Jump to content

New Mooneys, any interest at all?


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, gsengle said:

 


How exactly is it a much better plane, aside from the chute?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm pretty sure they have a better payload , Less systems , (no gear)  ,  Ergonomically far superior ,  Structurally stronger (yes a composite structure is much stronger than a steel cage) and a modern design , as opposed to an old design updated many times.....  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure they have a better payload , Less systems , (no gear)  ,  Ergonomically far superior ,  Structurally stronger (yes a composite structure is much stronger than a steel cage) and a modern design , as opposed to an old design updated many times.....  

 

You're sure? That's nonsense. Many Mooneys have over 1000useful. Only the newer Cirruses have higher.

 

The wing is awesome. There is a reason the Mooney is faster. And they are strong. Fixed gear is for trainers. And proper English would be "fewer" systems.... (believe me a Cirrus is plenty complex)

 

b6cb18f1af8368d217d9c2ded919f348.jpg

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gsengle said:

 

You're sure? That's nonsense. Many Mooneys have over 1000useful. Only the newer Cirruses have higher.

 

The wing is awesome. There is a reason the Mooney is faster. And they are strong. Fixed gear is for trainers. And proper English would be "fewer" systems....

 

b6cb18f1af8368d217d9c2ded919f348.jpg

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What makes you think you cant do that with a Cirrus wing , Composite structures , are stronger than Aluminum....and we ARE talking about new airplanes.... Also thanks for the grammar lesson....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gsengle said:

No they are not necessarily stronger. The devil is in the details. They have advantages and disadvantages. To say one plane is superior because of that is a bit ignorant...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK you win , The Mooney is the greatest plane ever designed .... They will sell 400 units this year , and 700 units next year........They will put Cirrus , Robinson , Beech and Cessna out of business...... Life is great......

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alan Fox said:

What makes you think you cant do that with a Cirrus wing , Composite structures , are stronger than Aluminum....and we ARE talking about new airplanes.... Also thanks for the grammar lesson....

Composites may carry the same load, or close to it, but they sure don't hold up well to impact forces . . . That's where the Mooney steel cage really shines. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say that. But you were spouting non facts. The reality is the Acclaim is the fastest certified piston single. They don't break up in flight so structural integrity isn't an issue as you tried to imply. They both use the same avionics. And retractable gear will always be faster/more efficient all else being equal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to see that the thread is lively and the issues are coming onto the table. Thanks for participating. I did maybe voice my original post in a bit of a provocative way but while those of you who pointed me to the relevant threads of course have a point, those threads did not explain why there was no mentionable interest from the outset.

Actually, I was not very much referring to the cancellation when I said there was few interest, but it struck me that there was almost no discussion at the time when the M10 was announced (I realize there were some messages, but if I compare this to other product specific fora I read, it showed very few interest in the development) as well as when the Ultra specs came out too.

My question why has been answered pretty much in the past 4 pages of messages. In short, the products offered by Mooney are way too expensive (which it has in common with most other companies as well) and even here, there is considerable doubt about the economical viability of such a new airplane.

So in short, it is not only Mooney which have the problem that legal hassles (certification and product liability) has driven up prices for new airplanes to unreachable heights. However, some of the competitors are selling and have an avid followership who will buy the new products (which of course frees up used airplanes for those who can't afford a new one) and appear to be more solid in the market.

The obvious question is, what can Mooney do to improve that.

My personal theory is that Mooney lacks an entry level bare bone model which most competitors have, often not really with the intent of selling it but to simply show potential customers a base price which may be significantly lower than what the customer ends up buying. This is something every car company does but for the biggest luxury brands.

Cirrus has the SR20. I don't have the numbers but I think it's sales figures compared to the SR22 are absymal. However: The client who thinks about buying will be attracted to start his thinking process towards a new Cirrus by looking at the relatively low price of an SR20, only to during the process switching to the SR22 he really wants. The question here would be, would he even talk to Cirrus if the base price of the lowest entry model was in the range of the top models. My personal opinion is, much less likely.

Another factor which has been addressed here is the "wife" factor of the parashute. I agree. Cirrus did the shute originally to overcome certification issues but I guess it took them a very short time to find that the shute will do for their sales pretty much what that old chewing gum commercial did for sugarless gums: "I love it because it's the only gum my mummy allows...." I reckon that was and is a huge pro Cirrus argument. Many people, particularly spouses, are very anxious passengers and the comfort of having that shute must be an overwhelming one to them, even though some pilots may sneer. Personally, I think the shute adds a significant safety factor particularly at night and in low IMC. Of course this has it's price in terms of maintenance as well as payload.

So where are we with Mooney in this regard?

Mooney has no equivalent to the SR20 for starters but it has two top level models and that is it. The reaction in this forum here is more than clear, way too expensive to even think about. Mooney does not offer a shute system either, but is in good company there. And actually, Cessna sells a good number of C172's without them anyhow, I reckon the plane most hurt by the lack of a shute option for them is the Corvalis, which is the better plane than the Cirrus but has the same problem than our Mooneys... when a wife is confronted with the idea of a new plane, she will go "oh well, IF you have to have one take the one with the shute, never mind economy, speed or anything else.".

I thought the M10 would solve the entry level issue quite well, while still offering a quite capable traveller with the M10J. I also thought that adding a shute system to the M10J would probably be feasible. Now that the M10 is dead in the water, we are basically back to square one.

When I look at the M20, I am looking at those who sold best. By type, the best selling Mooney ever was the C model, followed by the J. Why? Because it brought the best bang for buck. In other words, it delivered the best performance (to this day) per horsepower and provided a stable and fast travel platform at an economical cost.

The top models never sold that many, neither did the E outsell the C, nor did the models which followed the J/K series ever come close. With the move to big bore engines, Mooney moved away from it's core business of economical and efficient airplanes to luxury racers. A bit like if Toyota were to dump the mass product cars they sell for Lexus only.

So what can Mooney do? In my opinion, Mooney needs an entry level offering more than ever, which has to be in the price range of maximum the SR20. To install shutes in the M20 cell is very difficult if not  impossible, but they could set points which price and performance. For me, that kind of plane would have come fairly close to what the M10J would have been, but with the M20 cell.

- A basic Mooney cell with a 180-200 hp engine, if at all possible a Diesel. There are NO fast Diesel planes around, a 170 kt Diesel (as the M10J was supposed to be) would definitly catch the attention of the market. I don't know if it would make economical sense to shorten the cell to J levels but if it could be done, it should.

- Take the lessons learnt from the M10 and M20Ultra projects into the new entry level machine: More pre-fabricated parts, possibly more composite materials, less luxorious interior, possibly a bargain panel as well with Aspens instead of G1000 and possibly open avionic choice.

- Introduce alternative avionic fits also for the top models. Not everyone likes the G1000 suite.

This should be done with a minimum of development cost and work.

Any newly developed plane should most definitly offer a shute as an option at least.

 

Maybe this would bring back the interest in new airplanes also to those who live of the 2nd hand market. It has to be remembered that each of our planes had to be new at some stage and be sold to someone who found it attractive enough to buy. Without new sales, there are no new second hands either and the aging fleet we have will end up with more and more problems. So it can only be in our interest if the Company thrives and does not revert back to being a parts supplyer as it was for some years.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, gsengle said:

 

You're sure? That's nonsense. Many Mooneys have over 1000useful. Only the newer Cirruses have higher.

 

The wing is awesome. There is a reason the Mooney is faster. And they are strong. Fixed gear is for trainers. And proper English would be "fewer" systems.... (believe me a Cirrus is plenty complex)

 

b6cb18f1af8368d217d9c2ded919f348.jpg

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm amazed everytime I see that photograph! Fifteen "FAA adults" on each wing is approx. 2500 pounds per side! Granted the wings feels different moments depending on distances from center pivot but 5000 pounds is more than the weight of a large SUV! Imagine a Mooney carrying a Suburban! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Urs_Wildermuth said:

Another factor which has been addressed here is the "wife" factor of the parashute. I agree. Cirrus did the shute originally to overcome certification issues

2

I have been told by countless Cirri' pilots that the chute was part of the main design consideration and the FAA decided it was good enough to waive spin testing during certification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Urs_Wildermuth said:

 

Cirrus has the SR20. I don't have the numbers but I think it's sales figures compared to the SR22 are absymal. However: The client who thinks about buying will be attracted to start his thinking process towards a new Cirrus by looking at the relatively low price of an SR20, only to during the process switching to the SR22 he really wants. The question here would be, would he even talk to Cirrus if the base price of the lowest entry model was in the range of the top models. My personal opinion is, much less likely.

This is what I'm talking about. The people complaining about prices will never be a new aircraft buyer. The buyers with the money don't think twice about skipping over the 389K sr20 and spend twice as much for the same airframe, parachute, etc to get a decked out sr22 which probably only costs another 100k to build which gives Cirrus a healthy profit margin.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess im lucky that my wife isn't driven by irrational fears, and enjoys traveling in my dangerous little plane without even a parachute or airbag or anything . . .

Personally, i don't see the chute as an advantage. It's expensive to install, takes up much valuable space and has expensive periodic repacks for not much additional safety. Pulling it removes my ability to control the descent or even the direction of drift. It's all a marketing gimmick, pandering to fear and creating more. Don't expose your frightened wife to cirrus literature, she won't want what she doesn't see.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show her Option A for X, Option B for Y and Option C for Z. Theres no need to mention "Option A for X, it doesn't have a parachute, while Option B for Y does." If she sees literature about the chute, explain that Cirrus added it to pass certification, and the other planes don't need one.

Much of what I've seen as chute justification is either "but Cirrus has one," or else it offers additional peace of mind to do things and go places that you wouldn't do or go without the ability to rescue yourself from going too far.

The chute should not expand your flight envelope!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

BTW... I rode right seat today in a Texas Wing formation flight. It's much more difficult to get out of the right seat rather than the left seat. So I'm not sure that second door is all that exciting. If I owned one, I might still just use the right side door as it's easier.

Funny, I rode right seat in FlyDave's Bravo over the weekend and was thinking the exact same thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Alan Fox said:

OK you win , The Mooney is the greatest plane ever designed .... They will sell 400 units this year , and 700 units next year........They will put Cirrus , Robinson , Beech and Cessna out of business...... Life is great......

We knew you'd come around eventually Alan, did you put the Bo up for sale yet?!:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pssst, Austria has developed/IS developing a VTOL Ducted fan aircraft platform.  They say they have "solved" the battery problem.  Toyota is developing a water powered semi.  This carbon aviation idea has a limited lifespan.

The next best planes will be powered by battery NOT fossil fuels.  Meanwhile a government funded solar operation that took 10's of millions of federal money just went bankrupt.

If Chinese can't make M-10 go in China, there was zero likelihood of it being a going concern in USA

shute...chute.  I want to shoot those that Shute vs. chute...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have only one issue with any battery-powered vehicle:  recharging.

If I need to go further than a single charge will take me, how can I fill 'er back up quickly without doing a Tesla-style 30 minute partial charge? I can add 40 gal to my Mooney in 15 minutes, including fiddle-farting around with the pump and ground wire, and fly for 4+ more hours. If I land for recharging halfway to Osh, how long must I sit there before I'm full and ready to go? No one has a good answer for this . . . Not even how can I drive from my house to my parents, 6 hours away, in an electric vehicle if the weather isn't flyable?

More research need . . . Or as they used to say on SNL, "Not Ready for Prime Time."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hank said:

I have only one issue with any battery-powered vehicle:  recharging.

If I need to go further than a single charge will take me, how can I fill 'er back up quickly without doing a Tesla-style 30 minute partial charge? I can add 40 gal to my Mooney in 15 minutes, including fiddle-farting around with the pump and ground wire, and fly for 4+ more hours. If I land for recharging halfway to Osh, how long must I sit there before I'm full and ready to go? No one has a good answer for this . . . Not even how can I drive from my house to my parents, 6 hours away, in an electric vehicle if the weather isn't flyable?

More research need . . . Or as they used to say on SNL, "Not Ready for Prime Time."

I think they're not quite ready for long distance travel. But there are lots of cars in this country that never go very far and those would be perfect battery powered candidates. I have 5 friends right now who drive Teslas. I'd have one myself if I commuted to a job every day. I just bought a car today. An old fashioned gasoline engine car. Hopefully it will be the last one I ever buy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree Paul and Hank.  It is all about figuring out how to store more power in a lighter weight energy source.  The Austrian target is commuting in a metro-area.  Example being from airport to downtown of an urban area.  Likely be autonomous.  VTOL then fast speed on a specific route.  Between this and fusion powered trucks the future is now (getting here quickly).  Greener Tech.  Quieter too.  All good.  I want newer more efficient refineries for fuel too.  A nice modern aviation engine with FADEC as standard would be sweet too.  Lighter, faster more efficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2017 at 7:19 AM, Sabremech said:

I wouldn't say we're not interested, but knowing I can't afford one means I focus my attention on the things I can afford. 

2nd Saber's logic. They are > 3/4 of a million dollars! Who the heck drops that kind of coin on a single engine, unpressurized, recip aircraft? I do not get the economics. To be sure, ** I'm glad someone does do because it seems like the price drops by 40-50% in a few years with the used unit that has 500-800 hrs on the airframe and eventually those become the 30+ year old planes that I could currently afford. To drop that much you kind of have to have benjamin's to burn. 

58fe9fd605c01_ScreenShot2017-04-24at7_58_01PM.png.5b5c7d2dfc83746605b67f0d891ad231.png

If I could business justify dropping that much coin, I would probably go for something that would have range, load and dispatch capabilities similar to the airlines:

58fea09229499_ScreenShot2017-04-24at8_00_42PM.png.e9a5d68d6402ba5c18df2e1822581f5c.png

Just my .02

 

:) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • 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.