Future of Mooney

[David_H]

The whole Parachute argument makes very little sense. It's my understanding that it can only be deployed in certain situations.

If you're IMC and lose control while in the soup... you're likely too fast for the parachute to survive. Is this true?

If you stall close to the ground for any number of reasons...you're now likely slow enough but too close to the ground for it to be effective.

Edited March 4, 2019 by David_H

[mooniac15u]

3 minutes ago, David_H said:

The whole Parachute argument makes very little sense. It's my understanding that it can only be deployed in certain situations.

If you're IMC and lose control while in the soup... you're likely too fast for the parachute to survive. Is this true?

If you stall close to the ground for any number of reasons...you're now likely slow enough but too close to the ground for it to be effective.

Cirrus has a different solution for the IMC loss of control issue.  The LVL button can recover from 75 degrees of roll and 50 degrees of pitch.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2008/may/20/cirrus-offers-emergency-recovery-switch

[Davidv]

Yes, the issue with IMC is how many Cirrus accident reports I’ve read where the pilot only realizes they are in an unrecoverable spiral less than 500 feet off the ground.  However, I know very little bit about cirrus’s so I’d be surprised if they didn’t have some huge alarm system to indicate they were in too steep of a bank too low to the ground.

[exM20K]

23 minutes ago, Davidv said:

I know, and non-pilots always mention to me how it has a parachute ect... which does nothing to prevent the vast majority of Cirrus accidents (and was only installed because the FAA wouldn’t approve the design otherwise).

2 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

 

The non-flying spouse/significant other is usually a big part of the decision-making process.  It's not just engine failure or mid-air collisions - think: pilot has a medical event in flight; now I have a way out.

the non-flying spouse often is unenthusiastically playing along with the flying spouse's dangerous hobby, and not relying on him/her but rather on "technology" is often the difference between making the sale and not.

 

It's about feels, not careful risk analysis.

-de

[mooniac15u]

2 minutes ago, Davidv said:

Yes, the issue with IMC is how many Cirrus accident reports I’ve read where the pilot only realizes they are in an unrecoverable spiral less than 500 feet off the ground.  However, I know very little bit about cirrus’s so I’d be surprised if they didn’t have some huge alarm system to indicate they were in too steep of a bank too low to the ground.

There are a lot of Cirrus accidents due to loss of control in IMC at low altitude?  Is it more than what's typical for other types of aircraft?

[Danb]

I believe the newer type autopilots have lvl buttons etc, I plan on a 3100 year instead of the GFC 700

[Danb]

4 minutes ago, exM20K said:

The non-flying spouse/significant other is usually a big part of the decision-making process.  It's not just engine failure or mid-air collisions - think: pilot has a medical event in flight; now I have a way out.

the non-flying spouse often is unenthusiastically playing along with the flying spouse's dangerous hobby, and not relying on him/her but rather on "technology" is often the difference between making the sale and not.

 

It's about feels, not careful risk analysis.

-de

True te the spouse I discussed getting a Cirrus she’s a Mooney girl through and through the thought was nixed 

[exM20K]

1 minute ago, Danb said:

True te the spouse I discussed getting a Cirrus she’s a Mooney girl through and through the thought was nixed 

sounds like a Keeper!

[Danb]

After 48 years I have no other choices 

[Releew]

Look at the Mooney factory tour video.  If you have any Engineering experience and or production manufacturing time, you can easily see there are simply too many manual complex operations that require more basic than off the street talent.  That equals dollars.  More dollars spent on complex building, eliminates margin for the investors.  Reduced margin eventually leads to an operation, operating on a shoestring.  Never a good outcome which we've seen happen this great product time after time.  We all want to see this company successful, but from a business model point of view, I just do not see it happening. I cannot see how they could ever get the numbers to work even in a strong economy.  Are their sales figures published anywhere?   

 

Rick

[glbtrottr]

After 48 years I have no other choices 

My significant other was horribly anti-aviation, logically and viscerally. She was ideologically anti-gun, and I competed in 3gun. Didn’t cook, hated dogs and started adopting cats. The only thing we seemed to enjoy together after I introduced her to it was scuba diving.

Today, she still scuba dives. Yet, my significant other loves to go flying, shoots short guns and long guns, cooks, has no cats and loves my dogs.

Sometimes an upgrade is entirely worth it...life is just too short.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wayne Cease]

1 hour ago, Davidv said:

I know, and non-pilots always mention to me how it has a parachute ect... which does nothing to prevent the vast majority of Cirrus accidents (and was only installed because the FAA wouldn’t approve the design otherwise).

I'm surprised that nonsense is still being spread.  Cirrus got the FAA to allow them to skip the spin recovery due to the chute.  The Europeans didn't allow that and the Cirrus passed the spin test there for certification.

41 minutes ago, mooniac15u said:

There are a lot of Cirrus accidents due to loss of control in IMC at low altitude?  Is it more than what's typical for other types of aircraft?

Nope.  In fact they have a lower fatality rate than most of the piston GA fleet.

Cirrus like Mooneys and Bonanzas are traveling planes and fly in more challenging weather than planes more commonly used for training.  When the weather is 10G20 nearing a direct crosswind the training slows or stops in many locations, but the traveling planes keep on going.  Eventually somebody flies in something they are not ready for; it's rarely the plane as the limitation.

 

[Davidv]

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying that Cirrus had any higher incident rates in IMC accidents than other GA accidents.  I was just making the point that while the parachute can save lives in certain instances, the fatal reports I've read suggest that they don''t prevent VFR flight into IMC, CFIT, or stall spin from low altitudes, which together are responsible for many fatal GA accidents.

[Danb]

1 hour ago, glbtrottr said:

 

My significant other was horribly anti-aviation, logically and viscerally. She was ideologically anti-gun, and I competed in 3gun. Didn’t cook, hated dogs and started adopting cats. The only thing we seemed to enjoy together after I introduced her to it was scuba diving.

Today, she still scuba dives. Yet, my significant other loves to go flying, shoots short guns and long guns, cooks, has no cats and loves my dogs.

Sometimes an upgrade is entirely worth it...life is just too short.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Awesome

[Garland]

I've been following this thread, purely out of curiosity, as I don't own a Mooney(yet). Take a look at this instagram post by Mooney, and one of the comments that Mooney replied to about engineering updates. Could be a whole lot of nothing, but could possibly point to Mooney looking to expand their offerings? Anyway, excited about Sun n' Fun!!

https://www.instagram.com/p/BuohEWVlxGU/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet

[Bob_Belville]

49 minutes ago, Garland said:

I've been following this thread, purely out of curiosity, as I don't own a Mooney(yet). Take a look at this instagram post by Mooney, and one of the comments that Mooney replied to about engineering updates. Could be a whole lot of nothing, but could possibly point to Mooney looking to expand their offerings? Anyway, excited about Sun n' Fun!!

https://www.instagram.com/p/BuohEWVlxGU/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet

Another reason to go to Sun n Fun!

[Igor_U]

Yes!

Tell me about that… This was taken yesterday morning at undisclosed location east of Cascades.

10 deg, with open hangar doors… Brrrr.

 

[Mcstealth]

On 3/7/2019 at 7:56 AM, Garland said:

I've been following this thread, purely out of curiosity, as I don't own a Mooney(yet). Take a look at this instagram post by Mooney, and one of the comments that Mooney replied to about engineering updates. Could be a whole lot of nothing, but could possibly point to Mooney looking to expand their offerings? Anyway, excited about Sun n' Fun!!

https://www.instagram.com/p/BuohEWVlxGU/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet

Well. Looks like I need to start snooping around again.

Remember I quit doing that after I got that cease and desist letter from the big cheese who is no longer there.  

[John Car]

On 2/18/2019 at 4:37 PM, skydvrboy said:

That is a significant part of the problem.  Until they embrace modern manufacturing practices on large volume production, the price won't budge.  I remember at Oshkosh the Mooney rep saying that a new Cessna takes 700 hours to build, a Cirrus takes 2000 hours, and a new Mooney takes 5000 hours.  They were BRAGGING about this claiming that meant it was better made!  As an Industrial Engineer who's spent my career making production more efficient and effective, I about fell out of my chair.  Current mass production (lean production) produces higher quality at lower cost than the old hand-crafted one at a time model.

Like @KSMooniac said, the accountants aren't going to invest in the retooling and production line upgrades unless Mooney can show they will sell enough to pay for it.  That isn't happening now.

I agree.  Chinese own Mooney and they could easily reverse engineer all the components into single assemblies.   Carbon fiber molds for two-piece fuselages and wing assemblies.  Could reduce the parts count considerably and cut production costs in half.  It could be done.  Use Dynon avionics which is a fraction of the cost of Garmin and certify a UL 200 HP engine and you could produce an aircraft under $200,000.00.  Introduce 7-year lease options.  It can be done. 

[LANCECASPER]

23 minutes ago, John Car said:

I agree.  Chinese own Mooney and they could easily reverse engineer all the components into single assemblies.   Carbon fiber molds for two-piece fuselages and wing assemblies.  Could reduce the parts count considerably and cut production costs in half.  It could be done.  Use Dynon avionics which is a fraction of the cost of Garmin and certify a UL 200 HP engine and you could produce an aircraft under $200,000.00.  Introduce 7-year lease options.  It can be done. 

This type of thread comes up at least once a year on here. Wishful thinking. Never going to happen on a FAA certified airplane.

[aviatoreb]

28 minutes ago, John Car said:

I agree.  Chinese own Mooney and they could easily reverse engineer all the components into single assemblies.   Carbon fiber molds for two-piece fuselages and wing assemblies.  Could reduce the parts count considerably and cut production costs in half.  It could be done.  Use Dynon avionics which is a fraction of the cost of Garmin and certify a UL 200 HP engine and you could produce an aircraft under $200,000.00.  Introduce 7-year lease options.  It can be done. 

Complexitywise isn't that a Diamond DA40?  Carbon fiber - check.  Lycoming IO360 - check.  SO then costwise why isn't a DA40 200k?  I think they are $490K new.  

[John Car]

Just now, aviatoreb said:

Complexitywise isn't that a Diamond DA40?  Carbon fiber - check.  Lycoming IO360 - check.  SO then costwise why isn't a DA40 200k?  I think they are $490K new.  

Key difference the Chinese can mass produce parts in China and I do mean mass produce. 

[LANCECASPER]

7 minutes ago, John Car said:

Key difference the Chinese can mass produce parts in China and I do mean mass produce. 

Even if you could mass produce, the market isn't there. You're not the first to think of this. If it was that easy it would have been done by now. All of the parts and the facilities they are produced in need to certified and inspected by the FAA along the way. The Chinese bought Cirrus over 8 years ago, they haven't found a way. Still manufactured in Grand Forks, ND and Duluth, MN. Delivered in Tennessee and hiring at all three locations.

[John Car]

http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20J Evaluation/M20J_evaluation_report.html  

This week I realized that a used M20J is a heck of a deal.  I used to own a Trinidad TB21 and now fly a Symphony 160 I picked up at a bank repo sale.  The 160 is fun but I miss being able to do long cross countries and having a real IFR platform.  Thinking of picking up M201J and doing a refurb as this gentleman did.  I am an A&P and IA so labor will not be an issue. 

Dynon package soon to be released with autopilot.

http://www.dynoncertified.com/index.php#features

http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20J Evaluation/M20J_evaluation_report.html

 

[toto]

8 minutes ago, John Car said:

Dynon package soon to be released with autopilot.

"Soon" is relative

There are a lot of folks on this board who would love to see it happen soonish. 

You could always buy a hangar find and convert to an experimental registration, then install a G3X or a Skyview yourself