Mooney (what's wrong)

[drotto]

Similar to another poster's story about how he got zero attention at the mooney booth at an airport day recently. Can't find the post but that's sad. Yes you aren't going to sell a plane to every person that wants to look inside. But have some enthusiasm.

And to not get a call back? Crazy. I met a cirrus rep at an airport day back when I didn't even realize ownership would be a possibility. Just introduced myself and said, "maybe one day.." so as to be totally up front. Her response, "no worries. Want to go for a flight?" We spend almost an hour and a half up there. No strings, no expectations, just having fun in a kickass aircraft. I realize that's her job... but that's my point. That's her job. Cirrus puts that responsibility on her. And she loves it.

Mooney needs to find its own place like THAT. If you're going to attract a new owner for a 500k+ aircraft, you can't live in the past or just naively expect customers to come just because you have a few new features. You need the whole model to win over the buyer.

Before my dad bought his used plane right after he got his PPL, Cirrus went out of their way to arrange a test flight for him, and go over all his ownership options. Obviously, he went a different route, but their sales department is excellent.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Anthony]

Back to "What is wrong with Mooney?"

I'd submit that many people are put off by the thought of investing >$500k on a product (even a great product) where there is a decent chance the product won't be factory supported in 2 or 10 years...

There are a lot of planes flying that aren't factory supported. That doesn't worry me so much as the entry cost, and then the value dropping so quickly. Unless you are made of money, it doesn't make any sense to buy new.

 

[citizen5000]

I think the main difference between Mooney and Cirrus is a lot like how traditional car makers are loosing the electric battle to Tesla.

No one is "losing" an electric car war since there is no electric car market yet. Tesla makes a tiny fraction of cars compared to any one model of any of the big three makers. When the technology gets settled and people want an electric car then the big boys will make them and undercut Tesla overnight. When the auto industry first started there were hundreds of small makers like Tesla. Today only three make 90% of all the cars.

Lancair and Cirrus share the common attribute of carbon fiber and fiberglass, not Mooney. Mooney shares a history with the tin makers like Piper, Cessna and Beech. Notice Mooney has 'grafted' a partly carbon fiber cockpit section in order to get a second door. It's like watching a snake shedding it's skin.

 

[Tantalum]

I was at a meet and greet a few years ago and was talking with a guy who claimed that it cost Cessna less than $30,000.00 to build a fully loaded C-182

That figure is probably pretty low if we're talking "fully loaded" means it has a G1000 etc., and as someone else said the engine alone is very expensive. BUT, as far as the frame of the plane itself, and other non powerplant and non avionics components... I wouldn't be surprised if that 50 year sheet metal design can't be stamped and riveted together for crazy low money and I do believe that there is a huge markup on these planes. The cost of planes far outpaced inflation, and that pushed a ton of potential buyers out of the market. The 172/182 initial RD and all other costs must have been recouped a long time ago... all it should cost for the airframe at this point is labor and materials and then the cost of the power plant and avionics on top of that

I do feel like the general pilot populous is being fleeced by Cessna and Piper. Cirrus planes are expensive too, but they can be had for relatively cheap on the used market and at least give you something fresh and new. There are some nice Mooneys on the used market as well that can be purchased for relatively cheap. It's no wonder that new planes really aren't selling at all, why would you pay that much for something "new" when you can get the same or better performance on the used market for a quarter of the cost

 

[Velocity173]

You can't compare a kit built experimental 120kt plane to fully factory built, certified 220kt planes. The RV is in a completely different market niche of price, capability and performance.

The RV-10 isn't a 120 kt plane. It's size & performance is comparable to a non turbo SR22.

 

[citizen5000]

The RV-10 isn't a 120 kt plane. It's size & performance is comparable to a non turbo SR22.

The debate was centered on numbers of planes shipped RV v (Mooney+Cirrus); no specific model cited.

The RV10 is a 173kt plane, the SR22 is a 183kt plane (cruise). Kit planes are sweat equity products. To compare the number of kit/experimental RV10s shipped versus the factory built SR22 one would need to acknowledge that the SR22 owner gets a certified plane with no labor invested and a low risk aftermarket resale potential. Experimentals have horrible insurance costs. And low after market sales since few people want to risk flying an amateur built plane with non TSO'd avionics. Those that go that route are usually guys that are okay spending years building a plane and don't care about not recouping their labor/material costs in any subsequent resale.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

but at resale....second owners (of RV-10's) do not fit your demographic. They tend to be the same folks. So, used RV-10's very much do compete with other certified aircraft like SR-22s...and are priced accordingly.

The debate was centered on numbers of planes shipped RV v (Mooney+Cirrus); no specific model cited.

The RV10 is a 173kt plane, the SR22 is a 183kt plane (cruise). Kit planes are sweat equity products. To compare the number of kit/experimental RV10s shipped versus the factory built SR22 one would need to acknowledge that the SR22 owner gets a certified plane with no labor invested. Experimentals have horrible insurance costs. And low after market sales since few people want to risk flying an amateur built plane with non TSO'd avionics. Those that go that route are usually guys that are okay spending years building a plane and don't care about not recouping their labor/material costs in any subsequent resale.

 

[wanttaja]

I wouldn't be surprised if that 50 year sheet metal design can't be stamped and riveted together for crazy low money and I do believe that there is a huge markup on these planes.

The problem is, how much of that 50-year-old design is still hand labor?

Vans sells RV kits so (relatively) cheap because they've extensively invested in Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) manufacturing. Stick a big sheet of aluminum in a machine, and out pops nearly-ready-to-assemble parts.

Has Cessna converted the 172/182 line to CNC? I kind of doubt it.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Timbeck2]

LOVE your new avatar Ron!!

 

[Velocity173]

The debate was centered on numbers of planes shipped RV v (Mooney+Cirrus); no specific model cited.

The RV10 is a 173kt plane, the SR22 is a 183kt plane (cruise). Kit planes are sweat equity products. To compare the number of kit/experimental RV10s shipped versus the factory built SR22 one would need to acknowledge that the SR22 owner gets a certified plane with no labor invested and a low risk aftermarket resale potential. Experimentals have horrible insurance costs. And low after market sales since few people want to risk flying an amateur built plane with non TSO'd avionics. Those that go that route are usually guys that are okay spending years building a plane and don't care about not recouping their labor/material costs in any subsequent resale.

Well you used worse case (RV-12 vs SR22T) to try an exaggerate a point. Still doesn't change the fact that a used RV-10 is comparable to a non turbo used Cirrus or Mooney.

You also exaggerate insurance costs. My insurance went up only $500 more annually for an EAB. Much of that was due to a higher hull estimate.

You're also assuming low after market sales for RVs. I haven't seen many nice RVs stay on Barnstormers for long. They're are plenty of pilots willing to accept non TSOd glass that is just as reliable as a TSOd steam production aircraft.

You should've added that it's difficult to find an A&P that'll work on an EAB while you're at it. Another misconception that gets perpetuated.

 

[Grum.Man]

The debate was centered on numbers of planes shipped RV v (Mooney+Cirrus); no specific model cited.

The RV10 is a 173kt plane, the SR22 is a 183kt plane (cruise). Kit planes are sweat equity products. To compare the number of kit/experimental RV10s shipped versus the factory built SR22 one would need to acknowledge that the SR22 owner gets a certified plane with no labor invested and a low risk aftermarket resale potential. Experimentals have horrible insurance costs. And low after market sales since few people want to risk flying an amateur built plane with non TSO'd avionics. Those that go that route are usually guys that are okay spending years building a plane and don't care about not recouping their labor/material costs in any subsequent resale.

There are a lot of people legally or not, building brand new RV-10s just to sale. Essentially you can buy a brand new RV-10 and not have to do any work at all. Look at the prices of used RV-10s versus SR-22. Used SR22 is going for almost half of what they are new while an rv10 is going for maybe 20-30 less than what you could build one for. Have you checked experimental insurance lately? For a given hull value they are very much in line with a certified airplane. Actually given a brand new RV10 and a brand new SR22 you will be paying less insurance since the amount covered on the policy will be half to a third of the certified airplane.

 

[Tantalum]

I know people love the Vans RVs but they just don't do anything special for me. The performance may be pretty decent but something about them just seems so plain. The experimental park used to be known for cool and envelope pushing designs. It's still awesome that people build and fly their own planes, but the Vans just doesn't for me =/

 

[Shepherd]

Since the engine alone costs more than that I would seriously question the sources sanity.

You miss an important point about how the supply chain works.
It costs you $30,000.00 for an engine, because that's what the engine manufacturer charges you. When a major aircraft manufacturer builds an engine it costs them considerably less and when they sell it to a Cessna or Mooney, it's at a cost plus a small profit.
When I was at IBM I did a special ECM design project for a famous aircraft engine manufacturer. I bought 4 new engines for the project, at manufacturers cost. I paid less than $5,000.00 a piece for them, delivered.
I know there is a huge mark-up on everything aviation related.

 

[zaitcev]

The RV10 is a 173kt plane, the SR22 is a 183kt plane (cruise).

I'm glad you walked back the erroneous 120kt figure that you were throwing around recently.

 

[citizen5000]

I'm glad you walked back the erroneous 120kt figure that you were throwing around recently.

I walked back nothing. The original presmise was that ALL RVs out-sell ALL Cirrus and Mooney. I noted that you can't compare the RV experimental kits (including the 120kt factory built SLSA RV) and Cirrus/Mooney are factory built certified aircraft.

Even more fun? How many kits are sold that are never completed? Isn't it in the 50% range? That would mean the total kit sales also can't be compared to factory planes since 100% of factory planes are flown.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

But....aren't there more kits completed every year than new aircraft rolling off the plant floor?

 

[wanttaja]

A question had come up regarding the relative production rate of Mooney vs. Cirrus vs. Vans aircraft. I'm back from my trip, and have run the numbers.

I went into this in a bass-ackward way to avoid merely accepting published production figures. I took the January 2017 FAA aircraft registry, and identified the aircraft that were registered then, but not registered in the beginning of 2016.

(why not use the "Model Year" field in the FAA records? Because over 40% of the "New in 2016" list didn't have an entry in that field).

However, this was only a rough cut. This also caught aircraft that had merely had their N-number changed, or had been re-registered after the owner previously failed to submit his 3-year update.

First, then, I eliminated aircraft known to have not been produced in 2016... Cessna 150s, Piper PA-140s, etc. I eliminated any aircraft that listed a model year before 2015 (2015 models eliminated later). I included only single-engine recip aircraft.

Then, I sorted the aircraft by make, model, and serial number, and made a guestimate as to whether that aircraft was a 2015 or 2016 model. If the serial number was in a range of 2016 ones, it was obviously a 2016 model. If it was one number higher than a 2015 one, it was probably a 2015. Using this method, I was able to make a reasonable assumption for Model Year for all but about 17 aircraft. I retained those aircraft in my results. At the conclusion of this process, the 2015 Model Year aircraft were removed from the list.

Blah, blah, blah. Here's the results:

AVIAT AIRCRAFT INC : 20
Beech/Textron: 38
CESSNA/Textron: 225
CIRRUS DESIGN CORP: 278
CZECH SPORT AIRCRAFT: 20
DIAMOND AIRCRAFT : 49
ICON AIRCRAFT: 14
Mooney : 5
Piper: 117
Robinson Helicopter: 91
Vans: 267

This does not include any international sales, of course, but there's not much reason one type would stand out more than any other in that regard.

[Edit: Deletion of reference to RV N-Number changes]

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

After posting my previous, I realized that the separate listing I had for RV n-number changes was, essentially, not needed since most, if not all of the N-Number changes had included a Model Year which would have eliminated them from consideration anyway.

The numbers on the list don't change, just the comment that the RV numbers might be lower due to N-Number changes. They were included in the original tally.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[unsafervguy]

You can't compare a kit built experimental 120kt plane to fully factory built, certified 220kt planes. The RV is in a completely different market niche of price, capability and performance.

shows how little you know about anything except a cirrus, the only way a rv will cruise at 120 kts if if you only run 13 inches/mp. the two seat line cruises at 170kts and the max on a RV-10 is 183kts, by the way that is the same speed as cirrus lists for the sr-22 with 50 more HP. by the way the cirrus webpage shows the sr-22t at 213kts not 220kts. yes they are a different niche same performance but 700k cheaper, you just have to build it.

 

[unsafervguy]

After posting my previous, I realized that the separate listing I had for RV n-number changes was, essentially, not needed since most, if not all of the N-Number changes had included a Model Year which would have eliminated them from consideration anyway.

The numbers on the list don't change, just the comment that the RV numbers might be lower due to N-Number changes. They were included in the original tally.

Ron Wanttaja

ron, i love your ability to crunch numbers. the data that you come up with is amazing.

 

[citizen5000]

shows how little you know about anything except a cirrus, the only way a rv will cruise at 120 kts if if you only run 13 inches/mp. the two seat line cruises at 170kts and the max on a RV-10 is 183kts, by the way that is the same speed as cirrus lists for the sr-22 with 50 more HP. by the way the cirrus webpage shows the sr-22t at 213kts not 220kts. yes they are a different niche same performance but 700k cheaper, you just have to build it.

There are 8 RV models. One of them is the only Vans factory made RV-12 SLSA (the one I referred to in the earlier post). The RV-12 cruises at 112 ktas (oddly slower than the allowed 120ktas for SLSA).

The original post tried to make a comparison between ALL RVs and ALL Cirrus/Mooney sales. Later Velocity compared the RV-10 to the Cirrus SR22. That comparison shows the 173ktas RV-10 is slightly slower cruising than 183ktas SR22 but close enough to make an apple-apple comparison in regard to other elements. Still, the RV-10 is a kit/experimental and the Cirrus of course is a factory mad certified aircraft.

But the ultimate point is: is it appropriate to compare kit/experimentals to factory made certified planes in regard to sales? IMHO it is not. Others disagree. Not a big deal really.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

well....but, my Bonanza is faster than all those.....and it didn't cost me Cirrus money.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

A question had come up regarding the relative production rate of Mooney vs. Cirrus vs. Vans aircraft. I'm back from my trip, and have run the numbers.

I went into this in a bass-ackward way to avoid merely accepting published production figures. I took the January 2017 FAA aircraft registry, and identified the aircraft that were registered then, but not registered in the beginning of 2016.

(why not use the "Model Year" field in the FAA records? Because over 40% of the "New in 2016" list didn't have an entry in that field).

However, this was only a rough cut. This also caught aircraft that had merely had their N-number changed, or had been re-registered after the owner previously failed to submit his 3-year update.

First, then, I eliminated aircraft known to have not been produced in 2016... Cessna 150s, Piper PA-140s, etc. I eliminated any aircraft that listed a model year before 2015 (2015 models eliminated later). I included only single-engine recip aircraft.

Then, I sorted the aircraft by make, model, and serial number, and made a guestimate as to whether that aircraft was a 2015 or 2016 model. If the serial number was in a range of 2016 ones, it was obviously a 2016 model. If it was one number higher than a 2015 one, it was probably a 2015. Using this method, I was able to make a reasonable assumption for Model Year for all but about 17 aircraft. I retained those aircraft in my results. At the conclusion of this process, the 2015 Model Year aircraft were removed from the list.

Blah, blah, blah. Here's the results:

AVIAT AIRCRAFT INC : 20
Beech/Textron: 38
CESSNA/Textron: 225
CIRRUS DESIGN CORP: 278
CZECH SPORT AIRCRAFT: 20
DIAMOND AIRCRAFT : 49
ICON AIRCRAFT: 14
Mooney : 5
Piper: 117
Robinson Helicopter: 91
Vans: 267

This does not include any international sales, of course, but there's not much reason one type would stand out more than any other in that regard.

[Edit: Deletion of reference to RV N-Number changes]

Ron Wanttaja

Nerd

 

[denverpilot]

Cirrus is almost sold out through 2017. They took the approach of lower numbers, higher quality, higher margins ...

Wait, what...? Are you saying their 800 aircraft year was all "lower quality"?

Cirrus also has the industrys biggest repeat customer base.

Some... at least some... of that is, "Man this SR20 is slow... I kinda wanted a Mooney or something that fast... oh look... the SR22!"

I'm not sure "repeat customer" is a great statistic to have in the new airplane biz. If your customer base thought they got what they needed the first time around... they probably wouldn't be back for seconds... so to speak...

Anyone here actually work for Cessna, or Mooney or any of the other aircraft producers?
I was at a meet and greet a few years ago and was talking with a guy who claimed that it cost Cessna less than $30,000.00 to build a fully loaded C-182 and that all the rest was mark-up.
Anyone have any real numbers to share?

I bet even if someone did, they'd have to be retired and not worried about the company coming after them in some way... companies don't like people who publish their real internal numbers, as a general rule.

A question had come up regarding the relative production rate of Mooney vs. Cirrus vs. Vans aircraft. I'm back from my trip, and have run the numbers.
AVIAT AIRCRAFT INC : 20
Beech/Textron: 38
CESSNA/Textron: 225
CIRRUS DESIGN CORP: 278
CZECH SPORT AIRCRAFT: 20
DIAMOND AIRCRAFT : 49
ICON AIRCRAFT: 14
Mooney : 5
Piper: 117
Robinson Helicopter: 91
Vans: 267

I was sitting here trying to decide if that means we're wrecking them faster or slower than they're being made... but then I realized, you're "the man" on the accident numbers, too... what'cha think? Steady-state?*

*Not including ramp rot aircraft, of course... but out of the active stuff... are pilots breaking more of them than are being made by a significant numbers margin?

 

[GRG55]

The problem is, how much of that 50-year-old design is still hand labor?

Vans sells RV kits so (relatively) cheap because they've extensively invested in Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) manufacturing. Stick a big sheet of aluminum in a machine, and out pops nearly-ready-to-assemble parts.

Has Cessna converted the 172/182 line to CNC? I kind of doubt it.

Ron Wanttaja

Not sure how you define "nearly ready to assemble". The matched hole CNC parts Vans produces still require significant labor for assembly. The holes still have to be drilled out to final rivet size, de-burred, many of the pieces have to be dimpled (both matching parts individually), put back together with clecos and then, finally, the riveting starts.

The big advantage of the matched hole drilling kits is eliminating the need to build a large jig table.

I suspect both Cessna and Piper have sufficient productivity tools and industrial jigs to assemble their parts faster than even an experienced, "repeat offender", RV builder.

But then again, if they only sell a couple of dozen of any given model # in a year, each one for more than most people spend to buy a home, what's the point of trying to automate things to build small production runs faster or cheaper?

 

[denverpilot]

...de-blurred...

I like that autocorrect.

 

[GRG55]

I like that autocorrect.

FTFM (fixed that for myself).

Stupid computers. Artificial intelligence my azz.

Note: my iPad tried to turn that last word into "Aztec". I am not joking.

 

[dennyleeb]

Wait, what...? Are you saying their 800 aircraft year was all "lower quality"?

Overall fit and finish was not close to what it is today. I have owned both.

 

[wanttaja]

Nerd

I shall take my toys and go elsewhere.

Nahhhhh. Just completed my analysis of the accident rate for a number of production-type aircraft, and will post when I'm done. Some of the numbers kind of surprised me. This means it's delayed a bit while I convince myself the results are reasonably accurate.

Ron "1+1=4, for large values of 1" Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

I was sitting here trying to decide if that means we're wrecking them faster or slower than they're being made... but then I realized, you're "the man" on the accident numbers, too... what'cha think? Steady-state?*

*Not including ramp rot aircraft, of course... but out of the active stuff... are pilots breaking more of them than are being made by a significant numbers margin?

Ramp rot is less of a problem than it used to be, with the implementation of the need for re-registering the aircraft every three years. The FAA annual activity report hasn't figured that out, but I'm seeing things a bit more reasonable.

Will post the analysis of the accident rates to a separate thread. Roughly speaking, my results are coming out to about 0.45% of the fleet suffering accidents each year. So we'll probably regulate them out of existence before we crash 'em all.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[denverpilot]

Overall fit and finish was not close to what it is today. I have owned both.

That's kinda sad, considering their marketing. Oh well. Thanks for sharing.

 

[dennyleeb]

That's kinda sad, considering their marketing. Oh well. Thanks for sharing.

They have raised their prices accordingly. To me its not much different than a 2007-2017 bmw. They are more expensive now but they continue to improve their product. Cirrus has been more drastic from a quality and cost perspective obviously

 

[denverpilot]

They have raised their prices accordingly.

To pay for the marketing?

Kidding. Just kidding.

 

[dennyleeb]

To pay for the marketing?

Kidding. Just kidding.

I bet the marketing cost on each airplane is shocking. However they do some very nice events for their customers. That marketing cost partially stays with the plane. The more desirable the fleet is as a whole the better the used market is for owners when they sell.

 

[GRG55]

[QUOTE="denverpilot, post: 2292103, member: 6717]...I'm not sure "repeat customer" is a great statistic to have in the new airplane biz. If your customer base thought they got what they needed the first time around... they probably wouldn't be back for seconds... so to speak...
[/QUOTE]

Don't agree with you on this point.

It's pretty clear Cirrus devotes considerable resources and effort to secure customers. Once they are successful, it's much less expensive to sell another airplane to an existing customer than it is to find a new one. From the 20, to the 22 & 22T, the G1 to G6, the "mandatory" options list and now the jet, Cirrus has done a pretty fine job building customer loyalty and giving them a reason to "move up" (and part with more of their money ). It's all in the art of persuading them they "need" something more than the Cirrus they already fly (how can one possibly live without that new wingtip lighting?).

I believe you were the one that observed some weeks ago that Cirrus was out your way giving Vjet demo rides, but seemed to be targeting their existing customers.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

I shall take my toys and go elsewhere.

Nahhhhh. Just completed my analysis of the accident rate for a number of production-type aircraft, and will post when I'm done. Some of the numbers kind of surprised me. This means it's delayed a bit while I convince myself the results are reasonably accurate.

Ron "1+1=4, for large values of 1" Wanttaja

Kidding. I'm wildly jealous of your data compiling ability. And your avatar is genius.

 

[denverpilot]

[QUOTE="denverpilot, post: 2292103, member: 6717]...I'm not sure "repeat customer" is a great statistic to have in the new airplane biz. If your customer base thought they got what they needed the first time around... they probably wouldn't be back for seconds... so to speak...

Don't agree with you on this point.

It's pretty clear Cirrus devotes considerable resources and effort to secure customers. Once they are successful, it's much less expensive to sell another airplane to an existing customer than it is to find a new one. From the 20, to the 22 & 22T, the G1 to G6, the "mandatory" options list and now the jet, Cirrus has done a pretty fine job building customer loyalty and giving them a reason to "move up" (and part with more of their money ). It's all in the art of persuading them they "need" something more than the Cirrus they already fly (how can one possibly live without that new wingtip lighting?).

I believe you were the one that observed some weeks ago that Cirrus was out your way giving Vjet demo rides, but seemed to be targeting their existing customers.[/QUOTE]

Of course it's cheaper to sell to someone who already bought one. Someone also has to sell off the used one. This is all much much easier when a "cult like following" feel is developed. This is modern marketing 101, see Apple. They're literally riding on it at this point. Not a single new better product that's worth the new price tag in quite a while, but they have the cult going. Same with Starbucks, Amazon, to a lesser extend car manufacturers, etc. People buy brand names because they have no ability to actually see what the guts of the products are made of.

That said, I think Cirrus has good products. But they know good marketing when they see it.

On the "they came out to show off the VJet to existing customers" thing, you left off the important part. Nobody bought. They've got a pricing problem on that jet, and ramping half of their production space away for it MIGHT be a huge mistake.

But they're certainly bold, to think their "repeat customers" will completely ignore anything else in that price range. They're up against a lot more aircraft in that space than the SR20 and SR22 were. Really depends on how many years they want to wait in their strategy for it to pay back.

We shall see. Nothing wrong with them trying.

 

[GRG55]

I wonder how many jets they have to sell to pay off the enormous development and certification costs?
Ferrari doesn't have to go through anywhere near the certification agony of a plane manufacturer, they sell their cars for about half what a Cirrus lists for, and they sold more than 8000 of them last year.

And perhaps a lot of those people that "didn't buy one" are already in the 600 unit Vjet pre-production que and this was a Cirrus' way of keeping them engaged and enthusiastic to hang in another year or three?

Arguably the greatest threat to piston aircraft makers is the next recession, whenever that might be. Being the dominant producer Cirrus has the most to lose, so the move upmarket into the jet (and clients that are perhaps better buffered from the economic cycle) may turn out to be strategically important.

As you said, we shall see.

 

[RudyP]

That's kinda sad, considering their marketing. Oh well. Thanks for sharing.

I'm not sure I get why that's sad? They have been improving product quality every year and the materials and fit and finish now are world class. Earlier G1 and G2 were much worse in retrospect but very much inline with other GA manufacturers back then (and still today since none of the others are making big improvements). I had a G2 and thought it was perfectly fine with a few small exceptions in interior quality. My late G3 is much nicer and somewhat similar to my Aston Martin's interior.

 

[GeorgeC]

LOVE your new avatar Ron!!

And your avatar is genius.

Can someone explain it to the challenged among us?