28 Mar 2024, 18:15 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New Mooney Owners Website - NO/ZERO Aircraft Shown/Marke Posted: 22 Dec 2020, 13:34 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/16/11 Posts: 11105 Post Likes: +7090 Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
|
|
Username Protected wrote: My wife isn't buying autoland... here is her hierarchy and I'm pretty sure her views match the market. 1. Parachute Airplane 2. Twin-Engine and or Turbine 3. Drive 4. Piston-Single
We ended up in a Baron and she's starting to like it more than the Cirrus because it holds so much more stuff.
I would agree. Add a chute and they can compete. Market agrees with her I believe. I don't agree with the tightness issue. My baron was tighter width wise than my 201. If the Acclaim had a chute, I would buy one tomorrow. That bird is wicked fast.
_________________ ---Rusty Shoe Keeper---
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New Mooney Owners Website - NO/ZERO Aircraft Shown/Marke Posted: 22 Dec 2020, 15:02 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/13/11 Posts: 2763 Post Likes: +2183 Company: Aeronautical People Shuffler Location: Picayune, MS (KHSA)
Aircraft: KA350/E55/DA-62
|
|
Username Protected wrote: A picture of the Cirrus that had a tree come up through the seat would help (Maybe some obscure reference to Vlad the Impaler mixed in there somewhere).
The problem is there have been a few Cirrus come down under the parachute in trees and no one has been impaled, like not even close. If the engine quits, the parachute works great. I want to see how well the autoland works when the engine quits...
_________________ The sound of a second engine still running after the first engine fails is why I like having two.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New Mooney Owners Website - NO/ZERO Aircraft Shown/Marke Posted: 22 Dec 2020, 15:35 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/08/12 Posts: 724 Post Likes: +380 Location: KSGR Sugar Land
Aircraft: 1980 M20J Missile300
|
|
Username Protected wrote: What would preclude them from switching back over to a Lycoming? They make some nice, reliable, engines and jugs.
While there used to be some reliable and lower cost turbine models out there, the acquisitions by larger companies have since taken many of the inexpensive overseas options off the low-cost ledger.
Honestly, I really can't see paying that much $$ for a turbine aircraft without pressurization given the cost is already in the Cirrus price range. Maybe it's time for a turbodiesel and something that can use Jet-A. The turboprop engine fuel flow doesn't exactly shine down low.
What does an RR300 Turboshaft engine, with all the accessories, go for nowadays? What is the cost of a P&W PT6A-35 or PT6A-21 with accessories? They have been successful on the JetProp and Royal Turbine Duke. Pipistrel went with the Lycoming IO540 on the new Panthera because it can run on MOGAS in the future with a good long life. Lead substitute AVGAS seems to be going nowhere and Continental seems to be putting more effort into diesel than getting an IO550 to run unleaded. Turboprop conversions are a natural on pressurized aircraft. But having to wear a full oxygen mask in order to get the significant benefits has limited market appeal. And Rocket Engineering charges a mere $450,000 to convert a B36TC to a turboprop TurbineAir that is load limited to basically a 2 person plane. Taking a $800,000 Mooney and turning it into a $1.1+ million plane will certainly have an impact the customer base. Yes, yes they will sell a couple. But putting a turboprop on a non-pressurized Mooney sounds like a good way to take the company into true bankruptcy.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New Mooney Owners Website - NO/ZERO Aircraft Shown/Marke Posted: 22 Dec 2020, 15:47 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/05/16 Posts: 3097 Post Likes: +2222 Company: Tack Mobile Location: KBJC
Aircraft: C441
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think to differentiate themselves they should not try to build a better Cirrus, they will lose. Gross weight needs to be improved to even start a conversation, which is probably a question of new or beefed up landing gear.
I think the answer is a diesel with autothrottles and autoland and skip the weight and cost of a chute. They would beat the Cirrus in range, efficiency, speed, fun to fly (without pressing AP), and would only need to match on price to be a winner. Finding an engine and getting Garmin to control it is a different matter, but it would leapfrog Cirrus if it could be done for under 7 figures. I think wives would be sold on the magic autoland button with a modern (reliable) engine.
Many SR22s are flown with one or two up front, maybe kids in the back. Those buyers would jump at an Acclaim Super Ultra or whatever. The cabin is not that narrow, it’s just short in height, sort of the reverse of a Bo. They do need to lower the panel height and improve the view. The ultra feels a little claustrophobic as is.
Continental CD 300 would require a redesign of everything forward of the firewall, but uses modern (car) engine technologies. Not sure what the reliability of that engine is or if anyone is using it outside of the experimental world.
I only mention autothrottles because it is required for autoland. And I disagree the market has shouted they want a chute. People want a safe airplane. There's always the set that won't get into anything with only one engine, or that isn't a jet, etc. People by the Cirrus because it's the only airplane that is like buying a car, nice new leather, modern composite looks, cupholders, fancy website, great paint, etc. and they know how to market it. How much safety the chute adds has beed debated, it seems with a qualified pilot it does not add much (not as much as a good mechanic) although for those 100 hr pilots who buy a $900,000 airplane it has value. But I don't think that is the Mooney buyer. I recall a chute pull in Colorado caused by a guy who forgot to enrichen the mixture, and another from disorientation. Another fatality the guy pulled too low. There are a few cases where chute pulls would have saved someone where autoland would not, and many more cases where autoland would have been the better option.
Malibus/M350s are in demand, and they have no chute, no FADEC, and no autoland. There's a recent aviation consumer article I read after my post that says Mooney is doing just that– new landing gear and autoland, which implies FADEC, which implies diesel.
Mooney will never be for everyone. Their market is almost as a more pilot focused SR22- someone who flies themselves and occasionally their wife/kids, or a business partner. However with the gross weight issue, lack of marketing and support, and no real differentiator other than a bit more speed and better handling, few will look at it.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New Mooney Owners Website - NO/ZERO Aircraft Shown/Marke Posted: 22 Dec 2020, 17:02 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/13/11 Posts: 2763 Post Likes: +2183 Company: Aeronautical People Shuffler Location: Picayune, MS (KHSA)
Aircraft: KA350/E55/DA-62
|
|
So let's break down the numbers on that...
The M500/M600 turboprops. For the pilot that wants pressurization, more seats, more room, and a better engine (turbine). Last year they delivered 44 of the M500/M600. This year to date they are at 23.
If a Cirrus owner wakes up one day and says, I want pressurization, more seats, more room, and a better engine, BUT I also want a parachute, they have an option, The SF50. It's ugly but they delivered 81 last year and have delivered 47 so far this year... oh and it's got autoland too.
I fly professionally and get the joy of taking a check ride every 6 months. I have nearly 1000 hours in the SR22s. Too many GA pilots have it all figured out until they are punched in the face. I enjoy watching their optimism fade as they realize if this scenario-based training was real, they would go home in a box, it's a teachable moment. Look at crash talk, look at insurance premiums. Flying GA with a non-professional pilot is about as dangerous as riding a motorcycle. The parachute (if used within parameters) at least doesn't make a mistake in an airlane a death sentence for the pilot or even worse, the passengers that we're lulled into a false sense of security by a pilot who told them the most dangerous part was driving to the airport.
_________________ The sound of a second engine still running after the first engine fails is why I like having two.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New Mooney Owners Website - NO/ZERO Aircraft Shown/Marke Posted: 22 Dec 2020, 22:19 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/04/11 Posts: 502 Post Likes: +94
Aircraft: Mooney M20R/S
|
|
Username Protected wrote: https://www.mooney.com/
"OWN IT" headline but nothing to own. No aircraft shown or marketed. No Ovation or Acclaim Ultras. No specs. Lots of pictures of The Team. T-shirts and mugs for sale in the Speedshop. Vague talk about next generation aircraft buried in the Engineering and Design section. Mention of "Ultra II" as last item in "Future Vision" banner. It looks like they are creating a company "Online Forum" blog to compete with Mooneyspace and MAPA.
This sounds so much like Commander Aircraft (before its second or third bankruptcy). Does anyone have any insight regarding what is going on there? Does anyone think these guys have any hope of making it? the new company has made it clear they need to start operations that will make a profit first then work into selling new airplanes. Replacement parts for the fleet, upgrades and improvements in current models then new airplane builds.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New Mooney Owners Website - NO/ZERO Aircraft Shown/Marke Posted: 24 Dec 2020, 19:27 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/05/16 Posts: 3097 Post Likes: +2222 Company: Tack Mobile Location: KBJC
Aircraft: C441
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Too many GA pilots have it all figured out until they are punched in the face. I completely agree, and I think the currency requirement for a complex airplane like a pressurized piston twin especially are too low. There are people who fly twin Cessnas 50 hours a year, if there are a couple long trips in there that would say to me there are months where the plane isn't flown. It's not possible for a pilot to stay current and safe in that class airplane flying it every other month. I only fly 100 or so, and have decided I need to be doing sim training once a year and in-airplane training once a year (so recurrent every 6 months), and we have all the gizmos (EIS, etc.), and make sure everything inside the cowling is doing exactly what it should be or it's in the shop. Another trap is buying an inexpensive airplane that has lots of maintenance is a financial struggle which leads to bad decisions, but I'm now on a tangent... I think the Mooney buyer would be someone who is more likely to change their own oil, or at least know how to, and fly more often than the typical Cirrus owner.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New Mooney Owners Website - NO/ZERO Aircraft Shown/Marke Posted: 02 Jan 2021, 10:29 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/08/12 Posts: 724 Post Likes: +380 Location: KSGR Sugar Land
Aircraft: 1980 M20J Missile300
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think the Mooney buyer would be someone who is more likely to change their own oil, or at least know how to, and fly more often than the typical Cirrus owner. That's a fair assessment. And isn't that the marketing/strategic business dilemma when the only thing that they had to sell started at $700,000 without options normally asperated or $800,000 with turbo? Pilots that fit those profiles and can afford are getting older and probably already own their "last Mooney".
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New Mooney Owners Website - NO/ZERO Aircraft Shown/Marke Posted: 02 Jan 2021, 11:22 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/13/12 Posts: 741 Post Likes: +784
Aircraft: Mooney 201
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think the Mooney buyer would be someone who is more likely to change their own oil, or at least know how to, and fly more often than the typical Cirrus owner. That's a fair assessment. And isn't that the marketing/strategic business dilemma when the only thing that they had to sell started at $700,000 without options normally asperated or $800,000 with turbo? Pilots that fit those profiles and can afford are getting older and probably already own their "last Mooney".
I went to a Mooney Safety Clinic last year and I think I may have been the only owner in the room that didn't view the presentation on "how to change your own oil" as if it was a foreign language. That said, the difference might be that Mooney owners think its a good idea how to change your own oil at least in concept, even if they aren't any more likely to do it than in any other category of aircraft owner. (For what its worth, I suggested in future safety clinics, instead of watching a power point presentation about common maintenance items, we just go out to the nearby hangar and do the tasks on a plane...)
I still haven't figured out the psychology of Cirrus owners. I mean I get the marketing, and I get the draw of the parachute, has been very effective in selling airplanes. But its the psychology of actually owning a Cirrus.. There are beaucoups of them here in the DC area. The Cirrus are almost entirely parked outside, not in hangars. They get really really offended when you tell them that you are concerned they are keeping their nearly new or brand new, very, very expensive all-composite, expensive to re-paint airplane tied down on the grass (at GAI we even have a Cirrus Jet parked on the ramp!). The Mooneys are far more likely to be hangared - our field has many Mooneys, not a single one tied down outside. But so many Cirrus's outside. So maybe the lack of a hangar is why they don't change their own oil? (Though I doubt correlation means causation.) (Also, many will cry "you have to wait years or even decades for hangars in DC its just not possible, don't even bother trying!" We moved here 2 years ago, and yeah it did take a few wait lists and a lot of asking around, but we found multiple hangars available at two DC area airports within a couple months of getting here. If you want one, you can get one. But I think that's an indication of lack of connection of Cirrus owners with the rest of the GA community - Cirrus owners only talking to other local Cirrus owners, or their leasing/management companies that think tie downs are easier and cheaper.)
Sorry, back to the point, at the $700,000 price range you don't buy a Mooney. I love my 201. We have invested a great deal into it over time. But the reason we have a Mooney and not a Cirrus (or the A36 that I am perpetually shopping for) is because of the purchase price point.. But if my price point was $700,000, I would also be far less sensitive to operating cost (I am already less sensitive to it when I bought my Mooney a decade ago). The mission profile doesn't make sense in that range. There's a pipe dream about being able to get "new" 201's for $150-200k. There's something to be said there, but, that's a pipe dream problem, they apparently can't even build a Cessna in that range anymore... (I mean there's more nuance here if the price doesn't matter because you're going to put your plane into some bonus depreciation/leaseback scheme like Cirrus owners do so maybe I am thinking about it in a truly straightforward manner.)
_________________ Becca KLVJ/KGAI N201EQ Mooney 201
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New Mooney Owners Website - NO/ZERO Aircraft Shown/Marke Posted: 02 Jan 2021, 12:29 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/13/14 Posts: 8308 Post Likes: +6508 Location: Central Texas (KTPL)
Aircraft: PA-46-310P
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think the Mooney buyer would be someone who is more likely to change their own oil, or at least know how to, and fly more often than the typical Cirrus owner. There are like two "types" of Mooney owners. On the lower end of the price range are the CCBs. Certified cheap bast@rds. They obsess over MPG efficiency, and know the best place to get a KX170B repaired. Probably more owner-assisted annuals than other makes. On the other end are the Acclaim (and other turbo) owners. They value speed and range, and probably aren't interested in turning wrenches to save a buck. My impression of Cirrus owners is that comfort is the top priority, but I'd wager they fly more hours than the typical Mooney owner. They also are the more apt to "move up" in plane (a newer Cirrus) every 2-3 years. So having a plane parked outside isn't really a concern. Pilots that haven't flown a long body Mooney probably cannot appreciate what a fine aircraft it is.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New Mooney Owners Website - NO/ZERO Aircraft Shown/Marke Posted: 02 Jan 2021, 13:21 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/20/16 Posts: 6407 Post Likes: +7871 Location: Austin, TX area
Aircraft: OPA
|
|
Quite a few owners bring their Mooneys to my buddy's shop for an oil change. Depending on the model, they can be fairly easy, but some are not unless you enjoy making a mess. My F33A is a breeze compared to some short bodies. Ovations seem like the easiest to work on, forward of firewall.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New Mooney Owners Website - NO/ZERO Aircraft Shown/Marke Posted: 02 Jan 2021, 13:28 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/28/13 Posts: 6037 Post Likes: +3998 Location: Indiana
Aircraft: C195, D17S, M20TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: On the lower end of the price range are the CCBs. Certified cheap bast@rds. They obsess over MPG efficiency, and know the best place to get a KX170B repaired. Probably more owner-assisted annuals than other makes.
Pilots that haven't flown a long body Mooney probably cannot appreciate what a fine aircraft it is. Tony has it right in his last quote. The long body Mooney is a pleasure to fly and ride in. Efficient and fast too whether NA or TN. Real pilots(Mooney) can squeak a long body on the Rwy. The useful isn’t as bad as many claim anyway. With fuel capacity of 100-102 all you do is leave behind a few gallons and add pax or load. Who in their right mind is going to take pax 3 & 4 on a leg longer than 2.5-3 hours? The reason their are lots of cars and trucks to choose from is everybody has difference preferences. As has been said I don’t think the Mooney owner desires a parachute. Honestly two doors is nicer than you might think for getting people in and out but isn't a requirement for me. I think they would like to have a little more useful load and if a new landing gear could get that done in long body’s yahoo. What do you guys think if the new company offered refurbishment? Interior, exterior and new avionics for older planes. G600 for older models and G1000 NXi or similar in old long body’s all with the new G autopilot? Personally I think if the plane does not have a G1000 then I’d rather upgrade with G600 which Don K has recommended. The 600 can always be added to or changed whereas its lots harder due to type certificate issues with current 1000’s or at least that’s what I understand.
_________________ Chuck KEVV
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New Mooney Owners Website - NO/ZERO Aircraft Shown/Marke Posted: 02 Jan 2021, 13:37 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/28/13 Posts: 6037 Post Likes: +3998 Location: Indiana
Aircraft: C195, D17S, M20TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Quite a few owners bring their Mooneys to my buddy's shop for an oil change. Depending on the model, they can be fairly easy, but some are not unless you enjoy making a mess. My F33A is a breeze compared to some short bodies. Ovations seem like the easiest to work on, forward of firewall. Ovation was not too hard to change oil on. Did it a lot at 25-50 hour intervals when I was flying it 250+ hours. Watched the first one done on Acclaim and boy is it tight around the filter. Harder still to get typed in safety wiring it properly. young man performing this was a Houdini.
_________________ Chuck KEVV
|
|
Top |
|
|
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
|
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 2007-2024
|
|
|
|