Another Mooney CEO gone...

[jackn]

19 minutes ago, Ftlausa said:

If you look on the Cirrus website, they advertise pre-owned Cirrus aircraft for sale.  They realize that in order to move to a newer plane, the existing owners need to sell.  Cirrus also lets you fly a demo plane, and they are happy to discuss with you how you can finance a new plane, and are conversant with the favorable tax rules for purchasing new aircraft.  That is how you cater to the market of people that can and are interested in buying new planes.  Everyone accepts that Cirrus knows how to market their planes well, so why not learn from their success and emulate it?  

I absolutely agree. You don't have to blaze a new trail, just improve on what's being done. The Ultra's are a superior product, the market just has to be sold. 

[Txbyker]

Here's my list to make me consider,

Pressurized, chute, more useful load, different gear (no pucks) all at the same price.  A four place pressurize hauling machine.  Pressurized 4 place does that equal innovation?

Russ

[EricJ]

59 minutes ago, Txbyker said:

Here's my list to make me consider,

Pressurized, chute, more useful load, different gear (no pucks) all at the same price.  A four place pressurize hauling machine.  Pressurized 4 place does that equal innovation?

Russ

This has everything you want.   Can probably add a chute for less than the cost delta to a new Cirrus.

http://jacksaircraft.com/aircraft/index.php/aircrafts?id=95

 

[Mcstealth]

58 minutes ago, EricJ said:

This has everything you want.   Can probably add a chute for less than the cost delta to a new Cirrus.

http://jacksaircraft.com/aircraft/index.php/aircrafts?id=95

 

Mooney had a patent on this door believe it or not. Something to do with the way the mechanism worked and allowed it to remain pressurized?? Does anyone remember exactly?

this probably the best example of the Mustang flying today. I hope a new owner takes her to the next level when it comes to panel, etc, etc.

if I win the lotto tonight, that may be me!

 

[JohnB]

CEO job is tough. I bet it was a shareholder issue (that's probably never going to be publicly announced), as if no big profits or growth, CEOs become scapegoats if they don't deliver profits for whatever reason. The M10, although a cool looking airplane did not have a large enough niche in my opinion, so with the three choices (M10, Acclaim Ultra, New Ovation), all pretty expensive, the market may not be huge, so how is a CEO going to change this? Ok here's what I would do if I were CEO or if anyone actually listened to anything we Mooniacs say...

I would bring back the J! The most popular selling model, make it a little faster, maybe some carbon fiber (giving a higher useful load), the other door,  and new avionics. I think the J is like Mooney's 172. Not too expensive, but loaded with features and if you could make it 10-15 knots faster with the same awesome fuel economy, GA owners, flight schools would love it in a much larger market  there than the M10s would have. Just my opinion, but I'm not a CEO and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last week.

Edited April 27, 2017 by JohnB

[Andy95W]

25 minutes ago, JohnB said:

 

I would bring back the J! The most popular selling model,  

Actually, the short body all aluminum carburetor model (the Mark 21- M20B/C) was the most popular selling model.

If you include the F with the J, then that wins.

[JohnB]

Just now, Andy95W said:

Actually, the short body all aluminum carburetor model (the Mark 21- M20B/C) was the most popular selling model.

If you include the F with the J, then that wins.

Ok one of the most popular selling models! I thought I remembered some statistic out there somewhere that said there are more J's out there flying today than any other Mooney model, but that would be fun to know if anyone has that data. 

[JohnB]

Thanks Jim, that what I remembered about the Js, but wow, there were a lot of F's produced over the years like the Js! Ok.. maybe bring Both the F and the J back? Kind of like Cessna's 152 and 172 market positioning and keep making more of the one that sells the most like they did on the chrono above?

 

I know it sounds easy, but I know switching to lower price point airplanes requires a bigger number of sales to make a significant profit, but hey, I think if I were learning how to fly all over again, and my flight school had a brand new Mooney F to train on.. I would pay extra to learn in that compared to an old, not as flashy 152, then perhaps get one later, or transition into a bigger modelf (J etc)

[Shadrach]

6 hours ago, JohnB said:

Thanks Jim, that what I remembered about the Js, but wow, there were a lot of F's produced over the years like the Js! Ok.. maybe bring Both the F and the J back? Kind of like Cessna's 152 and 172 market positioning and keep making more of the one that sells the most like they did on the chrono above?

 

I know it sounds easy, but I know switching to lower price point airplanes requires a bigger number of sales to make a significant profit, but hey, I think if I were learning how to fly all over again, and my flight school had a brand new Mooney F to train on.. I would pay extra to learn in that compared to an old, not as flashy 152, then perhaps get one later, or transition into a bigger modelf (J etc)

You're clearly a little confused about these two models. They have the same MGW, same HP, and the same cabin. They have almost identical climb and take off performance. The J is between 8-15kts faster depending on who you're talking to. The J is little more than an F with a sloped windshield and cleaned up cowl. It would make absolutely no sense to produce them both.

[quik flite]

They need a few good dealers  across the country. So people can see the airplanes. With a company this small and desperate for sales dealers would need to be sure the factory does not end up selling direct to the public anyhow in an attempt to keep the extra cash    Mooney needs a few dealers and sales people with an incentive to tell people the benefits of there product. Just my opinion 

[MooneyMitch]

10 hours ago, JohnB said:

Thanks Jim, that what I remembered about the Js, but wow, there were a lot of F's produced over the years like the Js! Ok.. maybe bring Both the F and the J back? Kind of like Cessna's 152 and 172 market positioning and keep making more of the one that sells the most like they did on the chrono above?

 

I know it sounds easy, but I know switching to lower price point airplanes requires a bigger number of sales to make a significant profit, but hey, I think if I were learning how to fly all over again, and my flight school had a brand new Mooney F to train on.. I would pay extra to learn in that compared to an old, not as flashy 152, then perhaps get one later, or transition into a bigger modelf (J etc)

Per Mooney bean counters, reproducing the J is no financial advantage, sale price wise.

Reason....... manufacturing cost would be nearly the same as production of current models.

 

[Stephen]

On 4/26/2017 at 10:57 AM, Oldguy said:

I am pathologically optimistic, but >>>>>>>unless Mooney can come up with a disruptive product the way companies in other industries have (+ fund it strongly, +execute it well, + market it effectively) <<<<<<<, it looks to be a long slog for them with dim prospects. That is not my desire for the company, but current thinking brought them to this point. What is going to change to break them out of the pack?

(Emphasis and parenthetical commentary added to Oldguy's quote).

As a serial entrepreneur and investor, I would humbly suggest that brutal truth and opportunity both lie between the arrows. 

[JohnB]

Think there HAS to be a low priced model whatever that model might be patterned after  that could be made where mass production of it would make a profit at a lower price point. Whether it be one of the existing letters, or a stripped down M10 so you could get one with bare bones new round gauges or with upgraded avionics. This is still a big CEO type decision as it doesn't have to be a specific model, as a matter of fact it might be better from a marketing standpoint to call it something different so it can be branded new, but then if different I would imagine you would have to go through the entire FAA recert process which takes lots of time and $$$$$.  Tough job for any CEO to do, but I agree that a disruptive product that would break into others market share is what Mooney needs. So it's tried aiming high with the new acclaim, M10 and that might not be as fruitful as it was expected to be but you can disagree, as we can all be armchair CEOs but I still think adding a much lower priced airplane to its new airplane fleet if it can be made and still make a profit would be a great way to get Mooney back in the new airplane making race!

[Bob_Belville]

16 hours ago, JohnB said:

Think there HAS to be a low priced model whatever that model might be patterned after  that could be made where mass production of it would make a profit at a lower price point. Whether it be one of the existing letters, or a stripped down M10 so you could get one with bare bones new round gauges or with upgraded avionics. This is still a big CEO type decision as it doesn't have to be a specific model, as a matter of fact it might be better from a marketing standpoint to call it something different so it can be branded new, but then if different I would imagine you would have to go through the entire FAA recert process which takes lots of time and $$$$$.  Tough job for any CEO to do, but I agree that a disruptive product that would break into others market share is what Mooney needs. So it's tried aiming high with the new acclaim, M10 and that might not be as fruitful as it was expected to be but you can disagree, as we can all be armchair CEOs but I still think adding a much lower priced airplane to its new airplane fleet if it can be made and still make a profit would be a great way to get Mooney back in the new airplane making race!

Lynn's been doing a PPI/Annual on an Ovation 3 for the last 10 days or so. My Mooney experience, spread over 47 years, is with the short and mid body versions so I was interested to take in the differences.

My conclusion as it applies to this ongoing discussion: ISTM that there ought to be a real niche for the J sized 200 hp version that so many of us love - even if the price difference is only ~$100,000. The M20R has 50% more horses to feed and care for, gives you 20%(?) more speed, and seems to have no additional useful load after consideration for higher fuel burn.

I think the Piper Arrow and the Lance/Saratoga comparison is fair. I have several hundred hours in a Lance. I rented it even when I owned a Mooney when I needed the space. The PA32R does not like flying a Mooney and it took 300 hp to go as fast as my 200 hp E but it had 6 seats. If a Saratoga only had four seats I doubt anyone would see that it was worth the extra operating cost but that's what an Ovation is.

N.b., there is a slight possibility that I am not completely objective. 

[Browncbr1]

I think a new sleeked up J with a smooth and efficient diesel that will run on jetA with 1100lbs UL and 180ktas would be the ticket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KSMooniac]

I think a new sleeked up J with a smooth and efficient diesel that will run on jetA with 1100lbs UL and 180ktas would be the ticket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would you pay $700k for such a plane?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

[Browncbr1]

Would you pay $700k for such a plane?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

"UNABLE" (to do so prudently), but if I were in the economic position to buy a new SEL, I can say that I would prefer that to a cirrus at the similar price points each for NA, FIKI, & TC versions.
No doubt.

In my mind, the cirrus's safety record, in spite of all its "safety technology" speaks for itself. I also think diesel power plants are the way of the future.

[Ftlausa]

There are not enough people that would pay $700k for a new J.  Look at the SR20 sales vs. the SR22.  Look at the fairly limited number of sales of the DA40.  The majority of the new airplane market wants a 300 hp engine even though it eats more gas.  If you have the money to buy a new plane, you have the money to buy the gas. 

I moved from a J to an Ovation, and even though I like the 20% extra knots in the Ovation, I still choke at the fuel burn.  I have to say that the J hit a real sweet spot in terms of efficiency, I just don't think you could produce them cheap enough to have a market.  The J is am amazing plane and value, and I hope Mooney can prove me wrong on what they can produce a new "J" for.   

[KSMooniac]

I'm anxious to see what happens when the Panthera gets certified...it looks like it will be 100-200 AMU less than an SR-22, M20, TTx, and especially a G36. It is what Mooney should've been developing IMO.

If it can't sell comparable to Cirrus, then we'll know GA is on the fast track to death.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

[Bob_Belville]

4 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

Would you pay $700k for such a plane?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk
 

The price difference between the J and the R for the 5 years ('94-'98) that both models were offered was less than $100k and the new model only outsold the J by 172 to 111 units. Apparently, after the initial excitement, sales of the J held up pretty well though volume was very low for all models in those years. Js averaged 22/yr, Rs 34/yr. They also sold about 20 turbos a year.

[Browncbr1]

There are not enough people that would pay $700k for a new J.  Look at the SR20 sales vs. the SR22.  Look at the fairly limited number of sales of the DA40.  The majority of the new airplane market wants a 300 hp engine even though it eats more gas.  If you have the money to buy a new plane, you have the money to buy the gas.  I moved from a J to an Ovation, and even though I like the 20% extra knots in the Ovation, I still choke at the fuel burn.  I have to say that the J hit a real sweet spot in terms of efficiency, I just don't think you could produce them cheap enough to have a market.  The J is am amazing plane and value, and I hope Mooney can prove me wrong on what they can produce a new "J" for.   

 

 

But why do they want 300hp? Performance, right? It is better to get the same performance with better efficiency, right? If all performance is equal, why would you want to burn more fuel and maintain more engine?

 

IMHO, 300hp doesn't mean anything if it's not running. It seems like the cirrus power plants have had a lot of problems causing accidents, right? Also, why would anyone want to buy a plane that couldn't be certified to recover from a spin without a parachute? I bet the average cirrus owner doesn't know that? Maybe a competitor should put that on a megaphone? When I think about that, it reminds me about the poor girl and guys that went down in Huston last year spinning in from the pattern. Yea, pilotage, but still the numbers speak volume to me.

 

[MooneyMitch]

10 minutes ago, Ftlausa said:

There are not enough people that would pay $700k for a new J.  Look at the SR20 sales vs. the SR22.  Look at the fairly limited number of sales of the DA40.  The majority of the new airplane market wants a 300 hp engine even though it eats more gas.  If you have the money to buy a new plane, you have the money to buy the gas. 

I moved from a J to an Ovation, and even though I like the 20% extra knots in the Ovation, I still choke at the fuel burn.  I have to say that the J hit a real sweet spot in terms of efficiency, I just don't think you could produce them cheap enough to have a market.  The J is am amazing plane and value, and I hope Mooney can prove me wrong on what they can produce a new "J" for.   

Operate the Ovation LOP and without doing the math, and I'll bet it will be a wash with the J regarding fuel burn and distance ........and you'll get there faster!   

After all, don't we like to fly FAST?

[Bob_Belville]

Just now, MooneyMitch said:

Operate the Ovation LOP and without doing the math, and I'll bet it will be a wash with the J regarding fuel burn and distance ........and you'll get there faster!   

After all, don't we like to fly FAST?

Why are you proposing LOP if the objective is FAST?

I was told yesterday that real world (reasonably economical) for an O3 was 175 ktas on 12 gph. That's about 20% faster on about 50% more fuel than a J. Or my old E. 

[KSMooniac]

Mitch is arguing on a cost per mile basis, and using that metric an Ovation LOP compares favorably. It also loses less going into a headwind thanks to the increased speed.

It's just that 50%+ premium at purchase over a J that holds many of us back... (And useful load in some cases)

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

[smccray]

48 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

I'm anxious to see what happens when the Panthera gets certified...it looks like it will be 100-200 AMU less than an SR-22, M20, TTx, and especially a G36. It is what Mooney should've been developing IMO.

If it can't sell comparable to Cirrus, then we'll know GA is on the fast track to death.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk
 

I agree- I haven't seen anything about the Panthera in a while.  They had a prototype flying, and they were moving the factory (or something- may have it wrong) a couple miles so the plane would be built in Italy instead of Slovenia?  The video of the 10X spin at gross weight, 4 passengers at the aft CG limit was impressive.

 

Edit: Wow- spin testing completed almost 3 years ago now.  This video was from August 2014: 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2017 by smccray