Any insight as to why M10 was cancelled?

[RobertE]

This development strikes me as very bad news.  I always thought Mooney's long term survival required 3 things that program offered- composite construction, production in China and lots of sales of trainers in China.  So what happened?

[KSMooniac]

I don't think the plane was viable as it had developed. Too heavy, and likely too expensive.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

[HRM]

I never understood the point. The PO of my E's son trained in mine and I have known other pilots who trained in Mooneys. The myth of Mooneys being hard to fly is just nonsense. So why produce a special trainer?

Now, a lean, less expensive Mooney makes some sense. One of the big costs is the labor to make one. That's where China shines. They could build the fuse and the wings over there, ship it to Kerrville for final assembly and interior/avionics/engine install and voilà, less expensive Mooney.

[thinwing]

On 4/8/2017 at 2:28 PM, HRM said:

I never understood the point. The PO of my E's son trained in mine and I have known other pilots who trained in Mooneys. The myth of Mooneys being hard to fly is just nonsense. So why produce a special trainer?

Now, a lean, less expensive Mooney makes some sense. One of the big costs is the labor to make one. That's where China shines. They could build the fuse and the wings over there, ship it to Kerrville for final assembly and interior/avionics/engine install and voilà, less expensive Mooney.

It didn't work out for Cessna and the sky catcher...

[NotarPilot]

1 hour ago, thinwing said:

It didn't work out for Cessna and the sky catcher...

And was really bad PR for Cessna too. An iconic American aircraft manufacturer building planes in China.

[xcrmckenna]

When I visited the factory last month it was explained to me the M10 was only a proof of concept plane and was to make way for the M100 that will be produced and assembled next to the Ultras in Kerrville.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hector]

M100?? First I've heard of a designation for the follow on aircraft to the M10. Any details?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Tommy]

One word. Cirrus.

The dominance of which stifles the competition in new GA aircraft market. Who is going to buy a never-tested new plane manufactured by a company that has no experience in carbon composite material when you can get one extensively tested + similarly priced from a well established company that also spares no dime when it comes to marketing? 

If Cessna tried and failed, what chance does Mooney have?

IMHO, the business model that Mooney should adopt is to make all the parts in China, then assembled them in both Kerrville and China pending on market (deluxe vs basic) or model. This cuts down cost. Fit a chute. Run a smear campaign against composite material. Then watch the orders roll in!

 

[Raptor05121]

I think the M10 was Mooney's saving grace. People buy Cessnas and Pipers because thats what they train in. If we had more people flying Mooneys, they would have future customers for the M20.

RIP

[M20F]

35 minutes ago, Raptor05121 said:

People buy Cessnas and Pipers because thats what they train in. 

People buy Cirrus's because for about 10kts less you get a more comfortable cabin, a lot more useful load, parachute, and a host of other better things. 

New Mooney's really don't offer much compared to the competition.  My F is infinitely better in a lot of ways to many of its peers, the main thing being purchase price/operating cost (today dollars).  But this isn't 1967. 

[HRM]

4 hours ago, thinwing said:

It didn't work out for Cessna and the sky catcher...

Sorry, you cannot compare an LSA, high-wing Cessgnat with a Mooney. I completely agree that Mooney building a low-end trainer was a waste of time.

I still think a brand spanking new Mooney at much less cost than a new Ultra, with fewer goodies, possibly at the performance level of the E, would sell like hotcakes. Assembling it in Kerrville would clear it of the China syndrome. This is why Toyota assembles trucks in Tejas.

[kortopates]

When I visited the factory last month it was explained to me the M10 was only a proof of concept plane and was to make way for the M100 that will be produced and assembled next to the Ultras in Kerrville.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fake news!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

On April 8, 2017 at 5:28 PM, HRM said:

I never understood the point. The PO of my E's son trained in mine and I have known other pilots who trained in Mooneys. The myth of Mooneys being hard to fly is just nonsense. So why produce a special trainer?

Now, a lean, less expensive Mooney makes some sense. One of the big costs is the labor to make one. That's where China shines. They could build the fuse and the wings over there, ship it to Kerrville for final assembly and interior/avionics/engine install and voilà, less expensive Mooney.

People on this site constantly perpetuate the myth of how tough Mooneys are to fly. I'd say so easy to fly anyone can do it, just remember the gear.

Clarence

[Tommy]

31 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

People on this site constantly perpetuate the myth of how tough Mooneys are to fly. I'd say so easy to fly anyone can do it, just remember the gear.

Clarence

Agree. But it is definitely in our best interest to continue to perpetuate this myth so we can walk around with a halo on our head!

I always receive some new-found respect every time my retrieval pilot colleague asks me what I fly,

[Greg_D]

4 hours ago, xcrmckenna said:

When I visited the factory last month it was explained to me the M10 was only a proof of concept plane and was to make way for the M100 that will be produced and assembled next to the Ultras in Kerrville.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that's true, it's nothing more than spin control.  It sure seemed to me that Mooney had every intention of certifying, marketing, and selling that plane.  At least  up until a few months ago!

[BruceLee]

3 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

People on this site constantly perpetuate the myth of how tough Mooneys are to fly. I'd say so easy to fly anyone can do it, just remember the gear.

Clarence

I started teaching recently at a very large school. I'm giving 4 lessons a day to 4 different students on most days. 

Its no myth. The average student struggles greatly with an Archer. Teaching the average primary student to fly a Mooney or any other high performance aircraft would be comical at best.  

 

[M016576]

3 minutes ago, BruceLee said:

I started teaching recently at a very large school. I'm giving 4 lessons a day to 4 different students on most days. 

Its no myth. The average student struggles greatly with an Archer. Teaching the average primary student to fly a Mooney or any other high performance aircraft would be comical at best.  

 

A big portion of whether it's "do-able" or not, is how much time and dedication a student is willing to put into learning to fly.

the military flight schools start pilots in the T-6 II: a 250kt turboprop, after a very brief stint (10 hours, I think?) in a Cessna.  The "kids" are able to learn.... and thrive... as student pilots.  But that takes the dedication and time of someone that is doing this as a job.  And while some of the students really do enjoy that kind of pressure cooker, I'm not so sure those training methods would carry over well to the civilian side... where you're paying... to learn a "fun" hobby.

not sure what the answer is, but a tiered approach can't hurt.  I think it lets students dip their toes in before they "commit."  A mooney, after all, is a bit more complicated than a 152 or 172.  Maybe the M10 would have been a nice gateway to other mooney ownership.  Either way, it's sad to see a new GA offering disappear.

[Tommy]

No one really knows how M10's handling is like so difficult to say if it's a good trainer or not. Another factor we need to consider is that for many flight schools, the planes are double up as rental planes for scenic joy flights with friends (also happens to be the most fun way to build hours). A 4-seater high-wing is ideal for this. A 3-seater low-wing is not.

As much as we love our plane and believe that it can do everything except going to the moon, our Mooney is just not an ideal initial trainer / joy flight rental for average flight schools (high acquisition cost / high insurance cost / poor window views). It's a commuter through and through. It's for those pilots who want to get from A to B the most efficient way.

Mooney International's management saw a niche but didn't realise that it's a niche for good reasons...

[xcrmckenna]

If that's true, it's nothing more than spin control.  It sure seemed to me that Mooney had every intention of certifying, marketing, and selling that plane.  At least  up until a few months ago!

Yeah but if that was true, then what effort had they been putting into the M10 up until a few months ago? I'm not saying what I was told is cut in stone, but Mooney hadn't had much to say about the M10 in awhile. Guess time will tell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xcrmckenna]

Fake news!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe, but that was out of Mr. Dutton's mouth. Guess time will tell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zaitcev]

1 hour ago, BruceLee said:

The average student struggles greatly with an Archer. Teaching the average primary student to fly a Mooney or any other high performance aircraft would be comical at best. 

It really depends on what kind of material you work with. Chinese and Russians put cadets into L7 and Yak-52 (soon Yak-152, which is the same airframe as L7, only with RED 350 hp diesel) respectively. If the student is struggling with the performance of the airplane, he's washed out of the program. In the 80s, they let people solo Yak-18 with 8 hours, retracrable gear and all.

[Tommy]

I think we really need to stop comparing military training with that of civilian's! Complete polar opposite in terms of budget and end game. 

Average flight school - shut door after just couple of unwise acquisitions and / or major accidents. Makes more money if the training is long and protracted. 

Military - unlimited budget and endless supply of cadets and planes. Makes more money if they can send pilots into combat to defend king and county (or Donald Trump) as quickly as possible.

The military can afford and probably urged to put a cadet through the paces so they are combat ready. And if this runs the risk of dinging a 15 million dollar jet, so be it. 

Apple vs orange...

[BruceLee]

Average, civilian student in my humble opinion has his hands full with an Archer. 

On a side note; One of the more amazing things I have learned as a new instructor is how tough an Archers landing gear is, just amazing what they will put up with. 

[FloridaMan]

I spoke with the Mooney folks at SnF. They mentioned that the training market is a tough one to get into. I think it's smart, given that GA is taking off in China. 

[orionflt]

8 hours ago, Tommy said:

I think we really need to stop comparing military training with that of civilian's! Complete polar opposite in terms of budget and end game. 

Average flight school - shut door after just couple of unwise acquisitions and / or major accidents. Makes more money if the training is long and protracted. 

Military - unlimited budget and endless supply of cadets and planes. Makes more money if they can send pilots into combat to defend king and county (or Donald Trump) as quickly as possible.

The military can afford and probably urged to put a cadet through the paces so they are combat ready. And if this runs the risk of dinging a 15 million dollar jet, so be it. 

Apple vs orange...

one other thing that people forget to compare, military screens their aviation candidates prior to training. if you do not meet certain standards then you do not get accepted into the flight program. because of the standards set and the training regiment instituted by the military, it allows them to push their students into complex aircraft quicker. they also wash out a lot of students that can not keep up. civilians allow almost anyone to take flight training, and if they are slow learners they just keep practicing until they get it or give up.

Brian