wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
The time & effort required for FAA certification will almost certainly kill it.
While not LSA-level, one would be better off with a Glasair.
Any chance for Mooney to Manufacture again?
- Thread starter supernovae
- Start date
The time & effort required for FAA certification will almost certainly kill it.
While not LSA-level, one would be better off with a Glasair.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Except it's not as fast, and burns a lot more fuel to go slower. Fuel is expensive these days.
Are we talking new Mooneys vs. new Cirri, or old Mooneys vs. new Cirri?
If the former, can you explain what you mean by "traditional airplane appointments"? Despite being 16 years old, the Ovation I'm flying right now has a very nice fit and finish, as do all the long-body Mooneys I've seen.As for the original question, I think there's a chance, but it's not going to happen soon. Mooneys squeak an awful lot of speed and range out of a gallon of avgas, and as avgas prices keep going up, sooner or later there'll be a point where a Mooney makes more sense. I don't think they need a new product, the Ovation (NA) and Acclaim (turbo) are fine birds, and with some fairly minor mods (such as the "G2/G3/GTS/GTSx/G5/Gwhatever" kind of stuff Cirrus does) they could come storming back.
The main problem is that very few people can afford to buy a new airplane of any brand right now.
Dav8or
Final Approach
Mooney has no tooling, drawings or the type certificate for the M10. It was sold off decades ago. They no longer support the type. Someone could probably turn the M10 into an LSA, but the last thing the LSA market needs is another LSA. Nobody seems to be making a whole lot of money over there either.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
My tour guide at the Mooney plant in 2007 was the QA/processes head man. When we discussed tooling and methods, I told him the shop floor in Kerrville looked just like the Beech floor in Wichita in the mid 60's and asked if any modernization technology was feasible. He said NFW, they would never be able to build them differently due to insufficient volume to justify the expense.
Except it's not as fast, and burns a lot more fuel to go slower. Fuel is expensive these days.
Are we talking new Mooneys vs. new Cirri, or old Mooneys vs. new Cirri?
As for the original question, I think there's a chance, but it's not going to happen soon. Mooneys squeak an awful lot of speed and range out of a gallon of avgas, and as avgas prices keep going up, sooner or later there'll be a point where a Mooney makes more sense. I don't think they need a new product, the Ovation (NA) and Acclaim (turbo) are fine birds, and with some fairly minor mods (such as the "G2/G3/GTS/GTSx/G5/Gwhatever" kind of stuff Cirrus does) they could come storming back.
The main problem is that very few people can afford to buy a new airplane of any brand right now.
jonnyjetprop
Cleared for Takeoff
Here is the root problem in aviation. No matter how good your product is, if you don't have the volume, it's not viable to produce.
poadeleted21
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,332
No, that question was for Rusty, read the posts. Rusty seems to think making money in aviation is a bad thing.
You are not going to start asking about my underwear again are you?
Considering aviation bought me a Bonanza and is responsible for more than half my household income, it seems you're incorrect.
Are we talking new Mooneys vs. new Cirri, or old Mooneys vs. new Cirri?
My experience is that recent Mooneys have excellent fit and finish. What makes them seem old to people who get into them is ingress/egress compared to a Cirrus which is more car like and the panel which is very different in appearance from a Cirrus. The Mooney panel is very flexible and allows easier avionics upgrades just like a 1960's era car is easier to make stereo upgrades on. The Cirrus looks like a modern car with all of the good and bad that brings i.e. it looks modern and designed as one unit but has less flexibility when it comes to upgrades.
I wouldn't call the Cirrus upgrades minor. G1 to G2 redesigned the fuselage. G2 to G3 redesigned the wing including moving from a fiberglass to a carbon fiber wing spar. The FIKI design work was major. The G5 adds 200# of useful load and flap extension speed goes from 119 to 150. That's major. With the G5 the wing spar was redesigned again as was the chute and the gear. A G5 Cirrus is very different form a G1. I wish Mooney, Beech, Piper and Cessna had put as much effort into improving their planes. It would be a more exciting market.
Do the following to the Moony design. Add a pilot side door. Increase cabin width by 6 inches. Add at least 200# to the useful load. Redesign the panel making it lower for better forward visibility and make it look like a modern car. If you want to drop one of those, drop the panel redesign. I don't think these changes would be minor and I don't see Mooney ever having the resources to do them.
There is definitely a place for Mooney. It is a pilot's plane with excellent performance and a strong airframe and it looks great sitting on the ramp. The problem is that, in it's present form, it can never grab a majority of single engine sales. Considering the low total of single engine planes being sold, that's a huge problem. I don't see Mooney selling enough to be viable. Also, Cirrus isn't sitting still so the distance Mooney would need to cover to take a large percentage of sales keeps growing. Just look at what Cessna is going through. When Cessna bought Columbia the plane was very competitive and just needed more viable backing. Then Cirrus introduced FIKI. Now that Cessna appears to be adding FIKI to the Corvalis, you get a 200# useful load increase on the SR22. Ouch!
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Ya still gotta climb on the wing, right?
How's it so different?I'm not sure what the difference really is, in this age of glass panels. I don't think a Cirrus is *that* hard to upgrade, that center console is pretty much standard radio-stack width. But again, in the age of glass, the upgrades to the panel often aren't physical anyway.
Cirrus is just catching up to everyone else who's had all kinds of time to get their airplanes done right before Cirrus was born.
Mooney already has FIKI... Flap extension speed is 110 but that's OK because you've got gear you can drop at 140 that slows it down way better than flaps, and if you can't get it down to 140 there's speed brakes that you can use all the way up to Vne.I'm glad Cirrus has continued to improve their airplanes, but the big question is: Have they turned a profit? They keep getting sold off from foreign investor group to foreign investor group it seems, and if they were making big money the groups would keep 'em. The big problem is the cost of the FAA certification process - Cirrus sells enough airplanes that they've got more money to pump into R&D than the others, but they're still not able to do that AND make the big bucks. Sad state of affairs.
It's actually easier to get into the left seat of the Mooney than it is to get into the right seat, once you know what you're doing. Also, the oxygen system controls and cabin lighting would have to be moved somewhere.
Ah, but when you do that, you slow the plane down. Mooney's hallmark is speed and efficiency, and if they let go of that, how do they set themselves apart from the rest of the crowd? I bet your 6-inch cabin width increase would cost at least 15-20 knots at the same power/fuel flow.
Again, while I'd love this, it'd slow the plane down somewhat - a 200# increase in useful load means >200# increase in gross weight. Now, to achieve the same climb rates, you need more horsepower, you burn more fuel, etc.
I don't think the height of the panel is the problem... Comparing pictures of the Acclaim (G1000) with the Cirrus (Perspective, slightly bigger screens), I don't think there's a huge difference in the space there, and Cirrus puts the backup instruments down below where Mooney puts them to the side.
I think the difference is twofold: The panel is closer to the pilot in the Mooney, which I, as a tall guy, greatly appreciate - I can have the seat in a comfortable position with tons of legroom (another Mooney strong point, Al Mooney was 6'5") but still reach things on the panel without needing to lean forward. The second is that the plane sits at a +5º pitch angle when it's on the ground and has a much longer nose than the Cirrus (remember all that legroom, and the need to stuff a nose gear up in there too) so it is somewhat difficult to see over the nose on the ground.
Again, all of the above are possible, but they are all engineering tradeoffs. If you make the Mooney into a Cirrus, then *Nobody* will have a reason to buy one. Mooneys get sold to the pilots who want more speed and efficiency, want to be able to control their engine (IE RPM) themselves, who are tall and want a ton of legroom, etc.
I don't think the main difference between the Mooney and Cirrus (or Corvallis and Cirrus, or just about anyone and Cirrus) is the airplane. Cirrus makes a fine airplane, that's for sure - But their marketing is orders of magnitude better than everyone else's. I wish some of the other companies would follow their lead here and market to non-pilots (*especially* Cessna) and grow the community, rather than simply preaching to the choir the way they do. If Mooney had Cirrus' marketing department and Cirrus had Mooney's, I believe you'd see a near complete reversal in their respective fortunes.
Not really. NOBODY, even Cirrus, holds a majority of single-engine sales. The latest numbers I have put Cessna at 40.8% of the piston single market share, Cirrus at 29.9%, Diamond at 12.5%, Piper at 5.5%, Beech at 4.0%, and the rest trailing at ever more insignificant numbers.
DavidWhite
Final Approach
Even some of us not so tall guys still appreciate the extra Mooney legroom. In my 172 I felt like I was sitting on a bar stool when I was flying, in the Mooney I have a pimp lean going on. I feel like I'm driving a low rider *music*
"All my friends know the low-rider...."
"All my friends know the low-rider...."
Ya still gotta climb on the wing, right?
How many one door cars do you own?
Cirrus sold well with the old original design and could have just sat. Yes, Mooney had FIKI but Cirrus has been aggressive and took that selling point away.
Sorry but that is just plane funny coming from a Mooney fan.
I agree but volume at least keeps them able to continue to move forward. The real issue is the downward spiral of GA in general. If Cirrus advertises to attract non-pilots then they get slammed. GA continues to shoot itself in the foot. Pilots talk about the need for more stringent training and slam advancements like BRS. Go look at training in the '50s and you will see that it is much more intense today.
I didn't think so when I got into one and initial impressions matter when you are trying to sell a product.
I agree that widening the cockpit and increasing the useful load would probably slow the plane down. Mooney aims at efficiency. You can design a car to maximize mileage but I doubt it will be the mainstream car. Cars like the Camry and Accord are careful balances of efficiency, room, performance and cost. That's why Mooney will be at best a niche player. Mooney is skewed toward efficiency. Just consider useful load. Run the numbers on a FIKI turbo Mooney. When I did it the plane with full fuel in the long range tanks had less than 200# of useful load left. It was a good one person traveling plane. Most people want a plane that easily carries two adults and two kids on trips. That's why the useful load increase on the Cirrus G5 is such a big deal. Cirrus changed to 2+1 rear seating because people were moving out of a Cirrus when their third child was born. Piper's sales are in the 6 seat area where a Cirrus won't do. At one COPA Migration event Piper was the main sponsor and was showing off the Malibu and Meridian as step up planes from the SR22; especially when your family out grew the Cirrus.
I too prefer where the backup instruments are on the Mooney and on the Corvalis for that matter. What I meant by the panel was really just part of the overall outward visibility difference. Coming for 172/182 land I was surprised the first time I landed a Cirrus and could see the runway straight ahead even in the flair. To non-pilot passengers the Cirrus feels more car like with the lower glareshield and large amount of glass area. The glareshield can be lower since you can use the space where a conventional yoke would go.
I don't know about legroom but in general I agree. The prop control comment is interesting. It's sort of like getting a stick shift in your car. I love sports cars with stick shifts and have owned several but I wouldn't want it in an Accord.
I don't think it's that simple but I do agree with a lot of what you are saying. The pilot community is at fault too. They slam Cirrus with their star studded ads and their speaking of GA flying as a "time machine." Yet Mooney has done the same types of ads. However, Mooney lacks BRS which is attractive to non-pilots in particular. The one door loading may be fine once you master the art but it doesn't have a large wife acceptance factor. More room and more useful load may slow you down but it makes passengers more comfortable and makes for more of a family plane.
You are correct and I mis-spoke. The SR22 is the largest selling certified aircraft. Still, I was wrong.
I hope you understand that I really like the more recent Mooney's. I tried to get my ex to like one when we were married. Her reaction made me aware of the challenges for Mooney. If the numbers look awesome, the plane flies very well and it is very pretty (ramp appeal) but just getting in and out causes your spouse to say "No way" then there is an issue.
jonnyjetprop
Cleared for Takeoff
I like Mooneys. I got my commercial in one. I was able to rent a 231 back in the golden era too.
IMHO, here's where they got killed. They stopped making parts accessible and in a timely manor. Future aircraft owners want support. I want to be able to call somebody in Kerrville who knows what's going on with my plane and get the parts I need to get flying. I don't want an orphan aircraft. Ask folks on Mooneyspace about getting things like flight control surfaces and gear doors. I've been hearing that things are slowly getting better, but I think the jury is still out. You can talk smack about Cirrus, Piper, Cessna or Beech. I can still get parts for most models. I think that Cessna might be the leader in this department. The last thing I would want was a plane layed up for months trying to find replacement parts. Sure most parts aren't solely provided by the airframe manufacture, but it only takes one.
I think, bottom line, is that in the declining market, niche players like Mooney may dry up.
IMHO, here's where they got killed. They stopped making parts accessible and in a timely manor. Future aircraft owners want support. I want to be able to call somebody in Kerrville who knows what's going on with my plane and get the parts I need to get flying. I don't want an orphan aircraft. Ask folks on Mooneyspace about getting things like flight control surfaces and gear doors. I've been hearing that things are slowly getting better, but I think the jury is still out. You can talk smack about Cirrus, Piper, Cessna or Beech. I can still get parts for most models. I think that Cessna might be the leader in this department. The last thing I would want was a plane layed up for months trying to find replacement parts. Sure most parts aren't solely provided by the airframe manufacture, but it only takes one.
I think, bottom line, is that in the declining market, niche players like Mooney may dry up.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
That go 200 mph at 18 mpg? None.
I say that because more doors = more drag due to the inherent crack between the door and the frame. That's part of the reason for this one-door car:
Hey, I never said Mooney was the most financially sound company - They aren't and never have been, but they have a good product so they keep bouncing back.
Yup. We are often our own worst enemy.
I've never seen a single airplane that was truly easy to get into. You have to know how, whether it's a Cirrus or a Cessna or anything else. If they didn't give you some advice on how to get in, they failed. I'm 6'4" 300# but I can get into a J-3 Cub just fine, ever since someone told me the easy way to do it!
So is the Prius, but it still sells - It doesn't sell as well as the Camry, but it attracts a different buyer. Same with Mooney - If you get rid of what distinguishes your product, what do you have? Against a marketing department like that of Cirrus, you have nothing.
True - And even without the turbo and FIKI, the Ovation's full-fuel payload is 495 pounds. However, with full tanks I can go over 6 hours (including extra fuel for the climb) with a generous reserve at the end, and that gives me a 1,040-nm range with reserves. That's an awful lot of butt-in-the-seat time, but it also means I have a lot of flexibility when it comes to loading. I've had 4 larger-than-average adults in the Ovation as well, with fuel for the mission plus reserves.
The newer Mooneys have even worse numbers due to a really insane fuel capacity - "Long Range" tanks on an Acclaim is an additional 41 gallons (246 pounds) above what I have, and you'd have to be damn-near insane to actually use it, especially with pax. So, it allows one insane person (that would be the pilot, of course) to have amazing range, speed, and efficiency... Or it allows that pilot to take family and friends on legs as long as they'll tolerate anyway.
It also gives you the ability to buy a LOT of fuel where you can get it cheap, and skip the expensive fuel stops.
Cirri are just really damn noisy at 2500 RPM, and I much prefer to run most of the planes I fly at 2200-2300 RPM and full throttle (so, say, 7000 MSL, 23 squared). I really don't like how to pull back to even 2500 RPM you have to pull back manifold pressure simultaneously, and you can't run at anything less than 2500 until you're out of the governing range. Really, if they wanted to talk about ease of use they should have gone FADEC right from the start.
Yep... And that's one of the biggest pluses for the BRS/CAPS system, that's a huge wife acceptance factor, and we all know, if mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy!
Attachments
IASCIIart --- on the iPad so a pain to quote. The SR22T is supposed to be a lot quieter than my plane. Mine is definitely noisy. Quiet my SR22 isn't. As for FADEC, I saw a system in a Cirrus when I was at Continental. It was very complex. It looked heavy and expensive but it was great to start by pushing a button. I do believe FADEC will eventually come to be.
You are correct about BRS selling planes. I know a guy who looked at an SR 22 but was leaning towards a nice used 182 because it was a lot cheaper. His wife looked at him and said "You're going to feel very stupid about 10 seconds before you go splat when you think 'I could have had a chute.' Get the Cirrus."
Back on the subject of Mooney, the current new plane market is too small to support a niche plane like the Mooney. If 5000 new SEL planes were getting sold each year maybe it would be different.
You are correct about BRS selling planes. I know a guy who looked at an SR 22 but was leaning towards a nice used 182 because it was a lot cheaper. His wife looked at him and said "You're going to feel very stupid about 10 seconds before you go splat when you think 'I could have had a chute.' Get the Cirrus."
Back on the subject of Mooney, the current new plane market is too small to support a niche plane like the Mooney. If 5000 new SEL planes were getting sold each year maybe it would be different.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Not too tough when it's 10,000 feet higher.
I'm just surprised that it's not already here, especially for Cirrus.
Actually, it is here. It's just that the only certified GA plane that has it standard (AFAIK) is the Diamond DA42.
In 2007, according to GAMA, there were 2,417 single-engine piston airplanes shipped, 2,097 of which were made in the US. 79 of them were Mooneys. That put them in 6th place overall, behind Cessna, Cirrus, Diamond, Piper, and Columbia (which hadn't yet been bought by Cessna). They were ahead of Raytheon/Hawker Beechcraft, American Champion, Maule, and Gippsland which still seem to be doing fine (though Hawker Beech obviously had many non-SEP products as well).
I still maintain that Mooney could make it in a better market, especially with avgas prices going ever higher. Their MO right now appears to be to survive until that better market appears. I wish them luck.
Dav8or
Final Approach
Nope. There is also the Liberty XL2. A neat little plane that is often forgotten.
murphey
Touchdown! Greaser!
Have there been any other female CEOs of Mooney?
(*grins*)
Last I heard, they were considering an RV with 3 wheels.
Not too tough when it's 10,000 feet higher.
The turbos take out a lot of noise.
Expense and weight. On the DA42 I believe it is only on the diesel version. The Liberty is the only Otto cycle engine plane I know of.
Beech doesn't count based on the King Air alone. Maule is a small, family business. They don't compete with a much higher volume competitor. If Cirrus and the Corvalis disappeared Mooney would have a better chance.
I agree. Sports cars sell because they don't need large market share to be viable. The volume however still goes to the Camry and Accord.
gkainz
Final Approach
Alexb2000
En-Route
Just a comment on Cirrus vs. Mooney.
Even as late as 2008 Mooney's idea of marketing was to talk speed to a group of pilots at some venue like Oshkosh, 99.9999% of which couldn't afford a new Mooney on a bet. In other words they were wasting their time and energy.
Marketing piston aircraft isn't hard at all. You take out a full page ad in every airline magazine, lifestyle magazine, travel magazine, and NONE in an aviation publication. The guy or gal sitting in first class, upset about another 3 hour delay, reads the magazine out of sheer boredom.... Wait a minute, this might be the answer to some of my hassles with commercial air travel and it also looks FUN.
They go to the Cirrus site, celebrities on video talking about how great they are, cool hip looking executives talking about taking an airplane skiing for the weekend in Jackson Hole, in the background a modern state of the art looking facility. Yup, this is something I should check out.
When they do check it out, some young good looking very positive salesperson talks about how FUN, EASY, and SAFE flying is and how great it would be as a business tool. They don't send some bitter old curmudgeon to tell them how they need two years of training, lots of study on the FAR/AIM, tests, and that they're going to scare the crap out of themselves a few times and possibly die.
... the rest is history just like Mooney.
Even as late as 2008 Mooney's idea of marketing was to talk speed to a group of pilots at some venue like Oshkosh, 99.9999% of which couldn't afford a new Mooney on a bet. In other words they were wasting their time and energy.
Marketing piston aircraft isn't hard at all. You take out a full page ad in every airline magazine, lifestyle magazine, travel magazine, and NONE in an aviation publication. The guy or gal sitting in first class, upset about another 3 hour delay, reads the magazine out of sheer boredom.... Wait a minute, this might be the answer to some of my hassles with commercial air travel and it also looks FUN.
They go to the Cirrus site, celebrities on video talking about how great they are, cool hip looking executives talking about taking an airplane skiing for the weekend in Jackson Hole, in the background a modern state of the art looking facility. Yup, this is something I should check out.
When they do check it out, some young good looking very positive salesperson talks about how FUN, EASY, and SAFE flying is and how great it would be as a business tool. They don't send some bitter old curmudgeon to tell them how they need two years of training, lots of study on the FAR/AIM, tests, and that they're going to scare the crap out of themselves a few times and possibly die.
... the rest is history just like Mooney.
murphey
Touchdown! Greaser!
Point, Murphey.
They moved up to your neck of the woods last year, close to Jeffco. I see Karl at lunch every so often.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Like everyone BUT Cirrus, they preach to the choir.
Amen. Only Cirrus does this. Can you imagine how much better off aviation would be if the rest of the manufacturers could figure this out?
Cirrus Access was an excellent idea as well, too bad it doesn't appear to have caught on.
Was that the program where they sold a slave to fly it for you along with the plane ?
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Slave? It was a CFI job that paid WAY better and offered better flying than most.
But yes - The idea was, that newbie pilot who had lots of money and no experience could get immediate usefulness out of their new Cirrus as well as lots of real-world experience over the course of their training. They weren't allowed to solo until at least 50 hours to remove the "why haven't I soloed yet, I have 10 hours" thing, and the idea was that after one year of Cirrus ownership and training, they'd have their Private, Instrument, and lots of good experience.
It was a really well-designed program. Unfortunately, it didn't take off. I guess Type A's don't generally want to admit that they need such a thing.
'Slave' more in the sense of the educated greek and roman slaves who worked as teachers and professionals but didn't hold citizenship rights. I just found the idea to sell an employee along with the plane rather funny.
The folks who have the means to buy a new cirrus and are not afraid of having an employee probably figured out that they could get the same service without paying the 100% markup to Cirrus.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
They were actually given the opportunity to interview each other, so it was more of a mutual agreement than a "buy a person" kind of thing... But I see what you're saying, that is kinda funny.
I doubt they got as good of an instructor, though, and the instructor certainly didn't have access to the materials Cirrus developed for the program.
For the kind of money they were charging, you could probably find a good cirrus instructor and hire him on a straight salary. As for materials, I think the PTS for PPL and instrument are 9 bucks each at sportys, if you have a printer, you can download them for free from the FAA.
As I found out, it's easier to hire a flight instructor than a driver. Go figure.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
I think they were charging $70,000. You could certainly hire a good instructor for that, but I'm guessing the people who went that route either didn't hire a full-time instructor at all, or they hired a cheap one, not a good one.
Cirrus' program was much more detailed than that, though.
How so?
Flight instructors, have an interest to stick with a job as long as they get the hours they need. Anyone whose primary qualification is a drivers license has an array of jobs available, some with benefits and 401k. So unless you can offer that, it's hard to retain that type of employee.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
It comes back to bite them eventually... It doesn't look so good on the application when you've had 15 jobs in the last 12 months. (Yes, I've seen that for a driving job.)
Jaybird180
Final Approach
jonnyjetprop
Cleared for Takeoff
In aviation, you're expected to change jobs as you move up the ladder. You could tell who was a civilian trained pilot during the interview. He asked for many employment verification forms. The military guys only needed one or two.
Unless you've had then concurrently or successively or simultaneously