Mooney gone?

Warmi said:
They don’t offer cars without seat belts now , do they?
Click to expand...
Comparing apples to typewriters there.

If any plane needs a parachute installed, it's the 737. When it gets to crazy, just shut the engines down and pop the chute.
 
H
Volzalum said:
Which brings the circle back to nothing else can get the mooney speeds on the mooney fuel burn.
Click to expand...
Sure, I don't think anyone was arguing that a Cirrus more is efficient (it's well known Mooney are a pack leader there), but when you look at the whole package you're going an overall comparable speed in what most people would consider a more comfortable and generally superior product. Hence the sales of 300+ vs 7
 
Shuswap BC said:
Comparing apples to typewriters there.

If any plane needs a parachute installed, it's the 737. When it gets to crazy, just shut the engines down and pop the chute.
Click to expand...
Given Boeing's design choices recently I could see the chute going off unannounced when the plane assumed it was crashing but really wasn't

I say this tongue in cheek
 
Shuswap BC said:
Comparing apples to typewriters there.

If any plane needs a parachute installed, it's the 737. When it gets to crazy, just shut the engines down and pop the chute.
Click to expand...
I am sure they were saying the same thing back then when seat belts were being introduced on the market ...
 
Tantalum said:
H

Sure, I don't think anyone was arguing that a Cirrus more is efficient (it's well known Mooney are a pack leader there), but when you look at the whole package you're going an overall comparable speed in what most people would consider a more comfortable and generally superior product. Hence the sales of 300+ vs 7
Click to expand...

Cupholders and marketing. I'd rather have an engine failure with the Mooney's cage and glide ratio than a parachute.

And you know that I like the SR22
 
N1120A said:
Cupholders and marketing. I'd rather have an engine failure with the Mooney's cage and glide ratio than a parachute.

And you know that I like the SR22
Click to expand...
it's actually a pretty incredible that the designers of 1960s era aircraft thought of putting cigarette lighters and ashtrays but not cup holders.. crazy town
 
N1120A said:
You can fly an Ovation 176 at 12.2 at non-oxygen altitudes. Or push it to 14.5 for 190. You're not doing that in a Cirrus.
Click to expand...

Volzalum said:
Which brings the circle back to nothing else can get the mooney speeds on the mooney fuel burn.
Click to expand...

Clearly for the last half dozen years there haven't been enough buyers that care enough about that (marginal) difference to choose a Mooney over a Cirrus.

Ten years later, post the 2008/09 financial crisis, the overall industry piston engine aircraft sales are half compared to 2007. Cirrus has followed that pattern; to be expected as it owns roughly 30% of the current market. But Mooney? Sales totally decimated compared to 2005/06/07 and no obvious recovery path despite a pretty good effort to try to improve the plane.


Tantalum said:
it's actually a pretty incredible that the designers of 1960s era aircraft thought of putting cigarette lighters and ashtrays but not cup holders.. crazy town
Click to expand...

No different from the designers of 1960s era automobiles.
 
Last edited:
Tantalum said:
H

Sure, I don't think anyone was arguing that a Cirrus more is efficient (it's well known Mooney are a pack leader there), but when you look at the whole package you're going an overall comparable speed in what most people would consider a more comfortable and generally superior product. Hence the sales of 300+ vs 7
Click to expand...

generally superior?:eek: You mean because it’s made of plastic?
 
steingar said:
You guys might like dumping on Mooney, but they last a lot longer than a lot of other airplane makers. How many of us are flying orphans?
Click to expand...
Which credit has to be granted to Piper.. they've stuck around and continue to build and focus primarily on the single engine (mostly piston) market. Cessna wouldn't exist if all they had were derivatives of the 182 design and no other revenue stream from their corporate market. A big issue with Mooney is their leadership and marketing, not necessarily the product itself per se

MBDiagMan said:
generally superior?:eek: You mean because it’s made of plastic?
Click to expand...
For all the reasons GRG55 said somewhere up thread. Not worth listing everything over again because it's been stated ad nauseum

In no way is the Cirrus the "best" airplane, but the market has proven that it's in higher demand than Mooney for the general buyer who's looking to spend $700K+ for a single engine piston.
 
Tantalum said:
Which credit has to be granted to Piper.. they've stuck around and continue to build and focus primarily on the single engine (mostly piston) market. Cessna wouldn't exist if all they had were derivatives of the 182 design and no other revenue stream from their corporate market. A big issue with Mooney is their leadership and marketing, not necessarily the product itself per se


For all the reasons GRG55 said somewhere up thread. Not worth listing everything over again because it's been stated ad nauseum

In no way is the Cirrus the "best" airplane, but the market has proven that it's in higher demand than Mooney for the general buyer who's looking to spend $700K+ for a single engine piston.
Click to expand...

I for one would never consider Mooney ... Cirrus or DA40 ... so yeah, to me and apparently just about everyone with $700k to spend , Cirrus is much better plane.
 
There are many reasons why ... not all of them tangible or relevant to others .. and of course it is my personal opinion - but I think for many it boils down to ... if you are about to spend so much money on a new plane, why invest into a decades old design when there are much more modern alternatives with more active development.
 
300 lbs more useful load on Cirrus 22, even with the chute
 
Some of you get rather hostile, about what others like to fly.
Lets face it, Mooney is a nice plane, so are Cirrus, Beech, Cessna, Maule, Piper, and on and on the list goes...
It is actually just really damn cool to own a plane and buzz around in it, regardless of who makes it.
Heck I really like a bunch of kit planes to, all except for the building them part. But I will likely within the next year buy one that somebody else has completed.
 
MBDiagMan said:
In YOUR opinion.
Click to expand...

In the market's opinion. Proof is in the sales numbers. Mooneys are neat airplanes, no doubt about it, and your opinion is that Mooney is the best for you. One datum does not make a market, unfortunately.

Shuswap BC said:
Some of you get rather hostile, about what others like to fly.
Lets face it, Mooney is a nice plane, so are Cirrus, Beech, Cessna, Maule, Piper, and on and on the list goes...
It is actually just really damn cool to own a plane and buzz around in it, regardless of who makes it.
Heck I really like a bunch of kit planes to, all except for the building them part. But I will likely within the next year buy one that somebody else has completed.
Click to expand...

That probably is rooted in our tendency to try to put everything in those "us verses them" categories that people are so good at, from car choice to sports teams to politics. It ends up being toxic and detrimental and we forget that we have way more in common than different.
 
steingar said:
You guys might like dumping on Mooney, but they last a lot longer than a lot of other airplane makers. How many of us are flying orphans?
Click to expand...

Textron would love to orphan their piston fleet.
 
Try getting parts and support for legacy models, or older 172s. Their moneymakers are the turbines.
 
flyer770 said:
Try getting parts and support for legacy models, or older 172s. Their moneymakers are the turbines.
Click to expand...

10 months from the time my order was placed, till it is ready. They are not able to keep up with the demand. It was cool to get a tour of the place though when I went down to order it.
 
Shuswap BC said:
10 months from the time my order was placed, till it is ready. They are not able to keep up with the demand. It was cool to get a tour of the place though when I went down to order it.
Click to expand...

That's cool that they support current models. You'll be able to enjoy it for many years to come. Though again I'll state, try getting parts for the older versions that aren't interchangeable with current production models. The options are either dismantling operations, repairing what you've got, or owner produced parts.
 
flyer770 said:
Try getting parts and support for legacy models, or older 172s. Their moneymakers are the turbines.
Click to expand...
Huh? I've had a '58 C182A for 15+ years now, have done a LOT of work and upgrades to it and have had no problem finding any part thus far. Some from the OEM, some aftermarket.

Oh...and it has a properly designed tail on it also! ;)
 
Last edited:
flyer770 said:
In the market's opinion. Proof is in the sales numbers. Mooneys are neat airplanes, no doubt about it, and your opinion is that Mooney is the best for you. One datum does not make a market, unfortunately..
Click to expand...

Okay, so let me make sure I have it straight. You make a blanket statement that obviously is your opinion, but it is sales numbers rather than your opinion. THEN, because I have a different opinion it’s no good, because my plane was a market leader when it was built, but no longer.

IOW, my opinion is not valid, but you are entitled to yours.

Got it.

Sorry to break it to you, but the best product is not always the best seller.
 
Tantalum said:
Except for fixed gear :p
Click to expand...

M20D: sexy birds even with fixed gear.

image.jpg.875b54846d28fd6f102a3a2c25708225.jpg


m20d_1965.jpg
 
As I understand it there only three D’s that have never been converted to retractable gear.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Okay, so let me make sure I have it straight. You make a blanket statement that obviously is your opinion, but it is sales numbers rather than your opinion. THEN, because I have a different opinion it’s no good, because my plane was a market leader when it was built, but no longer.

IOW, my opinion is not valid, but you are entitled to yours.

Got it.

Sorry to break it to you, but the best product is not always the best seller.
Click to expand...

That’s not what I said at all. What I said was that you find your Mooney the best plane for you and your desires and needs, and that’s great. I’m glad that it’s the best airplane for you. But one plane type doesn’t work for everyone. That’s why there is a diverse market, one that constantly improves the products offered. A market leader fifty years ago doesn’t mean much nowadays if the market currently wants a different product. Your opinion is certainly as valid as mine. If you read it differently I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Oh, I’d rather own the Lada over the Lamborghini. More practical, much lower total cost of ownership, much less likelihood of theft. But since I live in a free market I’ll stick with my Chevy.
 
MBDiagMan said:
As I understand it there only three D’s that have never been converted to retractable gear.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine used to rent a converted D from his local flying club. Last year I ran into him at an airshow fly in. He was renting an Arrow. He said the Mooney got written off by the insurance company after another club member had a...you guessed it...gear up landing.
 
flyer770 said:
That’s not what I said at all. What I said was that you find your Mooney the best plane for you and your desires and needs, and that’s great. I’m glad that it’s the best airplane for you. But one plane type doesn’t work for everyone. That’s why there is a diverse market, one that constantly improves the products offered. A market leader fifty years ago doesn’t mean much nowadays if the market currently wants a different product. Your opinion is certainly as valid as mine. If you read it differently I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Oh, I’d rather own the Lada over the Lamborghini. More practical, much lower total cost of ownership, much less likelihood of theft. But since I live in a free market I’ll stick with my Chevy.
Click to expand...

...but that doesn’t mean that the Lada is better than the Lamborghini.
 
flyer770 said:
Textron would love to orphan their piston fleet.
Click to expand...

Shuswap BC said:
They are still selling 172s like hotcakes at a Denny's restaurant.
Click to expand...

A few figures from the GAMA Statisical Databook, 1.4c Worldwide Piston-Engine Airplane Shipments by Manufacturer (2005–2018)

For that period, the peak year for piston engine airplane deliveries was 2016 at 2755 units. After the Great Recession, the market bottomed out in 2010, at 962 deliveries, and has since recovered somewhat to where starting in 2013, the industry has been delivering 1200 - 1300 piston planes per year. This isn't an entirely apples to apples comparison, as starting in 2013 Tecnam joined GAMA, and they have been building 180-190 airplanes per year. Tecnam's pre-2013 sales aren't included in GAMA's totals, so the comparable figure for recent deliveries is closer to 1100 per year. That's a global figure, around two thirds of those airplanes wind up in the United States, the rest mostly go to Europe, Canada, and Australia.

In that peak year, Cessna delivered 865 piston singles, and no twins. That's 31% of the global total. In 2018, Cessna delivered 193 piston airplanes, which is 17% of the global total. 193 airplanes is the fewest piston engines they have delivered in that time period, fewer than any year in the depths of the Great Recession. My best guess is that Cessna could sell more Skyhawks, Skylanes, and Turbo Stationairs than they are currently building, but have no desire to. My suspicion is that the reason they are building piston singles at all is to keep their production facility open until the two new turbine airplanes they have announced are ready for sale, and as soon as that production capability is needed for those airplanes, the piston singles go out of production. I have no actual knowledge, of course, and could be totally wrong.

In 2005, Piper delivered fewer than 24% as many piston airplanes as did Cessna, while in 2018 they produced 80% as many. So far in 2018, Cessna has delivered 121 piston singles, where Piper has produced 116 Archers, 16 M350s, and 25 Seminoles. At that rate, Cessna will deliver 160 piston airplanes this year, and Piper will outproduce them handily. Maybe Cessna is planning on building piston airplanes indefinitely, but it sure doesn't look like that to me.
 
Last edited:
My brother has a Lamborghini, says it is the most reliable car he's ever owned. I have been fortunate enough to drive it about 10 times, absolutely amazing car, and likely be a retirement gift for myself when I retire to buy one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top