Oshkosh observation

[gsxrpilot]

I wonder how many Cirrus SR22T GTS are sold each year. Because that's the airplane that Mooney is competing with. We know Cirrus sell a hell of a lot of airplanes, but they might be mostly SR20's. And Mooney doesn't have anything to offer in that class. And that to me, is the whole problem. Well that and the Marketing department at Mooney. 

The M20J Allegro and the M20K Encore are the two best Mooneys ever made. Step one is go back to making those airplanes.

[M016576]

1 minute ago, gsxrpilot said:

I wonder how many Cirrus SR22T GTS are sold each year. Because that's the airplane that Mooney is competing with. We know Cirrus sell a hell of a lot of airplanes, but they might be mostly SR20's. And Mooney doesn't have anything to offer in that class. And that to me, is the whole problem. Well that and the Marketing department at Mooney. 

The M20J Allegro and the M20K Encore are the two best Mooneys ever made. Step one is go back to making those airplanes.

^totally agree here.  And I think the M10 might have come close to “re-imagining” the M20J... but mooney just can’t seem to figure out either funding, or engineering to do so.

[EricJ]

Hindsight being what it is, if they had been able to follow through with the 301 they'd probably be a healthy, vibrant company right now and maybe have several tiers of options in airframe, recip, turbine, etc.

But, since that didn't happen, they're stuck with continually warming over a nearly 70-year-old design.   It's been very nicely warmed-over several times, and as far as warming-overs go, the new ones are quite stellar, but it is what it is.

I share the fears that it's probably not a sustainable business model.   I suspect that they've been running at a big loss for quite a while and no investor has infinite patience.

 

[elimansour]

I've owned a Cirrus previously.  Back in 2008, I bought a 6 year old SR20.  It was a nice looking, almost new aircraft with low hours (300ish) and my wife loved the room and comfort of the cabin.  Yes, it had great ramp appeal, looked modern, did 155kts and could go reasonably far without needing to refuel.  Everything was great...except I really did not like how it flew.  It just didn't feel right - at least to me - the SR20 (which is somewhat comparable to a J in performance) was really underpowered, easily overheated in the summer on the hot ramps in the Southwest and was a terrible climber.  Oh, and it was not inexpensive to maintain - there were lots of service bulletins, many mandatory, which we had to comply with and the annuals fairly pricey.  I realize this was one of the earlier Cirrri and that there were growing pains but it was not fun to own or really to fly.  So after a little more than 3 years I sold it.  And then came the biggest shock: in that 3 year period the plane lost almost $50K in value and took a long time to sell even though it was still less than 10 years old And had less than 1000SMOH.  The main reason, it was a G1 and by that point Cirri were on G3 and just not as desirable.  Lesson learned, Cirri don't seem to "retain" value near other aircraft because they get "refreshed" after only a couple of years with the latest gadgets and may not be as desirable to someone looking to buy a Cirrus.  

Fast forward to early last year, when I was looking to buy an aircraft, I researched what was out there, what could fit my mission (a regular commute of approx 700 miles round trip, so speed and efficiency were key), somewhat modern avionics (ADSB, autopilot, full featured WAAS GPS) and what I could afford and really the only plane that made sense was a late model J.  I did not look for  a Cirrus - new or used - although out of curiosity I found out that my prior Cirrus had again sold in the meantime (upgraded to WAAS GPSs and with a fresh parachute repack) for less than I sold it for - so the guy that bought it did not do too well either.  I had been flying Bonanzas, high performance C and P models in the meantime but was not too keen on any of them - the Mooney just made more sense.

So late last year, I bought a  beautiful 98 J (the last 201 serial number ever built) after a long search and have been very happy with the performance, comfort and just how nice it flies.  I'm preaching to the choir here I'm sure LOL.   It is a totally different experience than the Cirrus was in all ways.  My wife was not convinced at first - she missed the Cirrus cabin and questioned the size of the Mooney but after a family vacation in the plane she was sold.  She thought it was just as comfortable and that it seemed to perform better (it did!).  So I am definitely in the Mooney camp!

Would I buy a new Mooney?  I'm not sure - but that's more because I don't like to get the depreciation hit on anything new.  Would I buy a lightly used Acclaim?  Most definitely!!  I am just not a new plane/ car/ boat purchaser when a lightly used one is as good but costs much less - but more than that it's just not that different from a brand new one.  I think the reason Cirrus is outselling Mooney, Beech, Cessna is that it appeals to a different kind of buyer: someone who wants to have the latest in technology, alleged safety, cabin goodies etc. and who is not satisfied with the couple of year older/ prior generation Cirrus.  Why doesn't that buyer get a new Mooney?  Because a couple of year older Mooney can be bought with equivalent equipment and performance at a lower cost without much difference.  There just isn't a big delta in what you get in a lightly used Acclaim vs a new Acclaim.  So not much motivation to buy new unless you just have to have new plane smell.  Cirrus' constantly changing their models and bringing out new generations every couple of years, while sucking for Cirrus owners who see their resale value plummet, is brilliant to capture the high end buyer who wants the latest because a lightly used one is not the same as the new ones.  In that strategy, by marketing to that buyer and highlighting the new stuff which can't be had with a used one they lock the buyer in.  Mooney's advertising may convince someone to buy a Mooney but doesn't have to be a new one...that's the problem.  There's just not that much difference.  Ok the new pilot side door is definitely cool - but not sure it's a big enough change.

So who is the target for a new Mooney?  Other than a Mooney purist /Mooniac who can afford one, it's probably a pilot who can use it for business, wants the performance uptick over a Cirrus and who can use the tax benefits - it's clearly not most of us who like the economical choice of buying used  and letting someone else take the economic depreciation hit on a new plane.    

[jetdriven]

It’s the newer technology. 
I drive a 2009 BMW 335i. Flashed. Exhaust. A lot of little upgrades. 450 HP to all 4 wheels and it runs real good. The newest F80 M3 is comparable. A little faster on track but comparable. The wate gates stick occasionally which throws an underboost code and sometimes the trans overheats and slips. The oil temp goes from 200-310 in 20 minutes and enters limp mode, so I have an 18 minute car.  Last time at VIR a dude shows up with a Model 3 Tesla performance model. It’s 6 seconds a lap faster.  No turbos or wastegates. No gas motor or transmission. Just strap in and flog it. New technology.  Now a new M3 is really expensive, complicated, and depreciates like a rock. The Model P3 is nothing like that. But does the job. 
Mooney has the same problem.  But they’re still selling the 1998 M3.  

[M016576]

8 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

It’s the newer technology. 
I drive a 2009 BMW 335i. Flashed. Exhaust. A lot of little upgrades. 450 HP to all 4 wheels and it runs real good. The newest F80 M3 is comparable. A little faster on track but comparable. The wate gates stick occasionally which throws an underboost code and sometimes the trans overheats and slips. The oil temp goes from 200-310 in 20 minutes and enters limp mode, so I have an 18 minute car.  Last time at VIR a dude shows up with a Model 3 Tesla performance model. It’s 6 seconds a lap faster.  No turbos or wastegates. No gas motor or transmission. Just strap in and flog it. New technology.  Now a new M3 is really expensive, complicated, and depreciates like a rock. The Model P3 is nothing like that. But does the job. 
Mooney has the same problem.  But they’re still selling the 1998 M3.  

Funny- seems like we have similar tastes.  I’ve got a ‘08 E90 M3- the last of the NA M3 models... undersized pulleys, new induction kit and cat convert delete with flash... ~500hp..... love this car.  Just like I love my mooney.... 

while BMW isn’t going anywhere soon... they certainly have their hands full competing with the Tesla, don’t they.

Edited July 28, 2019 by M016576

[gsxrpilot]

I guess as an owner I can be happy Mooney isn't building J's or K's anymore. If they were, mine wouldn't be worth nearly as much. As it is, my 252 goes up in value every year.

[gsxrpilot]

17 minutes ago, M016576 said:

Funny- seems like we have similar tastes.  I’ve got a ‘08 E90 M3- the last of the NA M3 models... undersized pulleys, new induction kit and cat convert delete with flash... ~500hp..... love this car.  Just like I love my mooney.... 

while BMW isn’t going anywhere soon... they certainly have their hands full competing with the Tesla, don’t they.

I drive a 2010 335i M-Sport, JB4, intercooler, charge pipe, coil over's, etc... 425 hp. Fun car.

[David_H]

There is a community of Engineers, Professors, Marketing Executives, Business Owners, A&P's, AI's, and many... many others that are extremely able, talented, and extremely interested in seeing Mooney International succeed. The amount of people here that could help Mooney International is absolutely staggering.

However, Mooney International has no presence here. This is beyond confusing.

[M016576]

17 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

I drive a 2010 335i M-Sport, JB4, intercooler, charge pipe, coil over's, etc... 425 hp. Fun car.

Love it!

[EricJ]

47 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

I drive a 2009 BMW 335i. Flashed. Exhaust. A lot of little upgrades. 450 HP to all 4 wheels and it runs real good. The newest F80 M3 is comparable. A little faster on track but comparable. The wate gates stick occasionally which throws an underboost code and sometimes the trans overheats and slips. The oil temp goes from 200-310 in 20 minutes and enters limp mode, so I have an 18 minute car.  Last time at VIR a dude shows up with a Model 3 Tesla performance model. It’s 6 seconds a lap faster.  No turbos or wastegates. No gas motor or transmission. Just strap in and flog it. New technology.  Now a new M3 is really expensive, complicated, and depreciates like a rock. The Model P3 is nothing like that. But does the job. 
Mooney has the same problem.  But they’re still selling the 1998 M3.  

 

47 minutes ago, M016576 said:

Funny- seems like we have similar tastes.  I’ve got a ‘08 E90 M3- the last of the NA M3 models... undersized pulleys, new induction kit and cat convert delete with flash... ~500hp..... love this car.  Just like I love my mooney.... 

while BMW isn’t going anywhere soon... they certainly have their hands full competing with the Tesla, don’t they.

 

26 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

I drive a 2010 335i M-Sport, JB4, intercooler, charge pipe, coil over's, etc... 425 hp. Fun car.

My track car is an E36 328i, but I've always competed in the slower classes.   Personally I think anything after the E46 M3 was the beginning of the end for a practical track car from BMW, but that's just me.   But I'm kinda the same with the Mooney, M20J with an IO-360...bang for the buck reliability. 

So neither the new BMWs nor the new Mooneys appeal to me.   But the Cirrii don't, either.   

The C8 Vette, tho... 

[gsxrpilot]

As someone said, "They just don't make them like they used to."

[bonal]

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

It’s the newer technology. 
I drive a 2009 BMW 335i. Flashed. Exhaust. A lot of little upgrades. 450 HP to all 4 wheels and it runs real good. The newest F80 M3 is comparable. A little faster on track but comparable. The wate gates stick occasionally which throws an underboost code and sometimes the trans overheats and slips. The oil temp goes from 200-310 in 20 minutes and enters limp mode, so I have an 18 minute car.  Last time at VIR a dude shows up with a Model 3 Tesla performance model. It’s 6 seconds a lap faster.  No turbos or wastegates. No gas motor or transmission. Just strap in and flog it. New technology.  Now a new M3 is really expensive, complicated, and depreciates like a rock. The Model P3 is nothing like that. But does the job. 
Mooney has the same problem.  But they’re still selling the 1998 M3.  

While I accept the efficiency of electrons. Let's suppose you are traveling 600 miles and you both have a range of 300 miles. The Tesla will require a full recharge which takes about 45 minutes to an hour. Your BMW will require a fueling that can be done in under 5 minutes. What I can't understand about all the electric vehicles is why no one has designed an interchangeable battery. Think of the business possibilities. Automated smart car pulls into battery transfer station communicates with automated station which replaces depleted battery with fully charged unit in a couple minutes  and automatically bills your account 

[ZuluZulu]

3 hours ago, EricJ said:

 

 

My track car is an E36 328i, but I've always competed in the slower classes.   Personally I think anything after the E46 M3 was the beginning of the end for a practical track car from BMW, but that's just me.   But I'm kinda the same with the Mooney, M20J with an IO-360...bang for the buck reliability. 

So neither the new BMWs nor the new Mooneys appeal to me.   But the Cirrii don't, either.   

The C8 Vette, tho... 

2018 F23 (M240i convertible) here!  The 2-series is excellent.  I've owned two of them so far.

[mike_elliott]

5 hours ago, bonal said:

While I accept the efficiency of electrons. Let's suppose you are traveling 600 miles and you both have a range of 300 miles. The Tesla will require a full recharge which takes about 45 minutes to an hour. Your BMW will require a fueling that can be done in under 5 minutes. What I can't understand about all the electric vehicles is why no one has designed an interchangeable battery. Think of the business possibilities. Automated smart car pulls into battery transfer station communicates with automated station which replaces depleted battery with fully charged unit in a couple minutes  and automatically bills your account 

Tesla's acquisition of Maxwell Tech and their dry lith battery technology coupled with their super capacitor technology might mean future Teslas can get recharged in a very very short time, dumping to the capacitors which charge the main batteries or is just available "juice" to smoke a Bimmer. I just sold my pristine E38 IL to make room for the new Tesla in the garage, but no fears, @Rocketman bought it and Ill use it as a driver at the Summit, where it now lives in PCB. Ron also plunked down for a 2020 'vet to go with his plastic viper. He still gets quantity discounts on his dinosaur grease. I am trying to get off peak rates for my coal fired car. My racers were Datsuns and Porsche's back in the day, and were full track cars CASC and SCCA

[mike_elliott]

9 hours ago, jetdriven said:

besides parachute” is throwing out half the reason why buyers choose that airplane

Not throwing it out at all. Asked and answered many times before your post. Its a known, and we don't need to get sidetracked still again about the 'chute looking for constructive things they could do. 

 

9 hours ago, jetdriven said:

like I said earlier, Cirrus is outselling Mooney by a huge margin. I think they have a superior  product

Yes they are. And why the question. Superior because of the chute? because of the all composite airframe or is it the fixed gear that you find attractive? I get the sense you would rather have a slower, heavier, truck like Mooney that could carry 4 people and go non stop from DC to AZ made out of composites. Which is ok, its a valid wish.

 

9 hours ago, jetdriven said:

I told Barry Hodkin this back in 2013  at the factory. I said, look, cirrus is selling a 50x more planes than you into the same market. Man to man, eye to eye. Tell me you got something more than a restart M20TN and R. Because those aren’t moving.

Telling a bean counter your thoughts of product specs and marketing might not have been the correct person or approach, Byron.

 

9 hours ago, jetdriven said:

I think they have an impossible situation. An obsolete product and no money to make it competitive. They had that money and blew it. Now, eventual bankruptcy, a new round of suckers for investors, and more of the same.

I am not so sure the Meijing group has no money. Did they waste some previously since they acquired the company? They sure did with things like an "app" to select a color for the M10, not selecting the best leaders for huge salaries, etc. We know these things. Some "suckers" may never show, and your old J will be worth less. Again. Right now, they are going up in value. But in your doomsday scenario, they sure wont appreciate and I apologize, but this scenario wont be presented to Mooney when I get the audience. They are very intelligent and know their risks/rewards. If you are ready to stick a fork in them, they are done, I suggest you and Becca bail out of that Mooney while you can.

I remember in 2000 when I heard how expensive a new Ovation was from people on the MAPA list. Now, that is one of the most sought after used planes out there. The Eagle was ignored by the new buyers in large part. They made about as many of them as they have Ultra's. Now, if you own an Eagle, well, you have done well, unless we dont support the factory, do what we can to see that they succeed and allow them to say "I've had it, we can make more billions with our land dev in China. There is no real family here of owners"

 

 

 

[M20F]

You could put two chutes in a Mooney and it still wouldn’t sell better.  The benefits of a Cirrus have been laid out pretty clear as has the fact that a 60yr old design can’t be warmed over anymore (ask Boeing).  

Mooney would have to come out with something entirely new to be competitive.  They don’t have the money, leadership, or probably the engineering to do that.  We have also reached the limits of what you can do with a piston engine. Where the J/K/etc. carved new ground rapidly over competition there just isn’t anyway for anyone to get more blood from the rock in a piston aircraft anymore. 

There is also the fact that the world is very different then the 1960’s.  Airline service is everywhere and cheap.  The advantages of GA while compelling in some instances isn’t what it was 60yrs ago.  

Declining overall market for pistons, end of the road in terms of performance gains, the very competitive pricing of turbines, etc. limits the market. If Mooney sold 200 and Cirrus sold 200 of the total 400 they would both go bankrupt. The market isn’t large enough   

About the only place they could potentially play is coming out with a competitor for the Meridan or focusing on parts/aftermarket (ala Rocket Engineering).  That of course though takes leadership, vision, and money which they don’t have.  

[aviatoreb]

38 minutes ago, M20F said:

You could put two chutes in a Mooney and it still wouldn’t sell better.  The benefits of a Cirrus have been laid out pretty clear as has the fact that a 60yr old design can’t be warmed over anymore (ask Boeing).  

Mooney would have to come out with something entirely new to be competitive.  They don’t have the money, leadership, or probably the engineering to do that.  We have also reached the limits of what you can do with a piston engine. Where the J/K/etc. carved new ground rapidly over competition there just isn’t anyway for anyone to get more blood from the rock in a piston aircraft anymore. 

There is also the fact that the world is very different then the 1960’s.  Airline service is everywhere and cheap.  The advantages of GA while compelling in some instances isn’t what it was 60yrs ago.  

Declining overall market for pistons, end of the road in terms of performance gains, the very competitive pricing of turbines, etc. limits the market. If Mooney sold 200 and Cirrus sold 200 of the total 400 they would both go bankrupt. The market isn’t large enough   

About the only place they could potentially play is coming out with a competitor for the Meridan or focusing on parts/aftermarket (ala Rocket Engineering).  That of course though takes leadership, vision, and money which they don’t have.  

Phoo - Phoo!  I respectfully disagree.

Cirrus is just a carbon fiber version of what has been largely mastered since WWII - a little fixed wing airplane.  The lift, control, stall, etc has been mostly worked out eons ago.  A DC3 is still a viable airframe, only they are older than dirt.  Slap a new PT6 on them and they are competitive again for certain operations.

https://www.baslerturbo.com

And wasn't the Cirrus largely designed by 2 brothers?  There is just not a lot new there aerodynamically.  Not like say, an octocopter (a dramatically new concept in recent years), or perhaps this concept which is also dramatically different aerodynamics.  http://www.jobyaviation.com/LEAPTech(AIAA).pdf

a cirrus - meh - same old same old you could find on a DC3.

I don't know what specifically would end up being the thing, marketing wise since I am not a business person, but let me bs/guess

- yes throw a parachute in and an innovative new engine and also better marketing and that old Mooney design could still be a market knockout.

-AND For example - how about this eps v8 diesel.  Capable of 320 through 450 hp but on superb surreal fuel specifics fuel flow.  Imagine a 350hp engine on the front of a M20V airframe, and I mean it can cruise at 350hp (unlike a 310hp continental TSIO520 (or 550) that cruises at 75% or 232hp)...so what would a M20V pulling 350hp do?  I guess >260kts.  AND the eps can do that on 15-16gph.  And they claim 3000hr tbo.

I think that would turn heads and people would buy it....  I WOULD crave that baby.

It does look more and more like parachutes are a necessary entry point though.  Parachute, and a kick ass new engine concept.  Back in the game.

 

[M20F]

Just now, aviatoreb said:

Phoo - Phoo!  I respectfully disagree.

Fair enough but the sales figures support my point of view.  Would you really change your rocket for an Acclaim if you had all the money in the world?  

2 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

a cirrus - meh - same old same old you could find on a DC3.

 

As I said there is nowhere to really go with a piston engine single.  The Acclaim is an example of a really big engine and the result, not much more speed for a lot of loss in useful weight.  Rockets and 252’s are much more viable planes then the Acclaim. 

Your DC example is great.  Nowhere to go with a piston but with a turbine there is a place for it.  

[RogueOne]

Carbon is NOT dead and will be viable in quantity to provide for world for our and our children’s lifetimes. Meanwhile Tesla can not make a profit and their stock is tanking with a massive ramp up. New Mooney’s are so expensive as to not be on the radar of most. It is not the product, it is the price and those that can afford it. Cirrus is nice, newer design with a lower price point. Of course they will win...but I have zero interest in a used Cirrus. Used Mooney?  Yes please. Support used Mooney’s. There are thousands of us...

[RogueOne]

3 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

Tesla's acquisition of Maxwell Tech and their dry lith battery technology coupled with their super capacitor technology might mean future Teslas can get recharged in a very very short time, dumping to the capacitors which charge the main batteries or is just available "juice" to smoke a Bimmer. I just sold my pristine E38 IL to make room for the new Tesla in the garage, but no fears, @Rocketman bought it and Ill use it as a driver at the Summit, where it now lives in PCB. Ron also plunked down for a 2020 'vet to go with his plastic viper. He still gets quantity discounts on his dinosaur grease. I am trying to get off peak rates for my coal fired car. My racers were Datsuns and Porsche's back in the day, and were full track cars CASC and SCCA

One word, “might” is key. Get a decent battery with more storage and less weight. Then there might be something to this feel good electric powered fantasy that is viable as a replacement for carbon. Now?  Nope. 

[RogueOne]

6 hours ago, ZuluZulu said:

2018 F23 (M240i convertible) here!  The 2-series is excellent.  I've owned two of them so far.

M2 Competition is a wonderful vehicle. 

[RogueOne]

9 hours ago, bonal said:

While I accept the efficiency of electrons. Let's suppose you are traveling 600 miles and you both have a range of 300 miles. The Tesla will require a full recharge which takes about 45 minutes to an hour. Your BMW will require a fueling that can be done in under 5 minutes. What I can't understand about all the electric vehicles is why no one has designed an interchangeable battery. Think of the business possibilities. Automated smart car pulls into battery transfer station communicates with automated station which replaces depleted battery with fully charged unit in a couple minutes  and automatically bills your account 

Need a better battery. I do not like hanging in line at can redemption shed...

[Davidv]

Saw this at 6B6 on Friday.  Probably more fantasy than reality at the moment but it’s a 7 passenger piloted drone (I guess we can call they a helicopter right?).  There was a hydrogen refueling tank right next to the concrete pad.  It supposedly can stay up for 4 hours.

sorry about the orientation, despite editing it on my phone still can’t get it right.

[LANCECASPER]

The Cirrus isn’t carbon fiber - it is composite and it offers one carbon appearance package.