Any insight as to why M10 was cancelled?

[Tom]

9 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 -

Military -

Neglected to mention Ab Initio and other rapid-sequence flight training programs, which arguably constitute the most significant demand for new trainers (with their glass cockpits).  These programs are military-like, meaning individuals training to be pilots as their full-time job.  Living, eating, dreaming about the syllabus, next flight, debrief, etc. 

There's the joke about learning to fly (that I think also applies to medicine):  you could teach a monkey to do it if you could bribe him with enough bananas--the monkey being too smart to voluntarily engage in such a foolish activity...

[kpaul]

1 hour ago, orionflt said:

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

Fake news.  The military has a larger budget than any other flight school, but it is far from unlimited.  A few years back the quote was $1 Million per pilot, which is why there is also a 10 year commitment tacked on to the end.  Pilots are not in abundance and in fact there is a shortage service wide due to strong airline hiring.  The days of flightlines filled with planes are gone, the military is flying more hours with the same planes that have been around since Viet Nam.  Yes there are a few new ones that are stretching the budget.

I would hope flight schools and the military have the same endgame, to produce safe competent pilots, albeit in different types of aircraft.

[HRM]

12 hours ago, M20Doc said:

I'd say so easy to fly anyone can do it, just remember the gear.

Yep. TOs are optional, landing is mandatory 

[HRM]

12 hours ago, BruceLee said:

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.  

Not to hijack the thread, but...

What might be interesting would be to give potential students a copy of S&R to read as a homework assignment. Then quiz them to see if they 'get it'. Then see if it makes any difference in how they learn to fly.

There is a reason for the subtitle and the fact that it retains sales popularity in spite of being first published in 1944.

[M016576]

18 minutes ago, kpaul said:

Fake news.  The military has a larger budget than any other flight school, but it is far from unlimited.  A few years back the quote was $1 Million per pilot, which is why there is also a 10 year commitment tacked on to the end.  Pilots are not in abundance and in fact there is a shortage service wide due to strong airline hiring.  The days of flightlines filled with planes are gone, the military is flying more hours with the same planes that have been around since Viet Nam.  Yes there are a few new ones that are stretching the budget.

I would hope flight schools and the military have the same endgame, to produce safe competent pilots, albeit in different types of aircraft.

This is true.  We have a 'crisis fighter pilot shortage' right now.  It's been well documented in the news: but the gist is we've been tasked to ramp up production as much as possible.  A big part is the airlines hiring, but some of it is to make more JSF pilots: its much cheaper to re-train a current fighter pilot to new platform than to make a bring up a brand new pilot in the same platform.

[zaitcev]

3 hours ago, Antares said:

I think it's smart, given that GA is taking off in China. 

On the other hand, here's what Paul Bertorelli mentioned in SnF postmortem today:

"I have observed that despite this focus on Europe’s Aero and the glimmer of hope for the Asian market, every sales executive or CEO says the same thing: Most of their sales are in North America. Vivek Saxena of Mooney said this and so did Daher’s Nic Chabbert. According to GAMA, 70 percent of piston shipments were to North America in 2016, while 10 percent each went to Europe and Asia."

Apparently they designed M10 for the Asian training market first, but then realized that there's very little money to be made there. And such as there is, already spoken for by government-sponsored manufacturers (such as KAI in Korea and AVIC in China). The realization that the Chinese GA market is perpetually arriving and never arrives is what triggered the rethink.

[Jerry 5TJ]

I give Dr Jerry and his investors full credit for their vision.  

Sometimes you just have to spend US$50M to figure out you're a bit ahead of that emerging market.  

[FloridaPilots]

Newbie here,

I would like to give my perspective if I may.  I'm currently learning how to fly with a bunch of my buddies.  I'm the only one that knows about Mooney the others know only Cirrus. Why do you think that is?  Marketing.  The reason why I know about Mooney is because I saw a fellow pilot with one and asked him about it. We know about Cirrus because sales people put full color brochures at the flight school, hats, water bottles..etc

Mooney has to revamp marketing and stick with what they're good at which is a fast and fuel efficient bird.

[carusoam]

When Cirrus was new.  They put their plane in non-aviation state fairs.  Attracting a very wide range of people close to their homes.

From a business perspective, they are different...

In the end, it's the plane you are buying.  There aren't that many plane models to choose from, and only a handful of manufacturers around.

getting out to an AOPA fly in worked for me, decades ago.  SnF is pretty good and KOSH is probably the best.

It is really hard to go visit on a limited budget.

It is really hard to go visit even if you have a larger budget.

As young aviators or new to aviation, go talk with strangers! 

Best regards,

-a-

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by carusoam

[aviatoreb]

On 4/10/2017 at 0:24 PM, M016576 said:

This is true.  We have a 'crisis fighter pilot shortage' right now.  It's been well documented in the news: but the gist is we've been tasked to ramp up production as much as possible.  A big part is the airlines hiring, but some of it is to make more JSF pilots: its much cheaper to re-train a current fighter pilot to new platform than to make a bring up a brand new pilot in the same platform.

I'm curious Job and you must be the best one to ask:

So in WWII they would train from scratch pilots all the way to the P51 and deploy them awfully fast.  

How is training philosophy today compare to that?  How are today's state of the art platforms as compared to the P51 in terms of difficulty to fly?  Is all that modern automation making it easier, harder, or just different but comparably difficult?  Not to mention - sure the planes are faster and more powerful, but does that make a difference for the difficulty of learning to fly properly for a 1944 cadet P51 fighter pilot vs a 2017 cadet F15 pilot?

[gsengle]

Newbie here,
I would like to give my perspective if I may.  I'm currently learning how to fly with a bunch of my buddies.  I'm the only one that knows about Mooney the others know only Cirrus. Why do you think that is?  Marketing.  The reason why I know about Mooney is because I saw a fellow pilot with one and asked him about it. We know about Cirrus because sales people put full color brochures at the flight school, hats, water bottles..etc
Mooney has to revamp marketing and stick with what they're good at which is a fast and fuel efficient bird.

So tell em they don't wanna be sheep...

Cirrus, the plane for the pilot who doesn't want to think that hard.

I mean seriously who spends airplane kinda money without flying different types and being someone educated on all the options?!

Don't answer that. I know Mooney pilots only got here by doing their homework.

(Yes this is a gross overgeneralization, but I've met pilots that never flew any of the competition before plunking down a lot of money)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hank]

1 hour ago, gsengle said:

I know Mooney pilots only got here by doing their homework.

(Yes this is a gross overgeneralization, but I've met pilots that never flew any of the competition before plunking down a lot of money)
 

 

I did lots of homework, but in the five weeks between my PPL and buying my C, I didn't fly much else besides the two trainers I had trained in. And the Mooney, once, of course. But lots of homework for 3-4 months, looking, reading, talking to people.

And ten years later, I'm still convinced I made the right choice.  

[cliffy]

Given the same price point, Mooney has less profit, more man hours to build than the big C.

Think how the big C marketed when they first came out. Can any of you remember? They went out looking for reps that would fly their area in a new big C to any air show, demo flight, airport weekends gatherings, anywhere pilots gathered. They showed the airplane around all the time in several areas of the country at once. 

They capitalized on the chute! They made it THE BIG ISSUE. Do I think Mooney needs one? YUP, because the new market thinks that way. The 2 doors and new interior help in a big way but its not enough for the younger lookers. 

One big item they have to overcome right now?  They need a different paint design on the one airplane they keep showing around. Its a looser right from the first look by anyone. Who ever decided on that abortion needs to be demoted. 

Another big area of concern for the market is longevity of production. Are they going to be around if I buy one? That's something only good marketing and sales can answer. 

Maybe I'm just stating the obvious. 

[Jerry 5TJ]

6 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

 

So in WWII they would train from scratch pilots all the way to the P51 and deploy them awfully fast.  ....

The late owner of my C model was trained just that way. He had 306 hours total time when he first flew a mission in his B-24 as captain in the Pacific theater.

We accepted a training and operational loss rate during WWII that today is unacceptable. 

We also built over 19,000 B-24 aircraft so what's the loss of hundreds due to green pilots?  

 

 

[kpaul]

6 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I'm curious Job and you must be the best one to ask:

So in WWII they would train from scratch pilots all the way to the P51 and deploy them awfully fast.  

How is training philosophy today compare to that?  How are today's state of the art platforms as compared to the P51 in terms of difficulty to fly?  Is all that modern automation making it easier, harder, or just different but comparably difficult?  Not to mention - sure the planes are faster and more powerful, but does that make a difference for the difficulty of learning to fly properly for a 1944 cadet P51 fighter pilot vs a 2017 cadet F15 pilot?

The course to just earn your AF wings is 12 months.  That is after what ever commissioning source got you there and after Initial Flight Screening in Pueblo CO in the DA-20.  Once a pilot has earned their wings it is off to specific aircraft training, except for fighters/bombers which still have to complete Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals (IFF).  Most Major Weapon System (MWS) training takes 8-12 additional months.  So it takes no less than 2 years to produce a pilot with ZERO operational experience.  Each community then has a Combat Mission Readiness (CMR) training prior to that pilot being cleared to deploy.

As for just flying the aircraft, the new generation planes are very simple and forgiving to fly.  It is the numerous missions the pilot is required to perform while flying that is complicated.  Air to air, air to ground, non-standard ISR, air drop, air land, dirt strip operations, NVG operations are just a few of them.

The other big difference between WWII and now is the "acceptable" loss.  In WWII bomber crews only needed to fly 25 missions before they could go home, many never came close.  There were counters at the airfields to record the number of departures and arrivals, they were almost never equal.  A combat loss today is not acceptable, so putting a 50 hour pilot into a fighter and wishing them luck is not in the cards.

[FloridaPilots]

Do you folks think Mooney's new model should be Diesel fuel? Or just stay 100LL?

 

Mooney needs a competitive advantage!

[NotarPilot]

46 minutes ago, FloridaPilots said:

Do you folks think Mooney's new model should be Diesel fuel? Or just stay 100LL?

 

Mooney needs a competitive advantage!

Definitely diesel.

[NotarPilot]

7 hours ago, gsengle said:

I know Mooney pilots only got here by doing their homework.
 

 

Absolutely true. I literally did dozens of hours of educating myself on the right plane for me. I bought books and books and books, read a ton of stuff online before deciding on the Mooney. I never once regretted my decision or had second thoughts.

[Shadrach]

On 4/9/2017 at 8:10 PM, Tommy said:

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?

To your first point, a start up was able to sell a new plane made of carbon composite material before any GA manufacturer was using it to build certified airplanes. Cirrus did exactly what you are now claiming no one else can do to compete with them. The Chinese are perfectly capable of manufacturing high quality products. It's consistency that's the issue. In my experience, QC is not a strong part of their manufacturing culture but it is improving. I'm not certain I'd be enthusiastic about the idea of a wing spar manufactured in China. 

[gsengle]

Will be interesting to see what happens to Icon production in Mexico. The pulled some from Cirrus evidently as the parts were either too expensive or too heavy...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kevinw]

14 hours ago, gsengle said:

I mean seriously who spends airplane kinda money without flying different types and being someone educated on all the options?

I know we're talking new aircraft in this thread but I was hell bent on owning a Mooney before ever flying one. I had tunnel vision and wouldn't consider anything else. People make buying decisions many times based on marketing, looks, reputation, etc. Cirrus has embraced this concept brilliantly. I own a car dealership and see this happen every day. Good marketing creates a desire for a product that once planted is hard to remove. Taking it a step further, once other people (or pilots) see their peers heading in a certain direction many will follow; a snowball effect takes over. Call them sheep if you like, and I agree, but the reality is there are far more sheep than independent thinkers in the world so Mooney needs to morph into a wolf and start hunting for sheep.

My $.02 is Mooney needs to develop a Cirrus killer. Figure out a way to increase useful load and add a chute to an already amazing airframe. Whether any of us agree with the chute or not is immaterial; it sells airplanes, period. At the end of the day that is all that matters.

[RobertE]

30 minutes ago, kevinw said:

I know we're talking new aircraft in this thread but I was hell bent on owning a Mooney before ever flying one. I had tunnel vision and wouldn't consider anything else. People make buying decisions many times based on marketing, looks, reputation, etc. Cirrus has embraced this concept brilliantly. I own a car dealership and see this happen every day. Good marketing creates a desire for a product that once planted is hard to remove. Taking it a step further, once other people (or pilots) see their peers heading in a certain direction many will follow; a snowball effect takes over. Call them sheep if you like, and I agree, but the reality is there are far more sheep than independent thinkers in the world so Mooney needs to morph into a wolf and start hunting for sheep.

My $.02 is Mooney needs to develop a Cirrus killer. Figure out a way to increase useful load and add a chute to an already amazing airframe. Whether any of us agree with the chute or not is immaterial; it sells airplanes, period. At the end of the day that is all that matters.

The need to develop a "Cirrus killer" is why I'm so disappointed the M10 proved a bust.  It was a clean sheet design made out of composites manufactured (likely) in China to provide a cost advantage.  And it was going to be the entry/introduction point for thousands of students who, in 5 years, might buy the new/improved clean sheet/composite/made-in-China M20.  I'm going to be upgrading to a turbocharged model soon and my heart is focused on a near new Acclaim but I gotta say my brain (and wife, now that she's seen the Cirrus interior) is starting to think about a Cirrus.  I worry about bankruptcy #3.  Boy, this is a negative comment from a mooniac, I know, but honest.

 

 

[kevinw]

2 minutes ago, RobertE said:

The need to develop a "Cirrus killer" is why I'm so disappointed the M10 proved a bust.  It was a clean sheet design made out of composites manufactured (likely) in China to provide a cost advantage.  And it was going to be the entry/introduction point for thousands of students who, in 5 years, might buy the new/improved clean sheet/composite/made-in-China M20.  I'm going to be upgrading to a turbocharged model soon and my heart is focused on a near new Acclaim but I gotta say my brain (and wife, now that she's seen the Cirrus interior) is starting to think about a Cirrus.  I worry about bankruptcy #3.  Boy, this is a negative comment from a mooniac, I know, but honest.

 

 

Most of us appreciate honesty here. You're spending a lot of money so I get it. To a non-pilot the Cirrus is a very attractive airplane. I wouldn't even show my wife the interior of a Cirrus because I know what she would say. Then throw in the parachute and she'd be done...hook, line and sinker. I've thought about #3 as well, you're not being negative, just realistic. However, an Acclaim is every  mooniac's dream and given you have financial means to buy one, that would sure be hard to pass up. Probably worth the risk.

[BruceLee]

I can't stand that side yoke thing in a Cirrus. 

[thinwing]

On 4/9/2017 at 8:36 PM, Tommy said:

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,

Ha Ha..no they don't Tommy! They just laugh themselves silly when they here you go on!