Ultras Certified!

[xcrmckenna]

Any news on the M10?

When I was at the factory earlier this month I was told the M10 program has ended. There is something new that is coming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[peevee]

43 minutes ago, AndyFromCB said:

Here you go, sorry only 198 on 15.6 at 17. Nate's old SR22 on the way to Lincoln, NE. Pretty positive climbing another 1000ft would have given it even 200.

https://picoolio.net/images/2017/03/29/CirrusSR22f003a.jpg

So how do you like them apples? Only about 10knots slower than a TKSed Acclaim on same fuel flow (LOP) without frozen, cramped feet. Of course, not unexpected considering 30ft less wing area. Also, not sure what you were referring to about SR22 being the worst aircraft to fly in the bumps. With 25lb/sq ft it rides considerably better than anything other than maybe the TTX. Plus I don't ever recall slamming my head against the ceiling in the SR22, while it happen on almost every summer flight in my old Bravo. More headroom and real restraint system go a long way. Never had an issues handling any wind in a SR22 I would not tackle in a Bravo. Actually, when I think about, the new G5 handles crosswind better than almost anything out there with its real draggy flaps. The wing just quits flying upon touchdown with a ton of rudder still left to spare. Not something I've ever been able to say about M20M rudder. There was never enough. And zero need to do heroic, much faster no flap landings like some here recommend. 

Sorry, Mooney will be lucky to sell 10 of these things before going Tango Uniform again.

800k for a new mooney or... about 800k for a piper jetprop? I'll take the turbine.

[AndyFromCB]

5 minutes ago, Alain B said:

That's your opinion , i will still get an Acclaim . By the way you are at 17000 and ISA probably +20 . 

Exactly what I said, 198 on 15.6 at 17,000, so easy 200 at 18,000. +10C.

It's not my opinion, the market has spoken. People with $700K to blow are buying SR22s. I bought a 206, but that's because I have no need for speed right now, being a stay at home dad for the foreseeable future and wanted to haul bikes/skis/cribs, etc. I have no set schedule, I can fly daytime VFR. But should BRS ever finish their 206 project, I'll be their first customer.

Edited March 29, 2017 by AndyFromCB

[Shadrach]

17 minutes ago, AndyFromCB said:

And that's why Mooney will be lucky to sell 10 of these machines. Because they are looking for hobbyist/pilots. Cirrus builds aircraft for people whom have a purpose for their $800K traveling machines whom also happen to be pilots. That's why you see a ton of 8 year Acclaims for sale with 400 hours on then while almost every 3 year Cirrus for sale has close to 1000 hours. They actually get flown for a purpose, on schedule and are purchased with pre-tax dollars. "Real" pilots choose Mooney or Bonanza, people looking for safe, reliable transportation choose Cirrus, leave the GFC700 on and don't notice "handling", whatever that is.

You may be right about the sales numbers. I can't say. I can say that I am certain that Mooney is looking for operators beyond hobbyists.  I can also say that I know of two flight departments that operated FIKI M20Ms because the block times were close enough to their turbine twins that it made far more since to use the Mooney for one or two people (almost all of the Execs were Multi/IR/Com).   This new certification was an attempt to make the Mooney airframe more user friendly and more automobile like, which is something Cirrus went after out of the gate.   I've not seen the new airframe in person, but in pictures the whole package looks handsome and the interior appears as refined if not more so than any single in production.

I would never be in the market for a new single on price alone; it would have to be beneficial from a tax perspective. If I were in the market, I can't see why I wouldn't consider the Mooney as a contender. It's faster and more efficient with better range.  Cirrus wins as a load carrier, but not by much unless you believe the marketing hype.  I'd love to find one with their claimed 1287lb useful.  All of the the 3600MGW birds on controller that listed a useful load had a range of 980-1080lbs. If a chute is necessary than only a Cirrus will do.

Almost all of he Acclaims on Controller have flown an average of 100hrs a year. I'm not sure why you think they're not being flown.

Are you just trolling or was your post an actual attempt to make compelling statement?  I honestly can't tell the difference...

[Raptor05121]

2 minutes ago, xcrmckenna said:

When I was at the factory earlier this month I was told the M10 program has ended. There is something new that is coming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a shame. All the work they did, all for nothing.

[AndyFromCB]

19 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

You may be right about the sales numbers. I can't say. I can say that I am certain that Mooney is looking for operators beyond hobbyists.  I can also say that I know of two flight departments that operated FIKI M20Ms because the block times were close enough to their turbine twins that it made far more since to use the Mooney for one or two people (almost all of the Execs were Multi/IR/Com).   This new certification was an attempt to make the Mooney airframe more user friendly and more automobile like, which is something Cirrus went after out of the gate.   I've not seen the new airframe in person, but in pictures the whole package looks handsome and the interior appears as refined if not more so than any single in production.

I would never be in the market for a new single on price alone; it would have to be beneficial from a tax perspective. If I were in the market, I can't see why I wouldn't consider the Mooney as a contender. It's faster and more efficient with better range.  Cirrus wins as a load carrier, but not by much unless you believe the marketing hype.  I'd love to find one with their claimed 1287lb useful.  All of the the 3600MGW birds on controller that listed a useful load had a range of 980-1080lbs. If a chute is necessary than only a Cirrus will do.

Almost all of he Acclaims on Controller have flown an average of 100hrs a year. I'm not sure why you think they're not being flown.

Are you just trolling or was your post an actual attempt to make compelling statement?  I honestly can't tell the difference...

I'm not trolling. The useful load on a packed to the gills SR22T G5/G6 with every option ends up around 1090-1100lb, 1180-1200lb on the non-turbo version. Reliably so, they have their production down to a few lbs per aircraft. The 1278lb is base package, you can buy it. Acclaim comparably equipped ends up around 850lb (TKS and A/C). That's a big difference. 900-1000lb useful load SR22s are prior generations. Mooney is just refusing to accept reality. Many would accept a single door, but they cannot accept the lack of useful load vs the competition. Top speed and range don't matter when you have to stop for fuel every hour and half with 3 aboard.

As to flying singles for a corporation, it depends. Before I sold my last venture to a bunch of New Yorkers, we had a TBM 850 to move people around. New Yorkers instantly sold that aircraft and replaced it with a King Air. Different risk acceptance I guess. Their policy was no singles at all, no single pilots either. I quit due to "religious" differences the moment I vested.

Cirrus sold 301 aircraft in 2015,

Textron managed 312 across their entire line (Cessna/Beech pistons)

Piper 111

Diamond 144

Mooney 8

Like I said, they are the market leader with just one product with 3 engine variants.

Yes, the Acclaims are mostly flown about 100 hours per year, for pleasure. Compare to most late generation SR22s being flown 200 to 300 hours a year. They are being used as business tools. No other aircraft currently allows you to do that and yes, it is all due to CAPS. All other piston singles require you to compromise safety at night or over wide spread low IFR. CAPS gives you a peace of mind to depart KOMA and head to KFAR even if it's 0/0 in between. I've cancelled so many flights over the years with great weather at departure and destination and widespread fog in between. Those flights are actually less worrisome with CAPS than they are even with a second engine.

 

Edited March 29, 2017 by AndyFromCB

[Raptor05121]

The problem is the M20 airframe dates itself from the early 50s. It was designed with an expansion life, and morphed beautifully into all sorts of letters into the alphabet. But the 2000's saw a new generation of aircraft designs and technologies. Mooney should have taken the time to design a new bird. The M10 (if the cancellation is true) really sucks because I think that would have given Mooney a pump not only in trainer sales, but also get the name out there. People buy Cessnas and Pipers because it is what they trained in and the market is keeping fat with inflation (VFR-only 172's are upwards of $80k on Controller!!).

Mooney only remains popular simply because of the cult-like following. It seems 60% of owners like the efficiency, the other 40% like the speed. But nowadays, roominess and modern design take precedence. Like Andy said, the people flying Cirri are business people who can swing writing off $900k. They want modern, new and luxurious. They are abandoning the Porsche 911 in favor of the new Maseratis and Bentleys that have come out.

Personally I think they should bring back a M20J-esque plane with a diesel engine and FADEC. Its time to abandon the 1940's engines we have. I really had high hopes for the M10J

[Godfather]

Not really sure who you are preaching to.  I think everyone in aviation wants new planes in the air. Is there a reason why you think only Cirrus should be able to produce planes?  When I was looking to buy (2003) one requirement was FIKI. Luckily I was able to purchase a plane and fly it over 1k hrs before Cirrus was approved.  I think the Cirrus planes are great and the $700k planes purchased today will be worth 300k in the not to distant future (same with the Mooney). This is GOOD for aviation although I wonder if enough pilots, with the means and desire, will be around to fly them in 20 years. 

[Godfather]

To be honest the Cirrus model that peaks my interest is the stripped down 20 for around 390k. Looks like a good value imo when the 172 can go for 400...

[AndyFromCB]

17 minutes ago, Godfather said:

Not really sure who you are preaching to.  I think everyone in aviation wants new planes in the air. Is there a reason why you think only Cirrus should be able to produce planes?  When I was looking to buy (2003) one requirement was FIKI. Luckily I was able to purchase a plane and fly it over 1k hrs before Cirrus was approved.  I think the Cirrus planes are great and the $700k planes purchased today will be worth 300k in the not to distant future (same with the Mooney). This is GOOD for aviation although I wonder if enough pilots, with the means and desire, will be around to fly them in 20 years. 

I'm not preaching or trolling, I love Mooneys. I will probably own one again. I'm just pissed off at the factory always making the wrong choices. Garmin G1000 upgrade was a great idea. New interior was a great idea. Keyboard was a great idea. How about tossing the stupid rubber biscuits in favor of modern short travel shock absorbers like the ones used in downhill mountain cycling, bumping up the power to 310hp and along with that, bumping up the gross to 3728 and then having a proper 4 seats full fuel aircraft. It would still out climb Cirrus at the new gross. If stall speed is an issue (it's not, it's currently at 59knots with flaps down), throw some VGs on it like Piper did with Meridian. Then they would have a seller. Two doors? Who cares on what amounts to a single seater with full fuel. 

As to CAPS, don't see why it could not be added as well, you've got a steel cage to attach to and all the dead charlie weights in the back.

Second of all, we have a gentleman on this board still waiting for mooney to answer a technical question in regards to spar corrosion. That's not customer service. From everything I know about Cirrus, their customer service is top notch. When I was shopping not so long ago, I openly told them I'm looking for a used one, not a new one (got a turbo 206 instead). They still flew down their latest and spent two hours giving me demo flight and going over the numbers on the used ones. That's service. That's something I'll remember in the future if I ever decide to be a productive citizen again and need a company ride.

Edited March 29, 2017 by AndyFromCB

[Mcstealth]

Guys. Quit feeding the troll. 

[gsengle]

That's all lovely but the box that Mooney is in is that doing different gear and getting to a higher weight both require a wing redesign. The gear is really compact. The wing is at certification max stall speed at max gross.

So they've done what they can.

Sure I'd love a Mooney with caps but without a magic increase in max gross there isn't a way to do it...

Wing redesign and fatter cabin, and you start to look like a Cirrus with retract...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rpcc]

Yeah,  not sure I get the Mooney new product or feature plan from a marketing perspective.   I can't believe they restarted production without a chute as an option. Not an engineer, but you can add a couple feet onto a 182 wing to gain some lift, why not do the same on the super strong mooney wing.  That would gain some UL and allow you to get a chute in there at least as an option.  How many wives say, sure the mooney looks great, but I'm not flying with you without a second engine or a chute, and now there's a cirrus in the hanger. 

Honestly - as the owner of the Mooney company, you have a competitor kicking your ass with basically one issue - a parachute as an option - and you chose to add a second door.  How can you build a new model and  not offer a chute.  How much investment did you make in these new models and production restart - 3-5 mill , to  sell 7-10 planes this year.  Why not wait and do it correctly so the new mooney's would be marketable in today's market.   You need a plan with features and pricing designed to sell 100-200 planes minimum not 7-10.

If mooney had the chute option they could argue all of its virtues - speed, efficiency, safety and start beating up Cirrus on all of its shortcomings - lots of stall spin pattern fatalities and fires.  

Adding a door, some nice leather and some fancy electronics aren't going to make a viable business against the cirrus product.

I'll be buying a non-g1000 ovation in the near future because it's just a much cooler plane.  Don't all of you wish Mooney would have taken a good punch at Cirrus so they could again be a viable company.  Very frustrated that such a great mark chose not to aggressively compete.

 

Edited March 29, 2017 by rpcc

[gsengle]

The Mooney wing is already pretty long and just barely fits most hangars. Add length and you no longer fit. Also much more certification work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xcrmckenna]

That's a shame. All the work they did, all for nothing.

Mr. Dutton told me they used it as a proof of concept. And will be used in the next M series. They plan on making it next to the ultra acclaim and ovation in Kerrville.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gsengle]

Hmmmm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rpcc]

The current mooney production wing is 36.6 ft.  A stock 182 wing is about the same.  This guy, with basically no capital made it happen with the 182 - how come it can't work with a mooney - http://www.katmai-kenai.com/aircraft/pre-owned.php

 

[ArtVandelay]

Cirrus uses their landing gear to absorb impact forces, without it the parachute landing would result in serious injuries. Mooney would need to either auto deploy it's gear (improved to take impact), or have a much larger parachute which would require more development money.

[Godfather]

I think one of the selling points of the chute is if the pilot becomes incapacitated the rest of the passengers could survive.  I can't help but think over the next 10 years they could come up with an auto land sequence that the AP could facilitate.  A survivable gear up landing where the AP sets the plane down and the occupants just reduce the throttle when the gps/AP tells them to. 

[rpcc]

Yes - but there was big money spent on purchasing Mooney - and they doubled down on restarting production with marginal changes.  Why not hire some hot shot engineers to solve these problems. I'd like to see these planes have a future - planning for business that sells 7-10 units is not a business.  

Edited March 30, 2017 by rpcc

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Alain B said:

How many knots does it cost ?

 

With the right attachment in the cabin, one could vacuum the interior while in flight on long boring trips!

Clarence

 

[Zwaustin]

I think the new Mooney models are actually pretty killer. With being the fastest piston single, having easy ingress and egress, including the latest and greatest Avionics from Garmin, having a killer automotive inspired interior, all new intuitive layout of switches and buttons and a being a very capable IFR weather machine for personal travel or an individual who travels for business alone or with one person it can compete. The airframe is sleek enough for today's market even with its design age and the paint scheme(s) look flashy and unique enough to compete right? Where they get killed by Cirrus is their marketing department is terrible. Look at the two websites side by side. Cirrus appeals to the new age modern buyer, pitching heat about safety, ease of entry into the high performance segment and flaunting stuff like its "innovation" that they mostly bought from a vendor. Their website is pretty, colorful, interactive and hits emotions that Mooney simply doesn't dare go near. Using videos, owner experiences, and in depth visual demonstrations that make one see themselves in the airplane is something Mooney needs to understanding if they want to be a player in this market. Mooney shows all of 4 pictures of the new airplane and few angles that make you want to see more but where are they? Where are the video demo's, the paint renderings and the Mooney legacy owners experiences from past move ups? If i was going to buy one of the two, I would go Mooney hands down but i am already a pilot and previous M20 owner. What about those who know nothing about airplanes? Those who have dreamed of flying?    

Although the loss in value in the first 3 years is worse in a Cirrus it isn't that much better for me on the Mooney side. For me, the pricing of a new piston single is just not that competitive and I don't see it being so anytime soon. For the amount of money I could have bought a new Mooney or Cirrus for I bought a top of the line cabin class pressurized piston twin that can carry twice as much load, go farther, flies faster, has a truly comparable avionics package and can actually take care of real business travel. Resale is better for me, the plane can still be used for tax incentives, I still have the difference of 200K plus for fuel, upgrades and more and my transition training was still covered. 

Bottom line for me is they need to kick it in gear over there in the marketing deptartment. The plane is sick and although the new piston single market may be limited they can earn and steal some of the Cirrus share of it and be viable. A parachute means nothing to me as a pilot and previous airplane owner. The technology, capability, speed, efficiency, resale value and overall value for dollar proposition does. Someone hit me up when you take delivery of your new ultra so I can take a spin. 

[Shadrach]

Is there any other piston single that you can hop in and go 1000 miles in about 4 hours?

[peevee]

7 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Is there any other piston single that you can hop in and go 1000 miles in about 4 hours?

Cessna ttx max cruise is 235 knots.

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, M20Doc said:

With the right attachment in the cabin, one could vacuum the interior while in flight on long boring trips!

Clarence

 

Is there a way I could make seltzer water in flight?