. I have to assume it was BRS that won them over - can't see any other reason to have a Cirrus. ;-)

I really look forward to seeing how Mooney sales figures stack up against Brands B, C, and C, now that capacity is ramping back up.

Most of the cirrus pilots I know say they wouldn't fly anything without a chute so there must be a sizable segment of the pilot population that feels that way.

[gsengle]

I admit the idea of a chute is appealing if they can keep useful load at 1000+

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Danb]

While I personal couldn't care less re. a chute, if I was announcing basically a new airplane I'd have to provide a chute. Cirrus has proven the population desires it so why would you put out a new ship without one?  I have 2 friends(clients) with almost new ( they purchased new) Cirrus planes, both high time pilots now would never buy a plane without a chute,one does not even want to fly in one without the chute. So why in the heck would Mooney not include it in the new Ultra? Many pilots won't fly at night especially in IFR conditions without a chute or another engine. So why not since Cirrus has proven the demographics why go against them?

[carusoam]

Time to look at the composite section, again..?

With Dan's logic, would we see the outlines for a break-away section to release the rocket and chute?  I am thinking we will over time...

i haven't been flying in the dark in decades.  Would I start if I had a chute?  Possibly...

Dan, please stop bringing logic to this debate.  It's getting really expensive!

Keep in mind, a proper chute for the new Long Bodies can be retrofitted, in some expensive way, to the older LBs.  Based on current weights and speeds...

Best regards,

-a-

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, Danb said:

While I personal couldn't care less re. a chute, if I was announcing basically a new airplane I'd have to provide a chute. Cirrus has proven the population desires it so why would you put out a new ship without one?  I have 2 friends(clients) with almost new ( they purchased new) Cirrus planes, both high time pilots now would never buy a plane without a chute,one does not even want to fly in one without the chute. So why in the heck would Mooney not include it in the new Ultra? Many pilots won't fly at night especially in IFR conditions without a chute or another engine. So why not since Cirrus has proven the demographics why go against them?

Exactly - whether anyone of us would want a chute or not, I am convinced that they would sell more Mooney's if they could fit a chute to it.  Now they have proved they can retain some of the original built and replace many parts in carbon, rather than a complete carbon rework.  How about a full carbon tail section, and carbon skins throughout?  Could that save a few pounds to then add a chute.  Or an optional chute or more carrying weight for others.

41 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Time to look at the composite section, again..?

With Dan's logic, would we see the outlines for a break-away section to release the rocket and chute?  I am thinking we will over time...

i haven't been flying in the dark in decades.  Would I start if I had a chute?  Possibly...

Dan, please stop bringing logic to this debate.  It's getting really expensive!

Keep in mind, a proper chute for the new Long Bodies can be retrofitted, in some expensive way, to the older LBs.  Based on current weights and speeds...

Best regards,

-a-

I'm also a "don't fly in the dark guy" and a chute would maybe make me rethink that.  Although I think I am safer in my no chute available airplane not flying at night than I would be in a chute available airplane and flying in the dark.  I last flew in the dark during a bunch of flights in 2014 for the required dark training for my commercial - its fun - I love it - but it is a carefully considered policy of personal mins for me.  Other than those training flights, none in single engine since 2008 when I decided to quite that.

I really don't see why a Mooney is harder to fit a chute as an STC than a Cessna 182 where BRS did produce a chute STC.  I actually wrote to BRS about 2 months ago asking if they would make us a chute STC and they said they are not currently planning to.  But they are almost done making a Cessna 206 BRS STC.  If they can chute a no frame all tensioned al skins airplane like a cessna, why not a cage airplane like a mooney?  Isn't it just straps that cradle the airplane wrapped around the body (under the skins?) from which the airplane hangs from a chute that is launched out a hole by a rocket. (I don't know the correctness of the last sentence if anyone does).

Now and then I think about getting a cirrus, for the chute, and then I remember I like the "road feel" of a mooney more, and it is just a more fun airplane. But often I briefly getting tempted by a cirrus since I tell myself that after all its still an airplane, so how bad can it be?

Edited February 15, 2016 by aviatoreb

[NotarPilot]

I definitely think adding a BRS to new Mooneys would help them compete better with Cirrus. Aside from the dual doors I think a parachute is the selling primary selling point for the Cirrus when husbands talk to their wives about buying a new plane. The last winning selling point Cirrus has is the interior cabin space but this is where Mooney should sell their speed and efficiency to overcome this. But that's just MHO.

[Hank]

I'm hardly a new plane buyer, but my take is this:  if adding "in the event of an accident" safety gear changes how you fly, there is something wrong. Did you start driving faster when you bought a car with airbags? They'll save you if you hit a fence, a tree or opposite direction traffic. If putting a chute in the plane gives you "confidence" that you will survive the flight, maybe you should stay on the ground.

Personally, I enjoy my Mooney. It flies well day and night, but I'm not up to very much night IMC (too easy to overload my head). And no, I wouldn't be up to night IMC with a chute, either, just because it would allow me to overload myself and probably survive. Mooney's strength has not been efficiency for a long time, but they are fast and strong. The accident record proves the strength of the roll cage and its success protecting occupants; it also shows Mooneys have a lower accident rate than many other brands.

So, no, a chute in and of itself means nothing to me. Flying safely is what it's about. "Yeah, I was driving way too fast in the ice, but when I slid and hit the bridge abutment, the airbags saved me. Guess I really owe it the makers of the ol' econobox, I should get me another one." No, dumbass, you should drive more carefully or stay home! Same for a chute on the plane, except Marketing types can say this with enough gentle obfuscation to not insult potential buyers. My way here is certainly more clear and unambiguous.

[Bravoman]

I agree wholeheartedly with the above two posts. The comment about appealing to non pilots is I think a very significant market driver for Cirrus.  A lot of folks are queasy about flying in little airplanes, and I know from speaking with some pilots significant others that they wouldn't be on board with having a plane unless it had a chute.

[Mcstealth]

8 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

  Isn't it just straps that cradle the airplane wrapped around the body (under the skins?) from which the airplane hangs from a chute that is launched out a hole by a rocket. (I don't know the correctness of the last sentence if anyone does).

Other than one dangling participle, your grammar and syntax are spot on.  

 

 

Edited February 16, 2016 by Mcstealth

[CaptainAB]

I think the parachute is about marketing, and Cirrus has capitalized on marketing that they build the safest pilot and non pilot friendly aircraft. Other features like two doors and a very passenger friendly cabin, automatic straight and level feature, and now an auto emergency decent feature, etc, etc

If mooney could put one in great, but it probably works better with the mantra of efficiency and speed to try something like an auto engine out feature instead, whereby the gps and autopilot can at the touch of a button set best glide and reach the most suitable landing area. Perhaps even alla tesla the GPS could advise what altitude you need to cruise at to reach a suitable field. Too me this would be just as practical as a parachute, but save on useful load and cost.'

it might actually be a sales win over the parachute because your sales guy could actually demonstrate it.

love the two doors.

[aviatoreb]

7 hours ago, Mcstealth said:

Other than one dangling participle, your grammar and syntax are spot on.  

 

 

Yeah - dangling participlate.

[Mooneymite]

Why try to catch Cirrus with an old idea like a ballistic chute that has to be replaced every 10 years and can't be steered after deployed?

Mooney needs to lead with innovation!  How about a pop-out rotor that turns the plane into a guide-able autogyro?  

 

 

[nels]

How's the insurance on a Cirrus? Are they a total loss if the chute is deployed and the plane impacts the ground?

[DonMuncy]

I saw a Cirrus in a salvage yard which had deployed the chute. The straps suspending the plane are apparently built into the composite structure of the cabin, and destroyed the outer layer of the cabin. I have a hard time seeing how the plane would not be a total loss, but I am also not knowledgeable about repairing structural glass.