Money M10 cancelled, new design on the way

citizen5000 said:
Meanwhile Mooney is selling 7 planes a year.
Click to expand...

That is about as silly a statement as the claim earlier that 'there are twice as many Mooneys as Cirrus'. Yes, technically both statements are correct yet they are meaningless. The number of M20Cs rusting away in the back lot has no relation to 2001-2017 Cirrus sales and the 'New Mooney' had not started full production in CY '16.

It is however true that the New Mooney needs to look to Cirrus if they want to know how to sell 700+k aircraft to consumers who have good alternatives in the SR22 and TTX. So far, they are not doing a great job.
 
There is most certainly a dynamic however where if an airframe can be maintained for many many years, and a new version adds very minimal utility, reliability or quality over a 25 year old model, it doesn't help sales of new ones. I'm sure this is happening to Cirrus, and is certainly happening to Mooney. Most of the Mooney discussions I've seen are, wow beautiful airplane, but I won't pay 3x over a 10-20 year old model that is almost as good. It says something about the airplane that so many ones in the 50year old plus range are still going strong...

I hope that Cirrus' strategy isn't like appliance manufacturers or for that matter car manufacturers, to make sure their products get scrapped and replaced before too many years!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The reason cars are scrapped is because new ones are less expensive to buy than fixing an old one (per mile). The reason new ones are so inexpensive is becuase they build 100's of thousands of them.

There are plenty of old cars in Cuba from the 50's that have been fixed and re fixed because new cars simply werent available at any reasonable price.

Its mostly economics. With some hobby thrown in. Old stuff does get fixed as a hobby even though its not economic.

In 1999 you could buy a new Cessna 172 for 150k. You could buy a Toyota 4 Runner for 30k.
In 2017 you can buy a new Cessna 172 for 350k. A new Toyota 4 Runner costs 40k.

New planes have gotten a lot more expensive.
 
The cars of the 50s that you see in Cuba are totally different machines than what you see manufactured today. Today's cars are meant to be recycled and won't last forever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
That wasnt my point. The cars in Cuba were rebuilt because no new cars were available or were available at unaffordable prices. In the US, those same cars were scrapped. Why? Because new ones at affordable prices were available.

You seem to think the cars in Cuba were rebuilt because they were simple. Why werent those same model cars in the US rebuilt instead of scrapped.
 
gsengle said:
Most of the Mooney discussions I've seen are, wow beautiful airplane, but I won't pay 3x over a 10-20 year old model that is almost as good. It says something about the airplane that so many ones in the 50year old plus range are still going strong...
Click to expand...

I suspect that few people who say that they wouln't buy the 700k new model over the legacy ones actually could.

The only Mooneys 'almost as good' as the Ultra are Acclaim and Acclaim S. I haven't followed that market, but I doubt that the '3x' relationship holds true for those.
 
They were scrapped because new and better ones were developed. That's where the analogy breaks down and my point comes in. A 25 year old Mooney can be purchased that is just as nice and capable as a new one... how many cars look the same after 25 years....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OK. I see your point now. The new cars are better.

Yes, if I were going to spend close to 1 Million on an airplane, I'd want pressurization, deice, a heater fan, air conditioning and some other nice things that most cars have and GA planes don't have.

How many people can afford a million dollar airplane? AND the cost of flying it? AND the time and cost of being current? AND the insurance. For most of us, GA is a hobby. Entry starts around 30k purchase price and 10k a year to fly. A new airplane is just out of the question. A million dollars and 30k a year? Sure, if you have that kind of money, but how many do?
 
Exactly but the 25 year old Mooney is FIKI can have AC, WAAS, a top of the line autopilot, leather interior and so on... hard to justify buying a new one, they just don't wear out...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
The cars of the 50s that you see in Cuba are totally different machines than what you see manufactured today. Today's cars are meant to be recycled and won't last forever.
Click to expand...

They are also cobbled together vehicles. It may look like a Chevy on the outside, but not once you open the hood.
 
citizen5000 said:
The Evolutions have an optional BRS chute why doesn't Mooney? When selling 7 aircraft a year it would seem a company would be giving them away just to get the numbers up.
Click to expand...

You make it sound as though it's as simple as adding a new graphic on the side of the plane.

The Evolution is a non-certified basket of parts. That's what you are buying. A airplane in the Experimental category that has to be assembled.

For Mooney, or any other certified aircraft maker, to add a chute would require going through the expensive and extensive process of testing the modification and FAA certifying the modification.

Given Cessna + Piper combined sell almost 5 training airplanes for each SR20 Cirrus pushed out last year I think the popular meme that it's the chute that sells the plane is to be questioned.
 
gsengle said:
They were scrapped because new and better ones were developed. That's where the analogy breaks down and my point comes in. A 25 year old Mooney can be purchased that is just as nice and capable as a new one... how many cars look the same after 25 years....
Click to expand...

What 25 year old Mooney has the performance and avionics of an Ultra ?
 
The Ovations specs haven't changed much over the years. Started life in 1994. They all pretty much are WAAS capable now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
The Ovations specs haven't changed much over the years. Started life in 1994. They all pretty much are WAAS capable now.
Click to expand...

Both apple and pineapple contain the word stem 'apple'.
 
gsengle said:
There is most certainly a dynamic however where if an airframe can be maintained for many many years, and a new version adds very minimal utility, reliability or quality over a 25 year old model, it doesn't help sales of new ones. I'm sure this is happening to Cirrus, and is certainly happening to Mooney. Most of the Mooney discussions I've seen are, wow beautiful airplane, but I won't pay 3x over a 10-20 year old model that is almost as good. It says something about the airplane that so many ones in the 50year old plus range are still going strong...

I hope that Cirrus' strategy isn't like appliance manufacturers or for that matter car manufacturers, to make sure their products get scrapped and replaced before too many years!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The first big bore 6 banger was in 1994 with an IO550G.
The G1000 was introduced in the Ovation 12 years ago.
In the last 13 years Mooney delivered 381 airplanes per the GAMA reports
That same period Cirrus delivered 4,818.

I don't get how one could say the older 4 & 6 banger Mooney with steam gauges are the reason they can't move new 6 bangers with the G1000.

The numbers make Mooney look like a novelty.
 
Because a lot of pilots appreciate that while nice, a G1000 isn't worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, when the plane with the 530 with flight director, hsi and autopilot has exactly the same utility and can fly all the same approaches. It's nice to have but sorry it's the same plane. Just as fast just as much load and so on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Besides you a pilot or do you just program a mean autopilot...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
citizen5000 said:
The recession bankrupted Mooney but Cirrus survived and today is back up to 320 planes per year at substantially higher margins and pricing (are growing 20% per year).
Click to expand...

Actually, both Mooney and Cirrus were equally bankrupt, and both were bought and saved by Chinese interests.

The Cirrus tribe likes to gloss over the transition, but in 2011, when the Chinese visited Duluth after the purchase, a funny thing happened. Someone hang a banner across the building: "Welcome Our Chinese Partners!" The Chinese were insulted. "We are OWNERS not partners", they said. The banner had to come down promptly. This sort of put-down is what bankrupcy and change of ownership involves. And it looks like it was necessary.

The main difference between the takeovers of Cirrus and Mooney by the Chinese was that Cirrus was a much tastier piece of pie, thanks to their piston market share and the upcoming jet. So, it attracted the attention of aviation investors who knew what they were doing. But Dr. Chen was a bridge to some real estate money in China.
 
zaitcev said:
Actually, both Mooney and Cirrus were equally bankrupt, and both were bought and saved by Chinese interests.

The Cirrus tribe likes to gloss over the transition, but in 2011, when the Chinese visited Duluth after the purchase, a funny thing happened. Someone hang a banner across the building: "Welcome Our Chinese Partners!" The Chinese were insulted. "We are OWNERS not partners", they said. The banner had to come down promptly. This sort of put-down is what bankrupcy and change of ownership involves. And it looks like it was necessary.

The main difference between the takeovers of Cirrus and Mooney by the Chinese was that Cirrus was a much tastier piece of pie, thanks to their piston market share and the upcoming jet. So, it attracted the attention of aviation investors who knew what they were doing. But Dr. Chen was a bridge to some real estate money in China.
Click to expand...

Cirrus was better off for a number of reasons, not least because years earlier controlling interest in the company had been sold to the (formerly) deep pocketed Arcapita, an Arab investment bank headquartered in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Arcapita found itself overextended when the global financial crisis rolled around to that part of the world circa 2009/10. Hence the need to find another owner.
 
start making carbon M20J's and K's use the saved weight to put doors on each side, pack a chute, and a bigger baggage door. Price the M20J at the SR20 price (550 ish loaded)and the K at the SR22 price (750ish loaded). I don't see why that wouldn't sell. And only sticking IO360's in there it should be 100% doable
 
TheGolfPilot said:
start making carbon M20J's and K's use the saved weight to put doors on each side, pack a chute, and a bigger baggage door. Price the M20J at the SR20 price (550 ish loaded)and the K at the SR22 price (750ish loaded). I don't see why that wouldn't sell. And only sticking IO360's in there it should be 100% doable
Click to expand...

This brings up an interesting thought I have also had. The carbon fiber cabin top, and door addition, only required a partial re-certification for Mooney. It sounds like it was relatively cheap and easy. So what would the certification process be if you made the entire fuselage carbon fiber, and left the wing structure and spare system the same as it currently is? What if you did make the exact same design but made it all carbon fiber? Would that also be considered an amended certification like the Ultra's were? Would this offer makers like Piper, Cessna, and Mooney a quick and less expensive way to save weight, add a BRS, and increase sales? We would still be saddled with 50 year old designs, but it could prove a very cost effective pathway to boost the industry, and give the Traditional manufacturers money and some time for new clean slate designs.
 
drotto said:
This brings up an interesting thought I have also had. The carbon fiber cabin top, and door addition, only required a partial re-certification for Mooney. It sounds like it was relatively cheap and easy. So what would the certification process be if you made the entire fuselage carbon fiber, and left the wing structure and spare system the same as it currently is? What if you did make the exact same design but made it all carbon fiber? Would that also be considered an amended certification like the Ultra's were? Would this offer makers like Piper, Cessna, and Mooney a quick and less expensive way to save weight, add a BRS, and increase sales? We would still be saddled with 50 year old designs, but it could prove a very cost effective pathway to boost the industry, and give the Traditional manufacturers money and some time for new clean slate designs.
Click to expand...

The load carrying structure of the forward fuselage of a Mooney is the steel tube cage. The rest of the airplane is monocoque with the skins an integral part of the load carrying structure. That is why it was relatively easy to re-cert the forward skin changes. Other than the LH door mod it didn't change the existing certified structure. Won't be so easy to change out the load carrying structure of a Mooney, Piper or Cessna.

And you should dispel the notion that composite airplanes are lighter than aluminum monocoque. The Cirrus airframe, even before the owners stuff it with all the goodies they seem to like, is not lightweight.
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
Everyone is getting killed in sales by the only airplane with a Parachute. So what does Mooney do, they add a door.
Click to expand...

The parachute is only half of the safety system, the fixed gear absorbs the impact force (the plane still falling quickly even with the chute). I don't know if FAA would accept retract even if it auto extended the gear.
 
teejayevans said:
The parachute is only half of the safety system, the fixed gear absorbs the impact force (the plane still falling quickly even with the chute). I don't know if FAA would accept retract even if it auto extended the gear.
Click to expand...

They did on the Vision Jet. Quite frankly I don't think the retract is that big of a deterrent (i.e., they aren't losing many/any sales by not having one). Given the choice, I'd take my cirrus with fixed over retract. Don't need another point of failure. I go plenty fast and far as is.
 
teejayevans said:
I don't know if FAA would accept retract even if it auto extended the gear.
Click to expand...
They have - Cirrus SF50 is a retract. The magic is simple: if the plane meets Part 23 requirements without the chute, FAA does not care what happens if you pull the handle. I think it's more important to consider if the system actually is going to work rather than if its paperwork is in order.
 
MetalCloud said:
They did on the Vision Jet. Quite frankly I don't think the retract is that big of a deterrent (i.e., they aren't losing many/any sales by not having one). Given the choice, I'd take my cirrus with fixed over retract. Don't need another point of failure. I go plenty fast and far as is.
Click to expand...

But don't cha know, those extra 15 knots make all the difference.

Except when comparing old and new Mooneys, then 15 knots don't make a difference at all and the old is as good as the new. Or something like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top