Factory Closed Down?

[GeeBee]

The problem with airplane marketing is we tend to talk to ourselves. I once took the wings off a bunch of Beechcraft products, transported them to malls, re-attached the wings and sold them like hot cakes. Even Beech marketing was impressed. 3 of the 5 I sold on one Saturday, were to non-pilots! Putting ads on the back cover of Flying, and trying to get press to do a "pilot report" is nice, but to really move units, you need to drag that lure right under their nose. Marketing is three things. Product, price, promotion. IMHO the product lacks promotion. My hangar neighbor has a nice new Cirrus Carbon, when he saw my 2005 Ovation GX with FIKI and talked about the performance he stated he had "no idea". He bought the Cirrus because the Cirrus people have promoted their product deeper into the the potential market than Mooney. It is likely Mooney would have closed a sale to him, were it actively identifying the buyers. Waiting for them to come to a tent, see your ad in Flying etc is not how you do that. You get big data to identify the potential buyer then you go after them, aggressively. 

 

 

[bonal]

^this^

[bonal]

Cirrus has marketed a life style and Mooney was talking to themselves.  Go to where the money is people that have shit loads just need a little help in finding ways to spend it.

[Jerry 5TJ]

8 minutes ago, Hyett6420 said:

History shows they were crap ships, and they regularly broke in half,

Regularly?  Not a single one of them broke in half more than once.  

[Bravoman]

3 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

Did I touch a nerve here perhaps.  History shows they were crap ships, and they regularly broke in half, History does not lie.  For the record we had already won it by the end 1940, up until that point we lost every battle, after that point we didn't lose one battle.  Then Hitler invaded Russia.  We didn't need the USA as a military force, we had already won, Russia would have been on Frances borders, but we had already won.  We needed your manufacturing might yes, but there was no need for the military bit.  History does not lie.

 

With all due respect, your version of history as to Britain winning the war by 1940 and all that was needed was US manufacturing is flat out delusional. I’ll just leave it at that.  The British were completely pushed off the continent at Dunkirk, and the Germans spent the rest of 1940 and 1941 securing victories in Europe. British troops did not even have a presence on the continent until after the US became involved in the war.  The British would have also lost in north Africa had we not intervened. 

Edited June 23, 2020 by Bravoman

[Andy95W]

3 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

Did I touch a nerve here perhaps.  History shows they were crap ships, and they regularly broke in half, History does not lie.  For the record we had already won it by the end 1940, up until that point we lost every battle, after that point we didn't lose one battle.  Then Hitler invaded Russia.  We didn't need the USA as a military force, we had already won, Russia would have been on Frances borders, but we had already won.  We needed your manufacturing might yes, but there was no need for the military bit.  History does not lie.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Bravoman said:

With all due respect, your version of history as to Britain winning the war by 1940 and all that was needed was US manufacturing is flat out delusional. I’ll just leave it at that.

I think Andrew is perhaps using a bit of hyperbole in an effort to "take the Mickey out" on some of us Americans here.

He makes a valid point, though, that Britain was in the war for 6 years, the United States barely 3 1/2 years.  And the Soviets had started (and finished) the first of many counter-offensives against the Nazis a full 6 months prior to Pearl Harbor.

But without the addition of our 20 divisions of infantry and 10 divisions of armor, Britain, France, and the smaller European nations simply would not have had the manpower to invade and re-take Europe.  So the only alternatives would be that the Soviet Union would have won Europe, which would have put the Iron Curtain at the English Chanel.  Or Churchill would have invaded the "soft underbelly" of Europe and they would still be mucking about in the Balkans (remember Gallipoli from WWI).

And this doesn't include the addition of 2 US Air Forces stationed in England and Italy that allowed round-the -clock bombing of Nazi Germany.

And this doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the massive US Navy involvement in the Pacific.  Without that, plus US Army and Marine Corps deployments at the Army Group level, Japan would still be threatening Australia.

I think the "special relationship" that the US and the UK enjoy allows for some playful ribbing back and forth.

[Bravoman]

4 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

 

I think Andrew is perhaps using a bit of hyperbole in an effort to "take the Mickey out" on some of us Americans here.

He makes a valid point, though, that Britain was in the war for 6 years, the United States barely 3 1/2 years.  And the Soviets had started (and finished) the first of many counter-offensives against the Nazis a full 6 months prior to Pearl Harbor.

But without the addition of our 20 divisions of infantry and 10 divisions of armor, Britain, France, and the smaller European nations simply would not have had the manpower to invade and re-take Europe.  So the only alternatives would be that the Soviet Union would have won Europe, which would have put the Iron Curtain at the English Chanel.  Or Churchill would have invaded the "soft underbelly" of Europe and they would still be mucking about in the Balkans (remember Gallipoli from WWI).

And this doesn't include the addition of 2 US Air Forces stationed in England and Italy that allowed round-the -clock bombing of Nazi Germany.

And this doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the massive US Navy involvement in the Pacific.  Without that, plus US Army and Marine Corps deployments at the Army Group level, Japan would still be threatening Australia.

I think the "special relationship" that the US and the UK enjoy allows for some playful ribbing back and forth.

 I know, but it’s a little offensive, especially to those of us who had many family members who fought.  Let’s even look at north Africa, the British were crushed at Tobruk  and Gazala in early 1942. The tide there did not turn until we began fighting in that particular theater as well.  Clearly, Germany’s biggest mistake was opening the Eastern front. Notwithstanding, nobody that knows the history of the war seriously argues that the British would have been able to take continental Europe if we were not fighting. And what about the Pacific theater, does anybody really believe that the British would have been able to succeed there without us?

Edited June 23, 2020 by Bravoman

[Trailboss]

On 6/20/2020 at 9:59 PM, cliffy said:

I come from  a machine shop upbringing  Just asking  Have you ever worked with Ti in a machine shop setting? 

Ain't easy nor cheap

One of my first internships was at a small CNC shop outside of Wichita that did piece work for Boeing.  100% Aluminum machined parts.  They received a contract to make 1,000 widgets out of Ti and thought, sure...we can do that.  First block loaded on the table was about 3"x4"x6" and everyone marveled at how light it was!  Well, push the green button with speeds and feeds set for Al and...  the whole machine nearly vibrated off the anchor bolts.  Titanium is cool...but man is it brittle and HARD.

[Seth]

3 minutes ago, Hyett6420 said:

Just a thought, but has anyone thought of perhaps leaving the wings and shell as they are, but just having carbon fibre skins, that just slide over the ribs etc, sewn on aka old Biplane style.  Carbon F is damn light, i can carry in one hand a CF mast for a yacht.  The CF sails are even lighter.

  

Not to hijack but I'd love to see the wings and tail retained with a new CF body that's a bit more spacious. Have it be pressurized, with a powerplant that can make up for the increased area drag. But that's a lot of money to spend.

-Seth

[aviatoreb]

5 minutes ago, Hyett6420 said:

Just a thought, but has anyone thought of perhaps leaving the wings and shell as they are, but just having carbon fibre skins, that just slide over the ribs etc, sewn on aka old Biplane style.  Carbon F is damn light, i can carry in one hand a CF mast for a yacht.  The CF sails are even lighter.

  

That is what I suggested on the previous page - I suggested Ti metal structures and carbon skins glued into place.  Ok, those are two different things.

>How about Titanium!  I have 3 Titanium bicycles and a Titanium watch.  why not Titanium?!  I know it is expensive but the mooney frame is a lot like a bicycle frame in terms of build.  Build those round tube bits out of Titanium - I know the welding is a real pain with Titanium but it would be lighter and stronger.  Then frame the wings with spars and stringers out of cnc titanium parts - that would be more expensive than the fuselage welded tubes, but again very very strong and very light.  Then you need to skin it - ok now skip the usual millions (ok lots) of rivets but now maybe pre-shaped fab carbon skins epoxy-glued into place.  Would that build up faster?  Sounds lighter and stronger.  Plus never corrodes - Ti does not corrode.

>E

[Skates97]

On 6/21/2020 at 5:54 PM, GeeBee said:

 It is likely Mooney would have closed a sale to him, were it actively identifying the buyers. Waiting for them to come to a tent, see your ad in Flying etc is not how you do that. You get big data to identify the potential buyer then you go after them, aggressively. 

At our dealerships we invest heavily in data mining as well as programs and training to find potential buyers, it is how you grow market share.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

That is what I suggested on the previous page - I suggested Ti metal structures and carbon skins glued into place.  Ok, those are two different things.

>How about Titanium!  I have 3 Titanium bicycles and a Titanium watch.  why not Titanium?!  I know it is expensive but the mooney frame is a lot like a bicycle frame in terms of build.  Build those round tube bits out of Titanium - I know the welding is a real pain with Titanium but it would be lighter and stronger.  Then frame the wings with spars and stringers out of cnc titanium parts - that would be more expensive than the fuselage welded tubes, but again very very strong and very light.  Then you need to skin it - ok now skip the usual millions (ok lots) of rivets but now maybe pre-shaped fab carbon skins epoxy-glued into place.  Would that build up faster?  Sounds lighter and stronger.  Plus never corrodes - Ti does not corrode.

>E

We’re going to trick the Russians into supplying the titanium, or start melting down and recycling those old SR-71’s.

Clarence

[afward]

15 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

We’re going to trick the Russians into supplying the titanium, or start melting down and recycling those old SR-71’s.

Clarence

Just keep the Cadmium and Chlorine faaar away...

[Danb]

On 6/20/2020 at 1:52 AM, cliffy said:

The Mooney is fast

The Cirrus LOOKS fast

Again, perception is everything

What sells anything?     Perception,     not reality. 

Sell the sizzle!

BTW  I thought the promotion airplane Mooney put out in their ads with the red, white and black paint job just plain sucked.

It did nothing to enhance the sizzle,  in fact it detracted from it. Who ever thought of that turkey?  JMO

 

I’m in the minority I don’t think the Cirrus looks fast, on the contrary it looks like a lead sled, wheel pants gear out, obviously looks are in the eye of the beholder. 
I believe if you put two no aviator people looking at them assuming the paint schemes were similar they would think the sleeker Mooney is faster. But it’s opinion Of which we all differ.

Marketing is the difference plus the chute.

[MooneyMitch]

6 minutes ago, Danb said:

I’m in the minority I don’t think the Cirrus looks fast, on the contrary it looks like a lead sled, wheel pants gear out, obviously looks are in the eye of the beholder. 
I believe if you put two no aviator people looking at them assuming the paint schemes were similar they would think the sleeker Mooney is faster. But it’s opinion Of which we all differ.

Marketing is the difference plus the chute.

......and the sound of the Cirrus 3 blade prop., I find it obnoxious and irritating............kinda a reminds of the sound of a moped ripping down the street at 15 MPH........ 

[aviatoreb]

3 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

sorry matey, my short term memory is crap as you know, i had forgotten you had posted that.

No worry - I'm not offended.  But what were we talking about again?

E

[aviatoreb]

Just now, MooneyMitch said:

......and the sound of the Cirrus 3 blade prop., I find it obnoxious and irritating............kinda a reminds of the sound of a moped ripping down the street at 15 MPH........ 

Reminds me a bit more of this sound:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrQyfjRdHB4

[MooneyMitch]

Just now, aviatoreb said:

Reminds me a bit more of this sound:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrQyfjRdHB4

Alrighty...................that's far superior to my impression!!  I'm laughing.........

[MooneyMitch]

I wouldn't own one of those things just by the way it sounds flying overhead.............yuck!!!!

[steingar]

There will never be a robust used Cirrus market since the chute repack costs the same on an old airframe as a new one.  If you're spending just south of a million that cost is negligible, but if you're spending for a vintage airframe that cost can become quite prohibitive.

[Blue on Top]

A titanium frame structure would be lighter but would also be many times more expensive.  The M20 would be in excess of $1M.  Because of its properties (stiff and brittle … like carbon), crashworthiness would not be as good.  Strong without an elastic energy absorption is bad.

Carbon Fiber is NOT lighter than aluminum … especially where minimum thickness comes into play.  CFRP material alone is heavier than 0.020 aluminum used on flight controls and some skins.  Oh, then add the required copper mesh to take care of HIRF/Lightening … and add all the weight/complexity/part count of bonding straps … oh and add a second wire harness (doubling your current harnesses) everywhere because the carbon frame isn't quite conductive enough to carry the return current.  Or, save weight and use an aluminum mesh (ha, ha, ha) … then add more weight back in with a non-structural fiberglass separation layer so the carbon doesn't corrode the aluminum.  The 787 is carbon for one reason and one reason only: it doesn't corrode.  It is NOT lighter than aluminum or have a better strength to weight ratio.

BTW, the shell of the M20 is fiberglass.  At least it was when my engineers first designed it.  No comment if it is now carbon.

BTW2, the shell is as heavy or heavier than the aluminum shell was … costs more … and takes more labor, too!

[bonal]

5 hours ago, Bravoman said:

 I know, but it’s a little offensive, especially to those of us who had many family members who fought.  Let’s even look at north Africa, the British were crushed at Tobruk  and Gazala in early 1942. The tide there did not turn until we began fighting in that particular theater as well.  Clearly, Germany’s biggest mistake was opening the Eastern front. Notwithstanding, nobody that knows the history of the war seriously argues that the British would have been able to take continental Europe if we were not fighting. And what about the Pacific theater, does anybody really believe that the British would have been able to succeed there without us?

More than a little,. Dad was a tank Sargent under Patton and fought in the battle of the bulge and liberated the Jewish slaves at the camps when no one knew about what was really going on.  He never talked about it. mom lost her first husband in a b24 over ploesti. My uncle flew PBY's and my aunt welded those Liberty ships in Valejo.  Greatest number of lives lost was the with 8th Airforce doing daylight missions to improve accuracy and minimize collateral damage.  While the British were flying under the cloak of darkness.  It took a great coalition of nations to put an end to that terrible war and if the separatists had kept us out I do believe Europe would look a whole lot different today.

[aviatoreb]

Just now, Blue on Top said:

A titanium frame structure would be lighter but would also be many times more expensive.  The M20 would be in excess of $1M.  Because of its properties (stiff and brittle … like carbon), crashworthiness would not be as good.  Strong without an elastic energy absorption is bad.

Carbon Fiber is NOT lighter than aluminum … especially where minimum thickness comes into play.  CFRP material alone is heavier than 0.020 aluminum used on flight controls and some skins.  Oh, then add the required copper mesh to take care of HIRF/Lightening … and add all the weight/complexity/part count of bonding straps … oh and add a second wire harness (doubling your current harnesses) everywhere because the carbon frame isn't quite conductive enough to carry the return current.  Or, save weight and use an aluminum mesh (ha, ha, ha) … then add more weight back in with a non-structural fiberglass separation layer so the carbon doesn't corrode the aluminum.  The 787 is carbon for one reason and one reason only: it doesn't corrode.  It is NOT lighter than aluminum or have a better strength to weight ratio.

BTW, the shell of the M20 is fiberglass.  At least it was when my engineers first designed it.  No comment if it is now carbon.

BTW2, the shell is as heavy or heavier than the aluminum shell was … costs more … and takes more labor, too!

I don't know anything about the crash-absorption properties of Ti.  But I have seen crashed Ti bicycles and they do bend rather than shatter.  Still I don't know a lot about it.  

But cost - I really don't understand why it would be a million dollars extra for something that is not dramatically more complicating than a bicycle in terms of build.  On my bicycle(s) I have Ti frame which is round tubes like a Mooney  frame, and I have a Ti TT bike which has ovalized frames.  I have Ti crankset, Ti screws made from the harder alloy of Ti, and Ti chainrings which are CNC. Ti disc brake rotors.  And lots more intricate built Ti parts.  Its more expensive but not crazy more expensive and I would think it is not a lot more in the marginal cost of the overall cost of airplane certification.  I would think Ti wing spars also could be CNC as easily as a Ti bicycle chainring.  Cogset, etc.  That said - I know - it aint gonna happen.

There is some russian built single engine piston aerobatic plane that I saw once a guy in Burlington had and it was mostly Ti.  Was that the Yak?

Ok enough with Ti.

A reason for carbon skins is to be smooth.  That said, since carbon skins would need to be glued on, I suppose you could glue on a big sheet of Al instead of lots of rivets?  That would be smoother, but would it maybe be a faster build with fewer parts?  I don't know.  Just asking for a friend.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Bravoman said:

With all due respect, your version of history as to Britain winning the war by 1940 and all that was needed was US manufacturing is flat out delusional. I’ll just leave it at that.  The British were completely pushed off the continent at Dunkirk, and the Germans spent the rest of 1940 and 1941 securing victories in Europe. British troops did not even have a presence on the continent until after the US became involved in the war.  The British would have also lost in north Africa had we not intervened. 

And America has been waging war (Militarily and economically) everywhere on just about everyone including their allies ever since.

Clarence

[Blue on Top]

8 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

1. But cost - I really don't understand why it would be a million dollars extra for something that is not dramatically more complicating than a bicycle in terms of build.  On my bicycle(s) I have Ti frame which is round tubes like a Mooney  frame, and I have a Ti TT bike which has ovalized frames.  I have Ti crankset, Ti screws made from the harder alloy of Ti, and Ti chainrings which are CNC. Ti disc brake rotors.  And lots more intricate built Ti parts.  Its more expensive but not crazy more expensive and I would think it is not a lot more in the marginal cost of the overall cost of airplane certification.  I would think Ti wing spars also could be CNC as easily as a Ti bicycle chainring.  Cogset, etc.  That said - I know - it aint gonna happen.

2. There is some russian built single engine piston aerobatic plane that I saw once a guy in Burlington had and it was mostly Ti.  Was that the Yak?

3. A reason for carbon skins is to be smooth.  That said, since carbon skins would need to be glued on, I suppose you could glue on a big sheet of Al instead of lots of rivets?  That would be smoother, but would it maybe be a faster build with fewer parts?  I don't know.  Just asking for a friend.

1. Costs would be significantly higher (not plus $1M but go from 850K to $1M) because of the number of frames made (especially versus bicycles) all new machining tooling and "automated" welding?  TT bikes are stiff to get every fiber of human horsepower to the road.  Stiffness transfers power well.  A good comparison would be to compare component to component price between the materials.  My aluminum frame bike is 30% cost of the same frame in carbon.  How does a titanium rear cassette set compare to a standard steel set?  Yes, it might only be $200 more, but it's also 3 times more expensive ($100 steel versus $300 titanium).  1000s of each bike type are produced annually, too. 

3. You have a very intelligent friend; keep him/her.  Grumman airplanes were bonded together.  We can bond today, but we'd also have to design in a few chicken fasteners here and there in case the bond sheared apart.  Yes, composite airplanes have to do that, too.