chrisk Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 I'm a bit late to this thread. I for one love my Mooney, but I would be more than happy to trade up to a newer and faster model. That said I have 231, and the cost to trade up to a FIKI Ovation or Acclaim with modern avionics is not insignificant. But there are also more modern Mooney models that are not for me. I'd much prefer my 231 over a M20L. And as much as I'd like a M20M, I'm concerned with the operation costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M20F Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 20 minutes ago, aviatoreb said: eviserate is literal for nuclear war Eviserate is not literal for anything. It is not a word. The word is eviscerate which means to disembowel. You are not countering with facts, you are countering with gibberish. Either way I think our conversation has run its course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueOne Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 9 hours ago, mike_elliott said: 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. Apology accepted. I thought it was elitist and dismissed “it”. I didn’t laugh, I just shook my head. Absolutely true on the reboot. Not everyone does and yet agree that if a person really wants something bad enough, they can usually figure out how to make it happen fiscally. I have never desired/wanted/lusted after a longbody Mooney or ANY airplane that costs more than a beautiful house in the MidWest. Others can and do. Good for them, I say do. Agree with JetDriven in this thread, but really don’t like reading it. Just makes me sad. Then I think about a Missile and I say “What me worry”? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueOne Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 1 hour ago, M20F said: Not a straw man, that would be me pointing out that a nuclear bomb doesn’t disembowel one (eviscerated). It would also be me personally attacking you and questioning your intellect, which while it seems your style it isn’t mine in a discussion. Certainly every little thing helps if that is where we are at. Just as I don’t think a pillow is going to make the difference in life or death to any statistical significance, the frame to the Mooney isn’t going to save you any more then any other comparable aircraft. Recent examples on this forum shows that The CAPS though certainly is a proven safety feature and it really puzzles me that people argue against it. Because like some other items discussed on Mooneyspace I do NOT see a value to cost relationship (Installation and maintenance of CAPS vs. likelihood of use. ESPECIALLY in the Midwest where there are ample areas to land off airport (Bean and corn fields) and walk away. I find your attack and words unimpressive, but that is just me I am sure. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 (edited) 29 minutes ago, M20F said: Eviserate is not literal for anything. It is not a word. The word is eviscerate which means to disembowel. You are not countering with facts, you are countering with gibberish. Either way I think our conversation has run its course. Yes my spelling is bad - always has been. If that is your basis then fine and I apologize for that and my many future misspellings. The semantics vocabulary use is correct. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eviscerate B: to deprive of vital content or force. Edited July 29, 2019 by aviatoreb 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kortopates Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 1 hour ago, bradp said: I didn’t visit the Mooney tent at Oshkosh. One of my camping neighbors went and felt totally ignored. I believe the comment was if you weren’t dressed like you wanted to buy a Cirrus, you were ignored by Mooney. Wrong marketing approach whether factual or not perception and word of mouth go a long way. I am not in the new airplane strata by any stretch of the imagination, but I get occasional invitations from the cirrus camp to their events / to schedule a demo flight, so view the new jet. They are super smart and importantly proactive about marketing. Mooney fails in this department again and again. Cirrus knows it takes people like me to keep their new plane buyers moving up to newer models or in some cases to their jet They understand market evolution and the concept of a Cirrus ecosystem. Mooney has no clue because it doesn’t have the volume any longer to need to appreciate the used market in driving the new market. For some perspective, I have the original invoice from the 1977 J I fly (for warranty purposes of course ;-)). It cost about $270,000 in 2019 dollars. It was the top of the line piston single of its time. The modern Mooney goes faster, burns much more fuel and can carry less for about 3-4x the price tag , but it’s still a single piston. It’s all about useful load useful load useful load. All the Cirrus accoutrements including BRS are allowable because useful load. In fact if we had the useful load for it, BRS would be a no brainer in a hat shelf location on a composite shelled modern Mooney. They can’t because the useful load stinks. From copa website: 2013 NA SR22 FIKI, AC and BRS: 1200 lb useful load. Cirrus figures how to maximize useful load over the years. That’s how they get all the fun stuff. From flying magazine : N197CV - the ovation ultra that was featured in flying and the caravan guys know very well doesn’t have TKS or AC, has 100 gal tanks and a UL of 980 lbs Full fuel you’re getting 470 ish lbs of payload. No AC TKS or BRS. That is why mooney is losing. Folks who want to use these for cross country flying would rather have the toys and go 175 over no toys and go 220. I could fit my entire family plus bags and full fuel in a G5 with all the stuff they’d care about (AC, BRS) and stuff Is care about GFC 700 and TKS. It’s a more practical traveling machine for more market than Mooney traveling with one pax and an overnight bag. Mooney should be using additive manufacturing to limit weight and maximize useful load with an emphasis on exotic materials when economically feasible. That’s how cirrus got 200 lbs with a bigger chute for the G5; they spent a ton of RD on incremental improvement. Mooney added a door and didn’t do anything more. Another Mooney pipe dream - SETP market is hot. They missed the boat on TBM. Resurrect that ugly duckling of a mustang, refine and modernize certain features (one piece windshield) and mate an Allison 250 to it. You’d have perhaps a sub $1MM airframe that could compete with that market segment who can afford used Malibu’s and TBMs. You’d sip fuel compared to the pT6 and maybe achieve a 1500 lb useful load at best 200 ktas. They’d have to totally undercut the market but there is probably an undercut market at us that look at used bottom end setps / Mu2 / PA46s and say someday. They had a relationship with RR - what ever happened to that? Now might be the time to push hard on alternatively fueled engines - the diesels are just about ready for prime time. Cut the weight Mooney - haven’t worked on that in 50 years it seems. You nailed it Brad, our remarkable Mooney airframe may continue to keep bragging rights as the fastest certified GA piston aircraft but further innovation is hindered by its limited useful load. All the arguing about adding BRS is just as naive as owners wishing Mooney would bring back the J model. Of course Mooney would add BRS if they could, but the crippling useful load prevents it as did the aluminum skin. But the new composite cockpit shell is a step in the direction of being able to support the system. But the bigger problems remains of significantly lightening the airframe before they can seriously entertain it and then offers options of AC and FIKI. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooneyMitch Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 More power Scotty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy95W Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 8 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. I went to a forum last Friday at OSH about Mooneys and Al Mooney's designs. The presenter also spoke about post-Al Mooney designs (which was basically all of them after the M20). It was put on by one of the lead engineers of the failed M10 design from a few years ago, which was an all-composite design like the Cirrus. One of the points that he brought up was about the crash-worthiness of the M10, and that they just couldn't make it as safe as the M20 series because of the roll-cage design. The composites are actually too rigid and crash impact forces are transmitted to the occupants. The roll cage and surrounding metal structures absorb energy as they crumple, which is a well known safety feature of modern cars. I think it's doubtful that Al Mooney designed it with energy-absorbing crumple zones in mind, but it sure seems to work. Like Paul said a couple of pages ago, I think your argument is full of shit. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M20F Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 21 minutes ago, Andy95W said: The composites are actually too rigid and crash impact forces are transmitted to the occupants......Like Paul said a couple of pages ago, I think your argument is full of shit. And yet the SR22 safety statistics speak for themselves. When you get bring some numbers to support the argument as opposed to slinging “shit” then you may have a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 Gents, I’ll attempt a topic summary... Because, this is one of the coolest topics to come about, following KOSH. It will include some weighting... it may demote some farther off topic things... It may promote opinions of safety from those directly affected... When it comes to pointing out somebody’s spelling errors... you might get randomly ignored... I have plenty of spelling errors every day. Some, I select the wrong spelling accidentally, others Siri does for me without notice... A work in progress... -a- 1) The OP, a well known Mooney CFII, opened up about what was available to be seen in the Mooney Booth at KOSH... and remarked about the observations shared from some current owners... specifically some less than stellar reports... (hold your thoughts, there is plenty more to cover) 2) More from the OP... Mooney owners are passionate about their planes... somewhere along the way the passion seems to fade... it fades when talking about new Mooneys... it fades when talking about the newest rendition of the Mooney company... 3) Mike Elliot summed up his post with... “We, as existing owners, are the GREATEST asset Mooney International has. Lets help them succeed.“ Listening to MSers... we find the following... 4) Advice on marketing strategy... plenty of it... Actual Mooney owners telling what they would like to see.... to better understand where Mooney is going... 5) Many Mooney owners are not machine marketing experts... but they do know what they like... and what interests them... 6) Broaden the Mooney Social Strategy... Bring the new Mooney out to where the Mooniacs are... close the gap between the legacy owners and the factory. Use the MSC network to help bring Sales, Service, and the Mooney Customer together... 7) Inclusion is everything... Mooney owners are a broad spectrum of all people... 8) My grumbly NJ friend has received an atrocious MSC experience... I have read every line of MS... the experience was atrocious... As a marketing sales / guy, I would want to be advised if this were happening with my customers... real or fake... I need to know... Is Kevin aware of this? How does he get informed when something like this gets posted on the various Mooney internet/ FB pages? (Need a hand, I have MS covered...) 9) Is there some form of jealousy lurking? Existing owners of legacy aircraft towards owners of newer aircraft? Or towards the factory that seems to cater to the new owners? Expect this is possible. There is human nature involved... not having a spare 700amu can be disheartening at times... 10) As humans, we are not all on the same page... some have complained about AOPA in the past... others have complained about MAPA ice cream socials... the older we get... the more we realize complaining doesn’t get us very far... Complaining about the Mooney factory or their direction is interesting... more on that in a second... 11) What we learn at MS... digging into the situation is enlightening. Making phone calls gets answers. Reporting what is found, is greatly appreciated by the community.... 12) What big picture complaints typically are... Some people have a Mooney related challenge... they are unable to express the challenge in words, and it comes out in an overtly negative way... 13) What the challenge is...? Why the poster is unable to write perfectly...? Why the nicely written report doesn’t get understood the same way by everybody? 14) is there a substitute for getting to know your customer? Do we have to know all of them by name, call sign, and screen name? ... I would love to try that! 15) Moving up the alphabet, upgrading, going newer, some of the things existing owners look forward to in getting a different Mooney... 16) one owner expressed the newer Mooneys didn’t offer much over their existing Mooney... Most of the important instrument panel details can be added to a ‘77J... or a 65C... WAAS approach, stereo audio panel, ADSB in and out... A computer that monitors your engine.... 17) These updates... can I buy them through my MSC? Can I get something better that way than my local maintenance shop? 18) That middle zone... Building the M20JAT (advanced trainer of old) or OHing old airframes to near current standards... something in the middle zone? 19) Is the M10J really dead? Lots of development... with little result... want to share what happened..? there is enough to write a book about... 20) There is a real interest in improving useful load... The J has some proof... changes over the years, bound by serial numbers... and something called the Missile, not bound by serial numbers... Some people would be interested in paying some money to get some extra UL improvements... 21) Tools... There are certain tools that every owner or maintainer should have available... often people ask... can I rent that tool somewhere? Please make the answer ‘yes’... 22) MS has a few people that have owned factory new Mooneys... that are open to discussion... 23) MS doesn’t represent all Mooney owners... unfortunately, some go elsewhere, others aren’t on social media... 24) A tremendously important example of how to handle old promises was brought up... sure the company changed hands, but promises are promises... The G1000 /WAAS upgrades has been a tough one to get over for many... long delays, incredible costs, and a closed window... Mooney vs. Garmin vs. FAA.... and the Mooney owner stuck with the inaction.... 25) Software upgrades... The 15 year old G1000s seem to have been left behind... even getting the display to say EGT on the screen instead of saying TIT... a left over for Ovations that don’t have or need a TIT... There are plenty of more important ones... Just this one is visible, and so simple to Technically change... 26) Nobody saw the AOPA ads for the Mooney... at least nobody said they did... many say they have seen something from Cirrus... and the Cirrus lifestyle... 27) what are the usual Missions for Mooney Pilots? What are some of the less usual ones? Two people long distances or four people shorter distances? Anything change from the 60s until now? 28) Speed, efficiency, Safety. The trifecta of Mooney performance... endless improvements through the years... 29) What about airbag seatbelts... shouldn't this be a critical program for all Mooneys? Recent approvals should make these a desirable opportunity... want to be in every magazine covering a safety topic? Make these available, installed ready to go at cost (parts and installation)... I sense that would go pretty far... in every publication... 30) Chute, chute, chute... the other guys have one... 31) I am OK not having a chute... but I know, my landing spot may be much shorter than I hoped for... back to having air bag seatbelts.... See how many engine out experiences are posted on MS... quite a few have landed at airports... 32) Speaking of accidents... one improvement may come from separating the cabin from the fuel storage... in many Mooney models there is fabric separating the fuel level sensor and fuel line from the cabin... this hasn’t improved in decades... 33) Mooney fuselage on a trailer... some have never seen it... Time to get that on the road... 34) income and cash hordes... electing to have more...? sort of selecting your own parents when you are born... there are some threads around here where people explain how they got the money to pay for their Mooney... some have been really interesting and somewhat useable for other people... and there is plenty covered about the growing economy, low unemployment rates, and tiny current interest rates... one really old thread mentioned... QQQs and AAPL... one may quickly find that it takes money to make money... and wealth is generated slowly over time.... 35) Getting to know the various Mooney Transition Trainers... would greatly help the Mooney community... where do we go for the list of contacts? Some online Mooney related website on the West Coast... really...! Have a look at the MooneyFlyer... 36) Trying to contact Mooney by phone...? Plenty of hardware challenges reported... time to get a solution for that 80s problem... 37) Great examples of things that work right... follow the FamilyMaxwell around for a bit... great reputation, service that matches and exceeds expectations, promises that can be relied upon... Don, Jan, And Paul... always quick with real answers and follow-up when answers take a little longer... take a look at their resumes...? 38) Mooney, the company does many things to support the Mooney customers... as Mike Elliot listed... it isn’t blowing your own horn when you mention the list of supported things while supporting Mooney Summit... 39) Speed And efficiency are great... Safety is utmost important... there should be a page dedicated to this topic... much of it is training related... data related... discussion related... hardware related... where do I find that? 40) José defined speed for Mooney... skipping a fuel stop... was an interesting take on an actual speed challenge... Door to door, actual flights total time is what counts... not just max speed or cruise speed... the Mooney customer is more evolved than we were a decade ago... Mooneys are more evolved than they were two decades ago... 41) Kromer, Minnis, Garrison, And DMax.... When these folks talk... Use both ears, take great notes... There is a true wealth of info regarding Mooney ownership within each one... akin to Bill Wheat who unfortunately has flown west... 42) Inclusion... again? And training again... The right seat ready course includes the person that sits in the right seat... this class gives right seaters a fighting chance at survival when the left seaters is no longer available... this can be less random than the chute.... 43) Any way to update the Mooney website? It is really challenged... there were a few ideas... including picking out and spec’ing a new Mooney... to see what it would look like on the screen... 44) Mooney takes great care of their customers... sometimes, it just doesn’t show very well...externally... 45) knowing the factory is alive and producing parts is really important to anyone thinking of buying an older plane... where do I get parts for my hangar Rashed airlerons? A famous thread around here called F’ the FAA... somebody got ramp inspected while he was away.... some slight damage was noted... things went south from there. A great company could help that character out... 46) Some people buy planes new. Some buy them near new. Some are decades old... it is important to know what is coming from the factory today, to know what I will be buying from a previous owner 15 years from now... 47) MS is a genuine community with its primary focus on Mooney aircraft owners... MS benefits the suppliers of parts and planes... we set up lines of communication between various entities... 48) MSers from around the globe added their insight... 49) Innovation... Some carbon fiber, another door, lots of Navcom equipment, what else does Mooney have in the pipeline.... how does Mooney let the Mooniacs know what is coming? Radio silence doesn’t Work very well anymore... 50) be the go to place for all things Mooney upgrades... Missile, Rocket, cowlings, flap gap seals, cowl closures.... 51) Somethings that cost near nothing to make, have great benefit, but cost a ton of time to install properly... something Mooney can do better than anyone else and make a profit... factory part numbers vs. STC route... a path to upgrade existing Mooneys to more current standards... 52) Assorted comparisons to other planes in the market... Sling, homebuilt, Cirrus, Beech... 53) Did Mooney pass on the efficiency game... with the Long Body’s only move. Closing down the J and K lines... is there no going back...? 54) 200amu seems to be a valid price for a high quality used Mooney... (for many) looking at Long Bodies... more thoughts on the used market, 15-20 years from now... 55) being contacted by the competitors... from FAA data.... yet nobody ever hears from Mooney about anything... not even POH updates... dang I should have filled out that bingo card... 56) Many companies have forum readers as a job description... It seems Mooney doesn’t want to participate at the forum level... why so? 57) Factory remanufactured birds... we have seen a couple of projects done this way at MSCs... We have seen some MSers do this themselves... There is a market for it... 58) finance and lending issues related to any Mooney purchase... some people need the technical guidance more than anything else... Jimmy had a struggle with assigning value to planes to get financing for... Jimmy wrote the price guide for used Mooneys... 59) Question of the thread... Cirrus seems to be doing ok in the piston $800K region. Some folks are grabbing up new airplanes. Just not new Mooney airplanes. 60) perceived added space allowed by side-sticks, and throw over yokes... 61) more cabin room and range.... does the Cirrus really have cabin room and range using the same engine as Mooneys? 62) more requests to bring back the Allegro and Encore... 63) owner report of his Cirrus vs his Mooney... why he likes the Mooney.... 64) Cheap airline tickets are a major competitor compared to decades ago... 65) innovation request... electronic control of engine ignition... wring out some more efficiency... Four pages in... starting on five... more later... 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M016576 Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 3 hours ago, kortopates said: You nailed it Brad, our remarkable Mooney airframe may continue to keep bragging rights as the fastest certified GA piston aircraft but further innovation is hindered by its limited useful load. All the arguing about adding BRS is just as naive as owners wishing Mooney would bring back the J model. Of course Mooney would add BRS if they could, but the crippling useful load prevents it as did the aluminum skin. But the new composite cockpit shell is a step in the direction of being able to support the system. But the bigger problems remains of significantly lightening the airframe before they can seriously entertain it and then offers options of AC and FIKI. Exactly. Brad absolutely hit the nail on the head! So here’s the problem as I see it... mooney doesn’t want, or have the resources to: A) modify the design aerodynamically. B ) and this is the big one... even if aerodynamic modifications aren’t required... have the money/resources to re-fly the test flights to certify to a greater weight/useful load/speeds/stall margin, etc. Im willing to bet they are probably lacking a test pilot. And certainly can’t afford to pay one off the street at this point, seeing as a NTPS education costs millions of dollars, and any military test pilot can walk into a 200-300K job at their leisure (which may not seem like that person is “choosing to earn”... but it’s quite the pay bump from government service as a fighter pilot (and/or test pilot for that matter...ask me how I know ). Final thought... my Missile has TKS, a J airframe, and 1015lbs useful on its current propeller. The *last thing* I’d like to do to it... a MT 3 bladed prop. I’d be the looking at over 1050 useful with an envelope that supports putting stuff wherever I feel like it and still being within CG... that’s not bad for a 1982 airplane that goes 180KTAS with TKS.... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davidv Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 8 hours ago, RogueOne said: Because like some other items discussed on Mooneyspace I do NOT see a value to cost relationship (Installation and maintenance of CAPS vs. likelihood of use. ESPECIALLY in the Midwest where there are ample areas to land off airport (Bean and corn fields) and walk away. I find your attack and words unimpressive, but that is just me I am sure. You know a thread has gotten out of hand when you see the word “CAPS” and at first you aren’t sure if someone is talking about someone else’s grammar/spelling or a parachute system :). 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davidv Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 7 hours ago, carusoam said: 56) Many companies have forum readers as a job description... It seems Mooney doesn’t want to participate at the forum level... why so? Because they know that we may be the most particular/obsessive (both a good thing) group of airplane owners and they would be tagged in every post/question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 7 hours ago, carusoam said: Gents, I’ll attempt a topic summary... 65) innovation request... electronic control of engine ignition... wring out some more efficiency... Four pages in... starting on five... more later... That was - impressive. 65 points, all relevant. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 7 hours ago, Andy95W said: One of the points that he brought up was about the crash-worthiness of the M10, and that they just couldn't make it as safe as the M20 series because of the roll-cage design. The composites are actually too rigid and crash impact forces are transmitted to the occupants. The roll cage and surrounding metal structures absorb energy as they crumple, which is a well known safety feature of modern cars. I think it's doubtful that Al Mooney designed it with energy-absorbing crumple zones in mind, but it sure seems to work. That surprises me that they couldn't overcome that, since I would have guessed that with creative control of wall thickness appropriately they could make it break and absorb energy as needed. On the idea of too stiff - I remember the early generation of bike helmets were later considered too rigid once crash worthless testing showed that crash dummy heads inside the helmets weren't doing too well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 8 hours ago, kortopates said: You nailed it Brad, our remarkable Mooney airframe may continue to keep bragging rights as the fastest certified GA piston aircraft but further innovation is hindered by its limited useful load. All the arguing about adding BRS is just as naive as owners wishing Mooney would bring back the J model. Of course Mooney would add BRS if they could, but the crippling useful load prevents it as did the aluminum skin. But the new composite cockpit shell is a step in the direction of being able to support the system. But the bigger problems remains of significantly lightening the airframe before they can seriously entertain it and then offers options of AC and FIKI. Weight is currently a very limiting factor for selling new airplanes, whether or not BRS is part of the discussion. Brainstorming - these two things could lighten it up - 1) I would say, change the manufacture method of just the wing, to a composite wing. I don't know the rules, as to Job's point about the cost of flight testing and the need for a test pilot, but would a different manufacture method for otherwise the same wing require completely re-test flying? In any case, would a composite wing assembly be lighter, and require fewer parts so less man hours? New wing - bolt it on. And perhaps a bit smoother, so faster? And then while they are at it a stronger landing gear for more weight, which might not be needed if they do lighten up. With so much more power and slightly more aerodynamic, could we see this become a 260kt airplane? 2) I said it much earlier, but an innovative new engine would be exciting in its own right. Such as this https://eps.aero/the-eps-engine/ v8-diesel. 320 to 450hp. On fuel specifics that are dramatically better than our avgas engines. So in principle, less fuel land would need to be carried while at the same time range would be extended, so lighter, further, and faster - since there is more available horsepower. SO I bet those could save a lot of weight and stir a lot of excitement at the sales office. And the BRS whether we think it is a necessary safety device does sell airplanes. E 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_H Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 Going through the certification process with the FAA may appear to be a poor use of resources for improvements or new products if the target audience is in China. It's very possible that current owners in the US aren't Mooney International's long-term target audience. It is known that they have an assembly factory in China and have been training pilots in China for at least a few years now. The rules for certificating a plane in China may be so different that it would make little sense to go through the certification process for the US market. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob865 Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 I'm late to the thread. Maybe someone mentioned this earlier, but I'm going to throw it out there too. I was at Oshkosh and stopped by the Mooney booth. I wanted to see these new planes that mine has eventually morphed into. While I can't afford to drop $800k on a new Mooney, to be perfectly honest, I can't afford the pricetag for a new 172 or any other new plane either. Where my disappointment came in was how unwelcome I felt when I walked up to the booth. I was wearing my Mooney hat and no one even acknowledged or asked if I had a Mooney. No one wanted to tell me about why the Mooney's were $800k. We walked into their little office hoping to find some Mooney gear for sale or give away and they looked at me like they were digusted that I would even consider entering the temple of the Mooney. I felt like they couldn't wait to get me out of there. I don't want to take time away from potential buying customers. However, to OP's point, had I felt more welcome I would be a whole lot more likely to talk as highly of the new planes as I do my own. I mean how can I tell people how nice the new Mooney is if they don't even want to talk to me? I may not be going to buy, but sell me a little. Practice your pitch. Then maybe my reponse will be how nice the new Mooneys are instead of how expensive the new Mooneys are. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 Bob, you are not alone and thanks to you and carusoam for coming back to the point of this thread. The same thing happened to me. Other booths, Pilatus and Stemme, for example, made the effort to talk with me when I was just looking. I learned a number of years ago not to prejudge anyone, you never know who is potential customer. Sales is a numbers game, very rarely is any big ticket item sold at trade shows, but you have to talk to people to judge interest, then the sales effort begins. I will still talk up Mooney, but their Oshkosh booth staff left a lot to be desired. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steingar Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 I'm of two minds about this. I was at Osh (why I'm late to the thread) andI talked to their people. I'm not a huge fan of the current offering myself, it is more airplane than I want for my mission. That said, I'm a huge booster, but have dire thoughts about the brand. The Mooney is decidedly old fashioned in this day and age. It's aluminum with retractable gear in an age where fixed gear fiberglass airplanes seem to rule. Worse, yet, the Mooney is still tight inside for big people. Fits me great, always has. Won't comfortably fit most of my friends. That's what you get from a design of the 50's. Worse yet, it takes a crapload of labor to build one, making them uncompetitive in an automated day and age. Yes, Mooney has to innovate, and they did add a second door. But that's something that's been standard in other aircraft for decades. I don't see how they can continue to innovate when they only sell a handful of airframes every year. Onto the event at Oshkosh. I've never ever seen such laggardly salesmanship in my whole entire life. Ever. The sales guy I talked to knew less about the Mooney than I did. I was astonished. But I was even more astonished later in the week. The Mooney stand was on my way to my volunteer job, so I saw them every day. One day I asked different salesman how the show was going. He said it was going great, and claimed to have sold both aircraft present in their stand. Were that true, why weren't there big "SOLD" signs on each one? Why not loudly advertise that folks are buying your product?! Yes, the Mooney is a fine airplane. And lots of folks like old-fashioned, heck that's why Harley Davidson remains in the motorcycle business. And yes, I want to see them move into the future. I thought designing a Mooney trainer was a brilliant move, get people involved in the brand early. Get advanced materials technology into Kerrville. I'd love to see the Mooney shed its aluminum skin for composite materials. Move into the modern age. But they're really on the ropes. They sell fewer aircraft in a year than I can count on the fingers of one hand. And a company on the ropes can't afford to not maximize an opportunity like Oshkosh. If what I saw is how they do business I really don't expect them to survive past when their Chinese overlords get tired of losing money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_elliott Posted July 29, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 6 minutes ago, steingar said: claimed to have sold both aircraft present in their stand. Were that true, why weren't there big "SOLD" signs on each one? I have no idea why they didnt put a "sold" sign on them, but I know they were sold and have met the new owners. Transition training soon... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steingar Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 Just now, mike_elliott said: I have no idea why they didnt put a "sold" sign on them, but I know they were sold and have met the new owners. Transition training soon... That's really good news. Like I said, I really want them to succeed. But a pretty standard sales tactic is to put a "SOLD" sign on something you did sell. Lots of reasons for it, the biggest one is to show the folks looking at your stuff that people really are buying it. Says really good things about the aircraft when they get sold by the incompetents I met. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 Wow, just got back from OSH yesterday, saw this thread, read Mike's initial post and wanted to convey my thoughts on the subject as I described to my "CFO" (who graciously worked overtime during the week so I could attend) as I described them to her an hour ago BEFORE reading through all the replies: Background: 1. First ever OSH for me. I'm a 1/2 partner in a 1964 E. I flew right seat in a friend's '82 J ( @aviatoreb, he's also a CCT/CU alum!). I wanted to connect with others from MS, but since the trip was "planned" a week before, had my hands full with Wx, packing, tips (reading MS for lists of everything from maritime survival gear to sunscreen recommendations) and memorizing the arrival NOTAM. Saw two flights of Mooneys depart on Thursday as we were taxing to GAP. Stopped by the Caravan tent, but it was empty and quiet. ( @Bob_Belville , Sorry I missed you in Stow, but saw your covered E there). My Thoughts: I fly a classic "E". It has a J-Bar, manual trim, manual flaps and bad paint (well, at least for another month). Some people like me love 'em to death (including paying the maintenance to keep classics flying). They're still just like cool classic cars. My "lift" to OSH was amazing in comparison. We did the return trip to KFIT in 4.5hrs non-stop at 9500. AP, Stormscope, new 660, comfy seats, roomier; I felt like I was in luxury. When I the flight to my partner (who flew commercial and worked a booth) he texted "4.5 hours 1 tank? We need a new Mooney!" and my texted reply was "I priced the Ovation and Acclaim at the Mooney booth. I'm VERY happy with my not-so-new Mooney". So how did I describe this all to my "boss"? It's like a VW Beetle. I used to drive "farmer field find vintage Beetles" on sketchy plates and inspections to a VW rehab garage (aka ferry) owned by a friend. Want a brand new one with a bit more room, updated engine, A/C, new technology, great interior, etc, etc, etc? Great! Buy one new if you can swing the financing and be you'll be happy for a good long time. It doesn't look exactly like the classic, but it's pretty close and still has lots of the goodness of the original models. Enjoy driving a stick, having a classic (and it's associated upkeep), willing to deal with the downtime, or simply can't afford the shiny new model? Great! Buy an old one and suffer through the work to bring it up to your minimum standards. Can't buy new, but want speed, space, panel, comfort, or whatever fits your mission? Buy a mid-body or updated model. There's a Mooney for everyone! I did my part at OSH and talked with a 6' 5' guy from NYC that was looking at a Mooney and was worried about fit. I climbed into the static, red model with him and talked about everything from needing more space for my J-Bar clearance, useful load, and answered LOTS of other questions from information I learned on MS. Hope I steered him accurately and honestly. Mooney booth perception: HE commented, "where's the free coffee that comes with a Mooney", so I steered him to the trailer in hopes we'd be greeted by a sales person but it was empty (and I didn't understand it's purpose). Thanks @mike_elliott for starting what is obviously an interesting thread. Now back to reading 8 pages of others' comments before I get to the ugly replies to mine 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bravoman Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 1 hour ago, steingar said: I'm of two minds about this. I was at Osh (why I'm late to the thread) andI talked to their people. I'm not a huge fan of the current offering myself, it is more airplane than I want for my mission. That said, I'm a huge booster, but have dire thoughts about the brand. The Mooney is decidedly old fashioned in this day and age. It's aluminum with retractable gear in an age where fixed gear fiberglass airplanes seem to rule. Worse, yet, the Mooney is still tight inside for big people. Fits me great, always has. Won't comfortably fit most of my friends. That's what you get from a design of the 50's. Worse yet, it takes a crapload of labor to build one, making them uncompetitive in an automated day and age. Yes, Mooney has to innovate, and they did add a second door. But that's something that's been standard in other aircraft for decades. I don't see how they can continue to innovate when they only sell a handful of airframes every year. Onto the event at Oshkosh. I've never ever seen such laggardly salesmanship in my whole entire life. Ever. The sales guy I talked to knew less about the Mooney than I did. I was astonished. But I was even more astonished later in the week. The Mooney stand was on my way to my volunteer job, so I saw them every day. One day I asked different salesman how the show was going. He said it was going great, and claimed to have sold both aircraft present in their stand. Were that true, why weren't there big "SOLD" signs on each one? Why not loudly advertise that folks are buying your product?! Yes, the Mooney is a fine airplane. And lots of folks like old-fashioned, heck that's why Harley Davidson remains in the motorcycle business. And yes, I want to see them move into the future. I thought designing a Mooney trainer was a brilliant move, get people involved in the brand early. Get advanced materials technology into Kerrville. I'd love to see the Mooney shed its aluminum skin for composite materials. Move into the modern age. But they're really on the ropes. They sell fewer aircraft in a year than I can count on the fingers of one hand. And a company on the ropes can't afford to not maximize an opportunity like Oshkosh. If what I saw is how they do business I really don't expect them to survive past when their Chinese overlords get tired of losing money. Ironically, the demand for Harley’s isn’t near what it used to be. The youngins who are interested in riding are for the most part getting other bikes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob865 Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 1 hour ago, Seymour said: So how did I describe this all to my "boss"? It's like a VW Beetle. It's funny that you liken it to a VW beelte. Richard Colins did an Air Facts to that point back in 2014 too. https://airfactsjournal.com/2014/03/whats-wrong-mooney-pilots-lot/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.