Factory Closed Down?

[aviatoreb]

58 minutes ago, GeorgePerry said:

I get it.  You're decisions and justification are based on emotions and personal preference, and not informed by facts or data.  Just say that.  Emotional justification is just as valid, on an individual basis, as any other method for forming an opinion or making a decision.  

But emotions aren't a good foundation to underpin a sound business model.  And that's my point.  I wish the Mooney CEO had listened to me 5 years ago.  If they'd prioritized evolution to match market and consumer demands, they'd still be making great looking and great flying airplanes.

George, first let me say, welcome back!  Its been some time since you owned a Mooney and used to frequent our forum and I hope I speak for many of us in saying we are glad to have you back sharing your rich aviation experience and opinions.

So now let me please disagree with you vehemently.  :-)

It is not an emotional justification to say in response to your statement what will you do when flying over mountains or at night what will you do to then say they do not fly at night.  This is exactly my response too.  I feel I am safer at night not flying and waiting until the next day to fly in the sunshine than any Cirrus pilot is flying at night with their parachute.  This is not an emotional statement but there are unfortunately no collected statistics to back this up since there are insufficient statistics to compute the following conditional probabilities. probability p(incident with bad outcome | airplane mooney)>p(incident with bad outcome | airplane cirrus) (this is the one with stats collected to estimate the actual values), but what we do not have p(incident with bad outcome | airplane mooney, do not fly at night) ? how does it compare ? p(incident with bad outcome | airplane cirrus, does fly at night) and I believe now the inequality has reversed direction.  Or said even more bluntly, p(incident with bad outcome | airplane mooney, careful aeronautical decision making) ? how does it compare ? p(incident with bad outcome | airplane cirrus, less careful aeronautical decision making) and again it is our belief that it is in our favor.  Of course, a wise and experienced pilot such as yourself would be in the  p(incident with bad outcome | airplane cirrus, more careful aeronautical decision making) category, but when discussing statistics, versus probabilities, we are usually interested in our own safety statistics but all we have access to is a bulk statistic, like the first one.  It is not emotional but wisdom though to make decisions with guessed statistics (so I am declaring it wisdom to guess mathematical outcomes in our favor without actual statistics - and I say that as a professional math professor by trade), guessing things like, flying at night without a plan b is dangerous so I will restrict my flying to the day time, and I am guessing it is even safer than a cirrus flying at night.   As they say in Lake Wobegone, all the children are above average.

Anyway this falls under a technical phrase from psychology of risk called "risk compensation, " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation  and note in particular Pelztmen effect from economics to explain " regulation has not decreased highway deaths".

There is another interesting principle who's name I forget at the moment but it roughly says "90% of the risk is concentrated on 10% of the individuals" but the problem is to figure out if you are on of the 10% and to figure out how to be not in the 10%.

Simpson's paradox is fun here too: "How to PROVE two opposite arguments" -  https://towardsdatascience.com/simpsons-paradox-how-to-prove-two-opposite-arguments-using-one-dataset-1c9c917f5ff9

Safety statistics were a factor when I first purchased my Mooney about 12 years ago.  At that time, Cirrus had poor statistics, in large part because people were making bad decisions flying into bad conditions hoping for the chute to save them.  So the Mooney without the chute vs Cirrus with the chute, Mooney was same or better.  Since then, through better training largely (and the well trained pull the chute early and often), Cirrus has pulled way ahead.

Fun statistics - from memory of comparing bulk risks (which again I don't necessarily believe in as individually full relevant) I remember that canoes, bicycles and small ga airplanes are roughly comparable risks per 100,000 hrs (again why don't I believe fully in the relevance of such risk assessments since digging in, one finds that canoe's are mostly dangerous because of drinking and boating, and I don't boat and drink - so what is my conditional risk?)  Anyway I wasn't finding quickly on google the relevant table but I did find this study:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~cushman/books/Numbers/Chap10-Risks.pdf

The following activities all correspond to the same level of 1 in 1,000 risk of death.

 

Rock climbing 25 hours
Skydiving 50 hours
Riding a motorcycle cross‐country 55 hours = 2.3 days 

Being a 65‐year‐old man 2 weeks
Skiing 340 hours = 14.2 days
Flying on a scheduled airline 1,200 hours = 50 days

Which just goes to prove that if you are a 65 year old man, don't think of compounding that risk by driving a motorcycle to the airport, to fly to colorado to go skiing, and ask them to let you jump out to sky dive to the resort.  At least not until you are 66.


 

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, GeorgePerry said:

As I said, others milage will vary.  But you should ask Richard Simile (long time Mooney Sales Guy with Premier) what he thinks about BRS systems, and he survived. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/roadwarriorvoices/2015/04/25/pilot-celebrates-surviving-crash-by-filming-his-plane-burn/83298100/

Its easy to say what you're going to do if a worst case scenario happens, its another thing to do it.  As pilots we never rise to the occasion, we sink to our training.  Most GA pilots don't train or practice low alt engine outs.  So most GA pilots are likely to respond poorly if the situation occurs.  A BRS gives average pilots an above average chance of surviving uninjured.  The NTSB data proves this beyond any doubt.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/july/24/how-cirrus-reduced-accidents

 

George you are speaking like a sales person selling Cirrus parachutes.  You speak in statistics on one hand and then in anecdote you say ask that guy what he thinks on the other.  Knock on wood and I hope to not repeat this again...but I myself and one of those "ask that guy what he thinks"...I did once have an engine out and it did scare the crap out of me - complete engine failure with a dead stick landing.  I was at 16000 ft enroute and I fly high as a rule since I don't have a parachute, and by grace of luck and training I managed to land at an airport - no claim I could pull that off again.  That day I was glad I did not have a parachute since I would have pulled it for sure and who knows what would have happened.  Instead I rode out the 12 minutes or so of very scary airmanship, but I very much held it together all the way to the landing, finding an airport, commercial spiral, terminated with a lovely landing on a runway, no damage to me most important, and no damage to the airplane.  Who knows what would have been the outcome with a parachute.  I might have been flying at night feeling safe with my parachute, low altitude over a city and landed in front of a bus.  But seriously I don't believe in individual anecdotes when making statistical decision making - and I do believe in incorporating prior beliefs into my rough conditional decision making - call me a believer in Bayesian -all your statistics and all your prior beliefs must be combined to build an appropriate posterior to make your best decision.

  I repeat the principle I said above last post "Anyway this falls under a technical phrase from psychology of risk called "risk compensation, " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation  and note in particular Pelztmen effect from economics to explain " regulation has not decreased highway deaths"."

If I am at 800 ft in a crowed environment engine out I want a parachute.  If I am at night with a parachute I would rather be on the ground without a parachute waiting for the sunshine since I fly in the day without a parachute.  However if you want to speak statistically about the low altitude scenario, please do it right and I wonder if there are statistics available regarding the outcomes with and without parachutes stratified for below 400 ft, 400-800 ft, 800 ft and up to say 1500 ft engine outs, and then up, and then most important, that window where parachutes work - how many total saves are there - is this a vanishingly small fraction or is it a large fraction of the incidents.  Are they engine out on take off?  Or are they stall spin base to final turns.  If the latter would I be better off buying a Garmin GFC500 with envelope protection to improve my safety statistics?

Edited November 14, 2019 by aviatoreb

[MIm20c]

6 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Which just goes to prove that if you are a 65 year old man, don't think of compounding that risk by driving a motorcycle to the airport, to fly to colorado to go skiing, and ask them to let you jump out to sky dive to the resort.  At least not until you are 66.

Whenever we look at the risks per 100k I think about walking in to buy life insurance. 
 

When asked what do you do for fun?

Well I ride my motorcycle to the airport, jump into my Mooney headed to a remote island, and hire a skiff for some afternoon diving.  Is that going to help my monthly rates ?

[RogueOne]

1 hour ago, GeorgePerry said:

I get it.  You're decisions and justification are based on emotions and personal preference, and not informed by facts or data.  Just say that.  Emotional justification is just as valid, on an individual basis, as any other method for forming an opinion or making a decision.  

But emotions aren't a good foundation to underpin a sound business model.  And that's my point.  I wish the Mooney CEO had listened to me 5 years ago.  If they'd prioritized evolution to match market and consumer demands, they'd still be making great looking and great flying airplanes.

No you don’t.  My decision was based on my mission and financial logic as I see it.  Facts are: My aircraft seats my wife and I comfortably.  My aircraft is fast at my non-oxygen altitude preference of 5k-10k’.  My leather smells great.  I prefer my retractable gear for speed over your fixed gear.  My plane is over-equipped for my mission of two hour day flights in VFR.  I don’t want or need a chute.  I live in the land of bean fields/airfields and cornfields.  The chute is NOT in my price point so NOT a consideration.  Period.  I got it, the Mooney CEO didn’t listen and like Mooney multiple times before failed pursuing a trainer instead of BRS.  Is my Missile better looking?  Yes.  Is it faster?  Yes.  Is it reliable?  Yes.  Do I have a plane that exceeds my mission and doesn’t have a payment?  Yes.  I don’t like Cirri.  Never have.  Never will.  They are like reading labels in a drugstore to me.  Are they competent?  I just don’t care.  Emotion aside I just don’t like the plane you chose to own and I am not a fan of you beating up on Mooney with Monday morning quarterback stuff.  Coming to a Mooney site and calling YOUR brand better is just bad form regardless of your background and experience.  It’s like going to someone else’s house and going on and on why yours is better and why you should of done this...

Nevermind.  I am just an emotional Mooney fanboy.  I will take a ride in a Lancair turbine though...

[INA201]

6 hours ago, GeorgePerry said:

All valid points...

Insurance is about the same.  1.0%-1.5% of hull value depending on quals / TT and Time in type

My last Annual was $4500.  Nose pucks needed to be replaced but all else was good.  So same basic charge for annual as a M20R

Subscription costs depend on what system you use.  If you have dual 430W, then costs are the same.  If you have G1000, then costs are the same

Chute repack required every 10 years.  Cost is about 15K or 1500 per year.  I look at this as cheap safety insurance.  If a motor quits at night or over inhospitable terrain, I'll take the chute, thank you!

Depreciation is an area where the Cirrus shines.  Depreciation is very low on the SR22 because demand is very high.  You can look at controller and compare the resale of a 2015 Cirrus and 2015 Mooney.  About 100K difference in favor of the Cirrus

Last question is subjective, but I'd say after flying with A/C and having and using TKS, newer is better!

Lastly, budget always is a factor.  And getting into a "good" Cirrus SR22 is a 200K and up proposition, so if a buyer only has 100K to spend they are out of luck or need to find a partner.  No arguments, budget matters.  But if we remove cost from the equation, the decision is a no-brainer. 

Wow, that’s not bad on the costs.  I had no idea. I had thought insurance and all other expenses were significantly more.  Acquisition I suppose would be the limiting factor for most folks based on your assessment. Thank you for the insight. 

[GeorgePerry]

51 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

George you are speaking like a sales person selling Cirrus parachutes.  

Not really....Some posters seem to forget.  I've owned several Mooneys and I really enjoy the way they look and fly.  I'm not beating up on the brand.  Two points I'm trying to make are (1) Mooney leadership was blind to the changing market and consumer demand.  Now they are out of business.  The primary reason Mooney is now defunct is (2) CAPS gives Cirrus pilots an additional layer of safety Mooney's, Bonanza's and Cessna HP SE planes just don't have.  Those are unassailable facts and anyone who wants to take issue with those two statements have at it.

As for the "salesman" comment.  I'm don't work for Cirrus anymore so I don't have a dog in the fight.  I'm speaking from my own personal experience and seeing many  pilots perish needlessly while their Cirrus flying counterparts have a tool that has saved 186 people so far.  

https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/w/safety_pages/720.caps-saves-and-fatal-accidents.aspx?1

I have no issues with anyone who choses a Mooney over any other brand.  Just go into it with eyes wide open and understand the additional risk that comes with the decision.  

Edited November 14, 2019 by GeorgePerry

[aviatoreb]

24 minutes ago, MIm20c said:

Whenever we look at the risks per 100k I think about walking in to buy life insurance. 
 

When asked what do you do for fun?

Well I ride my motorcycle to the airport, jump into my Mooney headed to a remote island, and hire a skiff for some afternoon diving.  Is that going to help my monthly rates ?

...right - don't do that.  But whatever you do - don't take a bath when you are done since bath tubs are dangerous.  But if you do take a bath - wear protection - yes I do mean where a pfd.

I found on my hard drive - I actually saved the table I was referring too - and its not exactly like I remember!  Motorcycles and GA airplanes over all are similar - similarly bad - this was a 1998 study and current bulk ga stats have it at roughly at 1 per 100,000 hr 1.558 as it was in 1998.  But at least we aren't as bad off as those folks who like to jump out of airplanes for fun.

Risk by time (US)

Fatalities per million hours

Sky diving 128.71

General aviation 15.58

On-road motorcycling 8.80

Scuba diving 1.98

Living (all causes of death) 1.53

Swimming 1.07

Snowmobiling 0.88

Passenger cars 0.47

Water skiing 0.28

Bicycling 0.26 

Flying (scheduled domestic airlines) 0.15

Hunting 0.08

Cosmic radiation from transcontinental flights 0.035

Home living (active) 0.027

Traveling in a school bus 0.022

Passenger car post-collision fire 0.017

Home living (including sleeping) 0.014

Residential fire 0.003

                          

 

[mike_elliott]

4 hours ago, GeorgePerry said:

As I said, others milage will vary.  But you should ask Richard Simile (long time Mooney Sales Guy with Premier) what he thinks about BRS systems, and he survived. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/roadwarriorvoices/2015/04/25/pilot-celebrates-surviving-crash-by-filming-his-plane-burn/83298100/

Its easy to say what you're going to do if a worst case scenario happens, its another thing to do it.  As pilots we never rise to the occasion, we sink to our training.  Most GA pilots don't train or practice low alt engine outs.  So most GA pilots are likely to respond poorly if the situation occurs.  A BRS gives average pilots an above average chance of surviving uninjured.  The NTSB data proves this beyond any doubt.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/july/24/how-cirrus-reduced-accidents

 

George, Richard's engine issue on short final would have not been mitigated by pulling a chute. It may have resulted in a whole new series of injuries and possibly more damage to bystanders property, instead of just a boat. Yes, Richard did suffer some bruises on his chest, but was manning the Mooney booth at SNF that day. The chute has its value, especially if it breaks up on you and there is something left to hold the chute on.

 A new Ultra Acclaim was chosen recently over a SR22T because the SR22T couldnt make it from Miami to san Juan PR without stopping for fuel, so range is a consideration that leans heavily in the Mooney's favor.

Another astute owner chose an Ultra over "the Cirrus Experience" because he inquired what it would cost if someone backed into his wing, like what happened to him on a previous cherokee. He really didnt like the answer he got for a cost to repair a damaged Cirrus wing.

Each plane has its strengths and merits. One is a pilot's plane, one is a family truckster. Just as I love Porsche's, and have driven a 906 competitively, I also know its not the car for me as a 68 year old retired engineer. I submit to driving an SUV now (never mind that it's 0-60 time is 2.7 seconds :)) because it is more practical

EDIT:
RICHARD DID suffer a couple of broken ribs and hit his head. The AmSaFE seatbelts did not deploy, apparently the G's to activate were not enough. I stand corrected and owe George a public apology.

[aviatoreb]

5 minutes ago, GeorgePerry said:

Not really....I'm speaking from my own personal experience and seeing many Mooney pilots perish needlessly while their Cirrus flying counterparts have a tool that has saved 186 people so far.  https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/w/safety_pages/720.caps-saves-and-fatal-accidents.aspx?1

I have no issues with anyone who choses a Mooney over any other brand.  Just go into it with eyes wide open and understand the risk that comes with the decision.  

I'm sorry it was a low blow to say the sales thing and I know you have ours and yours best safety at heart.

I honestly don't think it is correct to claim every one of those 186 parachute pulls are saves.  The real answer - which would be much harder to tease out of extensive data - but there are ways in the technology available to statisticians and actuaries - is to ask the question how many of those 186 saves were really saves in the sense that across a population of cirrus pilots vs a population of similar aircraft w/o parachutes - such as Mooney - how much has the parachute changed the statistics and by how much.  Otherwise I would point at some of the worst outcomes from Cirrus, like stall spins too low for the parachute to help, or parachute pulls otherwise outside of envelope that Cirrus conveniently removes from their statistics in their phrase "every within envelope depoployment...result in a happy ending" (something like that), and say - thank goodness I was safe on the ground since I didn't dare fly over the sierra neveda on a dark icing night assuming my parachute would save me - instead I was home waiting for better conditions.  We both know that the 186 saves is not the full picture.  There have been many bad outcomes of people flying parachute airplanes, perhaps where people flew because of confidence in their parachute, into conditions they had no business being in but went in confident in their parachute (some - not all - people behave that way - and that is what the principle of risk compensation means) so the true effect of the parachute must account for the good and the bad.

Outcome statistics, causality detection and so forth is a fundamental goal of statistics - and it is crucial in so many decision making areas.  Lets forget aviation for a second - lets talk medical and pretend we are the FDA.  A drug company wants to approve a new drug and the FDA says show me some statistics that show me your new cancer treatment medication is a good deal.  So the drug company shows them 186 cases from their drug study where the cancer went into remission, and the patients lived to enjoy another day.  But wait, how many people who took no drug at all went into remission so I can have an idea if 186 is an improvement or not?  And how many people did the drug company forget to tell me about had horrible complications from the drug, say a heart attack and died?  I would say it is a good drug if of 1000 people in the study only 5 got better with no treatment and 0 or maybe 2 or 3 had horrible complications and that 186 by drug treatment recovered is a good deal.  On the other hand what if 186 recovered on their own?  Or what if maybe 115 recovered on their own, and 80 died from horrible drug reactions?  So then more people would be dying taking the treatment than would be recovering if we did nothing.  The rest of the story is very very relevant, and claiming 186 saves full stop is a partial story.  And removing all bad outcomes from the description of the the outcome of the parachute is also not fully honest - there was a fatality last week in a cirrus parachute airplane where the parachute was pulled but it was too low I think, and that one will not be counted in the stats.

[aviatoreb]

P.S. despite what I wrote today - back to selling airplanes as more closely related to the thread title regarding the factory - I have believed for years and I still believe today, if Mooney could somehow fit a parachute to their new M20 airplanes, their sales would improve dramatically.

[kevinw]

7 hours ago, GeorgePerry said:

I'm living happily ever after and my (non pilot) wife is happy to take trips with me.  Do I miss my Screaming Eagle IO550.  Sometimes if I'm flying by myself.  The rest of the time, having TKS, Air Conditioning and still being able to carry over 1200 pounds is hard to argue with. 

And this makes sense...Its simple business and product evolution.  Mooney's and Bonanza's are like really nice cars from the 90's.  At the time they were great, but no one would spend $600K+ today for the airplane version of a 1990 BMW 525i. 

Do I still love flying Mooney's...Heck yes.  But in the same way as I love driving old Porsches or BMW's.  They are great cars but time required evolution.  Mooney's attempts at updates were too little, too late.

In comparison...

Cirrus keeps innovating and its key attributes, the parachute, gear down and welded, a big cabin, two doors etc..etc are there on all the planes.  And the new ones are just getting better.  If anyone wonders why Mooney is out of business, take a look at exhibit A below...My Cirrus.    

 

George, No doubt Cirrus is an incredibly innovative company. I must say, you make probably the best argument about buying a new Cirrus over it's competitors that I've heard in a long time. I suppose I'm stuck in the 90's and still like that look and feel. Acquisition and maintenance costs were other factors that kept me from looking closer at a Cirrus. Aside from the $15K chute repack, which has it's obvious benefits, I was under the impression that annuals and insurance were much higher as well but after reading more of your posts, perhaps I was wrong. Regarding cost, the few I looked at online that I liked were around $250K and I had a max budget of $200K. I knew the useful load in a Cirrus was much better than most but I did not know it was over 1200 lbs with TKS and A/C. What generation do you have? Enjoy your new bird. I know my Ovation will serve me well. I bought it planning on it being my last airplane. Suddenly those plans may have changed. I don't know...we'll just have to see what happens.

[GeorgePerry]

1 minute ago, mike_elliott said:

George, Richard's engine issue on short final would have not been mitigated by pulling a chute. It may have resulted in a whole new series of injuries and possibly more damage to bystanders property, instead of just a boat. Yes, Richard did suffer some bruises on his chest, but was manning the Mooney booth at SNF that day. The chute has its value, especially if it breaks up on you and there is something left to hold the chute on.

 A new Ultra Acclaim was chosen recently over a SR22T because the SR22T couldnt make it from Miami to san Juan PR without stopping for fuel, so range is a consideration that leans heavily in the Mooney's favor.

Another astute owner chose an Ultra over "the Cirrus Experience" because he inquired what it would cost if someone backed into his wing, like what happened to him on a previous cherokee. He really didnt like the answer he got for a cost to repair a damaged Cirrus wing.

Each plane has its strengths and merits. One is a pilot's plane, one is a family truckster. Just as I love Porsche's, and have driven a 906 competitively, I also know its not the car for me as a 68 year old retired engineer. I submit to driving an SUV now (never mind that it's 0-60 time is 2.7 seconds :)) because it is more practical

 

I spoke to Richard about his turbo / engine failure.  He told me the first indications of the engine's demise happened well above the minimum CAPS deployment altitude, so if he'd had a chute he could have walked away uninjured, like the Walmart CEO who had a low altitude engine failure. (Video below)  Mooney has only sold two "ultras" in the first two quarters of 2019.  Cirrus has sold over 200 in the same timeframe.  I suppose there will always be a handful of folks who make choices based on unique criteria...but the market has spoken and the numbers are clear.  

 

[GeorgePerry]

16 minutes ago, kevinw said:

What generation do you have? 

2003 Gen 1 updated to Gen3 specs with Avidyne with STEC55X and dual Garmin 430W, Garmin Flight Stream 210, active traffic, ADSB, XM WX and ADSB WX

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by GeorgePerry

[Ragsf15e]

4 minutes ago, GeorgePerry said:

2003 Gen 1 updated to Gen3 specs with Avidyne with STEC55X and dual Garmin 430W, Garmin Flight Stream, active traffic, ADSB, XM WX and ADSB WX

 

I like Cirrus for the reasons you’ve stated, however, to be fair, I don’t think you have a FIKI TKS system and AC along with a 1200lb UL in a Gen 1.

 I don’t even think FIKI was an option in 2003.  Am I wrong?

[GeorgePerry]

Late 2003 TKS (not FIKI) was an option.  A/C is an aftermarket add on.  MT prop weighs 55 pounds, 25 pounds lighter than a three bladed Hartzell.  

Edited November 14, 2019 by GeorgePerry

[ziggysanchez]

9 minutes ago, GeorgePerry said:

Late 2003 FIKI was an option.  

Maybe that's a typo and you meant 2013. If I remember right fiki wasn't an option on Cirrus aircraft until around 2013/2014. It definitely was not an option in 2003. TKS inadvertent ice protection may have been introduced in late 2003.

Edited November 14, 2019 by ziggysanchez

[GeorgePerry]

1 minute ago, ziggysanchez said:

Maybe that's a typo and you meant 2013. If I remember right fiki wasn't an option on Cirrus aircraft until around 2013/2014.

Sorry you're right...Meant to say TKS was available in late 2003 early 2004

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by GeorgePerry

[GeorgePerry]

39 minutes ago, kevinw said:

George, No doubt Cirrus is an incredibly innovative company. I must say, you make probably the best argument about buying a new Cirrus over it's competitors that I've heard in a long time. I suppose I'm stuck in the 90's and still like that look and feel. Acquisition and maintenance costs were other factors that kept me from looking closer at a Cirrus. Aside from the $15K chute repack, which has it's obvious benefits, I was under the impression that annuals and insurance were much higher as well but after reading more of your posts, perhaps I was wrong. Regarding cost, the few I looked at online that I liked were around $250K and I had a max budget of $200K. I knew the useful load in a Cirrus was much better than most but I did not know it was over 1200 lbs with TKS and A/C. What generation do you have? Enjoy your new bird. I know my Ovation will serve me well. I bought it planning on it being my last airplane. Suddenly those plans may have changed. I don't know...we'll just have to see what happens.

My airplane was sold new (with TKS installed) with 1192 pounds UL.  Aftermarket AC brought it down some but the prop change (MT composite) brought it back up.  No doubt cost is a big factor.  A good SR22 starts at 200K and goes up from there.  I recently entered into a 2 way partnership.  Its working out really well and that's made ownership costs very manageable.  I've done two annuals, and both have been under 5K at Cirrus Service Centers, not an independent shop.  Knock on wood, but nothing's broken and its been extremely reliable.  Probably because I fly it alot. 

Edited November 14, 2019 by GeorgePerry

[GeorgePerry]

This is my last post and them I promise to drift back into obscurity again.  I initially commented because I was so disappointed with Mooney's leadership back in 2014 when they were flush with Chinese cash that they didn't do the thing that would have almost certainly made them competitive again; Increase useful load and install a BRS.  Instead the CEO dismissed my counsel and went a different direction.  I am largely lamenting at what "could have been" if he'd only listened.  Sucks b/c I'd loved it if Mooney could have evolved into a competitive manufacturer that could compete head to head with Cirrus.  They didn't and the rest is history.  

Now Cirrus is the only "real" choice in the HP SE piston market place.  I'm I in love with its looks...No.  Am I in love with the way it "hand" flys...No.  Is is the best option when weighing a variety of factors (Safety, Speed, UL, Price, Supportability, Comfort, Spouse peace of mind) Yep.  

All that being said, I wish Mooney had gotten their act together so "some day" I might have the option to come back to the brand.  With this weeks announcement chances are that'll never happen.

Edited November 14, 2019 by GeorgePerry

[aviatoreb]

7 minutes ago, GeorgePerry said:

This is my last post and them I promise to drift back into obscurity again.  I initially commented because I was so disappointed with Mooney's leadership back in 2014 when they were flush with Chinese cash that they didn't do the thing that would have almost certainly made them competitive again; Increase useful load and install a BRS.  Instead the CEO dismissed my counsel and went a different direction.  I am largely lamenting at what "could have been" if he'd only listened.  Sucks b/c I'd loved it if Mooney could have evolved into a competitive manufacturer that could compete head to head with Cirrus.  They didn't and the rest is history.  

Now Cirrus is the only "real" choice in the HP SE piston market place.  I'm I in love with its looks...No.  Am I in love with the way it "hand" flys...No.  Is is the best option when weighing a variety of factors (Safety, Speed, UL, Price, Supportability, Comfort, Spouse peace of mind) Yep.  

All that being said, I wish Mooney had gotten their act together so "some day" I might have the option to come back to the brand. 

I agree George - from a sales perspective and success of company perspective (and I was only arguing stats and interpretation of stats - quite a different thing from describing what would sell) - in fact I have said largely the same thing here at Mooneyspace more than once, as some others of us here.

Well, she looks down and uncertain (the company) but here is to hoping it is not down and out, no matter how it might look right now.

Hey George - you don't need to drift back to obscurity - we like having you here!  Former AOPA safety officer and former Naval aviator and current Cirrus employee - you have tremendous experience to share with us.  Don't be a stranger!  Be well.

[M20S Driver]

11 minutes ago, GeorgePerry said:

 Increase useful load and install a BRS.  Instead the CEO dismissed my counsel and went a different direction. 

I don't like the added cost and extra weight of the parachute, but my next plane will have one for sure...  If you don't believe me,  just ask my wife.

Driver

[mike_elliott]

1 hour ago, GeorgePerry said:

I spoke to Richard about his turbo / engine failure.  He told me the first indications of the engine's demise happened well above the minimum CAPS deployment altitude, so if he'd had a chute he could have walked away uninjured, like the Walmart CEO who had a low altitude engine failure. (Video below)  Mooney has only sold two "ultras" in the first two quarters of 2019.  Cirrus has sold over 200 in the same timeframe.  I suppose there will always be a handful of folks who make choices based on unique criteria...but the market has spoken and the numbers are clear.  
 

George, short of some bruising on his chest from the Am Safe airbag belts, he did walk away uninjured. He told me that day, he was very glad the Mooney structure was as strong as it was when he showed me his bruises. The air bags didn't deploy, but that's another discussion. He was on short final for 27 going into KLAL, when the fuel system failed and he had his first indications. He didn't have time to declare an emergency from what I remember of his account, but will ask him tonight when I talk with him on another issue. He did tell me all he could think about was my accident as soon as things went pear shaped for him. Never once did he say "I sure wish I was in a Cirrus, I could have pulled a chute" or something similar. Repeatedly he praised the crash worthiness of the Mooney, however.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
EDIT: Richard did suffer 2 broken ribs and hit his head. The Am Safe seatbelts did not deploy, as the impact was purported to be under the G's necessary to set them off. George, I owe you a public apology.

[EricJ]

Not sure why everybody focuses on the BRS/CAPS as though it were the only differentiator between manufacturers or purchase experiences and decisions.    Obviously Cirrus hypes it up, because it is a differentiator that is easy to point to that people can understand, but it's clearly not the only one.     I don't personally think BRS would have made a lot more Mooney sales.   There's probably a lot more in the formula (e.g., sales and marketing and management) that affected it.

 

 

[MIm20c]

53 minutes ago, GeorgePerry said:

My airplane was sold new (with TKS installed) with 1192 pounds UL.  Aftermarket AC brought it down some but the prop change (MT composite) brought it back up.  No doubt cost is a big factor.  A good SR22 starts at 200K and goes up from there.  I recently entered into a 2 way partnership.  Its working out really well and that's made ownership costs very manageable.  I've done two annuals, and both have been under 5K at Cirrus Service Centers, not an independent shop.  Knock on wood, but nothing's broken and its been extremely reliable.  Probably because I fly it alot. 

I’m glad you like your sr22. You must have a very unique plane as most g1’s with tks are down in the 1050-1080 range. I do think the additional training Cirrus is subsidizing for new pilots is the biggest difference in safety. Also the deeper pockets (open pocketbook policy) keeps the (newer) planes in better mechanical condition. 

[toto]

It will be nice when BRS offers a Mooney retrofit. 

As long as there isn't a parachute option, we stay on the rhetorical merry-go-round. 

As soon as there *is* a parachute option, we can go back to debating the best way to spend $25k on an airplane.

Kicking around the relative safety benefit of a $25k BRS retrofit vs a $25k autopilot retrofit with envelope protection might be interesting.