Oshkosh observation

[Wayne Cease]

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.

 

[Danb]

Wayne and Jerry depict a couple of reasons Mooney isn’t selling many planes.

As Wayne pointed out I was lost as a customer (having three Mooney’s two new) my long body was left in the dark due to there lack of supporting and advancing our G1000 system, it got old and tiring trying for a decade or so to have ADSB and WAAS available although there are still many easy improvements they can and should offer at market price. Upgrade our software, Mooney you listening.

As Jerry mentioned he had three Mooney’s with no marketing from Mooney ever to persuade him to upgrade to a new model.

Ive been marketed by Cirrus and actually Lancair but never Mooney, not even a survey hey Dan how’s your new 1988 J or later how’s  that 2005 BravoGX fitting your needs, if there’s anything I can help you with don’t hesitate to contact me at...

Pretty weak division of the company, great product lousy company,

[David_H]

The product is good for certain. No one here will likely attempt to dispute that. However, they appear to be non-competitive cost-wise when stacked up against competing products in the same price category. The product Mooney International is currently marketing was already there. There has been NO observable innovation.

It doesn't appear as if Mooney International reached out to anyone to perform their marketing due diligence. Surely Mooney International has done some market research to identify their target demographics. Perhaps they decided current owners didn't fit their target demographics.

Every time I have a part fail on the M20F, I cringe knowing it will be an unpleasant debacle. Mooney doesn't appear to be very interested in helping to keep the current fleet flying. Perhaps that isn't in their business interest and one reason they don't want to talk to current owners.

This sure would be a good forum for someone from Mooney International to participate in. It doesn't seem like they have an interest in hearing feedback from current owners. 

[jetdriven]

2 hours ago, Wayne Cease said:

 

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.

 

If so, that’s amazing. They’re selling new airplanes from 455k to nearly a million.   Somehow we can’t refurb a M20J to a nearly new spec for that price,  when there is a brand new IO390, 155kt airplane available brand new.  

Edited July 27, 2019 by jetdriven

[mike_elliott]

37 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

Somehow we can’t refurb a M20J to a nearly new spec for that price

But we can. see my post above. Any interest? Thats what I am fishing for. Take a clapped out 77 J and fix it up to new encore stds with modern interior and avionics, new paint  and other wear items renewed. Have it in phases, done at the factory. 1) Interior kit, 2) Avionics package 3) engine/prop/cowling package 4) paint, tank and fuselage renewal package 5) Full meal deal.

Would a renewed J with all new everything be worth 395K compared to a new SR20 stripped down at 450K?

 

 

[Tom]

28 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

If so, that’s amazing. They’re selling new airplanes from 455k to nearly a million.   Somehow we can’t refurb a M20J to a nearly new spec for that price,  when there is a brand new IO390, 155kt airplane available brand new.  

Up until a couple years ago (don't know current prices, maybe up 10%?) you could get someone to professionally build you a RV-10 with an IFR panel and autopilot for about $300k.  Performance at least as good as a J in speed, climb, weight; better in runway options.  Add a chute for ~$25k plus install.  I appreciate that it's not the basic Mooney planform, but still.
---
Otherwise calling the lower 98.5% of the economy frugal cheap bastards who must be satisfied eating their vintage cake is a bit much.  Over 930 RV-10s have been completed and there is a market for a "modern J" equivalent. 

[Jerry 5TJ]

I frequently remind myself what a privilege it is to fly my own plane about the country.  

We’re our own 0.1% of the population: Whether we fly a Mooney C model or Citation X it is a rare gift available to a very, very few.  

[exM20K]

2 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

Would a renewed J with all new everything be worth 395K compared to a new SR20 stripped down at 450K?

Would a bank lend on that number?  Don't know, but they do get a little hesitant on >30 or 40 years of airframe age. Lending officers rely on bluebook values to retain their employment when a loan goes bad.  Would bluebook/Vref put that high a value on it?  I really don't know.  Other conversions/refurbs have price history (Jetprop, for example).  A good test case would be how much would a bank lend on one of Mike Jones "Lock & key" Navajo's.

-dan

[mike_elliott]

3 minutes ago, exM20K said:

Would a bank lend on that number?  Don't know, but they do get a little hesitant on >30 or 40 years of airframe age. Lending officers rely on bluebook values to retain their employment when a loan goes bad.  Would bluebook/Vref put that high a value on it?  I really don't know.  Other conversions/refurbs have price history (Jetprop, for example).  A good test case would be how much would a bank lend on one of Mike Jones "Lock & key" Navajo's.

-dan

Good question. While the airframe would be say a 77 with 6K hrs on it, in a sense, it would just be old skin and roll cage, which dont wear. Corrosion would have to be completely mitigated and removed, and the "renewed" metal completely treated with modern techniques. At what point do you have a "born again" plane in the lenders eyes? Heck, financing is where the big $ are anyway, perhaps this could be the true profit center.

 

 

 

[M016576]

5 hours ago, Wayne Cease said:

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

I’m not sure this is accurate.

does an $800K M20V really offer “a lot more capability” than a $200K M20M?

does it offer $700K more capability than a M20J?

how about apples and oranges... does an 800K M20V offer more capability than a $150K Tesla?

 

some... very few... would say “Yes.”  But for the other 99.99999% of the worlds population, the answer is aResounding no.  Which is why the factory is selling numbers <10/yr.

 

dont get me wrong- the M20U/V’s are beautiful planes... but they really are an airplane built for an extremely niche market in a niche “hobby” area (GA). 

Edited July 27, 2019 by M016576

[81X]

2 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

But we can. see my post above. Any interest? Thats what I am fishing for. Take a clapped out 77 J and fix it up to new encore stds with modern interior and avionics, new paint  and other wear items renewed. Have it in phases, done at the factory. 1) Interior kit, 2) Avionics package 3) engine/prop/cowling package 4) paint, tank and fuselage renewal package 5) Full meal deal.

Would a renewed J with all new everything be worth 395K compared to a new SR20 stripped down at 450K?

 

 

Great concept!  Include a parachute and airbag seatbelts for the risk averse and you might be onto something seriously cool!  

[Jerry 5TJ]

Pilatus has close to 100 firm orders for the PC24 at about $10M each.  None yet delivered.  If you want one, you’ll have to wait even to get on the list.  

Is a PC24 “99 times more capable than a used Mooney J?”   Beats me how to quantify that capability gap.  

Piper is doing well with $3M M600 planes.   

Cirrus seems to be doing ok in the piston $800K region.  

Some folks are grabbing up new airplanes.  

Just not new Mooney airplanes. 

[M016576]

15 minutes ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Pilatus has close to 100 firm orders for the PC24 at about $10M each.  None yet delivered.  If you want one, you’ll have to wait even to get on the list.  

Is a PC24 “99 times more capable than a used Mooney J?”   Beats me how to quantify that capability gap.  

Piper is doing well with $3M M600 planes.   

Cirrus seems to be doing ok in the piston $800K region.  

Some folks are grabbing up new airplanes.  

Just not new Mooney airplanes. 

PC24 has commercial application.  Mooney’s don’t (well... at least not to the same level as a PC24). The M600’s do as well.  

Lets put it this way... most people (not all, but the vast majority) that buy M600’s, PC-12’s and PC-24’s are paying someone else to fly their planes for them.  That’s a different market entirely.

as for the Cirrus- its a better airplane for what most people with 800K to burn want to use it for.  If the Mooney competed well/better, then it would sell better.  But it doesn’t.  Because the mooney, despite being a very nice plane (that I love), just doesn’t stand up to a new Cirrus for the vast majority of pilots looking in that price range.  And I don’t think it’s a “marketing issue” by mooney.  It’s a design issue.

the market backs up that thought... that’s why Cirrus is outselling mooney 30 to 1.  The new mooney’s are a niche airplane in a niche hobby.  And I’m personally afraid that mooney will have to close its doors (again).  

Edited July 27, 2019 by M016576

[mike_elliott]

1 hour ago, M016576 said:

Because the mooney, despite being a very nice plane (that I love), just doesn’t stand up to a new Cirrus for the vast majority of pilots looking in that price range.  And I don’t think it’s a “marketing issue” by mooney.  It’s a design issue.

I would be interested in hearing what these design issues are and where the Cirrus might be superior for the vast majority of pilots looking in that price range. Besides parachute, what do you see as the Mooney  weaknesses and why Cirrus can command a higher price?

 

[Yetti]

2 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Pilatus has close to 100 firm orders for the PC24 at about $10M each.  None yet delivered.  If you want one, you’ll have to wait even to get on the list.  

Is a PC24 “99 times more capable than a used Mooney J?”   Beats me how to quantify that capability gap. 

I don't think you know how rich people work.   You see the first in line people are going to sell their spots to people who want to be more first in line for a profit of course.

[M016576]

1 hour ago, mike_elliott said:

I would be interested in hearing what these design issues are and where the Cirrus might be superior for the vast majority of pilots looking in that price range. Besides parachute, what do you see as the Mooney  weaknesses and why Cirrus can command a higher price?

 

This might sound like a cop-out... but I personally don’t see a difference between the two performance wise (if anything, I think the mooney is “higher performance” or at least on par with one another).  But I’m biased- I love mooney’s... which means I *would be* a buyer into their niche market if I had the money.

here are the reasons, why I think most people choose a Cirrus over a mooney, though (and realize that I don’t necessarily agree with them all, and many are quite subjective), but the market seems to agree-

1: more room.

2: more modern feel/look (the doors, carbon fiber construction, etc)

3: more ramp appeal

4: easier to get in and out of

5: airbags and BRS parachute/perceived safety

6: community/company support

7: more seats (5 vs 4.. despite if its practical or not)

8: useful load.

so... all of those things are why I believe that more people choose a New Cirrus over a New Mooney.  

If Money were no object I would pick the mooney. But just for me because I love mooney’s in the way that Porsche Car Club members, or corvette car club members will always pick a Porsche or a ‘Vette... of course, if money were no object I’d also buy a TBM for my family trips and just keep the mooney for “fun”

Edited July 28, 2019 by M016576

[jetdriven]

1 hour ago, mike_elliott said:

I would be interested in hearing what these design issues are and where the Cirrus might be superior for the vast majority of pilots looking in that price range. Besides parachute, what do you see as the Mooney  weaknesses and why Cirrus can command a higher price?

 

Higher useful load.

More range with 2, 3, or 4 occupants.

More cabin space. More appointments such as USB ports and cup holders.  

PARACHUTE.  

the Mooney?  Fast. Fast for two hours with one or two people then land and get gas. What’s the useful load on a M20V and what’s the useful load on a new SR22 turbo? 
im not a Mooney hater, but I’ll buy whatever gets the job done. And it looks like the SR22 is the superior machine. 300+ buyers a year think so too. 

again? They could have spent the M10 money improving their M20 product. Choices have consequences. 

[Wayne Cease]

I’m not sure this is accurate.
does an $800K M20V really offer “a lot more capability” than a $200K M20M?
does it offer $700K more capability than a M20J?
how about apples and oranges... does an 800K M20V offer more capability than a $150K Tesla?
 
some... very few... would say “Yes.”  But for the other 99.99999% of the worlds population, the answer is aResounding no.  Which is why the factory is selling numbers  
dont get me wrong- the M20U/V’s are beautiful planes... but they really are an airplane built for an extremely niche market in a niche “hobby” area (GA). 

My comparison for the "a lot more" was to the C/E/F/J models not the M20M.



Wayne

[Wayne Cease]

This might sound like a cop-out... but I personally don’t see a difference between the two performance wise (if anything, I think the mooney is “higher performance” or at least on par with one another).

^ This

The Mooney is faster, but not enough to matter much; maybe at the extreme end of travel distances. It's more bragging rights.

Plus the SR22 front seats feel more open with side sticks instead of yokes. My Angel Flight passengers really like not having the yoke in front of them; SR22 and Baron with the single throw-over yoke.


Wayne

[mike_elliott]

Higher useful load.
More range with 2, 3, or 4 occupants.
More cabin space. More appointments such as USB ports and cup holders.  
PARACHUTE.  
the Mooney?  Fast. Fast for two hours with one or two people then land and get gas. What’s the useful load on a M20V and what’s the useful load on a new SR22 turbo? 
im not a Mooney hater, but I’ll buy whatever gets the job done. And it looks like the SR22 is the superior machine. 300+ buyers a year think so too. 

again? They could have spent the M10 money improving their M20 product. Choices have consequences. 

Ok, so we have
1) Higher useful load

The Ultras have USB ports and cup holders, and I asked for "besides parachute"

Anything else?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[M016576]

3 minutes ago, Wayne Cease said:

My comparison for the "a lot more" was to the C/E/F/J models not the M20M.



Wayne
 

While the cost between a nice C/E/F/J and a M is double or more (70-125K more)... the difference between a V and a J or M is less significant... a V costs 700K more than a J, and 600K more than a M.  So for all intents and purposes- the difference between a J and a M for someone buying a V.. is kind of below the noise threshold (~ 15% of their acquisition cost on the V) (total bar napkin math)

[M016576]

9 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Ok, so we have
1) Higher useful load

The Ultras have USB ports and cup holders, and I asked for "besides parachute"

Anything else?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

Yes- look at the list above I wrote.

And it’s a pretty significant difference in useful load.

the mooney looks nice inside.  Like a mooney that’s had “the treatment.”

the Cirrus has a more modern look/feel

subjective, I know.

grey is Cirrus, brown is mooney.

again- I love the new mooney’s- so much so that I painted my Missile using the same scheme (changed the colors).... which.. if I remember correctly.. several people on the board made fun of!

 

Edited July 28, 2019 by M016576

[jetdriven]

18 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Ok, so we have
1) Higher useful load

The Ultras have USB ports and cup holders, and I asked for "besides parachute"

Anything else?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

Yes.

-More cabin room. 
-more NBAA range with 2,3 or 4 occupants. 
-FAR 23 certification compliance and with that, a more crashworthy design and survivability. (26G seats for example) 

”besides parachute” is throwing out half the reason why buyers choose that airplane.  I think the last money that crashed in Arizona on the road would have appreciated a parachute option. He lost all 4 limbs. Terrible. 
 

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

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.  I asked about two doors. His reply was “ do you want to go fast or have two doors?”  I said, “Yes”. They do it.  He said well we are fast, 242 KT!  I said yes for one person that’s true. Otherwise, let’s take 3 people and my old, tired J model will beat  you to Arizona. His reply was “but 242 knots!!l”

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.  

What’s your solution ?  More marketing? 
 

 

Edited July 28, 2019 by jetdriven

[mike_elliott]

Yes- look at the list above I wrote.
And it’s a pretty significant increase in useful load.

Just saw it. The Mustang had most of that list covered other than carbon fiber and modern looking.
Good list. Ramp appeal I'll give to the Mooney in a heartbeat over a Cirrus, but agree that is subjective. Ingress and egress ease comes with fatter, bigger planes, just as in sports cars, and why I chose an X over an S

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[M016576]

5 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

Yes. More cabin room. 
more NBAA range with 2,3 or 4 occupants. 

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

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

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.  I asked about two doors. His reply was “ do you want to fast or have two doors?”  I said, “Yes”. They do it.  He said well we are fast, 242 KT!  I said yes for one person that’s true. Otherwise, let’s take 3 people and my old, tires J mode will best you to Arizona. His reply was “but 242 knots!!l”

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, and more of the same.  
What’s your solution ? 

 

^Yes- exactly this