Jump to content

New 4 seat Mooney from retooled M10?


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, gsengle said:

It's also outdoor activities in general. Visits to national parks are way down - as one example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It sure didn't feel like it in Jackson Hole last summer, but you are right, per capita, they are down. But with so many more people around the world having more money, my favorite places seem overrun these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think the best thing for Mooney and general aviation is to go back to its roots and build an affordable plane.  Sure, people want the latest and greatest, but few people can afford to buy $800k+ pla

I think you hit the nail on the head. Although Nintendo isn't the problem but more so the solution. Just imagine how much less costly your life would be if you were as sensible as all the other energe

I'm not convinced that fuel economy is what beats the competition. How about a 4 seat pressurized turbine powered model? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted Images

10 minutes ago, gsengle said:

It's also outdoor activities in general. Visits to national parks are way down - as one example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I use the Mooney to get me to outdoor places (among other things). It's so convenient and inexpensive to just hop in the plane and go somewhere. I'm a big outdoors person so being able to fly to a location to go hike that's normally out of reach is awesome. One of these days I'll add a backcountry plane to the family, in addition to the Mooney, to expand that even further. The ability to get to a national park I haven't been to before or enjoy visiting regularly is easy with the Mooney. There's no way I could take a regular two day weekend and hop in the car and go to some of these places; it'd have to be a vacation by itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Garmin's Aviation margin is 17%. Even after the lawyers. . 

I can't think of any plane crash thats ever been caused by a certified GPS unit. It's the aircraft company that takes the hit.
I hope you don't think 17% is high, Apples is close to 40%.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of valid points and the subject remains relevant to those of us that fly. Cost is certainly a big part of the problem but I think the bigger issue is cultural like 201r said kids growing up in a world of computer toys that have provided the people with an easy way to find excitement and entertainment without any risk and very little investment. Even the current technology in drones has made radio controlled airplanes obsolete and are selling like hot cakes because they are easy to fly and cheap to purchase. The other thing that has changed and what really created the golden age of aviation is after world wars 1 and 2 and Korea there were literally hundreds of thousands military pilots that new what it meant to fly and wanted to continue after their service so the demand was there for the companies we all know and love to produce thousands of aircraft to fill the market. I feel we are living the last days of general aviation. I thank God and my wife I didn't wait any longer to finally do what I always dreamed about.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

While planes have gotten 8 times more expensive, take a look at the price of a commercial airline ticket over the same time period. It's so much cheaper to fly commercial now, it's driving demand away from what used to be transportation minded flights. 

Now, TSA is doing a great job of making commercial air travel feel a lot more more expensive. Maybe we'll get some traffic back. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
There really wasn't a big video game distraction in 1986 when Cessna ceased production of all piston planes...

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

Atari 2600 hit the market in 1977...





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, gsengle said:

I'm not convinced that fuel economy is what beats the competition. How about a 4 seat pressurized turbine powered model?

Mooney has already built it, it was called "TBM". Its market success suggests you may be right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We went to the Moon... before the decade was finished.

We put men on the moon. ...And returned them safely to the Earth....

We did this, not because it was easy.  ...But because it was haaaaaahrd!  - from Memory, JFK's speech...

 

In the late 60s, a Corvette cost about 6 amu, dad's new to him house... 3x that.  A Mooney would sell for near 10amu?

Inflation was running unabated and pretty much wiped away the cost of the loan as everyone was getting paid so much more each following year with a cost of living raise... you could buy a plane and have it go up in value.  Sounds good but it is a personal economic nightmare.

Today...Corvette near 60amu, Zillow lists dad's old house at 400 amu, the internet says an Acclaim cost is over 700amu.

 

Corvettes... 6 to 60 Amu 10X

house...  20 to 400 amu 20X

Mooney... 10 to 700 amu 70X

 

People today like new things.  Brand new things. Many people like to buy the experience of going somewhere and doing things.  Learning how to fly a used worn airplane is not a Today kind of thing. It's haaaahrd...  :)

learning how to fly a new airplane is a costly experience. Doing this in Silicon Valley is an incredibly costly experience with plenty of hassle to make it happen. Ask Sam Husky...

 

And that's all I've got to say about that...  - Forrest Gump

 

It has never been easy to own or fly a Mooney.

Some of us do it because it is hard, to go fast, with waas accuracy, in IMC, with efficiency, and land safely on the earth.

You guys have convinced me that there hasn't ever been a better time to fly a Mooney than today! :)

Best regards,

-a-

Edited by carusoam
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the M10 was dropped is hugely disappointing. Not only was it the first real new airplane to come out of Mooney for decades, but it also was in a class of it's own where it had imho good chances of rolling up the trainer market. That and the fact that it had the Diesel.

Most of us don't need 4 seats, they are fine with 2 plus one for the occasional trip. The J model of the M10 was quite attractive in the sense that it allowed 2-3 people (or 2+bags) to travel at M201 speeds but with half the fuel flow AND in areas with scarce avgas availability. It would have made an attractive traveller.

Major mistake was not to include a shute as today, that is the make or break criteria for most of the decision makers, e.g. those who tell you wheter you can buy that new plane or not.

Now, we are back to square one. Mooney has 2 very expensive top line models and no entry level model. While the Ultras are very nice planes (I love the 2nd door) they are out of range for a lot of people who maybe were hoping for the M10J to be the one new airplane they could afford.

 

So what now? Without new airplanes to be sold Mooney will end up where it started out from with the Chinese adventure, probably producing 10-15 M20 per year and do parts business. The M10 was relatively far ahead, now to develop yet another plane with the money avilable is unrealistic imho.

What is needed is that entry level model. Possibly with the same cell but slimmed down to less weight and a 200-210 hp 4 cylinder Avgas burner or a Diesel if a big enough one becomes available, no-frills interior and a standard avionic fit with maybe an Aspen or two and a off the shelf avionic rack (not the G1000 in any case) for maybe 400k would possibly be an attractive offering. Even better, bring back a shorter cell with it and possibly save enough weight to use the stronger diesel. That would make a very interesting airplane indeed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course we don't know how this will end, but I'd rather they get a new airplane both strategically and engineering wise right, not push ahead if the plane wasn't right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, gsengle said:

Nah, figure out how to do it smaller lighter cheaper but fast and pressurized, 4 seat....

Hmmmmm.   "Lighter", "Fast", "Pressurized" are three words that do not fit with "Cheaper"......^_^

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

For all practical purposes producing an M20J airframe would cost about the same as producing an M20R airframe. There is not enough volume to get any ROI on automation so the only way to reduce production costs would be to outsource subassemblies to China or Mexico. Everyone here would freak out if Mooney started building wings in Mexico. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, teejayevans said:


I can't think of any plane crash thats ever been caused by a certified GPS unit. It's the aircraft company that takes the hit.
I hope you don't think 17% is high, Apples is close to 40%.

Gross or Net?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Al Mooney had it right all along. He designed and produced airplanes that provided a high level of performance using small, fuel efficient engines. Consider the Culver Cadet, the Culver V, the Mooney Mite and finally his M20. They all provided relatively high cruise speeds using small engines with relatively low fuel consumption. Why, collectively, did we decide that approach was wrong? When did we get on this kick that more horsepower was better?

Now airplanes have large, six cylinder engines with 285 hp, 300 hp or more? All these big engines carry a correspondingly big price tag too, not to mention higher fuel consumption and higher overhaul costs. This is better? Haven't we watched the manufacturers essentially price their products out of reach of the majority of their customer base?

The original C and E model Mooney's were GREAT performing airplanes just as they left the factory with their 4 cylinder 180 hp and 200 hp Lycomings. The early model Bonanzas were considered highly desirable, nice handling, comfortable airplanes and they were powered by 185 hp, 205 hp and 225 hp Continentals. Maybe we should be looking to build more efficient and affordable airplanes in order to rebuild General Aviation in this country.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Except the bulk of the cost isn't in the engine, and as we discussed here recently you can throttle an R back and be close to as efficient as a J... fuel efficiency won't beat Cirrus.

We need to stay faster, add chute, slick interior and more load. And retract. Imho


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The bulk of the cost may not be the engine but 10k there, 10k there and soon you are talking serious money.

 

What would need to be done is to take the "cheapest" plane they do now (which I suppose is the Ovation) and then see how you can save from there downwards.

IO360/390 iso the current engine, how much? And not only the blank cost of engine, but also the rest around it.

Avionics: With people liky Dynon and True Track coming up on the certified market these days, with the different options like Aspen, Avidyne e.t.c. what can you save by making a non-G1000 cockpit available? E.G an Aspen/Avidyne solution with an Aspen 1500 as standard, Dual IFD440 with Mode S and ADSB, Single JPI EDM900 engine instrument and either entry level Tru Track AP or basic S-Tec AP on the price sheet with options to go e.g. S-Tec 55x or DCF90?

Materials: How much can you save by using less expensive materials on the interior?

Where can you save on the building process? Where can you save weight to accomodate for the lesser power?

Would it be economically feasible to shorten the long body or would it be cheaper to keep it?

And then you can put an airplane onto your price sheet in the 300-400 k $ base price range, which looks very attractive to those looking at Ovations and SR22's and will get people to come into the sales shop and talk options. Like in Cirrus, most folks who walk in to get the "cheap" SR20, most will walk out with an Ovation or Acclaim, but it is to get them there first which counts.

Another major challenge however will be that putting a shute in the M20 is next to impossible. So the Mooney would need to come back to it's original advantages: Speed for buck.

The pity is that the Thielert/Continental Diesels are too weak to support the M20 airframe really, unless it could be massively made lighter. In Theory I could see an equivalent to the "C" Model with 155 hp, considering that the engine keeps it's power to much higher altitudes then the O360 does, it would actually have more power than an O360 at altitude but be short on the ground = bad runway performance. Still, if a model could be built which could in figures correspond to the C with empty weight to MTOW ratio, 50 USG Jet fuel and the CD155, it might prove a very attractive entry level model. Of course this would mean that the Mooney Cell would have to be reworked so it can actually do this, I don't know if the C and E cells could be that easily reproduced or if even the J cell could be lightened sufficiently that it would work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The bulk of the cost may not be the engine but 10k there, 10k there and soon you are talking serious money.
 
What would need to be done is to take the "cheapest" plane they do now (which I suppose is the Ovation) and then see how you can save from there downwards.
IO360/390 iso the current engine, how much? And not only the blank cost of engine, but also the rest around it.
Avionics: With people liky Dynon and True Track coming up on the certified market these days, with the different options like Aspen, Avidyne e.t.c. what can you save by making a non-G1000 cockpit available? E.G an Aspen/Avidyne solution with an Aspen 1500 as standard, Dual IFD440 with Mode S and ADSB, Single JPI EDM900 engine instrument and either entry level Tru Track AP or basic S-Tec AP on the price sheet with options to go e.g. S-Tec 55x or DCF90?
Materials: How much can you save by using less expensive materials on the interior?
Where can you save on the building process? Where can you save weight to accomodate for the lesser power?
Would it be economically feasible to shorten the long body or would it be cheaper to keep it?
And then you can put an airplane onto your price sheet in the 300-400 k $ base price range, which looks very attractive to those looking at Ovations and SR22's and will get people to come into the sales shop and talk options. Like in Cirrus, most folks who walk in to get the "cheap" SR20, most will walk out with an Ovation or Acclaim, but it is to get them there first which counts.
Another major challenge however will be that putting a shute in the M20 is next to impossible. So the Mooney would need to come back to it's original advantages: Speed for buck.
The pity is that the Thielert/Continental Diesels are too weak to support the M20 airframe really, unless it could be massively made lighter. In Theory I could see an equivalent to the "C" Model with 155 hp, considering that the engine keeps it's power to much higher altitudes then the O360 does, it would actually have more power than an O360 at altitude but be short on the ground = bad runway performance. Still, if a model could be built which could in figures correspond to the C with empty weight to MTOW ratio, 50 USG Jet fuel and the CD155, it might prove a very attractive entry level model. Of course this would mean that the Mooney Cell would have to be reworked so it can actually do this, I don't know if the C and E cells could be that easily reproduced or if even the J cell could be lightened sufficiently that it would work.


That project was called the Eagle and I don't believe it sold that well...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to! Even though they must have sold some as there is one prominently flying around Switzerland.

See, that is what I'm trying to tell:

The Eagle was the entrance model which got people into Mooney's shop. Once they were there, they opted for the higher models. But that does not make the Eagle a bad marketing idea.

Why do you think Cirrus is hanging onto the SR20? They hardly sell any. Nor do they intend to I think. The price may even be set so they would loose money if they actually sell one for that price. But it gets the customers into their shop!

Same thing everywhere. McDonalds for decades kept the normal burger at $1.- because of this, so people knew "I can have a burger for one dollar!" But how many bought it? It's the Big Mac or the Big Tasty and all the other stuff which makes them money. But they hang onto the entry model burger, for good reason.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't have to! Even though they must have sold some as there is one prominently flying around Switzerland.
See, that is what I'm trying to tell:
The Eagle was the entrance model which got people into Mooney's shop. Once they were there, they opted for the higher models. But that does not make the Eagle a bad marketing idea.
Why do you think Cirrus is hanging onto the SR20? They hardly sell any. Nor do they intend to I think. The price may even be set so they would loose money if they actually sell one for that price. But it gets the customers into their shop!
Same thing everywhere. McDonalds for decades kept the normal burger at $1.- because of this, so people knew "I can have a burger for one dollar!" But how many bought it? It's the Big Mac or the Big Tasty and all the other stuff which makes them money. But they hang onto the entry model burger, for good reason.
 


The eagle didn't serve that purpose it was insufficiently differentiated. Too few to make a difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.