Mooney factory closed again

[INA201]

     Cirrus is a BMW of the sky. Great for taking folks flying from point A to point B. They have added a lot to aviation and modernization of aircraft.  I’m glad they are here and have raised the bar. 

     Mooneys are for us folks that enjoy the romance, history, speed, and efficiency of a truly classic hand built aircraft.  Both great planes for what they are.  We can argue(and will win)that retracting the gear is better too.  Cirrus  gives us a lot to talk about here. Just don’t get into a race, operating cost comparison, or anything that comprises practical  common sense analytical thinking or you may find yourself flying a Mooney. Wait, I made that argument and  bought a Mooney. Oh well, so be it. 

[aviatoreb]

3 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

A JetA -burning turbodiesel 300 hp 5 seat pressurized retractable with G1000 suite for under €500,000?  
Sounds good.  We’ll see.  

That is actually a very interesting airplane and very interesting to this discussion.  That airplane is widely different from anything else available today.  So perhaps in that is the excitement to buy a new airplane since there is no market of used airplanes it competes against.

[aviatoreb]

51 minutes ago, INA201 said:

     Cirrus is a BMW of the sky. Great for taking folks flying from point A to point B. They have added a lot to aviation and modernization of aircraft.  I’m glad they are here and have raised the bar. 

     Mooneys are for us folks that enjoy the romance, history, speed, and efficiency of a truly classic hand built aircraft.  Both great planes for what they are.  We can argue(and will win)that retracting the gear is better too.  Cirrus  gives us a lot to talk about here. Just don’t get into a race, operating cost comparison, or anything that comprises practical  common sense analytical thinking or you may find yourself flying a Mooney. Wait, I made that argument and  bought a Mooney. Oh well, so be it. 

I have often told my friends who have flown with me that Mooney handles like a BMW of the sky, including a fellow I flew with last week. I mean as compared to say a Cirrus 172 he is flying in, that it is firm, tight, and a "road machine".

[tmo]

4 hours ago, PMcClure said:

Does the market need another high performance SEL mfgr?

Looking at where the certification of the Pipistrel Panthera is, the jury is still out.  The bigger brother of the DA50, the DA62, is reportedly selling well and a workhorse.

[bonal]

1 hour ago, INA201 said:

     Cirrus is a BMW of the sky. Great for taking folks flying from point A to point B. They have added a lot to aviation and modernization of aircraft.  I’m glad they are here and have raised the bar. 

     Mooneys are for us folks that enjoy the romance, history, speed, and efficiency of a truly classic hand built aircraft.  Both great planes for what they are.  We can argue(and will win)that retracting the gear is better too.  Cirrus  gives us a lot to talk about here. Just don’t get into a race, operating cost comparison, or anything that comprises practical  common sense analytical thinking or you may find yourself flying a Mooney. Wait, I made that argument and  bought a Mooney. Oh well, so be it. 

Agree with the second part but when I think of an automotive counter to a Cirrus I don't think BMW I think Dodge Grand Caravan 

[Parker_Woodruff]

7 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

For 800k you would spend 640k?

I understand the appeal of a new Seneca V. But if I wanted a Seneca V, I would buy perhaps this one (not having spent more than 30 seconds shopping), for 350k.

 

 

Under BasicMed I certainly won't ever be owning a turboprop...

A new Seneca V is just over $1MM.  So hopefully I could find a factory demo plane (probably doesn't exist) for $800K.

[aviatoreb]

4 minutes ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Under BasicMed I certainly won't ever be owning a turboprop...

A new Seneca V is just over $1MM.  So hopefully I could find a factory demo plane (probably doesn't exist) for $800K.

Ah - I hadn't thought about basic med.

Could one own a turbo prop modded Beech A36?  Anyway, that aside - I hadn't thought of what you just said.

...I misunderstood- I thought a Seneca V also cost $800 thus my $640.

[0TreeLemur]

8 minutes ago, Hyett6420 said:

Funnily enough a thread popped into my inbox today about health costs worldwide per person.  Our NHS is £2096 per person and ALL, yes ALL things are covered with regards to health, even breast augmentation etc.  USA is $10k approx, but true, our doctors cant afford Turbo Propped Bonanzas,   

 

No- our doctors buy Eclipse jets.   The turboprop Bonanzas are for orthodontists with large practices.

[aviatoreb]

31 minutes ago, Hyett6420 said:

Funnily enough a thread popped into my inbox today about health costs worldwide per person.  Our NHS is £2096 per person and ALL, yes ALL things are covered with regards to health, even breast augmentation etc.  USA is $10k approx, but true, our doctors cant afford Turbo Propped Bonanzas,   

 

... that’s nice but I don’t want ... or need... breast augmentation surgery.  I think my breast are just fine the way they are.

But I do like that turbo prop bonanza.

[Schllc]

10 hours ago, Austintatious said:

Yea, if you cruise them at top speed.... which you would be foolish to do.  When you cruise at more economical speeds, the difference is not so much. Furthermore, do you think someone with 800k to drop on a new aircraft cares about a few gallons of gas? 

Have you flown a cirrus?  Much simpler aircraft to operate. There is no prop control.  No gear handle. No speed brakes that I recall.  It just has less going on..  Compare that to a Mooney, with 1 more engine control, speed brakes, gear handle... with a yoke in your lap... things can get cluttered feeling... I make an extraordinary effort to keep my cockpit organized and even so things can feel like a lot is going on.  I can totally see a weekend warrior feeling overwhelmed in the Acclaim ultra.

I never said That building those wings in the 70's was a detriment.  I was actually saying it was an advantage.  They already had certification, Tooling and years of experience perfecting it all... Yet another aircraft came along and beat the snot out of them despite that advantage.

I think it is wonderful that if you were buying a new airplane, you would take the mooney.  That is however more easily said than done.... I don't know if you are married, but consider how many wives were likely involved in the purchase.  Do you think the wife cares at all about the merits you put forth?  I doubt any woman if shown the two aircraft side by side would choose the mooney. 

At the very least you have to accept that you are in the VERY SMALL minority.  The market has proven this.  Instead of trying to tell me how wrong I am by cherry picking numbers, why dont you ask WHY the vast majority of people with 800k to spend on new aircraft DIDNT buy mooney?

 

I’ve got 400+ hours in mooney’s and about 50 in a cirrus. 
the fuel burn and speed is not even close.  This isn’t anecdotal, it’s real world in an ovation, acclaim, sr22 and sr22 turbo. Short and long trips, all at or close to gross weights. 

The position that people buying an airplane for fuel economy is only true to a degree that it feels wasteful, not unaffordable.

They are two very different machines, and attract two different types of people. 
you may as well compare a pineapple and a screwdriver. 
 

Mooney people are generally romantic flyers and cirrus are people who love tech, or bought solely for the parachute. 
This isn’t universal nor the only attributes but is probably the majority. 
Read the posts, it easy to see. Mooney people love their planes. 
Cirrus people love to talk about their tech. 
Neither is better or worse, just is. 

[Mooney217RN]

19 hours ago, philip_g said:

Literally everything is simpler. Takeoff? Hit the toga button to bring the command bars up, rotate, climb a bit, engage autopilot and it'll climb to bugged altitude on the command bars until you hit nav And fly the programmed plan. Setting cruise power? Pull the big lever back to 2500 rpm, pull the red lever to the blue carrot and you're lop. Keep pulling it to the desired fuel flow or percent power. Want to slow down? The flap speed is high enough on the g6/5 that you can basically use the flaps as a speed brake. The panel will tell you if you're taking off without takeoff flaps set, it'll automatically disconnect the yaw damper for landing, it's really like flying an iPad. I'm honestly shocked they haven't automated fuel tank switching. The TKS tanks Auto switch. 

 

Riveted aluminum looks antiquated next to a perfectly smooth composite airframe. I wonder if that perception doesn't turn off non pilot buyers

Phil nailed it - the Cirrus buyer isn't an advanced pilot.  A neighbor of mine bought a brand new SR-22 turbo this past summer.  A year earlier, I got a near new Ovation 3.  We've flown together, I have 25+ hours in the Cirrus line, all in the SR-22's.  Nice plane.  Gear welded down and locked.  No prop control.  Fully automated.  My neighbor takes off, engages the auto-pilot and never touches the controls.

Last month, she got stranded.  I took the Ovation to pick her up.  A one hour flight returning to our home airport, I never once engaged the auto-pilot.  She looked at the G1000 and noticed our speed over ground, fuel burn, and comfort.  She was blown away.  She also realized that I was "hand flying" the airplane.  Cirrus pilots let Hal drive.

Cirrus gets people into airplanes by selling a culture.  Mooney sells the highest performance piston single ever manufactured.  You can transition into a Cirrus from a C172 or C182.  I can't imagine a low time pilot coming out of a Cessna and stepping into an Ovation or Acclaim.  The transition may be the biggest difference between the two product lines, spare the obvious performance of the Mooney absolutely smoking any SR-22.

Two totally different product lines.  If you don't appreciate the Mooney, buy a Cirrus.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Mooney217RN said:

Phil nailed it - the Cirrus buyer isn't an advanced pilot.  A neighbor of mine bought a brand new SR-22 turbo this past summer.  A year earlier, I got a near new Ovation 3.  We've flown together, I have 25+ hours in the Cirrus line, all in the SR-22's.  Nice plane.  Gear welded down and locked.  No prop control.  Fully automated.  My neighbor takes off, engages the auto-pilot and never touches the controls.

Last month, she got stranded.  I took the Ovation to pick her up.  A one hour flight returning to our home airport, I never once engaged the auto-pilot.  She looked at the G1000 and noticed our speed over ground, fuel burn, and comfort.  She was blown away.  She also realized that I was "hand flying" the airplane.  Cirrus pilots let Hal drive.

Cirrus gets people into airplanes by selling a culture.  Mooney sells the highest performance piston single ever manufactured.  You can transition into a Cirrus from a C172 or C182.  I can't imagine a low time pilot coming out of a Cessna and stepping into an Ovation or Acclaim.  The transition may be the biggest difference between the two product lines, spare the obvious performance of the Mooney absolutely smoking any SR-22.

Two totally different product lines.  If you don't appreciate the Mooney, buy a Cirrus.

Except that Mooney isn’t selling the “highest performance piston single”.  It seems no one can compete with Cirrus the  “culture”

Clarence

[0TreeLemur]

4 hours ago, Schllc said:

Mooney people are generally romantic flyers and cirrus are people who love tech, or bought solely for the parachute. 

This isn’t universal nor the only attributes but is probably the majority. 
Read the posts, it easy to see. Mooney people love their planes.

This really resonates with me.   Mooney drivers are passionate about aviation.   We fly a 55 year old wing around the sky because it is a 55 year old wing.   The rest is fluff.   Mooney has soul.  The graphite writing from somebody at the Mooney factory in early 1967 can still be found on parts of my plane that are hard to see. "6766" in big script digits.  These pencil marks were used in sorting parts to make sure that everything needed was present in the shop floor area where a particular aircraft was being assembled.

We've put in a certified engine monitor with all the pressure transducers forward of the firewall. Add to that WAAS gps with Stratus/Appareo for ADS-B to keep the iPad informed, and I feel like I'm flying the Millenium Falcon, 'cept my co-pilot is a heck of a lot better looking than a wookie.

[Daneshgari]

Glimmer of hope. Is factory reopening?

[Volare]

On 1/21/2020 at 11:04 AM, exM20K said:

Diamond is about to find out with the DA50

-dan

That thing looks like it will have some rockets hanging off of it and the flag of some Central American dictator on the tail. Certainly different from previous Diamonds!

[exM20K]

2 hours ago, Volare said:

That thing looks like it will have some rockets hanging off of it and the flag of some Central American dictator on the tail. Certainly different from previous Diamonds!

Lol.  one of the design challenges that's obvious is one that Mooney faces in trying to get more useful load:  where to stick the nose gear?  Hence, the tacked-on housing below the cowling.  Ugly and perhaps will be refined before production.
-dan

[Urs_Wildermuth]

On 1/22/2020 at 5:55 AM, 0TreeLemur said:

We fly a 55 year old wing around the sky because it is a 55 year old wing.   The rest is fluff.  

 

On 1/22/2020 at 1:16 AM, Schllc said:

Mooney people are generally romantic flyers and cirrus are people who love tech, or bought solely for the parachute. 

 

I disagree with both these statements at least as far as I am concerned. I fly a Mooney (65 C model) because I had the money of either buying a PA28 or similar or this C model at the time and it didn't take me long to figure out that the Mooney is by far the best bang for buck there was to be had for the price of an otherwise 110 kt airplane. This C model runs 150 kts at 9 gph and will fly some 600 NM with the 52 USG it's got and carry 3 people with full tanks. The competition simply was not up to anything like that.

I could not and never will be able to afford a Cirrus. Would I buy one if I could? Maybe but if so, then because and only because of the parashute and the fact that I have a wife and a 3 year old kid and I fly over very inhospitable terrain for emergency landings almost all the time. I would also consider flying night and low IFR with a shute which I would not do with a non parashute SEP.

if i could afford a Cirrus, probably I would go Twin instead, either a Twin Commanche or a pressurized Cessna twin or similar is what I really would like to fly. And think about it: some of those can be found in the marketplace for a fraction of what either a new Cirrus or Ovation/Acclaim cost. Even turboprops like Cheyennes can be found for $200k leaving close to 600k to fly it before you get close to the purchase price of the new planes.... I know a guy who started looking into buying a Cirrus brand new, then a Vision Jet... then he ended up with a F44 equipped Citation 501 Eagle which he is totally happy with and so is his family. He paid 300k for that one, less than half of a new Acclaim or SR22, not to speak of a Vision Jet. That was 3 or 4 years ago and he still has not spent his original budget flying it.

On 1/22/2020 at 1:53 AM, Mooney217RN said:

Mooney sells the highest performance piston single ever manufactured.  You can transition into a Cirrus from a C172 or C182.  I can't imagine a low time pilot coming out of a Cessna and stepping into an Ovation or Acclaim. 

Well, it USED to sell the best SEP ever made. Only it did not sell enough and now the market has spoken. Mooney has gone the way quite a few good designs have gone and I am not optimistic it will ever come back.

As for the transition, I am not so sure about that. The SR22 is quite a handful to fly particularly low speed and imho requires better flying skills than a Mooney does, however my experience does not stretch to Ovations or Acclaims, but certainly 201's or vintage Mooneys are no problem to transit to right after your PPL checkride. I've had several pilots do exactly that, it requires some 10 hours transition training but it works. I myself originally transitioned from a C150 to a Piper Seneca, which is a quite difficult airplane to fly particularly OEI. I would assume that with sufficient training you can do that with an Ovation too. I've only once flown a SR22 but I noticed that the flight control forces e.t.c. are quit different than on a Mooney and imho more diffcult to master.

For me, there is NO reason that Cirrus won the market other than that parashute. None whatsoever. Neither efficiency, nor flight characteristics, nor speed. Yes, the cabin is also nice, but they did win for their excellent agressive marketing of that chute. Both the Columbia and the Ovation were much better airplanes, but Cirrus did their homework on marketing better than both of those.

Face it: GA has an appalling reputation in terms of safety, deserved or non deserved is totally irrelevant. Every time one of our GA planes comes to grief, it is headline news. People are wary up to outright scared to fly with us. If they then have to, it better be that plane with the shute. IMHO, no plane without one will stand a fighting chance on the market place unless they come up with some very innovative concept which guarantees a similar outcome. And that I have yet to see.

[INA201]

On 1/21/2020 at 12:41 PM, Austintatious said:

Sounds amazing... but man that thing looks like a DRAG queen.  I think they should hang some more stuff off of it!

I really liked the performance of the Diamond DA40 on only 180hp.  The accident rate is almost nonexistent in these as well.  I couldn’t get past the looks and then the price point. Overall I think it fits extremely well for practical, efficient, ergonomic, and safe flying.  I’m very curious to see and find out why and what they gain out of putting the retract on the DA50.  They may already have most of the 50 certified as they have been working on it for a while absent the introduction of the diesel.

Cirrus set the bar high and to break into the current market there has to be some significant reason for people to go Diamond or even Mooney for that matter vs just grabbing a now proven Cirrus with its deep support network.  I’m only speaking of buying new of course.  We all know that Mooney is really the best bang for the buck in the used market. 

[Austintatious]

49 minutes ago, INA201 said:

I really liked the performance of the Diamond DA40 on only 180hp.  The accident rate is almost nonexistent in these as well.  I couldn’t get past the looks and then the price point. Overall I think it fits extremely well for practical, efficient, ergonomic, and safe flying.  I’m very curious to see and find out why and what they gain out of putting the retract on the DA50.  They may already have most of the 50 certified as they have been working on it for a while absent the introduction of the diesel.

Cirrus set the bar high and to break into the current market there has to be some significant reason for people to go Diamond or even Mooney for that matter vs just grabbing a now proven Cirrus with its deep support network.  I’m only speaking of buying new of course.  We all know that Mooney is really the best bang for the buck in the used market. 

I agree with you... I don't see what people think money offered over cirrus in the New aircraft.  Yea, not as fast or as efficient, but also much more roomy and easy to fly.  It is all about trade offs and the market has spoken.  The trade offs are not worth it.  No one who can afford an 800,000.00 aircraft cares about a few more GPH and a few less knots.

The only other big factor I can put my finger on is the wife factor... Put the average wife in each aircraft and She is going to choose the Cirrus 10/10 times.  Especially when you tell them about the chute.  I mean even some pilots think it is great.   I disagree completely.  Not that the chute is a terrible idea, but I do not see it as that valuable.  IOW, if the plane I wanted had one, I would not pass on the purchase, however I would not choose to install it if that were an option nor would I compromise on air frame to have a chute.

I think a lot of people look at the situation through the lens of their USED MARKET purchase.  In which, moonies dominate.

[Releew]

Unfortunately it's not Mooney's business model.  And respectfully speaking, I'd bet no one you mentioned would go along with your plan.  I do fully agree with a one stop shop for factory refurbishments.  Like you mentioned, "not to build new planes," but definitely keep old birds in the air through factory refurbishments and outstanding customer support!  

Rick

[Danb]

On 1/25/2020 at 10:59 AM, Austintatious said:

I agree with you... I don't see what people think money offered over cirrus in the New aircraft.  Yea, not as fast or as efficient, but also much more roomy and easy to fly.  It is all about trade offs and the market has spoken.  The trade offs are not worth it.  No one who can afford an 800,000.00 aircraft cares about a few more GPH and a few less knots.

The only other big factor I can put my finger on is the wife factor... Put the average wife in each aircraft and She is going to choose the Cirrus 10/10 times.  Especially when you tell them about the chute.  I mean even some pilots think it is great.   I disagree completely.  Not that the chute is a terrible idea, but I do not see it as that valuable.  IOW, if the plane I wanted had one, I would not pass on the purchase, however I would not choose to install it if that were an option nor would I compromise on air frame to have a chute.

I think a lot of people look at the situation through the lens of their USED MARKET purchase.  In which, moonies dominate.

I respectfully disagree bout the wife thing, we me and wife have had 3 new Mooney’s a Dr friend of mine bought a new his second C this year, after checking it out she said she couldn’t fly in a plane that looked like that. At Oshkosh she had the same response so make it wife 9 out of 10 

[JT]

On 1/25/2020 at 10:59 AM, Austintatious said:

I agree with you... I don't see what people think money offered over cirrus in the New aircraft.  Yea, not as fast or as efficient, but also much more roomy and easy to fly.  It is all about trade offs and the market has spoken.  The trade offs are not worth it.  No one who can afford an 800,000.00 aircraft cares about a few more GPH and a few less knots.

The only other big factor I can put my finger on is the wife factor... Put the average wife in each aircraft and She is going to choose the Cirrus 10/10 times.  Especially when you tell them about the chute.  I mean even some pilots think it is great.   I disagree completely.  Not that the chute is a terrible idea, but I do not see it as that valuable.  IOW, if the plane I wanted had one, I would not pass on the purchase, however I would not choose to install it if that were an option nor would I compromise on air frame to have a chute.

I think a lot of people look at the situation through the lens of their USED MARKET purchase.  In which, moonies dominate.

Damn, sexist much????

[BKlott]

If their Autoland System becomes available in the SR Series, that will be ”game over” for those who value safety features in their single engine aircraft.

[Bryan]

33 minutes ago, BKlott said:

If their Autoland System becomes available in the SR Series, that will be ”game over” for those who value safety features in their single engine aircraft.

At least they will be able to reuse the aircraft again vs. the chute deployment.

[Austintatious]

I don't belittle the chute.  I personally just do not see a compelling reason to have one.   That being said, I am a professional pilot that has no Cajones, so I keep the deck stacked in my favor at all times and I feel confident I have the skills to get myself out of any pickles safely.  I plan for  pickles and have had some doozies.  Of course, if the wing breaks off my Mooney I will be thinking a chute would be pretty nice on the way down.  If I thought that might happen, I wouldn't own it.

What I DO detest and belittle is the seemingly widespread mentality of doing things in a SE aircraft that has a chute when that same thing would not be safe without a chute....  "IFR over the mountains?  Sure, I have a chute!"  .... yea, hopefully it will double as a blanket while you wait on the mountain top a day or so for rescue!   That is a drastic example but I think it makes the point.

Yes composite aircraft look great... and they have many benefits... but it is not unfair to acknowledge the cons, which they certainly have.