RUMOR: Mooney Purchased

[Huitt3106]

37 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Video games / virtualized experience ate the inclination of large swaths of the younger generations to get out and engage real-life adventure. Many more of them  would prefer to be an entertainment superstar (youtube/sports) than aspire to be the next Chuck Yeager, and almost none would even know who he is. 

I just couldn't disagree more.  I grew up during the boom of the internet as a millennial.  To say that a generation has no drive because they have a different experience is quite unfair and disingenuous.  If anything, the video games I played made me want to travel more places and see more things because they provided an adventurous spark that growing up in small town America wouldn't have otherwise provided (go to school, find a job, buy a home, pop out a couple kids, start over).  This doesn't even account for the communication provided by online gaming which you get to play and talk with people from all over the world. How many video games are based on space travel, adventurism, and general competition?  This drive in people doesn't stop here, it begins here.  I completely understand there is always a generational difference between an older and younger generation but I think both groups have to recognize that.  How many war (WWII)  aged people looked down on their children's generation (thinking they didn't have any drive) because they were living the peace and love mindset of the 60s and some of the the 70s? Every generation is different and experiences the world differently.        

 

The idea of wanting to be a youtube/ sports star is similar to past generations but the format is different.  Did you not grow up and know somebody that wanted to be a famous musician or be in the movies?  Its human nature to want to be known by the population at large.  From what I've seen about how people interact socially now is a result of the forums that are most commonly available.  The challenges all people face now with the internet and the AI used to increase user time on platforms like Youtube and Facebook are so effective that we don't even know they're working on us.  This can be a completely different subject that doesn't necessarily belong on a airplane forum but the algorithms used by these companies are downright dangerous in how they appeal to our subconscious.  

Edited March 3, 2020 by Huitt3106
had another thought

[Bravoman]

12 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I make more than when I was 18 too, like you do too.

but to your point how much is an hour of 150 time relative to min wage - that’s a good measure.  
 

I agree with gxsrpilot that other costs are rising faster than pay scales.  See this graph from the nytimes about 2 yrs ago.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/opinion/leonhardt-income-inequality.html

 

 I wouldn’t believe very much from the New York Times! Seriously though, there is plenty of money out there. As an example, I am always amazed when I see all of the center console fishing boats in Florida at all of the marinas. As far as the eye can see. The minimum price on those is about a half a million and they go up significantly from there. I always wonder where all of the money comes from.  On the whole, I believe that people live the best standard of living in this country today as compared to any other time. As to general aviation, I just believe that it was more in vogue at an earlier point in history as compared to today.

[Davidv]

53 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

This is very interesting.

But apples - to - apples is it fair to price cost of training in 1979 in a brand new airplane vs today in a 40 year old airplane?  Did they have 40 year old airplanes available in 1979 for training, and if so surely it was cheaper to rent those per hour.  Certainly today, it is more expensive to rent an hour in a brand new airplane than a 40 year old airplane.

Just like it is cheaper to buy a 40 year old airplane than to buy a brand new airplane.

Is it fair? Probably not.  However, the rental pricing is based on the value of the asset and if the asset values are roughly the same then the rental prices should be too (Tomahawk costing around the same as a used rental 172 in today's dollars).  If you want to learn in a Cirrus I believe it's around $300+ hr.    

[exM20K]

8 minutes ago, Bravoman said:

 I wouldn’t believe very much from the New York Times! Seriously though, there is plenty of money out there. As an example, I am always amazed when I see all of the center console fishing boats in Florida at all of the marinas. As far as the eye can see. The minimum price on those is about a half a million and they go up significantly from there. I always wonder where all of the money comes from.  On the whole, I believe that people live the best standard of living in this country today as compared to any other time. As to general aviation, I just believe that it was more in vogue at an earlier point in history as compared to today.

Always look at the end-points of this sort of analysis:  Why 34 years? Answer: 1980 was very near the end of the 70's malaise years.  DJIA finished the year at ~2800.  DJIA finished 2014 at ~19,000.  Of course higher net worth individuals have more at risk in financial assets.  Certainly the real estate picture is similar though I can't lay my hands on the data so easily.  Unearned income that is the result of exponential growth of the underlying asset classes will naturally favor total income growth of those who have such investments. Duh.  Thanks, NYT.

Pick endpoints that correspond to a massive bear market, and you'll see the mirror of the NYT chart.

-dan

[aviatoreb]

6 minutes ago, Bravoman said:

 I wouldn’t believe very much from the New York Times! Seriously though, there is plenty of money out there. As an example, I am always amazed when I see all of the center console fishing boats in Florida at all of the marinas. As far as the eye can see. The minimum price on those is about a half a million and they go up significantly from there. I always wonder where all of the money comes from.  On the whole, I believe that people live the best standard of living in this country today as compared to any other time. As to general aviation, I just believe that it was more in vogue at an earlier point in history as compared to today.

Really?  You think the numbers are made up?  Well I think we can disagree.  In any case, I live in rural upstate NY and people are really hurting as far as the eye can see. I see a lot of people working two - three jobs, and loosing their houses due to health care costs, and certainly not buying any hours in a 150.  There is plenty of money out there but it is concentrating with fewer and fewer people, so goes the story of that chart I posted, the question being whether we believe the chart.  I believe it 100% and it agrees with exactly what I am seeing amongst my neighbors in St Lawrence County, NY, area 2821 sq mi, pop 111,944, 42 people/sq mi 7 hrs drive North of NYC and in an entirely different universe.  I think the visual of money is going to be different at the marina than it will be on our rural roads.  Our people are falling behind every year - not a story from any newspaper, but what I hear again and again from people I talk to from their personal stories.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-that-viral-new-york-times-inequality-chart-really-shows-2017-08-08

[aviatoreb]

7 minutes ago, exM20K said:

Always look at the end-points of this sort of analysis:  Why 34 years? Answer: 1980 was very near the end of the 70's malaise years.  DJIA finished the year at ~2800.  DJIA finished 2014 at ~19,000.  Of course higher net worth individuals have more at risk in financial assets.  Certainly the real estate picture is similar though I can't lay my hands on the data so easily.  Unearned income that is the result of exponential growth of the underlying asset classes will naturally favor total income growth of those who have such investments. Duh.  Thanks, NYT.

Pick endpoints that correspond to a massive bear market, and you'll see the mirror of the NYT chart.

-dan

True - I wish that graph went back to 1900.  Two reasons to end the graph back at 1980 - one is it is surely hard to make a deep dive to collect data and 1980 is a round number, beginning of the Reagan era, etc, and those are good reasons, but - two, it could well be a matter of clipping the data so as to spin a story.  So a biased statistic can occur due to windowing either intentionally or unintentionally, and it is very difficult to beat if unintentionally.  There is a name for that kind of statistical bias but darned if I can remember the official name of it right now - I am sorry - I should remember - I am not a statistician but not too far from one - close enough to know the details of such an analysis but far enough not to remember the name!  It is a kind of selection bias you are asserting.  Nonetheless, whichever, 34 years is a significant span of time and selection bias becomes less and less plausible as the time window becomes longer.

Edited March 3, 2020 by aviatoreb

[Huitt3106]

Just now, aviatoreb said:

True - I wish that graph went back to 1900.  Two reasons to end the graph back at 1980 - one is it is surely hard to make a deep dive to collect data and 1980 is a round number, beginning of the Reagan era, etc, and those are good reasons, but - two, it could well be a matter of clipping the data so as to spin a story.  So a biased statistic can occur due to windowing either intentionally or unintentionally, and it is very difficult to beat if unintentionally.  There is a name for that kind of statistical bias but darned if I can remember the official name of it right now - I am sorry - I should remember - I am not a statistician but not too far from one - close enough to know the details of such an analysis but far enough not to remember the name!  Nonetheless, whichever, 34 years is a significant span of time.

Is the name you're looking for "confirmation bias"?

[Bravoman]

 We can agree to disagree. I spend a lot of time all over the rural South, and it is clear to me that people on a whole are significantly better off today then five, 10, or 20 years ago. A lot of it has to do with the region. I am familiar with where you live, and unfortunately it is an area that has been in decline for a while. I think a lot of it has to do with people moving to the sun belt.  And unfortunately, your state politicians in New York don’t make it easy for business to thrive. I am a New Yorker myself  having been born and raised in Port Washington. It is amazing to me that people are able to make it up there with all of the tax and crazy regulations.  This is in contrast to places like Atlanta, which has so much business and construction going on that it is truly incredible. 

[aviatoreb]

Just now, Huitt3106 said:

Is the name you're looking for "confirmation bias"?

..it is similar - I just added a word/phrase which is selection bias - that phrase is slightly different since selection bias does not carry necessarily the scientists deliberate action but could well - it is more agnostic to the source and says it is a danger in any case.

But selection bias for time windows has a very specific name and I forget what it is.

[aviatoreb]

Just now, Bravoman said:

 We can agree to disagree. I spend a lot of time all over the rural South, and it is clear to me that people on a whole are significantly better off today then five, 10, or 20 years ago. A lot of it has to do with the region. I am familiar with where you live, and unfortunately it is an area that has been in decline for a while. I think a lot of it has to do with people moving to the sun belt.  And unfortunately, your state politicians in New York don’t make it easy for business to thrive. I am a New Yorker myself  having been born and raised in Port Washington. It is amazing to me that people are able to make it up there with all of the tax and crazy regulations.  This is in contrast to places like Atlanta, which has so much business and construction going on that it is truly incredible. 

There is a lot going on - and the economics and politics behind it all is very detailed and definitely beyond my pay grade.  In any case, I do buy the over all story that wealth is concentrating in this country and we as mooneyspace's are generally in the more upper tier so our friends and friends of friends are often doing well - a property called associative - one tends to congregate with people like ourselves.  So if it is happening as I say, then it would then tend to be difficult for many of us to see by direct experience.

[aviatoreb]

Aha!  I just remembered one word - Heckman correction.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckman_correction

[Bravoman]

Just now, aviatoreb said:

Aha!  I just remembered one word - Heckman correction.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckman_correction

 I was an economics major in college, I think I remember that! 

[aviatoreb]

Selection bias is one of the most important and difficult issues in statistics - which is how does one collect a representative sample of a process?  It is more than a little difficult.  Consider polls - how does one ask a "representative" group of people whom they want to vote for?  Call people on the phone?  Well the sorts of people who answer phone calls may come from a biased pool?

Here is a little story of selection bias in a simple experiment.  Suppose I want to study sunlight during the day.  One morning I wake up before the sunrise with my photo meter and I observe the light in lumens, and I make a graph - I do this until lunch and then I have to go do something else.  Then in the afternoon I study the data and I say aha!  It gets brighter!  That's my conclusion. Selection bias due to the chosen time interval, clearly because I started in the morning and went until noon.  Maybe I even do this in the same way every day for a week in the work hours I have available to the project.

But then I run a second study and I do this 24 hrs a day for a month. During the month of November.  And I see ups and downs in my graph and I conclude - the earth is getting less sunny.  Because it is!  (Northern hemisphere) because winter is coming.

But then I find this interesting so I do the same study for 10 years - if I do it exactly for 10 years i will find zero trend.  But if I do it for 9 years and 8 months, I will still find a slight trend.

However if i do it for a hundred years, no matter what the month I start and end, on average the bias will converge to zero.

- another story of selection bias - is going to the marina and noticing that everyone at the yacht club is doing great really a representative sample of the population as a whole?

[aviatoreb]

12 minutes ago, Bravoman said:

 I was an economics major in college, I think I remember that! 

:-)  You go bwoy!  And that fellow Heckman got a Nobel in economics for that work.

I am a math professor (not specifically a statistician) with a PhD in math - and I am supposed to remember stuff like that - but I am terrible at remembering words for things - and I am always embarrassed that I forget such words when I want them most.  And I am not just getting old - I remember not remembering words for such things even when I was very young.

Edited March 3, 2020 by aviatoreb

[Huitt3106]

2 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Selection bias is one of the most important and difficult issues in statistics - which is how does one collect a representative sample of a process?  It is more than a little difficult.  Consider polls - how does one ask a "representative" group of people whom they want to vote for?  Call people on the phone?  Well the sorts of people who answer phone calls may come from a biased pool?

Here is a little story of selection bias in a simple experiment.  Suppose I want to study sunlight during the day.  One morning I wake up before the sunrise with my photo meter and I observe the light in lumens, and I make a graph - I do this until lunch and then I have to go do something else.  Then in the afternoon I study the data and I say aha!  It gets brighter!  That's my conclusion. Selection bias due to the chosen time interval, clearly because I started in the morning and went until noon.  Maybe I even do this in the same way every day for a week in the work hours I have available to the project.

But then I run a second study and I do this 24 hrs a day for a month. During the month of November.  And I see ups and downs in my graph and I conclude - the earth is getting less sunny.  Because it is!  (Northern hemisphere) because winter is coming.

But then I find this interesting so I do the same study for 10 years - if I do it exactly for 10 years i will find zero trend.  But if I do it for 9 years and 8 months, I will still find a slight trend.

However if i do it for a hundred years, no matter what the month I start and end, on average the bias will converge to zero.

- another story of selection bias - is going to the marina and noticing that everyone at the yacht club is doing great really a representative sample of the population as a whole?

I love this explanation and example.  You put quite eloquently what I would have liked to have been able to say!

[aviatoreb]

1 minute ago, Huitt3106 said:

I love this explanation and example.  You put quite eloquently what I would have liked to have been able to say!

Thanks!

Explaining stuff in that sort of way is what I do for a living.  Hopefully I do it well some of the time.

[Stephen]

1 hour ago, Huitt3106 said:

I just couldn't disagree more.  I grew up during the boom of the internet as a millennial.  To say that a generation has no drive because they have a different experience is quite unfair and disingenuous.  If anything, the video games I played made me want to travel more places and see more things because they provided an adventurous spark that growing up in small town America wouldn't have otherwise provided (go to school, find a job, buy a home, pop out a couple kids, start over).  This doesn't even account for the communication provided by online gaming which you get to play and talk with people from all over the world. How many video games are based on space travel, adventurism, and general competition?  This drive in people doesn't stop here, it begins here.  I completely understand there is always a generational difference between an older and younger generation but I think both groups have to recognize that.  How many war (WWII)  aged people looked down on their children's generation (thinking they didn't have any drive) because they were living the peace and love mindset of the 60s and some of the the 70s? Every generation is different and experiences the world differently.        

 

The idea of wanting to be a youtube/ sports star is similar to past generations but the format is different.  Did you not grow up and know somebody that wanted to be a famous musician or be in the movies?  Its human nature to want to be known by the population at large.  From what I've seen about how people interact socially now is a result of the forums that are most commonly available.  The challenges all people face now with the internet and the AI used to increase user time on platforms like Youtube and Facebook are so effective that we don't even know they're working on us.  This can be a completely different subject that doesn't necessarily belong on a airplane forum but the algorithms used by these companies are downright dangerous in how they appeal to our subconscious.  

Didn't say there werent exceptions; I am very very glad that you and the students in the flight schools are exceptions...I have also tried to get CFII time and there is a long wait. But to get to some of the cultural "why" issue behind preference for aviation professionally and as a hobby, I am referencing significant trends over time that I have observed. Yes, a bunch of my friends wanted to be Eddie Van Halen (I was more into Neil Peart) but loved all of it. That said, I think that I am able to see what you can't see  because of a difference in our perspective. I was born in the late 1960's and was a part of the generation that grew up without the Internet but ultimately invented video games... from pong to PacMan, Falcon, Quake, Half-Life MSFS, Warbirds  and Counter-Strike etc. And... I really love me a good FPS or combat flight Sim.  I have raised five Millennials and one generation Z and I have taught everything from 8th grade to college. That gives me  both extensive exposure with our current culture (which you and I share) and comparative experience with that of the pre-virtual era. So, I can directly compare what you can only conceptualize. When looking at those two, there is a stark difference in the general cultural approach to preference for virtual vs real-word activities....not because specific generations are good or bad...or really even different...but because high-res virtual experience is now pervasively available. It competes successfully for mind-share with generations who grew up in the 90's and afterwards. It isn't just a generational preference for things like music styles...I believe the difference is more fairly a difference in life approach.  In a world where immersive virtual worlds simply don't exist, one finds that you must go immerse yourself in the real world and that inevitably brought about a greater connection with it. Its a thing, and not a small one. Even in our house, where we strictly limit the time, type and location of virtual activity, I believe it is why I have had to tell my kids to put down the iPhone and go outside on a beautiful day and hop on the dirt bikes and ride around...and it is received as if I instructed them to perform a chore. Trust me when I say that that line of thinking was a non-entity prior to this high-resolution virtualized cultural environment. Similarly, asking a girl on a date and then spending a large portion of that time focused on IOS or Android instead of the person across the table was also a non-entity.  If a pretty girl has difficulty competing for a young man's screen time, I think it is a pretty reasonable conclusion that this same thing is direct driver for the ability for the concept of "flight" (in the real world) to capture the imaginations of as high a percentage of younger generations as has been the case in the past. This last item was the question I responded to and I stand by my answer....AND am really glad you are a pilot and on MS!

 

Stephen

[Huitt3106]

2 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Didn't say they were exceptions; I am very very glad that you and the students in the flight schools are exceptions...I have also tried to get CFII time and there is a long wait. But to get to some of the cultural "why" issue behind preference for aviation professionally and as a hobby, I am referencing significant trends over time that I have observed. Yes, a bunch of my friends wanted to be Eddie Van Halen (I was more into Neil Peart) but loved all of it. That said,  I think I see what you can't see is because of a difference in our perspective. I was born in the late 1960's and was a part of the generation that grew up without the Internet but ultimately invented video games... from pong to PacMan, Falcon, Quake, Half-Life MSFS, Warbirds  and Counter-Strike etc. And... I really love me a good FPS or combat flight Sim.  I have raised five Millennials and one generation Z and I have taught everything from 8th grade to college. That gives me  both extensive exposure with our current culture (which you and I share) and comparative experience with that of the pre-virtual era. So, I can directly compare what you can only conceptualize. When looking at those two, there is a stark difference in the general cultural approach to preference for virtual vs real-word activities....not because specific generations are good or bad...or really even different...but because high-res virtual experience is now pervasively available...and it competes very successfully for mind-share with generations who grew up in the 90's and afterwards. It isn't just a generational preference for things like music styles...I believe the difference is more fairly a difference in life approach.  In a world where immersive virtual worlds simply don't exist, one finds that you must go immerse yourself in the real world and that inevitably brought about a greater connection with it. Its a thing, and not a small one. Even in our house, where we strictly limit the time, type and location of virtual activity, I believe it is why I have had to tell my kids to put down the iPhone and go outside on a beautiful day and hop on the dirt bikes and ride around...and it is received as if I instructed them to perform a chore. Trust me when I say that that line of thinking was a non-entity prior to this high-resolution virtualized cultural environment. Similarly, asking a girl on a date and then spending a large portion of that time focused on IOS or Android was similarly a non-entity.  If a pretty girl has difficulty competing for a young man's screen time, I think it is a pretty reasonable conclusion that this same thing is direct driver for the ability for the concept of "flight" (in the real world) to capture the imaginations of as high a percentage of younger generations ....as has been the case in the past. This last item was the question I responded to and I stand by my answer....AND am really glad you are a pilot and on MS!

 

Stephen

I definitely take your point.  I think lumping a whole generation into a mindset of preferring virtual interactions over worldy interactions is still not completely fair though. Much like the above mentioned statistical bias, you're basing an entire generation on those children the you have raised and taught.  I completely understand that I don't fully know or understand your perspective nor the extent of your data to base your viewpoint on.  I know it is pervasive but every viewpoint is different.  If I may, I'd like to throw a bit of a philosophical question at you regarding the difference in the younger generation's interaction and the older generation's.  What defines reality?  If the general population has shifted their interpersonal interactions to the online world and the minority of the population has chosen to interact in person which is reality?  Is there an actual difference outside of one's own perspective?  A viewpoint I like best is are you sure what you're seeing is what you're seeing?  What you're seeing with your eyes is just an interpretation of an electrical signal from your optic nerve to your brain.    

I know that got a bit off topic but I found the diversion to be enjoyable.  I may very well be an exception but maybe not in the way you mean (just my perspective).  I have chosen to take a majority share of my income and put it into aviation.  Some people choose other hobbies, bigger houses, or more often don't have the extra income.  

One other point to make, I grew up in a lesser virtualized era.  I know we had some virtualization of video games in the 1990s but that was something only a few of the kids had that I was surrounded by.  The internet wasn't a thing like it is today, basically non existent until I was an older adolescent.  I spent much of my time riding bicycles around the neighborhood, fishing, hunting, and enjoying the outdoors.  I also saw the fast technological boom of the late 90s and 2000s so I was still developing in this time and still maintained a desire for adventure outside of virtual reality.  Now I would love to have access to a full VR system, but am unwilling to spend that money!

I completely agree that restriction of time on device is essential.  The issue, which I'll refer back to my previous post, is the way some of the major technology companies have innovated.  Their platforms use "super computers" to mine all of our interaction data and find ways to grab onto our subconscious and keep us scrolling.  I can't stress enough how dangerous this is and if you look at how our society currently interacts, it's evident.  This is what has driven polarization, made conspiracy theories mainstream, and made big tech very rich.  The thing is, this affects everybody, older and younger.  I also am not saying big tech has done this intentionally, their business model is to keep us on the device as long as possible to sell more ad space.  

All said, I am very glad to have a Mooney, fly, and be on Mooneyspace.  Its a wonderful resource for aircraft information and now thoughtful conversation drift!  

[PMcClure]

All this discussion is lost on me. I know why I didn't buy a new Mooney when I could have. The real question is why Cirrus won the biggest share of new sales and Mooney lost. Economics, cultural shifts, whatever can explain some of the decline in the number of pilots. But Cirrus and Diamond didn't even exist when Al made his first plane. The question any owner will have to ask is why/how can they can gain enough share of the current and potential market to restart building planes. 

The answer to why Mooney shut down is simple economics. They didn't sell enough planes to cover their overhead and owners expectation for return on investment. Large new owners may be able to float the overhead while they figure out how to recapture the hearts and minds of potential new owners, or they may wrap the overhead costs into other product lines and keep going. Hopefully they take a storied brand and put some hearty R&D into it. Or a least keep parts alive for all of us

Pilot decline was happening long before millennials were even dreaming about flying or playing video games. However, one source I found shows the number of GA planes in the USA steady for the last 20 years at about 220,000 and not much different than 1990 (198,000). 

I don't blame the culture as much as the business execution of previous Mooney owners (lump Cessna and Beech in with that?) that let a new competitor(s) take share in a declining market. The competitors did it by understanding or changing what the customer valued while Mooney keep making more expensive iterations of what worked for the last 40 years. 

From Cirrus' website:  Cirrus Aircraft’s first high-performance SR Series airplane – the SR20 – was delivered in 1999 and transformed general aviation with intuitive avionics, game-changing performance and revolutionary safety systems, including the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System® (CAPS®). Today’s SR Series portfolio includes the SR20, SR22 and the turbocharged SR22T. Last year, the company celebrated the milestone of the delivery of its 7,000th SR Series aircraft and over 10.5 million flight hours in 60 countries around the world.

In the same time period, it looks like Mooney sold less than 500 planes. Could that be right?

It doesn't look like the problem is the number of planes sold in the market, but Mooney's ability to capture the interest of the 7,000 owners Cirrus found. What if......

More imagination, more research and development, more everything.... otherwise, we may have seen our last new Mooney. Just my 2 cents. 

 

[Andy95W]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

  Two reasons to end the graph back at 1980 - one is it is surely hard to make a deep dive to collect data and 1980 is a round number, 

I think a bigger reason is that in 1980, the highest tax rate was 70%, in 1990 after the Reagan-era tax cuts it was 28%.

[hammdo]

My professor put it this way:

"There are lies, damn lies, and statics. You can make statics say any thing you want - even in your favor." 

-Don 

[aviatoreb]

23 minutes ago, hammdo said:

My professor put it this way:

"There are lies, damn lies, and statics. You can make statics say any thing you want - even in your favor." 

-Don 

Hahaha....Was that your mechanical engineering professor?  Statics is usually taught in mechanical engineering.

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, Andy95W said:

I think a bigger reason is that in 1980, the highest tax rate was 70%, in 1990 after the Reagan-era tax cuts it was 28%.

Let's guess this out - so suppose the graph had begun in 1975 before the big tax cut to the trickle-down top?  What do you think those curves would have looked like drawing them backwards from 1980 back to 1975 guessing if we had that data?

[Huitt3106]

4 hours ago, PMcClure said:

All this discussion is lost on me. I know why I didn't buy a new Mooney when I could have. The real question is why Cirrus won the biggest share of new sales and Mooney lost. Economics, cultural shifts, whatever can explain some of the decline in the number of pilots. But Cirrus and Diamond didn't even exist when Al made his first plane. The question any owner will have to ask is why/how can they can gain enough share of the current and potential market to restart building planes. 

The answer to why Mooney shut down is simple economics. They didn't sell enough planes to cover their overhead and owners expectation for return on investment. Large new owners may be able to float the overhead while they figure out how to recapture the hearts and minds of potential new owners, or they may wrap the overhead costs into other product lines and keep going. Hopefully they take a storied brand and put some hearty R&D into it. Or a least keep parts alive for all of us

Pilot decline was happening long before millennials were even dreaming about flying or playing video games. However, one source I found shows the number of GA planes in the USA steady for the last 20 years at about 220,000 and not much different than 1990 (198,000). 

I don't blame the culture as much as the business execution of previous Mooney owners (lump Cessna and Beech in with that?) that let a new competitor(s) take share in a declining market. The competitors did it by understanding or changing what the customer valued while Mooney keep making more expensive iterations of what worked for the last 40 years. 

From Cirrus' website:  Cirrus Aircraft’s first high-performance SR Series airplane – the SR20 – was delivered in 1999 and transformed general aviation with intuitive avionics, game-changing performance and revolutionary safety systems, including the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System® (CAPS®). Today’s SR Series portfolio includes the SR20, SR22 and the turbocharged SR22T. Last year, the company celebrated the milestone of the delivery of its 7,000th SR Series aircraft and over 10.5 million flight hours in 60 countries around the world.

In the same time period, it looks like Mooney sold less than 500 planes. Could that be right?

It doesn't look like the problem is the number of planes sold in the market, but Mooney's ability to capture the interest of the 7,000 owners Cirrus found. What if......

More imagination, more research and development, more everything.... otherwise, we may have seen our last new Mooney. Just my 2 cents. 

 

Blame me for the major topic drift.  I couldn't not go on the defensive when my generation was invoked.  I think Mooney just didn't innovate properly to match the demand.  I love Mooneys and think they are one of the best small aircraft produced, but they didn't catch the right market in my unqualified opinion.  Cirrus knew/ knows how to market and sell their product in the modern age.  We can argue the actual safety value of the CAPS system and other safety features until we turn blue, but at the end of the day more people wanted that than wanted a very expensive but fast Mooney.    

[hammdo]

2 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Hahaha....Was that your mechanical engineering professor?  Statics is usually taught in mechanical engineering.

Architecture class - for software design back in the late 80s. Software construction was taught ‘similar’ to engineering back then.

-Don