New Mooney Sales - M20 Upgrades?

[Seth]

I had the chance to sit and chat with the new Mooney CEO Vivek Saxena and a new targeted marketing campaign is going to occur soon in an attempt to boost sales of the Mooney Ultra's, the  M20U and M20V.  He wanted to know what would make the M20 more appealing to buyers in order to increase sales.

I suggested that his marketing department create a one page fact sheet showing that if you use the aircraft for some sort of business sense, that you can show with accelerated depreciation, that the monthly cost for an aircraft under warranty could make sense for more potential buyers that don't realize the taxable benefits of purchasing a new airplane.  

Personally at this point for me, with a young daughter, I'm perfectly happy with my Missile and at this time am unfortunately for Mooney, not one of the target buyers of a new Ovation Ultra.  I have Ovation speed, better climb, a 1067 lbs useful load, and the buy in was 1/7 the cost.   If I'm going to go into the flight levels often, it will be pressurized for me (separate subject for later).

Back to the topic at hand:

To help Dr. Viveck Saxena:

What can Mooney do to make the M20 more appealing?  

 

I added a poll for engineering improvements.  The pilot door and redesigned cabin were big pluses.

I'll send this thread to Vivek for him to look at once it's run it's course.

 

-Seth

 

 

 

 

[KSMooniac]

Needs more useful load, period.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[gsengle]

Useful load/improved landing gear.

Chute. But only if useful load goes up not down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BradB]

Useful load would be high my wish list.  Pressureization would be high on my passengers' wish list.

 

Brad

[ArtVandelay]

Replaced steel parts with titanium, 1/2 weight and corrosion resistant.
Composite skin for lighter weight.
Chute requires auto deployment of landing gear, to absorb the energy of the landing.
Electronic ignition, probably could increase compression and squeeze out some more horsepower.

[Raptor05121]

Chute.

I'd say a majority of Cirrus' sales are indirectly related to the pilot's spouse wanting a parachute.

[Oscar Avalle]

Useful weight, parachute would give piece of mind to new buyers (ie Cirrus).

Electronic ignition would be great.

Modern interior design and ergonomic panel... The end the interior of a 600 k+ airplane should look more like the interior of high end BMW (lights, climate control, comfortable leather seats), than that of a cheap VW.

 

[Alain B]

44 minutes ago, Raptor05121 said:

Chute.

I'd say a majority of Cirrus' sales are indirectly related to the pilot's spouse wanting a parachute.

I prefer to fly into the crash myself than give control to a parachute , just wait when someday this parachute will " control " the crash in a schoolyard full of kids !  . 

[GeorgePerry]

5 hours ago, Seth said:

I had the chance to sit and chat with the new Mooney CEO Vivek Saxena and a new targeted marketing campaign is going to occur soon in an attempt to boost sales of the Mooney Ultra's, the  M20U and M20V.  He wanted to know what would make the M20 more appealing to buyers in order to increase sales.

I suggested that his marketing department create a one page fact sheet showing that if you use the aircraft for some sort of business sense, that you can show with accelerated depreciation, that the monthly cost for an aircraft under warranty could make sense for more potential buyers that don't realize the taxable benefits of purchasing a new airplane.  

Personally at this point for me, with a young daughter, I'm perfectly happy with my Missile and at this time am unfortunately for Mooney, not one of the target buyers of a new Ovation Ultra.  I have Ovation speed, better climb, a 1067 lbs useful load, and the buy in was 1/7 the cost.   If I'm going to go into the flight levels often, it will be pressurized for me (separate subject for later).

Back to the topic at hand:

To help Dr. Viveck Saxena:

What can Mooney do to make the M20 more appealing?  

 

I added a poll for engineering improvements.  The pilot door and redesigned cabin were big pluses.

I'll send this thread to Vivek for him to look at once it's run it's course.

-Seth

Dr. Saxena, prior to your taking the helm, I've spoken with Mooney's head of sales and marketing a few times.  Seth's pole hits the nail on the head.  The two things Mooney can do to immediately increase sales are incorporate a BRS system and if possible increase useful load.  Doing one without the other is a catch 22.  A gross wt increase it would offset the 60 lbs a BRS system would weigh.  Make it an option so old school pilots who don't see the merits can opt out if they so choose.  But by having a BRS in a 4 place go fast airplane Mooney instantly becomes a viable competitor to Cirrus.

Marketing will require very little effort or investment as anyone looking at a Cirrus will also compare the Mooney once both aircraft are on an even playing field.   Three "S" involved in selling airplanes.  Safety, Stats, and Phycology.  Pilots don't decide to buy airplanes, their wives give them permission to buy airplanes.  Wives don't want to die and the parachute is as good a sales tool as it is life saving device.

The 2015 sales numbers tell the tail:  301 airplanes for Cirrus and 11 for Mooney.  

Cirrus Aircraft
Cirrus SR20	31
Cirrus SR22	128
Cirrus SR22T	142
Cirrus SRV	0
Totals:	301

Mooney International Corp.
M20J Allegro	0
M20K Encore	0
M20M Bravo	0
M20R Ovation	0
M20R Ovation2	3
M20S Eagle	0
M20S Eagle2	0
M20TN Acclaim	8
Totals:	11

 

I'd love to see Mooney really invest in their product line and get on equal footing with Cirrus.  I think some pilots would happily give up the useful load to go fast.  Also many Mooney pilots don't fill up 4 seats, so a lower useful load when compared to a Cirrus might not be such a big deal.  Also another option would be limit fuel to 75 Gallons like in my eagle.  Flying with 75 vs 89 Gallons = 84 pounds of additional useful load.  That more than covers the weight of a BRS system.  So what if the plane will only fly for 3.5 hours with an hour's reserve.  For most of us that's long and far enough especially if their wives allow them to buy the plane. 

Very respectfully

George

[Guest]

We take care of an ever growing numbers of Cirrus SR22's versus Mooney's.  Cirrus never stops innovating, Mooney seems to have stalled.  The innovation keeps people buying the next new model.  Your Cirrus isn't a software orphan like your Mooney is.

Our local Piper dealer cherry picks the Cirrus owner then sells them a Mirage, then a few years later pitches them a Meridian.  

The Socata dealer cherry picks the Meridian owner for a TBM.  Mooney should have stuck with Socata.

Clarence

[KSMooniac]

Replaced steel parts with titanium, 1/2 weight and corrosion resistant.
Composite skin for lighter weight.
Chute requires auto deployment of landing gear, to absorb the energy of the landing.
Electronic ignition, probably could increase compression and squeeze out some more horsepower.

Composites are not lighter in the GA world, unfortunately. They offer a lot of advantages, but not weight savings.

Swapping their not-really-turbo-normalized power plant for a true TNIO-550 from Tornado Alley Turbos would be a huge upgrade on the Acclaim.

Ti gear is intriguing, but I bet it would be cost-prohibitive. Worth a trade study, though!

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[KLRDMD]

1 hour ago, GeorgePerry said:

So what if the plane will only fly for 3.5 hours with an hour's reserve.  For most of us that's long and far enough. 

In one sitting, yes. But I fly to Mexico regularly and prefer to not buy fuel there. I need to get there and back with sufficient reserves. That means leaving home with 5 hours of fuel. Sure, each way is only 2 hours plus an hour of reserve total but I need to be able to put butts in the seats with 5 hours of fuel.

[GeorgePerry]

8 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

In one sitting, yes. But I fly to Mexico regularly and prefer to not buy fuel there. I need to get there and back with sufficient reserves. That means leaving home with 5 hours of fuel. Sure, each way is only 2 hours plus an hour of reserve total but I need to be able to put butts in the seats with 5 hours of fuel.

thus the word "most"  -  Not all

[carusoam]

Bring back the Rolls Turbine project, add some pressurization....

- Diesel is nice, Turbine Is nicer...

- M22 Mustang had pressurization.

- Ask our Yooper pilot, he is going from a Rocket to a Turbine two seat homebuilt (?)

Based on previous experience...  I'm going to have to wait 15 years after the first batch is built, and be out of sync with the economy to afford it.

Best regards,

-a-

[Danb]

Definitely not all, my best upgrade was long range tanks.

[carusoam]

Dan's right, my Turbine is going to need 130gallon tanks! 

Best regards,

-a-

[KLRDMD]

32 minutes ago, GeorgePerry said:

thus the word "most"  -  Not all

I think "most" people would like to "tanker" fuel when they find it somewhere cheap.

[201er]

Other - price reduction. Their new airplanes are just no competitor to a used airplane. Second door? Cmon, really? What use are two doors in a four seat airplane with the useful load to only carry two people?

They gotta up the useful load, stick in the parachute gimmick, all while cutting the price by at least 30% or the plane just doesn't compete. 

They are going to have to replace the landing gear system to get any more payload out of it.

[201er]

2 hours ago, GeorgePerry said:

 

Flying with 75 vs 89 Gallons = 84 pounds of additional useful load.  That more than covers the weight of a BRS system.  So what if the plane will only fly for 3.5 hours with an hour's reserve.  For most of us that's long and far enough. 

So add a chute to make up for people running out of gas more...

[Piloto]

Pilot relief tube. Turboprops and jets have it. Why not the Mooney. The joy of using it is priceless. Best upgrade I have in my M20J.

José

[Alain B]

6 minutes ago, 201er said:

So add a chute to make up for people running out of gas more...

Cirrus make peoples believe that flying with a chute is safer ! Yes , maybe only in a few accident scenario . But in most scenario , the chute is useless : Lost of power below 1000 feet on take-off, stall-spin accident landing scenarios and many others . I think that in most accident were there was a parachute " save " , good piloting skills would have make equal or if not only better , and probably save the aircraft at the same time . 

Edited October 6, 2016 by Alain B
typo

[GeorgePerry]

8 minutes ago, Alain B said:

Cirrus make peoples believe that flying with a chute is safer ! Yes , maybe only in a few accident scenario . But in most scenario , the chute is useless : Lost of power below 1000 feet on take-off, stall-spin accident landing scenarios and many others . I think that in most accident were there was a parachute " save " , good piloting skills would have make equal or if not only better , and probably save the aircraft at the same time . 

I'll take a slightly different point of view.  There are scenarios where a chute is absolutely necessary.  Mid-Air, Engine failure at night, Engine Failure in mountainous terrain, over water, and yes when a well meaning pilot gets in over their head.  A pilot and their passengers shouldn't have die b/c they wore too big of a hat wether deliberately or not. 

[GeorgePerry]

23 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

I think "most" people would like to "tanker" fuel when they find it somewhere cheap.

I won't argue that point...Now I have the STC allowing me to fill up to 89 Gal, when the gas is cheap I top off.  But 90% of the time I run the plane at 75 Gal since there's no reason to lug extra weight in the air unless I have to.

[carqwik]

Interesting comparison is really how much Cirrus beats the pants off of Cessna's TTX in terms of sales...what does that tell us?  Is the chute that important a differentiating factor is purchase decision?

[cliffy]

Maybe a verifiable post purchase marketing program to find out WHY they bought a Cirrus instead of a Mooney would be a good idea.

Can't be that hard of an issue to work out in a polite way to get real answers instead of postulations. Talk to Cirrus owners. Why guess. Go to flyins, walk flight lines, have an army of Mooney owners asking why, whenever they see a Cirrus fly in. Lots of ways to do it. 

I do think (and I have changed my mind on this) that the chute has a bigger marketing point than first thought ( its all in perception, if not fact, of safety) and the marketing of Mooney needs to overcome the "stigma" of "too small cockpit" , old design, company on the ropes, orphan airplane maybe, etc.

Mooney meets expectations for many folks if the marketing would only be improved. Case in point was the paint job of the plane on display at Oshkosh! Terrible design. Marketing has to be mindful that the demographics of the pilot group are changing.   "Remove the training wheels " is a good start. 

More useful load is always wanted has been for 100 years. Lots of things to consider and engineer to make that happen.