Oshkosh observation

[exM20K]

42 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

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.

I agree.  The SR2x Cirrus is just a plane; the VK30 was innovative and sucked.  The company is a marketing and selling machine.  They are energetic and everywhere, and the results speak for themselves.  I don't like the way they fly, and I believe that back-to-back flights would yield that same conclusion for most pilots....especially w/o the autopilot.

There is a thread almost identical to this one going over at Beechtalk: "Our manufacturer puts no effort into marketing an obsolete product, and we're doomed."

Some things to consider in this discussion here (channeling @carusoam):

1. The dense and qualified lead pool for a new Mooney is not on this forum in the form of existing owners.  I have sold dozens upon dozens of new Diamond aircraft over the last 12 years, and I don't recall ever selling a new DA40 to a legacy aircraft owner.  Why?  Because the price delta is way out of line with the performance delta.  An $80,000 archer is not only one fifth the performance and capability of a new Diamond.  The buyer wants new: new panel, new airframe, new warranty, etc.  I'm that way with motorhomes - I know they depreciate like a falling rock, but I want mine new.  
2. This forum could definitely support a study of the viability of a factory refurb program as @mike_elliott suggests.  That would be a smart move on the part of Mooney International, if they want to be in the worker market rather than the fabrication business.  Yes, there is some fabrication of interiors and maybe cowlings, but the heavy lifting is in the existing airframe.  Can they build in enough margin to make this work?  It's worth study, especially considering my point above: they can sell to a cohort of owners who will not be likely new aircraft buyers.
3. Were Mooney to hire a team of smart social media gir er, people, invest in demo tours, reach out to qualified prospects aggressively and on and on... are they presently equipped to make one plane a week?  Do they have the ability to ramp up to 2x or 3x that? If not, then the sales & marketing spend is a waste of resources.
4. M10: It is good they killed it.  That plane did little that the well-established DA20/DA40/SR20/C172 doesn't do better.  Training market is driven by fleet purchases now, and margins on those suck, so you're competing for what?
5. Yes: everyone at OSH is blown away by their booth presence and energy level.  They are everywhere IRL and on social media.  ICON has a really boss booth at OSH and a pretty high-profile media position (positive, until recently).  How's that going?  Does Cirrus get a positive ROI on all the marketing spend?  Only they know. Are they profitable? Only they know. 

Things Mooney can do:

1. Investigate the economics of a refurb and/or CPO program
2. Get the gross weight up without blowing out the runway numbers. Re-worked landing gear and VG's?
3. Find or train CFI's in the type, and promulgate that information to the world. eg: here's a map of all the factory-approved Mooney instructors.  Ditto service centers - there aren't enough.  The new plane buyer doesn't want to dig deep to find out where he can get trained or get his new plane (under warranty) wrenched on.
4. Create a community - proud owners on this forum, for example, who will evangelize.  Make sure the existing owners feel supported.  Contribute meaningfully to or acquire MAPA and/or homecoming. That doesn't cost a lot.
5. Craft a marketing message to de-value the BRS.  I don't know what that message is.  The 'chute is very appealing to the non-flying spouse who tolerates the other's dangerous hobby.

I always liked the "Time to lose your training wheels" campaign.  It struck a great, cheek tone poking fun at a competitor and its dorky product w/o seeming mean or petty.  But that campaign was only in aviation magazines.  I think it's a winning message to broadcast widely.  Cirrus does have a huge and enthusiastic group of owners, but that makes them not only the incumbent, but also a ripe target for a nimble, guerrilla marketing campaign for a better-performing, cooler product. 

All the other stuff - ramping up production, hiring a professional marketing firm, aggressively reaching out to qualified buyers, supporting demo tours, etc, is a chicken&egg thing that Mooney must figure out: invest in marketing to build a pipeline, or if selling everything they can make now, invest in productive capacity first?  Or continue along as a hobby new-plane business with a viable parts/support core?

 

-dan

[exM20K]

2 hours ago, M20F said:

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.  

 

True.  And the business use case has changed dramatically - SETP's have obsoleted cabin class piston twins for business use, and many industries have consolidated: time was that a manufacturers' rep would be out calling on customers oh behalf of a number of different manufacturers.  This was a perfect use case for GA.  What with the customers and vendors consolidating into fewer and larger entities, internet catalogs and ordering, and sales automation, this role is significantly diminished.

[David_H]

4 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

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"

It doesn't appear as if Mooney International has ever made an attempt to be "part of the family." While everyone here wants them to succeed, and would contribute to helping, they aren't even here to have any dialogue. Perhaps this is because they believe many of us haven't elected to earn more.

Mooney International appears to have made numerous unfavorable business decisions. If they think they can run a company in China similarly and achieve positive results, then they should go give that a shot. It's going to be rather difficult to force them to listen to ideas to bail them out for their mismanagement of the Mooney brand name.

[M016576]

13 minutes ago, David_H said:

many of us haven't elected to earn more.

I laugh every time I read this!  :p

[M20F]

3 minutes ago, M016576 said:

I laugh every time I read this!  :p

I have been reading up on this Karl Marx guy, not sure if you have heard of him.  I think he is on to something.  

Edited July 28, 2019 by M20F
Grammar

[aviatoreb]

5 minutes ago, M20F said:

I have been reading up on this Karl Marx guy, not sure if you have heard of him.  I think he is on to something.  

I prefer Groucho Marx.

[M016576]

3 hours ago, M20F said:

not much more speed for a lot of loss in useful weight.  Rockets and 252’s are much more viable planes then the Acclaim. 

^And this is why the Eagle and Screaming Eagle are in such high demand now, despite arriving to less than enthusiastic fan fair.  That extra 200-300lbs of useful load is significant.  And new airplane buyers seem to think so too (Cirrus sr22T gts has roughly that over a M20V)

[M20F]

1 minute ago, M016576 said:

^And this is why the Eagle and Screaming Eagle are in such high demand now, despite arriving to less than enthusiastic fan fair.  That extra 200-300lbs of useful load is significant.  And new airplane buyers seem to think so too (Cirrus sr22T gts has roughly that over a M20V)

The services market is where it is at in my opinion.  Look how many manufacturers today derive the bulk from services/parts versus new sales.  What little new sales does exist is primarily to drive the corresponding service contract.  

As the TC holder Mooney could with minimal dollars invested sell all sorts of things.  Instead they spent a lot of $$ on a plane that will never go to production and a second door.....  

[LANCECASPER]

7 minutes ago, M016576 said:

^And this is why the Eagle and Screaming Eagle are in such high demand now, despite arriving to less than enthusiastic fan fair.  That extra 200-300lbs of useful load is significant.  And new airplane buyers seem to think so too (Cirrus sr22T gts has roughly that over a M20V)

Mooney wanted one body length so they eliminated the mid bodies from the line-up for 1999. I always thought that that if they had made one Eagle-like model with a Continental TSIO360SB engine that would have satisfied all of the potential Encore buyers and kept one very efficient model in the line-up

[mike_elliott]

36 minutes ago, David_H said:

Perhaps this is because they believe many of us haven't elected to earn more

And perhaps this was a poor choice of words on my part. I recognize some do not have the abilities, drive or motivation of people like Chuck Crinnan, who re-invented himself as a doctor, Bucko, who went from Civil Engineer to Dr. etc. My point is at any level, general aviation takes disposable income, and that is up to you and only you to provide. How you do it is a free will choice we can make, apply ourselves and be rewarded. Welcome to the US. If I have offended some by this, I apologize, that wasn't my intent. It was simply to point out new aircraft all take a lot of money regardless of make and if you want to have airplane companies around to "service" you, we have to do our part to keep them healthy. For the most part, in my 68 years, I have observed if a person really wants something bad enough, they can usually figure out how to make it happen fiscally.

 

[Seth]

On 7/27/2019 at 1:25 PM, Wayne Cease said:

Too many CSOB Mooney owners.  At least for upselling to newer planes.  Nothing wrong with being frugal, but it does make it harder to sell newer/better planes to that market.  Some of the Acclaim or Ovation owners might move up though.  Cirrus has marketed towards the "buy now and trade-in later for a newer/better model" crowd.  No, not everyone does that, but many do.

I seriously doubt there are many C/E/F/J owners that are planning on buying a new Mooney.  Yes, it's more expensive, but a new Mooney offers a lot more capability.  Unfortunately it's a lot more expensive than a 50 year old plane.  While it may be the same brand, those two are in completely different market segments.  It would be like wondering why the 3rd owner of a 2002 SR22 with a six-pack panel is not interested in buying a new SF50 Cirrus Jet.

Mooney not dealing with the G1000 issues (WAAS, ADS-B) is a big problem though.  Would you want to spend $800k+ on a plane from a vendor that has a history of not supporting their systems?

Anyone dreaming of a brand new $300k M20J though can give up that dream.  Even if Mooney were to build and sell it, a new M20J would be quite a bit more.  The base model of the SR20 is $454,900.  Now, that "base" model includes a lot, but Cirrus has plenty of options, so the price does go up from there.  That's a fixed gear plane with an IO-390 claiming 155 knots in max cruise.

 

FYI - it’s not a 155 knot airplane.  I flew a G6 SR-20 for tracking for my 135 job.  Fine airplane. Does a lot of things well, but 155 is not realistic.  Think 140-150 knots depending on settings.  

-Seth

 

[MooneyMitch]

50 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

Mooney wanted one body length so they eliminated the mid bodies from the line-up for 1999. I always thought that that if they had made one Eagle-like model with a Continental TSIO360SB engine that would have satisfied all of the potential Encore buyers and kept one very efficient model in the line-up

When I interviewed Ken Harmon [son of Ralph Harmon] a few years ago, Ken informed this is exactly what Mooney was investigating...............hanging a 6 cylinder on the front of a mid-body [F/G model during that era].

 

You see, Ken was a very young man at that time and his dad [Ralph] put Ken in charge of the very enthusiastic and very energetic R&D department.  The R&D 6 cylinder Mooney was labeled the "H" model. Incidentally, this was during the Mustang era[and that's another story!].

 

They never got to fly the airplane as the company went into bankruptcy and all was lost!

 

In my opinion, this is one of, if not the greatest times in Mooney history!

[David_H]

15 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

if you want to have airplane companies around to "service" you, we have to do our part to keep them healthy

They are (and have historically) provided extremely poor service. Will they provide better service after they've been given enough good ideas? Rewarding poor business management with equitable ideas seems like an extremely inefficient use of intellectual ability.

They wanted a presence in the American Marketplace and now they have it. Welcome to America. Earn the business or fail.

Perhaps Mooney International needs to elect to succeed. Their current business strategy doesn't appear to be working. It would be much better for everyone if they fail quickly if they aren't serious about turning things around.

Perhaps more capable minds can (or be willing to) pick up the pieces and make the thing work if they continue their current downward trajectory. If not, the Mooney community has lost nothing.

[MooneyMitch]

"It doesn't appear as if Mooney International has ever made an attempt to be "part of the family." "

I disagree with that statement. 

At the initial start up of Mooney in 2014, Dr. Jerry Chen and the gang was very much interested in being part of the family.  So much so, when they were creating the 3 seater in Chino, due to so many comments from our "Mooney family" regarding resurrecting the J model, they labeled the little plane, the M10"J".  In addition, in their desire to listen to the "family", they put the Mooney tail design on the new plane.  And, from input from us all, they put the second door on the long bodies.  They were very much interested in what we all had to say and they took action towards that end.

In addition, they put the very first 2014 production airplane up for auction, with all sale proceeds going towards creating a Mooney museum at the factory!  That impressed me of Dr. Chen's desire to be part of the family, by honoring the Mooney history, all that worked there over the years, and recognizing the Mooney family.

 

My point, they were listening and they were very much interested in being part of the "family".

As short lived at is was, and I have no idea what happened, that was also a very great and very exciting time in Mooney history!  We were all very excited for the potential and the enthusiasm represented under Dr. Chen!

[David_H]

20 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Are we thinking like a bunch of nearsighted western M20 profiteers here but the real focus is elsewhere?  Does anyone even know what Mooney International’s goals/objectives are?  Was the M10 truly a bad design or was the U.S. portion of it’s development just completed and it’s IP has now been quietly exported to China for production?   Of course I don’t know and even if that is the case we M20 owners are certainly better off than we were a few years ago when Mooney was all but bankrupt, so I’m not proposing this as a negative.  Just another perspective to consider.  I always say if something doesn’t make sense it is usually because you don’t know all of the facts.  I have been a Mooney owner/enthusiast for almost 40 years.  The market is just not supporting the viability of the M20 design any more, and Lord knows I don’t see the profitability.  

This brings up an extremely good point. We do not have all the information and are speculating on how we can best gift them with intellectual ideas to help them succeed... hoping they will then remember to provide us with future "service."

They don't appear to have had the ability to generate the intellectual property... so they purchased it. Hopefully others can see this for what it is as well. They likely aren't foolish enough to appear to hemorrhage cash for no reason. These are investors and likely have a goal that we're unable to see.

[mike_elliott]

8 minutes ago, MooneyMitch said:

"It doesn't appear as if Mooney International has ever made an attempt to be "part of the family." "

I disagree with that statement. 

At the initial start up of Mooney in 2014, Dr. Jerry Chen and the gang was very much interested in being part of the family.  So much so, when they were creating the 3 seater in Chino, due to so many comments from our "Mooney family" regarding resurrecting the J model, they labeled the little plane, the M10"J".  In addition, in their desire to listen to the "family", they put the Mooney tail design on the new plane.  And, from input from us all, they put the second door on the long bodies.  They were very much interested in what we all had to say and they took action towards that end.

In addition, they put the very first 2014 production airplane up for auction, with all sale proceeds going towards creating a Mooney museum at the factory!  That impressed me of Dr. Chen's desire to be part of the family, by honoring the Mooney history, all that worked there over the years, and recognizing the Mooney family.

 

My point, they were listening and they were very much interested in being part of the "family".

And they have supported and attended 6 of the 7 Mooney Summits, probably supported all of the Mooney Caravan's, have sponsored MAPA big time each year, DMAX events, given Jolie a booth at OSH last year, let her sell wares in their booth at SNF the last few years, and have always been receptive to listening face to face with us. Sometimes we cant make them do what we want, but they will take it under advisement and attempt to appease. We, on the other hand, discuss ideas we would like to see them do here and that becomes an entitlement of an intellectual gift to them. Clearly, they have a small prospective market among us, unfortunately with us giving little in return. But this is one of the data points I was after in starting this thread so they can correctly decide a course of action.

[David_H]

4 minutes ago, MooneyMitch said:

My point, they were listening and they were very much interested in being part of the "family".

The following question may seem very pointed. However, it's not meant to be offensive. Would you consider buying a new Mooney to show your support for all their generosity?

[MooneyMitch]

Me personally buying a new Mooney would not be based on their "generosity".  If I had the funds, you bet I'd buy a new Mooney! 

[mike_elliott]

3 minutes ago, David_H said:

The following question may seem very pointed. However, it's not meant to be offensive. Would you consider buying a new Mooney to show your support for all their generosity?

Not for that reason, but for the fact I think it is the best single engine piston made I would. I am here because of the strength of the cage and the kindness of a first responder. I wouldnt be if I were in a Cirrus, Piper or Cessna. I probably have as much time in the Ultras as anyone except perhaps Kevin Kammer and Lee Drumheller, and can assure you, they are very very nice. It was difficult to climb into the pristine 1999 Bravo I flew for so long after being in an Ultra. 

[M20F]

32 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

 I am here because of the strength of the cage and the kindness of a first responder. I wouldnt be if I were in a Cirrus.

The cage is a structural hold over from fabric it provides no added safety benefit.  A crashed Mooney crumples like a beer can the same as any other plane.  

What is statistically supported though is that a properly used CAPS deployment equates to almost 100% survivability.  

If you want to save Mooney then elect to earn more, buy the company, and show us how it is done.  

[MooneyMitch]

12 minutes ago, M20F said:

The cage is a structural hold over from fabric it provides no added safety benefit

While I do agree with this statement regarding a hold over from the fabric days concept, there have been situations where the steel tubing has been of benefit.

[M20F]

5 minutes ago, MooneyMitch said:

While I do agree with this statement, there have been situations where the steel tubing has been of benefit.

There have been situations where a Piper Cub flying very slow has made all the difference in survivability.  We can make a case for some impact to a lot of things.  The roll cage though is minimal impact at best (as evidenced by the most recent tragic accident).  What isn’t debatable is the CAPS works and that is proven through science not feelings. 

I love my Mooney and it fits all the things I want.  I personally hate flying a SR22 and I hate their seats even more than mine (which is saying something).  Anyone arguing a Mooney has greater survivability then a properly flown Cirrus though is at best delusional and at worse will actually delude others into believing the roll cage will protect them when they screw up (it won’t). 

[Tom]

10 minutes ago, M20F said:

The cage is a structural hold over from fabric it provides no added safety benefit.  A crashed Mooney crumples like a beer can the same as any other plane.  

What is statistically supported though is that a properly used CAPS deployment equates to almost 100% survivability.  

Agreed. The vaunted cage is a holdover  only valuable in particular accident sequences.  The people who in any manner support minimising the value of a chute really need a gut check.  Have recent events not taught those people a lesson???

Otherwise this discussion contains much dialog that would dissuade the type of person who has 900 large from putting it into a Mooney. Really counterproductive, at least in the open. 

[MooneyMitch]

As off topic [my opinion only] of the subject of this thread has become, I have to speak of the infamous "roll cage" as it has been falsely deemed over the past many, many years..........including a statement touted years ago by a leading Mooney sales person, that the "roll cage" was designed by NASCAR! [yikes!}.

 

During filming of Boots on the Ground movie, as many questions were asked of Bill Wheat, I regret not asking [on camera] Bill's thoughts, opinion and knowledge of the "roll cage" and why folks would deem it so.  We'll never know unfortunately. 

Again, I will state that there have been particular situations where the steel tubing structure has provided benefit.

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, M20F said:

The cage is a structural hold over from fabric it provides no added safety benefit.  A crashed Mooney crumples like a beer can the same as any other plane.  

 

And your confident response is based on ...?

Edited July 28, 2019 by aviatoreb