Cargil48 Posted November 29, 2019 Report Share Posted November 29, 2019 Hi, all I'm a new member and registered mainly to make this question you can read on the title. I know, Mooney had had several very hard times, has been closed for up to two years (if I'm not mistaken) and found always the means to resurrect again. Not this time, I'm afraid. What went wrong in a company with such a strong brand and presence in the GA market? I'd say it's not hard to guess: the market changed. One part, those buying today new single piston airplanes, go for the new, modern looking, stylish models like the SR 22. They don't care if there is tradition behind the Cirrus brand, they look at the product, what they get for the money they spend and - probably for a lot of them - the safety the ballistic chute gives. Probably for the wife and mother of the kids seating in the back seats it has more importance than to the owner/pilot himself... Then, when even a 180hp Archer shows up with the ultra-appealing (and useful) Garmin G1000 NXi cockpit including an Aspen Standby EFD1000 and even a GFC 700 a/p as an option... which entry level Mooney has to offer similar features for those who buy such a "bread and butter" airplane? And at what price when the Archer costs $390k with all those features? The average aviation enthusiast wants to buy a safe, proven design placed at the upper end of single piston engined planes? He has the Cirrus SR22T. 310 hp on 94 octane fuel, the unique "Cirrus Perspective Plus" glass cockpit including EVS, ADS-B and 5 seats... Okay, the cruise speed is only sightly above 180 knots, but I'd say every Ferrari has more appeal and is faster than the newest street legal Porsche 911, and this one outsells the Italian brand by at least ten to one I dare say... It's a pity, but what did Mooney wrong? Or put in another way: Assume an American investor already owning several top notch airplanes (I'm thinking of Steve Allen) would buy out Mooney for a fraction all the stuff they now have inside the factory at Kerrville is really worth, what do you all out there think the "new Mooney" line should look like? Happy flights to all Mooneytarians! Charles G. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PT20J Posted November 29, 2019 Report Share Posted November 29, 2019 Let's rephrase: Personally, if Piper were bought by a wealthy Piper enthusiast (M. Stuart Millar) who understood and respected the brand as well as it's roots in American aviation history it would be an enormous positive for the brand. Just sayin'.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chriscalandro Posted November 30, 2019 Report Share Posted November 30, 2019 I’d like to think most opinions have already been discussed but I’d like to offer one more suggestion - perhaps there were not enough repeat threads on the same subject on user groups and forums. Based on what I see here something isn’t popular unless a new thread is started about it every day. perhaps we did not start enough “buying a new Mooney” threads. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted November 30, 2019 Report Share Posted November 30, 2019 I believe Mooney needed a trainer model that gets new folks familiar with and hooked on the brand. Marketing is important. Aerodynamics and the laws of physics don't change. If the concept is good, it can have staying power through the years. Improvements and changes in materials and manufacturing processes are always welcome when there is a better way of doing things. Mooney has shown improvements over the years. The last owner was Chinese if I am not mistaken. I would like to know from an insider what the vision of the owner was. Was there a board of directors that had latitude to make decisions or were all delegated top down? The Chinese own the Diamond brand which is successful. One of the articles I read about the Mooney demise noted poor sales in the last 2 years. What adjustments were made to counter the trend in a robust market? What controls where in place to manage fixed and variable costs? What did Mooney do to remain competitive with like models? There are many questions to ask that make a difference in the health of the company aside from whether the design is a winner. I bought a Mooney because they are fast and efficient. The M20F with its stretched fuselage is a true 4 place aircraft and comfortable for me at 6'4" tall. I believe that it is a winner. If we can get an insider from from the company to comment we may find that there is more to the story than the design. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austintatious Posted November 30, 2019 Report Share Posted November 30, 2019 Time.... simple as that. Mooney has done very little to adapt to the changing times. Maybe there was nothing they could do. They are basically building the same aircraft they have been building for 40 years. Only newer avionics and a second door. I love my Mooney... but that being said, I was not a buyer for a NEW aircraft. In the used market, Mooney is hard to beat if you want speed and economy. However, If I was sitting on 800,000 dollars to buy a new aircraft, I wouldn't be buying a Mooney. I would be buying something made of glass/CF. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted November 30, 2019 Report Share Posted November 30, 2019 7 hours ago, Cargil48 said: Hi, all what do you all out there think the "new Mooney" line should look like? Happy flights to all Mooneytarians! Charles G. welcome aboard Charles... See if I have this right... I simplified what you wrote... I would vote for two planes.... M20U for East Coast flyers... M20V for West Coast flyers... If they can’t decide what coast they are going to be on... the M20V works for both! Best regards, -a- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargil48 Posted December 1, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) 19 hours ago, Austintatious said: Time.... simple as that. Mooney has done very little to adapt to the changing times. Maybe there was nothing they could do. They are basically building the same aircraft they have been building for 40 years. Only newer avionics and a second door. I love my Mooney... but that being said, I was not a buyer for a NEW aircraft. In the used market, Mooney is hard to beat if you want speed and economy. However, If I was sitting on 800,000 dollars to buy a new aircraft, I wouldn't be buying a Mooney. I would be buying something made of glass/CF. The Mooney Acclaim Ultra is as all know a big improvement in that direction. Its improved comfort and view is a one-piece composite shell, which allows an additional pilot-side door, larger windows and a wider door while keeping the weight the same. (from the company's statement). Plus that fantastic interior and the avionic package makes the Acclaim Ultra really the "latest 911 Porsche of the skies". But few wanted it... Maybe money is easily availble these times and owners of single engine GA planes prefer the turboprops. Edited December 1, 2019 by Cargil48 correcting typing error Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austintatious Posted December 1, 2019 Report Share Posted December 1, 2019 6 minutes ago, Cargil48 said: The Mooney Acclaim Ultra is as all know a big improvement in that direction. Its improved comfort and view is a one-piece composite shell, which allows an additional pilot-side door, larger windows and a wider door while keeping the weight the same. (from the company's statement). Plus that fantastic interior and the avionic package makes the Acclaim Ultra really the "latest 911 Porsche of the skies". But few wanted it... Maybe money is easily availble these times and owners of single engine GA planes prefer the turboprops. yet the interior is nowhere near as roomy as a Cirrus. A composite outer shell over steel tubes is meaningless as far as the advantages of all composite are concerned. That is one area where Cirrus has just dominated Mooney. Their all composite fuse is faster to build, more aerodynamic and offers more room inside... a lot more room. The turbo Cirrus is almost as fast as the Acclaim Ultra. Why would anyone choose the Acclaim over the Cirrus? to save a few GPH? I cannot think of a reason and neither can most buyers apparently. The Acclaim Ultra does not offer any significant advantage over the Turbo Cirrus. End of story. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooney217RN Posted December 1, 2019 Report Share Posted December 1, 2019 16 minutes ago, Austintatious said: yet the interior is nowhere near as roomy as a Cirrus. A composite outer shell over steel tubes is meaningless as far as the advantages of all composite are concerned. That is one area where Cirrus has just dominated Mooney. Their all composite fuse is faster to build, more aerodynamic and offers more room inside... a lot more room. The turbo Cirrus is almost as fast as the Acclaim Ultra. Why would anyone choose the Acclaim over the Cirrus? to save a few GPH? I cannot think of a reason and neither can most buyers apparently. The Acclaim Ultra does not offer any significant advantage over the Turbo Cirrus. End of story. First of all, your talking apples & oranges. I have 25-30 hours in the SR22 line. It’s not a very well made aircraft. Your point about the Acclaim is well taken however. Too many Acclaim buyers never realize the performance of the Acclaim as they fly it like an Ovation. In another thread I stated that Mooney’s problem is a lack of entry level product. You cannot have a company that manufactures one product geared solely at the very upper echelon. That is what Mooney has become. The Ovation & Acclaim are the top of the product line. Where does the low time pilot coming out of a 172 go to step up out of a rental? Surely not the Acclaim, and likely not the Ovation. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyer338 Posted December 1, 2019 Report Share Posted December 1, 2019 Beechcraft had a line of airplanes from trainer to twin, and they were successful with that business model. I had no trouble transitioning to a ‘65 C from fixed gear Cessnas at about 500 hours total time. I think the transition to an Ovation or Acclaim at that experience level would have been much more difficult. If Mooney revives, they should take a hard look at building the models they sold the most of: the C, E, and J. I know Mooney went to the long body because of the higher profit per unit, but it might be there is a market for an efficient, relatively easy to fly, fast airplane - like a modern E or J built efficiently using modern methods. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronk25 Posted December 1, 2019 Report Share Posted December 1, 2019 yet the interior is nowhere near as roomy as a Cirrus. A composite outer shell over steel tubes is meaningless as far as the advantages of all composite are concerned. That is one area where Cirrus has just dominated Mooney. Their all composite fuse is faster to build, more aerodynamic and offers more room inside... a lot more room. The turbo Cirrus is almost as fast as the Acclaim Ultra. Why would anyone choose the Acclaim over the Cirrus? to save a few GPH? I cannot think of a reason and neither can most buyers apparently. The Acclaim Ultra does not offer any significant advantage over the Turbo Cirrus. End of story. There is more like 20kts difference between the aircrafts. The acclaim runs out real nice cruise at 220kts, the cirrus is more like 200kts despite what cirrus marketing sept says. I’d consider that significant.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargil48 Posted December 1, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, Mooney217RN said: First of all, your talking apples & oranges. I have 25-30 hours in the SR22 line. It’s not a very well made aircraft. Your point about the Acclaim is well taken however. Too many Acclaim buyers never realize the performance of the Acclaim as they fly it like an Ovation. In another thread I stated that Mooney’s problem is a lack of entry level product. You cannot have a company that manufactures one product geared solely at the very upper echelon. That is what Mooney has become. The Ovation & Acclaim are the top of the product line. Where does the low time pilot coming out of a 172 go to step up out of a rental? Surely not the Acclaim, and likely not the Ovation. Very good points! First: Any owner/pilot must know what he is buying and the details about how to use it to get the performance the plane is able to give him. Second: I disagree on that "entry level" plane which the Mooney line apparently lacked. Why the need? One also doesn't buy a Mustang or a Corvette right after coming out of driving school! I'd go the "normal way of things" in GA: Get the PPL, build up some solid hours on rented "easy planes" (Piper mostly because the Mooneys are low wing) and after one dominates by heart things like cross wind landings and landings on shorter length runways then think of buying a Mooney. Because: Where is a Mooney different from other GA single engine low wing planes? In speed and the (apparent) difficulty in slowing down properly before on landing you arrive at the threshold and how to place the nose of your bird to touch down as it has to be? Otherwise, where is there a big difference in flying skills one needs when starting flying a Mooney? Conclusion: IMHO one needs to train how to fly a Mooney in a real Mooney M20, not on an easier to fly trainer. Am I correct? PS: I for myself regard the (failed) M10T as the correct step into modern days flying but NOT as a trainer, instead as a high performance composite built Mooney, just to follow the evolution of present times. And I don't know if I (should I have been "that millionaire getting Mooney up again") would make it with fixed gear. A Mooney is a retractable and any owner/pilot has to have this solidly burnt down in his brains... You also buy and drive a Porsche knowing it has a rear placed engine and rear wheel drive! And you know the consequences of this on a sinuous road when it's raining don't you?... Edited December 1, 2019 by Cargil48 Adding a PS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargil48 Posted December 1, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2019 On 11/30/2019 at 3:07 AM, chriscalandro said: I’d like to think most opinions have already been discussed but I’d like to offer one more suggestion - perhaps there were not enough repeat threads on the same subject on user groups and forums. Based on what I see here something isn’t popular unless a new thread is started about it every day. perhaps we did not start enough “buying a new Mooney” threads. Perhaps it's a question of centering a new thread about apparently the same subject but with the proper base question... As you see, the answers here are very interesting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted December 1, 2019 Report Share Posted December 1, 2019 11 hours ago, Austintatious said: The turbo Cirrus is almost as fast as the Acclaim Ultra. ....Why would anyone choose the Acclaim over the Cirrus? to save a few GPH? ...The Acclaim Ultra does not offer any significant advantage over the Turbo Cirrus. End of story. . ...this is my opinion. End of story. Ahah..... 242>213. But clearly Cirrus is beating everyone in the market place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted December 1, 2019 Report Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) What is particularly damning of Mooney's current difficulties is this is happening in a very strong economic environment while fleet wide piston singles are generally selling relatively well. How much worse would they be doing in a down economy? My general feel is that they have gotten away from their roots. Part of their roots is speed which they still have. But it is economic speed - the simple "roadster". Almost all of us here have used aircraft - in large part because that is what we could afford. Some of us could afford a new airplane at half of what a M20V costs. My stepfather used to have a 1974 Porche 911 which I got to drive around when I was 18. It was light. Peppy and a hoot to drive. Made lots of zoom zoom noises. It was fast but not crazy fast. Then later he bought like a brand new 911 which was much heavier, much faster, much much much more expensive, and it was nothing like the old 911 except for the same general shape. I kinda liked the old one better. Not just because it was cheaper - it was more of a roadster. I know Mooney tried selling stripped down versions many times... but... And I know it is expensive for many reasons. But how is Piper able to sell the archer for $369k new? With g1000? I know the engine is smaller, but still... its still basically a spam can with lots of man hours to drive lots of rivets. Comparable avionics work cost. Comparable cost to do the firewall forward - roughly. I mean does it take so many more hours to hang an IO550 than an IO360? What is piper doing that is allowing this to be so much cheaper? Imagine how a simpler but still very fast Mooney would sell at $450k? Then it would not be head to head vs Sr22. It would be head to head vs Piper. I don't know how it could be so much cheaper - but I am just wondering how the heck Piper does it but Mooney cannot. Edited December 1, 2019 by aviatoreb 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davidv Posted December 1, 2019 Report Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) Here's my theory. First, there is a finite group of people who can afford to spend $800k-$1M on a new airplane. While you could divide this group up many ways, I'm going to segment it in two groups. The first group are the people who are flying enthusiasts and want to take the $100 hamburger run as well as fly their families around. Let's call these the Cirrus buyers, since, let's be honest, if one of these people were to make an unemotional and rational decision comparing features, speed, ect... Cirrus is going to win 9 times out of 10 (or if you look at the 2018 GAMA report 97 times out of 100). These buyers don't care about going 242 knots because they are never going to fly up to 25K and strap full oxygen masks on half their family (they had to leave a kid or two behind for weight reasons). The Cirrus is plenty fast for them at 8-10K feet. The second group is performance seekers who want a plane that can exceed Cirrus speeds by a decent margin for business or other Ricky Bobby type reasons. My contention is that this second group of people either by virtue of a well functioning stock market over the last 10 or so years or other reasons has decided to trade up. I know it's apples and oranges but look at the price of buying a used turbine with 500-600 hours vs. a new Mooney. Sure, you have a not so new aircraft but now it's pressurized, has more all weather capability, and you can beat commercial door to door times on a trip like NY to Miami. Don't get me wrong, I love Mooney and could never see myself buying a Cirrus. Even with all of the boxes the Cirrus checks, there's something emotional for me about the look and feel of a Mooney. However, if I wanted to spend $1M, I may be looking at some nice used options... Edited December 1, 2019 by Davidv 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeeBee Posted December 1, 2019 Report Share Posted December 1, 2019 All of marketing success or failure comes down to the 3 P's. Product, price, promotion. My view is price. At 800k new there are a world of pre owned opportunities that are faster and more capable and some run on Jet A. When you are talking 200 to 500k people have a budget. When you talk close to a million, budgets are vastly more flexible and expansive. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted December 1, 2019 Report Share Posted December 1, 2019 9 minutes ago, GeeBee said: All of marketing success or failure comes down to the 3 P's. Product, price, promotion. My view is price. At 800k new there are a world of pre owned opportunities that are faster and more capable and some run on Jet A. When you are talking 200 to 500k people have a budget. When you talk close to a million, budgets are vastly more flexible and expansive. Agreed - Cirrus sort of but not superbly has product. In no way do they have price. And in the big big way they have promotion. Mooney has product for a niche - but some want more than a two seater even if some want the fastest piston single. They do not have price. And in no way do they have promotion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargil48 Posted December 1, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2019 2 hours ago, aviatoreb said: What is particularly damning of Mooney's current difficulties is this is happening in a very strong economic environment while fleet wide piston singles are generally selling relatively well. How much worse would they be doing in a down economy? My general feel is that they have gotten away from their roots. Part of their roots is speed which they still have. But it is economic speed - the simple "roadster". Almost all of us here have used aircraft - in large part because that is what we could afford. Some of us could afford a new airplane at half of what a M20V costs. (...) But how is Piper able to sell the archer for $369k new? With g1000? I know the engine is smaller, but still... its still basically a spam can with lots of man hours to drive lots of rivets. Comparable avionics work cost. Comparable cost to do the firewall forward - roughly. I mean does it take so many more hours to hang an IO550 than an IO360? What is piper doing that is allowing this to be so much cheaper? Imagine how a simpler but still very fast Mooney would sell at $450k? Then it would not be head to head vs Sr22. It would be head to head vs Piper. I don't know how it could be so much cheaper - but I am just wondering how the heck Piper does it but Mooney cannot. That exactly is my thought as well. Especially after reading long articles of how Gretchen Jahn and the production manager of the time were able to "streamline" the production at Kerrville in the beginning of this millenium. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargil48 Posted December 1, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2019 A very interesting article I picked up on another thread here, posted by a member of NJ, whom I thank for his sharing. I upload it here because of its interest and the numbers of comparing a Mooney to other common market (i.e. well known) competitors: http://mooneyland.com/why-mooney/ And especially explaining why Mooney has the myth attached of being "cramped" inside when it is not, at least width wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargil48 Posted December 1, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) If you guys allow me dream of how the top of the line Mooney should look, here is an artist's conception of the new Acclaim Ultra. I changed slightly some aspects which can be seen visually, let's see who finds them out. I only say I did those changes based on some critics I've read of Mooney owners and changes which could have been done by the factory, if they'd the will to do so. Construction wise, I'd see the Acclaim Ultra as a pressurized plane fully made out of composite materials, with a full Garmin 1000 NXi suite with the 700 a/p, powered by an electronically controlled (FADEC) 300/310 hp engine, carrying 120 gallon of fuel (like the Piper 350) and with incorporated automated leading edge slats like the French built TB-20 Trinidad had them already 30 years ago... I know, this probably would need a new certification, wouldnt'it? Edited December 1, 2019 by Cargil48 Adding another feature 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austintatious Posted December 1, 2019 Report Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, aviatoreb said: . ...this is my opinion. End of story. Ahah..... 242>213. But clearly Cirrus is beating everyone in the market place. So, I am all about speed, which is why I bought a Rocket... However, above 200 knots with the ranges afforded by these aircraft, there is very little gain. So with those 2 speeds, all else being equal, on a 1000 mile trip, the Mooney would make it in ~4.13 hours ... the Cirrus in ~4.69 .... so .55 hour longer. It wont even be that much of a difference because the climb and decent portions cut it down some. On a 500 mile trip, the difference is probably only 10-15 min. TO gain that half hour by choosing a Mooney you are giving up a LOT of space and UL and quite frankly giving up a modern looking cockpit that seems more like a car (women like that more) for an old school style cockpit. You should keep in mind when I write this that I dont like Cirrus. I dont like side sticks (at least spring loaded ones). I dont like gear hanging out. I dont need or want a parachute. But I am in the minority. I fully recognize why Cirrus is just murdering Mooney... and make no mistake, that is exactly what is happening. Edited December 1, 2019 by Austintatious 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austintatious Posted December 1, 2019 Report Share Posted December 1, 2019 2 hours ago, Cargil48 said: If you guys allow me dream of how the top of the line Mooney should look, here is an artist's conception of the new Acclaim Ultra. I changed slightly some aspects which can be seen visually, let's see who finds them out. I only say I did those changes based on some critics I've read of Mooney owners and changes which could have been done by the factory, if they'd the will to do so. Construction wise, I'd see the Acclaim Ultra as a pressurized plane fully made out of composite materials, with a full Garmin 1000 NXi suite with the 700 a/p, powered by an electronically controlled (FADEC) 300/310 hp engine, carrying 120 gallon of fuel (like the Piper 350) and with incorporated automated leading edge slats like the French built TB-20 Trinidad had them already 30 years ago... I know, this probably would need a new certification, wouldnt'it? looks liek you lengthened the rear window as it is overlapping the baggage door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted December 1, 2019 Report Share Posted December 1, 2019 That’s pretty creative, Cargil... Some things got stretched... Some got squeezed... But nothing got out of round... How many baggage doors do we want/need? Put mine next to the pilot’s door... Why did we keep the fixed step? Store that away properly... Would the turbine fit under cowl? How about Clarence’s HO eight? (Horizontally opposed) Looks like the cowl got shorter... the O has room for six, then a bunch of space behind it... How far back would my seat have to recline for me to fit inside? Would I be able to see over the cowl? Is that a short rudder, with a fixed tail cone? How Long does it take modify the drawing so seamlessly? What is the gray antenna on the bottom? Best regards, -a- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargil48 Posted December 1, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Austintatious said: looks liek you lengthened the rear window as it is overlapping the baggage door. Nope, that's the paint on the original design. My changes were (or are): I heightened the landing gear up some 3" to give a better ground clearance since some critics say the Mooneys "sit too low" and therefore are "not appealing" to bystanders... And especially to allow a better handling on grass fields. Maybe that augmenting the ground clearance would diminsh a bit the ground effect on the flare, I thought... Then, I put the forward landing gear strut some 7 to 8" more forward to give the plane a better weight distribution on the ground. And, since the height of the airplane regarding the ground is now increased, I decreased the AoA to give the plane a more horizontal position. Since when accelerating on the start roll one gets anyway an "up moment" I guess one doesn't need a big AoA of the plane when on the ground. And - to go along with some other critics - it improves the visibility forward, when on the ground. Last (but not least) I substituted those 70+ rivets holding the front compartment doors in the engine bay with quick action metal straps to allow a (much) faster access to the engine compartment. Edited December 1, 2019 by Cargil48 editing typo... 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.