banner
banner

06 Dec 2019, 18:36 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Greenwich AeroGroup



Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Rumor That All Mooney Employees Furloughed For A Week
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 18:27 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/11/12
Posts: 1238
Post Likes: +616
Location: san francisco (KHAF)
Aircraft: C55 baron
Username Protected wrote:
Dean I am with you 100%. I have looked at twins as an option myself. However unless you need the extra seats or payload going the route of a twin does not make sense for everyone. More training needed to stay proficient, more money needed to keep it flying (annuals etc), more money needed to make it fly (fuel etc) double the things to go wrong and break in flight or otherwise. For me if it is strictly an issue of having another option when things go wrong I would take the single with a chute over a twin. But most of my flying is just me solo. I don't need the seats or payload. So for me if it's just a decision based on safety the chute satisfies that itch for my mission.


Twins are more expensive, but the secret is they're quite a bit "less more" than many would think.

  • Capital costs are WAY lower. I'm probably saving > $5000/year just on this.
  • Opex isn't 2X the equivalent single. It's not like we have twice the pitot static checks or gear maintenance.
  • Fuel is more like 1.5X of the equivalent single by hour, and on top of that you're going faster in a twin.
  • A smaller benefit is you fly more direct routes in the twin, eg over water or mountains, that I'd spend time and money going around in a single.
  • No chute repack costs if we're comparing to an SR.
  • 55 and 58 Barons are NA engines. Don't need expensive TN engines to perform well in the mid-teens.

And all that for a far more capable machine in terms of useful load, climb rate, cargo space, etc!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rumor That All Mooney Employees Furloughed For A Week
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 18:35 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 12/07/17
Posts: 2608
Post Likes: +1887
Company: Malco Power Design
Aircraft: Baron 58 N2110L
Username Protected wrote:
Dean I am with you 100%. I have looked at twins as an option myself. However unless you need the extra seats or payload going the route of a twin does not make sense for everyone. More training needed to stay proficient, more money needed to keep it flying (annuals etc), more money needed to make it fly (fuel etc) double the things to go wrong and break in flight or otherwise. For me if it is strictly an issue of having another option when things go wrong I would take the single with a chute over a twin. But most of my flying is just me solo. I don't need the seats or payload. So for me if it's just a decision based on safety the chute satisfies that itch for my mission.


Twins are more expensive, but the secret is they're quite a bit "less more" than many would think.

  • Capital costs are WAY lower. I'm probably saving > $5000/year just on this.
  • Opex isn't 2X the equivalent single. It's not like we have twice the pitot static checks or gear maintenance.
  • Fuel is more like 1.5X of the equivalent single by hour, and on top of that you're going faster in a twin.
  • A smaller benefit is you fly more direct routes in the twin, eg over water or mountains, that I'd spend time and money going around in a single.
  • No chute repack costs if we're comparing to an SR.
  • 55 and 58 Barons are NA engines. Don't need expensive TN engines to perform well in the mid-teens.

And all that for a far more capable machine in terms of useful load, climb rate, cargo space, etc!


Yep.

I did 450nm today with me (not a small dude) and 800 lbs of test equipment in the plane. Didn’t even have to think that hard on the weight and balance. Just put about equal eights in the nose and aft baggage. The rest goes in the rear seats. Still took off with round trip fuel and 100lbs under gross. It really is a magic carpet.
_________________
Last 12
11/8/19 IPC


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rumor That All Mooney Employees Furloughed For A Week
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 18:37 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 04/04/16
Posts: 180
Post Likes: +126
Location: Redmond, WA
Aircraft: M20K
Username Protected wrote:
I have owned a lot of planes but the Mooney was one of my favorites. For those of you that need a parachute to buy an airplane don't fly in the Staggerwing, the Aerostar or the Bonanza because nothing in my fleet is going to save those that can't figure out how to glide an airplane. Pull the parachute and you are totaled. Glide to a landing maybe not. I hope Mooney figures it out.


Eric I am sorry and do not mean to offend but the argument for or against the chute is over. It's not a matter of who can fly and who can't, or if you "need" a chute you are not a real pilot etc. The facts are in, the market has spoken. If you are going to build a single engine airplane in the world today it better have a chute. If not you are at a disadvantage in the marketplace the day you enter it. Its not who "needs" a chute and who doesn't anymore. At this point it just is what it is. Cirrus changed the market, they fundamentally changed it forever. Those who keep refusing to understand this will never compete with those who do. Those companies that refuse to recognize this extremely obvious fact will probably not survive as a company either.
I don't get why people think that it's the Chute that sells Cirrus'. It's the useful load. An Acclaim is a one person plane with TKS and full tanks. Nobody is going to pay $800k for a four seat plane that they have to fly by themselves. If the Acclaim had a parachute and 50 pounds less useful load, they would sell fewer planes, not more.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Rumor That All Mooney Employees Furloughed For A Week
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 18:38 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 08/05/16
Posts: 50
Post Likes: +30
Aircraft: C340A
Username Protected wrote:
Dean I am with you 100%. I have looked at twins as an option myself. However unless you need the extra seats or payload going the route of a twin does not make sense for everyone. More training needed to stay proficient, more money needed to keep it flying (annuals etc), more money needed to make it fly (fuel etc) double the things to go wrong and break in flight or otherwise. For me if it is strictly an issue of having another option when things go wrong I would take the single with a chute over a twin. But most of my flying is just me solo. I don't need the seats or payload. So for me if it's just a decision based on safety the chute satisfies that itch for my mission.


Twins are more expensive, but the secret is they're quite a bit "less more" than many would think.

  • Capital costs are WAY lower. I'm probably saving > $5000/year just on this.
  • Opex isn't 2X the equivalent single. It's not like we have twice the pitot static checks or gear maintenance.
  • Fuel is more like 1.5X of the equivalent single by hour, and on top of that you're going faster in a twin.
  • A smaller benefit is you fly more direct routes in the twin, eg over water or mountains, that I'd spend time and money going around in a single.
  • No chute repack costs if we're comparing to an SR.
  • 55 and 58 Barons are NA engines. Don't need expensive TN engines to perform well in the mid-teens.

And all that for a far more capable machine in terms of useful load, climb rate, cargo space, etc!


Pete I was with you until I owned one (part of one), which I only did because it was a partnership opportunity. Now I see most of the difference in cost is really down to the larger size, capability, and speed of the airplane, and the fact that there are two engines, while it doesn't make things cheaper, doesn't really make a large increase in costs.

The training is a valid point, but again, in a more capable airplane you're in weather more, etc. and it does make sense regardless if you're going to use it as a trip airplane. I would probably not have a twin for weekend flying where I was going to be VFR most of the time, probably a light single that was more fun to fly like a DA40.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Rumor That All Mooney Employees Furloughed For A Week
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 18:55 
Online


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 02/06/18
Posts: 494
Post Likes: +383
Aircraft: Piper PA-32R 300
Username Protected wrote:
My wife's boss bought a new Acclaim Ultra a few years ago. His full fuel useful load is like 270lbs.



That ain't even a 2 place aircraft where I come from! :eek:

This whole thing is sad but I don't think anyone is totally shocked by it.





Ron


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rumor That All Mooney Employees Furloughed For A Week
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 21:48 
Online


 WWW  Profile

Joined: 07/04/11
Posts: 1509
Post Likes: +211
Company: W. John Gadd, Esq.
Location: Florida
Aircraft: C55 Baron
Username Protected wrote:
Dean I am with you 100%. I have looked at twins as an option myself. However unless you need the extra seats or payload going the route of a twin does not make sense for everyone. More training needed to stay proficient, more money needed to keep it flying (annuals etc), more money needed to make it fly (fuel etc) double the things to go wrong and break in flight or otherwise. For me if it is strictly an issue of having another option when things go wrong I would take the single with a chute over a twin. But most of my flying is just me solo. I don't need the seats or payload. So for me if it's just a decision based on safety the chute satisfies that itch for my mission.


Twins are more expensive, but the secret is they're quite a bit "less more" than many would think.

  • Capital costs are WAY lower. I'm probably saving > $5000/year just on this.
  • Opex isn't 2X the equivalent single. It's not like we have twice the pitot static checks or gear maintenance.
  • Fuel is more like 1.5X of the equivalent single by hour, and on top of that you're going faster in a twin.
  • A smaller benefit is you fly more direct routes in the twin, eg over water or mountains, that I'd spend time and money going around in a single.
  • No chute repack costs if we're comparing to an SR.
  • 55 and 58 Barons are NA engines. Don't need expensive TN engines to perform well in the mid-teens.

And all that for a far more capable machine in terms of useful load, climb rate, cargo space, etc!


Bingo.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Rumor That All Mooney Employees Furloughed For A Week
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 21:56 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/24/11
Posts: 118
Post Likes: +143
Aircraft: PA31
Quote:
I don't get why people think that it's the Chute that sells Cirrus'. It's the useful load. An Acclaim is a one person plane with TKS and full tanks. Nobody is going to pay $800k for a four seat plane that they have to fly by themselves. If the Acclaim had a parachute and 50 pounds less useful load, they would sell fewer planes, not more.


Another huge component is the marketing. Go to Oshkosh, and stop by the Cirrus area and the Mooney/Piper/Beech areas. Which one seems like they actually want to sell an airplane?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rumor That All Mooney Employees Furloughed For A Week
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 22:29 
Offline



 Profile

Joined: 06/28/14
Posts: 843
Post Likes: +593
Location: Pleasanton , TX (KPEZ)
Aircraft: 1963 Bonanza P35
[/quote]I don't get why people think that it's the Chute that sells Cirrus'. It's the useful load. An Acclaim is a one person plane with TKS and full tanks. Nobody is going to pay $800k for a four seat plane that they have to fly by themselves. If the Acclaim had a parachute and 50 pounds less useful load, they would sell fewer planes, not more.[/quote]

I don't disagree at all. My point is if you plan to be a contender in the market you have to design and build something that can compete. Its gotta have a chute, gotta have a decent UL, preformance, etc.... You are right the Acclaim even with the chute is a no go.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rumor That All Mooney Employees Furloughed For A Week
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 22:39 
Offline



 Profile

Joined: 06/28/14
Posts: 843
Post Likes: +593
Location: Pleasanton , TX (KPEZ)
Aircraft: 1963 Bonanza P35
Username Protected wrote:
Dean I am with you 100%. I have looked at twins as an option myself. However unless you need the extra seats or payload going the route of a twin does not make sense for everyone. More training needed to stay proficient, more money needed to keep it flying (annuals etc), more money needed to make it fly (fuel etc) double the things to go wrong and break in flight or otherwise. For me if it is strictly an issue of having another option when things go wrong I would take the single with a chute over a twin. But most of my flying is just me solo. I don't need the seats or payload. So for me if it's just a decision based on safety the chute satisfies that itch for my mission.


Twins are more expensive, but the secret is they're quite a bit "less more" than many would think.

  • Capital costs are WAY lower. I'm probably saving > $5000/year just on this.
  • Opex isn't 2X the equivalent single. It's not like we have twice the pitot static checks or gear maintenance.
  • Fuel is more like 1.5X of the equivalent single by hour, and on top of that you're going faster in a twin.
  • A smaller benefit is you fly more direct routes in the twin, eg over water or mountains, that I'd spend time and money going around in a single.
  • No chute repack costs if we're comparing to an SR.
  • 55 and 58 Barons are NA engines. Don't need expensive TN engines to perform well in the mid-teens.

And all that for a far more capable machine in terms of useful load, climb rate, cargo space, etc!


I don't disagree my point was a twin is not right for everyone but they are a great option for many. If I could find a partner or two I might have one. But my bonanza is fine and a SR22 would be as well for my mission. I fly solo and a small suit case 95% of the time. Some IFR but I don't do hard stuff storm dodging, approaches to minimums etc... For me the extra expense is just to much. But for me so is the cost of a plane with the chute. The repack is the killer and if the cost of those continue to increase it might be a problem in the long run.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Rumor That All Mooney Employees Furloughed For A Week
PostPosted: 15 Nov 2019, 03:23 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/03/08
Posts: 9538
Post Likes: +12323
Location: Stoke-on-Trent, UK
Aircraft: in storage
what i don't get is why anyone cares about useful load with full tanks. It's been a very rare occasion that I've had full tanks. Maybe twice a year at most.

an airplane that lets you fill the seats and the tanks at the same time would be a poor design. it needs more seats or more tanks.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rumor That All Mooney Employees Furloughed For A Week
PostPosted: 15 Nov 2019, 08:34 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 12/12/09
Posts: 57
Post Likes: +97
Just a thought. How about the Chinese relocating Company in China and hiring bunch of little Chinese to build a US design aircraft. Would not surprise me. When the west accepted Chinese money, they made a pack with ... .....


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rumor That All Mooney Employees Furloughed For A Week
PostPosted: 15 Nov 2019, 08:42 
Offline



 Profile

Joined: 07/17/13
Posts: 1259
Post Likes: +1432
Location: Katy, TX (KIWS)
Aircraft: 1966 Baron C55
Username Protected wrote:
I don't get why people think that it's the Chute that sells Cirrus'. It's the useful load. An Acclaim is a one person plane with TKS and full tanks. Nobody is going to pay $800k for a four seat plane that they have to fly by themselves. If the Acclaim had a parachute and 50 pounds less useful load, they would sell fewer planes, not more.


I think you need to ask your wife that question.

My wife would tell you that the chute DOES sell airplanes. She would also tell you that the styling of the airplane sells airplanes. She doesn't give a crap about useful load until I tell her that we can't take that item, or we can't take that extra person, or that we'll have to make an extra fuel stop to take those things. Then she cares. A little.

I miss my Cirrus a little bit. My wife misses it A LOT.

She sat in a Mooney Acclaim once, got out, walked out of earshot and said - No, simply No. I won't fly in that.

_________________
Flying - Because baseball, football, basketball, soccer, bowling & golf only take one ball.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rumor That All Mooney Employees Furloughed For A Week
PostPosted: 15 Nov 2019, 08:44 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 01/12/18
Posts: 87
Post Likes: +17
Location: KILM
Aircraft: Mooney C
Username Protected wrote:
an airplane that lets you fill the seats and the tanks at the same time would be a poor design. it needs more seats or more tanks.

First time I've heard the 182 called a bad design...


Top

 Post subject: Re: Rumor That All Mooney Employees Furloughed For A Week
PostPosted: 15 Nov 2019, 08:52 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/03/08
Posts: 9538
Post Likes: +12323
Location: Stoke-on-Trent, UK
Aircraft: in storage
Username Protected wrote:
an airplane that lets you fill the seats and the tanks at the same time would be a poor design. it needs more seats or more tanks.

First time I've heard the 182 called a bad design...

people add more tanks to 182's

Top

 Post subject: Re: Rumor That All Mooney Employees Furloughed For A Week
PostPosted: 15 Nov 2019, 09:32 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 02/10/12
Posts: 3684
Post Likes: +4004
Company: TTM Development Co LLC
Location: Tannhäuser Gate
Aircraft: Piper PA28/140
Username Protected wrote:
The repack is the killer and if the cost of those continue to increase it might be a problem in the long run.


https://www.avweb.com/ownership/cirrus- ... reciation/


The above article is a bit dated, but over the ten-year cycle, amortized it's about $12/hr, which is a lot less than fuel for a twin.

_________________
I'm just a singer in a rock and roll band.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next



uAvionix (banner)

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2019

.kingairdom.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.lopresti_85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.Electroair.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.fortner-85x50.jpg.
.L3_85x100.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.avionicssource-85x50.jpg.
.uavionix-85x50.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.Davis_Aviation_85x50.jpg.
.Anrim_85x200.png.
.Showalter.jpg.
.tulsair-85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.Bendix_85x50(1).png.
.avidyne-85x50-2017-11-22.jpg.
.rtc-85x200.jpg.
.FreeFlight_85x50.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.instar.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.airpower-85x50.jpg.
.Outright_85_50.png.
.garmin-85x200-2019-11-01.jpg.
.tas-85x50.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.McPeck_85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.truecourse.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.dshannon.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.heartlandsm.jpg.
.ps_engineering.gif.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.Steel_85x50.jpg.
.Trace.jpg.
.westsky.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.dbm.jpg.
.ForeFlight.jpeg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.byerlyaviation-85x50.png.
.weatherspork_85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.sureflight-85x50.jpg.
.airplanesusa-85x50.png.
.jetacquisitions-85x50.png.
.jetaviva-85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.cubcrafters.jpg.
.hpair-85x50.jpg.
.Expert_Aircraft_Solution_85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.wildblue-85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.methodseven-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.selectairparts-85x100.jpg.
.bkool-85x50-2014-08-04.jpg.
.STLAir_85x50.jpg.