Avweb’s Mooney Ovation Ultra Flight Report

[NoHeat]

• Install a chute

Mooney had an opportunity when they switched to a partially composite skin for the fuselage. But they didn’t do enough.

A big advantage to composite is that the chute risers can be hidden easily within a composite skin. The plane looks sleek and good, and then when needed, the risers emerge from the skin.

But alas, the Mooney’s composite skin only surrounds the front and rear passengers, and does not extend further back where a ballistic chute fits.

 

[GRG55]

...I have heard nothing but bad things about Malibu's. My instructor has taught in several and another instructor I used to fly with, flew a Malibu for a family. All of them were shop queens. Can't believe how tight those planes are too. Now the Meridian on the other hand is a pretty sweet plane. Would love to fly in one of those.

The Meridian and Malibu share essentially the same fuselage, so if you find the Malibu tight you'll find the Meridian equally so.

Earlier today I got a chance to "test fit" a TBM 930.



If you have the Bennies this is one of the ultimate solo-pilot, go fast (still capable of carrying passengers in comfort if you must) machines. Quite a bit more spacious in the front seat than a Meridian (but still more cramped than my Aztec). And a whole lot less awkward to ingress/egress the left front than the Piper. The one piece rear passenger/baggage entrance is bloody enormous.

One thing that struck me...if any Cirrus piston owner steps up to anything else other than a Cirrus jet they are going to have to give up more than their chute. All these turboprops, Meridian, TBM, PC-12, have yokes. Hmmmm.

 

[GRG55]

Haha...I can't for the life of me remember that guys name...he was bad about being a Mooney fanboy though. I didn't have any issue with him, but man he was hardcore.

I don't get all worked up about it. Could really care less. It's like the Ford vs. Chevy debate. I just love seeing grown men getting so riled up about it. They are all better than my Cherokee 140 ha.

You may be thinking about gsengle?
He was pretty hard core Mooney, but I gotta admit when he posted some pics of his plane and his panel it was a really fine looking bird. And he flew it IFR a lot from the sounds of it.

 

[MetalCloud]

One thing that struck me...if any Cirrus piston owner steps up to anything else other than a Cirrus jet they are going to have to give up more than their chute. All these turboprops, Meridian, TBM, PC-12, have yokes. Hmmmm.

gd I love TBMs. But I hear you.... I LOVE the roominess the side stick gives. but yeah.... all the SETPs are yokes. All good though. Worth it.

....And he flew it IFR a lot from the sounds of it.

Is that really a big deal? I'm IFR in the Cirrus (and was in the 182) most of the time even on VFR days, because you never know when fog will roll in.... happened just last week in SoCal. ATIS reported sky clear. When I landed, fog was 50-75ft above minimums. ATIS was only 40 mins old!

I've written my thoughts on the new Mooneys a couple times. I think they're coming up short. When balancing the safety, company stability, fit and finish, comfort, useful load, features, and innovation... they just aren't bringing it. Which is why I went elsewhere. I didn't even consider one. They're cool I guess. Great history. And after all, they're planes!! But they just aren't setting the aviation world on fire. @Tx_Flyboy 's post was spot on.

 

[Ryan F.]

As someone said, they really need to pressurize them.

I am not a fan of pressurizing piston singles. That's asking too much of one big bore engine.

If you want cabin pressurization, get a cabin class piston twin or a turbine single/twin. There's a bit of a line in the sand there from my perspective.

 

[Stephen Shore]

i was able to hitch a ride in a friend's Piper Matrix last week for a quick business trip to Houston. A truly amazing airplane and very roomy for the pilot and co-pilot once you got past the acrobatics required to get up into the flight deck from the passenger compartment. At 6'1" and 230lbs this was not an easy proposition for me.

The only thing worse than not having a pilot's door is not having a pilot's OR a co-pilot's door.

 

[CC268]

You may be thinking about gsengle?
He was pretty hard core Mooney, but I gotta admit when he posted some pics of his plane and his panel it was a really fine looking bird. And he flew it IFR a lot from the sounds of it.

Yea that was him! haha. Yea he for sure had a very nice airplane.

 

[CC268]

The Meridian and Malibu share essentially the same fuselage, so if you find the Malibu tight you'll find the Meridian equally so.

Earlier today I got a chance to "test fit" a TBM 930.

View attachment 59353

If you have the Bennies this is one of the ultimate solo-pilot, go fast (still capable of carrying passengers in comfort if you must) machines. Quite a bit more spacious in the front seat than a Meridian (but still more cramped than my Aztec). And a whole lot less awkward to ingress/egress the left front than the Piper. The one piece rear passenger/baggage entrance is bloody enormous.

One thing that struck me...if any Cirrus piston owner steps up to anything else other than a Cirrus jet they are going to have to give up more than their chute. All these turboprops, Meridian, TBM, PC-12, have yokes. Hmmmm.

Yea I realize they have the same fuselage, I was referring more to the reliability of the PT6 over the piston. The TBM 930 is unbelievable. I got to sit in one at the Scottsdale Air Expo. Pretty much the ultimate single engine turbo prop.

 

[NoHeat]

if any Cirrus piston owner steps up to anything else other than a Cirrus jet they are going to have to give up more than their chute. All these turboprops, Meridian, TBM, PC-12, have yokes. Hmmmm.

The Cirrus jet has a yoke. And so do Cirrus pistons. It’s mounted on the side, but it is a yoke.

 

[Hank S]

The Cirrus jet has a yoke. And so do Cirrus pistons. It’s mounted on the side, but it is a yoke.

If the little Cirrus thingy is a yoke, why is it off to the side and called a "sidestick"? "Stick" and "yoke" perform the same function, but are different things.

 

[NoHeat]

If the little Cirrus thingy is a yoke, why is it off to the side and called a "sidestick"? "Stick" and "yoke" perform the same function, but are different things.

Not a "side stick" on a Cirrus. It's a "side yoke." Cirrus calls it that, because it's designed differently from a stick.

A stick and yoke are distinguished not by the location of the pilot's hand, which might be what you're thinking of. They are distinguished by something less visible to the pilot: the configuration of levers and pulleys between your hand and the controls. Both involve two axes of movement, for ailerons and elevator, but these are accomplished differently for yokes vs sticks.

For the stick, the pilot applies a rotation for the ailerons and a different rotation for the elevator. Both rotations have a pivot point located below the pilot.

For the yoke, the pivot points for ailerons and yokes are separated. The pivot point for the ailerons is located in front of the pilot, not beneath.

It does not matter whether you displace the stick a few inches to the side or center, it is still a stick. Same for a yoke -- it matters not whether you displace it a few inches to the side or center.

I searched for diagrams comparing the two, and I didn't find anything really good, but here are diagrams of each.

Stick (note the pivot point at the bottom, in this case a universal joint, for both axes of motion.)

Yoke (note the pivot for ailerons on the upper part of the y-shaped feature called a yoke, in front of the pilot.)

 

[denverpilot]

I’ll just start with an outrageous comment, since it’s the internet...

If you’re going to cram yourself into something narrow and uncomfortable to go fast, the answer is Aerostar.

Hahaha. With the comedy out of the way...

For that price, I wouldn’t buy one. Even if I had that kind of cash lying around. There’s still just too many older airframes that perform as well for deeply depreciated prices. And many are well-maintained and no hoopties, but even many of the hoopties are in a condition where a complete recondition could be done for HALF of the price of new.

This is the real problem with modern new aircraft sales. They’re competing for the top of the market.

Now in the case of Mooney one has to ask, “What does Mooney offer in the ownership experience for these top of the food chain clients that Cirrus doesn’t?” And that’s where they fall on their face.

I agree with someone else who said they shouldn’t have stopped their lower end product. They’re going to need it. They need a plan to do marketing and hype as well as Cirrus and get people “addicted to Mooney” at a lower price point early in their Aviation lifestyle. And that’s what Cirrus does well, they sell Cirrus as a lifestyle.

I’m not saying anything about pilot training or the aircraft themselves, I’m strictly talking Marketing and Sales here.

Piper also has problems in this regard but they get the FLEET sales to the big flight schools. As does Cessna. Mooney has no appropriate fleet aircraft. Even the Cirrus got chosen for fleet sales to USAF indirectly via a contractor. Mooney needs fleet sales to survive as anything other than a niche player.

That or wild popularity. (Think Cub Crafters or Carbon Cub type stuff...)

I really enjoyed flying the M20C I had access to long ago. It was uncomfortable, small, and you “wore” it, but it was fast and efficient and cheap. I mean really cheap. It essentially rented for Skyhawk rates and went faster. I took it on a number of longer trips. Yeah, in reality I only got there an hour earlier after a full day of flying, if that, but I did it at prices that rivaled the Skyhawk.

If I had continued to fly that airplane for years (the club was disbanded for non-fiscal reasons) I would be a much bigger Mooney fan now. Familiarity and time in type is a big deal in future purchase decisions. I may have even not bought into a 182 co-ownership.

Mooney needs an “entry level traveler” if they really want to make a comeback.

Berto is not for everyone. I could tell some stories ...

ROFL. The insider stuff in this biz and especially Aviation journalism is wildly entertaining. To me anyway. Since I work far far away from it for my day job.

I laughed at his intro...

“Even if you’ve never been here ... you’ll recognize it...”

Uhh... no Paul. I wouldn’t. Hahaha.

He’s usually more careful than that in his script writing.

I liked the mixed performance chart.

As an aside I think the Bo belongs in this category as a comparison also but I get why they left it off calling it a six seater. Nobody I’ve ever met flies them six-up though. Not happening very often, but it directly competes in the business traveler market the Cirrus and Mooney are in.

Plus, it’s PoA. The answer to everything is “Bo”, right? LOL.

I’d like to see the Bo added to his chart.

Not that it matters for me really, I’m not playing in that price point. Probably ever. I’ve got a decent retirement nest egg started for a 40-something and no debt, so I can continue to fund it and afford to fly, but one of those aircraft would wipe it out. They’re ludicrous prices without a business need. Even then, very hard to cost-justify.

Unless as @flyingcheesehead recommends, one lives in the airplane and sells the house, since only one is flyable.

 

[olasek]

I wonder how much weight they would save if they redid the steel frame in titanium?

Serious? Titanium is expensive and difficult to work with. It could have saved some weight while making already expensive airplane totally unsalable.

They need to pressurized the Acclaim.

And add serious weight and another quarter million $$ to its price?

 

[Ryan F.]

I’ll just start with an outrageous comment, since it’s the internet...

If you’re going to cram yourself into something narrow and uncomfortable to go fast, the answer is Aerostar.

Hahaha. With the comedy out of the way...

For that price, I wouldn’t buy one. Even if I had that kind of cash lying around. There’s still just too many older airframes that perform as well for deeply depreciated prices. And many are well-maintained and no hoopties, but even many of the hoopties are in a condition where a complete recondition could be done for HALF of the price of new.

This is the real problem with modern new aircraft sales. They’re competing for the top of the market.

Now in the case of Mooney one has to ask, “What does Mooney offer in the ownership experience for these top of the food chain clients that Cirrus doesn’t?” And that’s where they fall on their face.

I agree with someone else who said they shouldn’t have stopped their lower end product. They’re going to need it. They need a plan to do marketing and hype as well as Cirrus and get people “addicted to Mooney” at a lower price point early in their Aviation lifestyle. And that’s what Cirrus does well, they sell Cirrus as a lifestyle.

I’m not saying anything about pilot training or the aircraft themselves, I’m strictly talking Marketing and Sales here.

Piper also has problems in this regard but they get the FLEET sales to the big flight schools. As does Cessna. Mooney has no appropriate fleet aircraft. Even the Cirrus got chosen for fleet sales to USAF indirectly via a contractor. Mooney needs fleet sales to survive as anything other than a niche player.

That or wild popularity. (Think Cub Crafters or Carbon Cub type stuff...)

I really enjoyed flying the M20C I had access to long ago. It was uncomfortable, small, and you “wore” it, but it was fast and efficient and cheap. I mean really cheap. It essentially rented for Skyhawk rates and went faster. I took it on a number of longer trips. Yeah, in reality I only got there an hour earlier after a full day of flying, if that, but I did it at prices that rivaled the Skyhawk.

If I had continued to fly that airplane for years (the club was disbanded for non-fiscal reasons) I would be a much bigger Mooney fan now. Familiarity and time in type is a big deal in future purchase decisions. I may have even not bought into a 182 co-ownership.

Mooney needs an “entry level traveler” if they really want to make a comeback.



ROFL. The insider stuff in this biz and especially Aviation journalism is wildly entertaining. To me anyway. Since I work far far away from it for my day job.

I laughed at his intro...

“Even if you’ve never been here ... you’ll recognize it...”

Uhh... no Paul. I wouldn’t. Hahaha.

He’s usually more careful than that in his script writing.

I liked the mixed performance chart.

As an aside I think the Bo belongs in this category as a comparison also but I get why they left it off calling it a six seater. Nobody I’ve ever met flies them six-up though. Not happening very often, but it directly competes in the business traveler market the Cirrus and Mooney are in.

Plus, it’s PoA. The answer to everything is “Bo”, right? LOL.

I’d like to see the Bo added to his chart.

Not that it matters for me really, I’m not playing in that price point. Probably ever. I’ve got a decent retirement nest egg started for a 40-something and no debt, so I can continue to fund it and afford to fly, but one of those aircraft would wipe it out. They’re ludicrous prices without a business need. Even then, very hard to cost-justify.

Unless as @flyingcheesehead recommends, one lives in the airplane and sells the house, since only one is flyable.

I agree with what you've said. Financially speaking, any personal aircraft is going to be a losing proposition, but a brand new piston single-engine airplane for $700k+? Wow.

These airplanes are marketed to rich people. That's fine, I have nothing against people who have done really well for themselves, and they can spend their money the way they like. If you live in a 3-4 million dollar home, a $700k airplane maybe isn't that crazy of a spend. And the depreciation (I don't mean the tax depreciation, I mean the real depreciation) of the asset is possibly not so much of an issue. If a wealthy person wants a new piston single, and they have the bucks, and they don't have any problem with the fact that their $700-800k investment is going to be worth a quarter of that in 10 years or less, then I say with all sincerity, and no cynicism at all -- knock yourself out.

I'd say to own even a reasonably simple, low performance single-engine piston airplane such as a 172/Cherokee or C-182, you have to be upper middle class at minimum... there are always exceptions, of course, but I'd say few and far between. Perhaps a middle class income earner could swing a C-152 if they play their cards right, but the costs of owning an aircraft blow most pleasure spending out of the water. Jet skis, boats, motorcycles, you name it, airplanes are far more expensive to own, operate and maintain. It's not even close.

For anyone in the upper middle class category contemplating a high performance piston single, a brand new airplane in that category is basically impossible. There are precious few people able (or willing) to spend as much or more on an airplane than they do their own home.

The part that boggles my mind a bit is to spend so much on an aircraft in such a limited category -- and this is not piston single/twin oriented, necessarily, just the basic configuration of the airplanes themselves and what you can do with them. For $700k you can bet your sweet bippy that the last thing I'd be purchasing would be a piston single. It may be new, it may have fancy avionics, and the paint may be the sweetest deep, lustrous matterhorn white you've ever seen, but it still has old school piston technology under the cowling, lots of moving pieces thrashing themselves to bits going back and forth in opposite directions, all of that jazz. It's hard for me, in my mind, to separate this beautiful Mooney Ovation Ultra from any other Mooney that goes about as fast, on about the same amount of fuel, carrying about the same load. Why can't I buy a nice older one for a fifth of that price and retrofit it? Even repaint it and install a fabulous new custom interior which would put the factory's work to shame? Answer: I can... which is why these airplanes lose so much value so fast after they're brand new.

This category of new vehicle is really strange compared to automobiles, boats and motorcycles. The new airplanes aren't significantly more valuable or capable than the old ones. They just look and smell new, but you can make an old one look and smell new, too.

I'd rather spend a third of that $$ and buy a beautiful copy of a Baron 58, install a new panel and interior, repaint it, and call it good. Blows the doors off of anything you can buy today in the piston single category for much less. Operating costs? Doesn't matter... it would take a hell of a lot of hours for the delta in hourly costs to make a dent in the difference between a $300k Baron and a $700k Mooney.

But new is new, and some folks only want new. So that's what you get for your dough.

 

[GRG55]

The Cirrus jet has a yoke. And so do Cirrus pistons. It’s mounted on the side, but it is a yoke.

LOL. I don't recall too many Cirrus owners posting here referring to it as such. But it it makes you feel good, fine...

 

[GRG55]

gd I love TBMs. But I hear you.... I LOVE the roominess the side stick gives. but yeah.... all the SETPs are yokes. All good though. Worth it...

That TBM passenger compartment entry door impressed me enough I had to post the pics. Interesting one-piece design compared to the usual "clamshell" two piece system most often seen on pressurized hulls (The left rearmost seat is folded forward in the position that allows access to the baggage area). I want one of these. Maybe even more than I want a Cirrus jet.

 

[Ryan F.]

LOL. I don't recall too many Cirrus owners posting here referring to it as such. But it it makes you feel good, fine...

He's right... it's different from a stick in a substantive way. The best way to think of the Cirrus "side yoke" is like a half a yoke, offset to the left and right side (respectively) of the normal mounting locations for a yoke. It feel and handles like a "lighter" spring-loaded yoke, in that the inputs aren't really blended; you pitch forward and aft, and you roll left and right, but it feels just like a yoke when you're doing that, not a stick.

 

[iamtheari]

He's right... it's different from a stick in a substantive way. The best way to think of the Cirrus "side yoke" is like a half a yoke, offset to the left and right side (respectively) of the normal mounting locations for a yoke. It feel and handles like a "lighter" spring-loaded yoke, in that the inputs aren't really blended; you pitch forward and aft, and you roll left and right, but it feels just like a yoke when you're doing that, not a stick.

Pictures helped me understand the difference back when I was curious about Cirruses.

Side yoke (Cirrus):


Side stick (Airbus):

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Serious? Titanium is expensive and difficult to work with. It could have saved some weight while making already expensive airplane totally unsalable.


And add serious weight and another quarter million $$ to its price?

It can’t be that expensive or hard to work with, they make golf clubs out of it.
A carbon fiber cabin, with titanium reinforced frame, seems like that would be pretty light weight and strong enough to handle the 14lbs per square inch of pressurization.
Replaced the landing gear to handle more weight.
Now you have a real 4 place airplane that can carry a family. I have never even heard of any family with younger kids wearing oxygen masks. That seems to be reserved for single pilots and occasional copilot.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

TBMs are great, maybe we can get a group buy discount? Think they give us 95% off? On second thought I probably could not afford the annual costs.

 

[donjohnston]

It can’t be that expensive or hard to work with, they make golf clubs out of it.
A carbon fiber cabin, with titanium reinforced frame, seems like that would be pretty light weight and strong enough to handle the 14lbs per square inch of pressurization.

Titanium is at least half the cost of aluminum. Depending on the product, it can be many times more. Carbon Fiber is about six times the cost of fiberglass.

Titanium is significantly more difficult to work with than aluminum.

And making a golf club is a LOT different than making an airplane.

 

[GRG55]

It can’t be that expensive or hard to work with, they make golf clubs out of it.
A carbon fiber cabin, with titanium reinforced frame, seems like that would be pretty light weight and strong enough to handle the 14lbs per square inch of pressurization.
Replaced the landing gear to handle more weight.
Now you have a real 4 place airplane that can carry a family. I have never even heard of any family with younger kids wearing oxygen masks. That seems to be reserved for single pilots and occasional copilot.

If it was that easy and that advantageous, I would think every aircraft manufacturer, including Boeing and Airbus, would have converted to titanium long, long ago.

 

[GRG55]

Pictures helped me understand the difference back when I was curious about Cirruses.

Side yoke (Cirrus):
View attachment 59374

Side stick (Airbus):
View attachment 59375

Point taken. But I suspect you'll be hard pressed to get most Cirrus drivers to adopt the accurate nomenclature for their planes.

 

[FastEddieB]

The Cirrus jet has a yoke. And so do Cirrus pistons. It’s mounted on the side, but it is a yoke.

I went to an SR22 POH to prove you wrong, but...

...turns out you are right!

Thanks for the edification. I owned one and always called it a side-stick.

Has me wondering what my Sky Arrow has! Let me look...

They call it a sidestick. It pivots left and right like a stick, but moves forward and back like a yoke.

Interesting.

 

[UngaWunga]

TBMs are great, maybe we can get a group buy discount? Think they give us 95% off? On second thought I probably could not afford the annual costs.

Or like a big powerboat, afford to fill the tanks.

 

[Rockymountain]

The Meridian and Malibu share essentially the same fuselage, so if you find the Malibu tight you'll find the Meridian equally so.

Actually the Meridian and all the later PA46's have more room than the Malibu. Lot of modifications, including in the Meridian the seat back being placed over instead of in front of the wing spar which gives several inches of leg room, as well as around 2012, adding more head and hip room by modifying the cockpit inserts. I find very little difference in the TBM900 and later M500, M600 in cockpit room for someone my size. In fact, the M500/600 is 2-3 inches wider than the TBM 50 versus 47 inches and has a narrower pedestal between the seats so feels roomier to me if you don't want your legs kept together. There is a little more headroom and a little more legroom in the TBM, but at 6'2 and 200 lbs, for all practical purposes they seem the same to me. My preference is actually for the Meridian, but feel comfortable in both. Getting in takes a technique, but that is true of most cabin class planes. You get used to it, and after a while, don't even notice. Once in place, very comfortable.

 

[GRG55]

Actually the Meridian and all the later PA46's have more room than the Malibu. Lot of modifications, including in the Meridian the seat back being placed over instead of in front of the wing spar which gives several inches of leg room, as well as around 2012, adding more head and hip room by modifying the cockpit inserts. I find very little difference in the TBM900 and later M500, M600 in cockpit room for someone my size. In fact, the M500/600 is 2-3 inches wider than the TBM 50 versus 47 inches and has a narrower pedestal between the seats so feels roomier to me if you don't want your legs kept together. There is a little more headroom and a little more legroom in the TBM, but at 6'2 and 200 lbs, for all practical purposes they seem the same to me. My preference is actually for the Meridian, but feel comfortable in both. Getting in takes a technique, but that is true of most cabin class planes. You get used to it, and after a while, don't even notice. Once in place, very comfortable.

Piper clearly got a lot of complaints from guys our size (I'm 6'4" and about 235 lbs) and had to make some changes, but I've been in and out of the left and right front seats of a M500 a few times, and I still think it's a tight squeeze. The TBM is cosy though, and one has to thread feet on either side of the boxed in stuff between the pedals (I assume that must be enclosing part of the rudder mechanism?); not a big deal. The legroom to the rudder pedals with the seat full back is adequate for me, but nothing more than that. Definitely more headroom than the M500.

Given each turboprop is targeting a slightly different niche in the market, neither seems to have any direct competitor in their niche, and both manufacturers have been steadily upgrading their product, suggests a healthy section of the aviation marketplace.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Update the design by increasing the cabin width (6-8 inches) & length.

It's wider than a 182. It's *plenty* long. I'm 6'4" and 300#, and it's the most comfortable four-seater I've flown. Oodles of leg room especially. Kid's car seat goes behind me, and I've hauled a bagger for my big lawn tractor in the baggage compartment.

Install a chute

Meh. If you're a Cirrus fanboy, sure. But if you're a Cirrus fanboy, you're gonna buy a Cirrus anyway. IMO, a chute is an unnecessary expense and a bite out of useful load that would be better used for fuel in most cases.

Significantly lower their pricing (match inflation adjusted 1970s pricing)

I'll get behind that, as soon as the rest of the industry does it.

• Certify multiple engine options (diesel, Lyco & Conti options)
• - helps lower pricing as multiple manf competing for orders
• - increases overseas orders if Jet-A an option

I don't know how you figure that. The Mooney is a relatively niche product anyway - People who are rich enough to afford a $700K new airplane, want new and not used despite depreciation, are willing to go with a new piston over a used turboprop, aren't afraid of folding legs, and like efficiency and a sports-car feel. That's a pretty small market, and the tiny savings (10% on the engine - $4,000 maybe) that they might get from the engine manufacturers because they're "competing for orders" (yeah right, not for under 100 engines a year) is never going to make up for the cost of certifying those extra options.

They already ditched Lycoming - The TSIO-550 powered Acclaim replaced the Lycoming TIO-540 powered Bravo. That and some aerodynamic cleanups were the only difference between the two. And there just hasn't been strong demand for diesels in the US. Diamond doesn't sell their DA40-TDI in the US, and they offered a Lycoming version of the DA42 here for a while too. How many diesels has Cessna sold? I think they're a good idea conceptually, but it's not worth the redesign necessary on the airframe to accommodate them.

I'd really love to see something electric - I drive an electric car and really like how smooth and quiet it is - But again, that's going to require some major design changes and infrastructure investment to get it going. I hope Pipistrel is successful with the hybrid Panthera, and I'd love to see Textron do something along these lines, but Mooney doesn't have the financial clout to make a big enough investment for it to work (a la Tesla and their Supercharger network).

Mooney is never going to be a leader into the unproven again like they were when they made the first pressurized piston single. They're a niche player. They only exist in the high-end piston single market, and they make a damn fine airplane for that market. But doing diesels and such is a recipe for suicide for a company like Mooney.

 

[Tantalum]

Now in the case of Mooney one has to ask, “What does Mooney offer in the ownership experience for these top of the food chain clients that Cirrus doesn’t?” And that’s where they fall on their face.

Unfortunately you are right, for a comparable price to the Cirrus that just offers a little less across the spectrum except for speed. People may disagree with me, sure, but we only have to look at the sales figures as validation

I agree with someone else who said they shouldn’t have stopped their lower end product. They’re going to need it.

I think that may have been me, that small M10J was composite, looked really sharp, and I think would have been an awesome entry level plane to get people interested in their product. I know I started with the SR20 originally..

I want one of

Yes, me too! The TBM has always been my dream plane. Something about it is just more awesome than the PC 12

 

[denverpilot]

Mooney is never going to be a leader into the unproven again like they were when they made the first pressurized piston single. They're a niche player. They only exist in the high-end piston single market, and they make a damn fine airplane for that market. But doing diesels and such is a recipe for suicide for a company like Mooney.

But they do need an “entry level” traveler that sucks in both younger richer pilots, and older “yeah, I’d take the smaller/slower brand new Mooney... at the right price... NEW...” crowds to get them hooked on Mooney.

I think that may have been me, that small M10J was composite, looked really sharp, and I think would have been an awesome entry level plane to get people interested in their product. I know I started with the SR20 originally..

And your note is an example of what I’m pointing out also. Brand loyalty.

Look how hard it is to convince an Apple fan that they fell behind by a year in product features and more than three years of development if they ever want to get ahead again. The fans will not care. They’ll ride it down. Nevertheless, it drives real world sales.

Brand loyalty is huge. It takes an “event” usually to get (especially older) humans to even look at alternate brands of things. They know what they like and they don’t feel like switching.

And there’s that resistance to overcome too. Mooney has nothing in this lower end space and even if they released it tomorrow, it would take years to sway their market segment, the Cirrus buyers. Oh sure, there’s always contrarians who’d but just because it’s not a Cirrus, but they’re far outnumbered by the people who rented an SR20, then maybe bought a used one, then worked hard and had some major success and decided to pop for a brandy-new SR22T.

Heck, I’m a Cessna guy... there’s almost no reason whatsoever to look at say, something like a C-210 these days other than price, and if it was upgraded to keep up with the all the features of other piston singles, it isn’t going to be a cheap specific airframe. And then you get to deal with Cessna gear, etc. But my brain will still count the C-210 as a viable step-up option. Really, it’s not anymore.

Granted, I’m not looking to step up right now. Learning to instruct has been the worst possible thing on my budget in decades, but I could afford it, so there ya go. Do stuff you want to do.

 

[BrianNC]

For that price, I wouldn’t buy one. Even if I had that kind of cash lying around. There’s still just too many older airframes that perform as well for deeply depreciated prices. And many are well-maintained and no hoopties, but even many of the hoopties are in a condition where a complete recondition could be done for HALF of the price of new.

My sentiments too. Exactly what I was going to post. I love Mooneys, and would love to have a new 2-door one, but for that kind of money I just couldn't make myself buy it. Too many used planes out there for half the price with at least twice the capability. And if I was going to spend that much money it would still be on a different plane as much as I love Mooneys.

 

[TCABM]

My sentiments too. Exactly what I was going to post. I love Mooneys, and would love to have a new 2-door one, but for that kind of money I just couldn't make myself buy it. Too many used planes out there for half the price with at least twice the capability. And if I was going to spend that much money it would still be on a different plane as much as I love Mooneys.

2-door new 201/J for $201,000. I’d buy it. In a heartbeat. Tomorrow.

 

[Hank S]

I don't understand the whole brand loyalty stuff. Sure I love my Levis, but big stuff? Buy what's good!

Took driving lessons in an old tank, Ford LTD. Drove a Chevy truck afterwards, forever. Then a Honda, upgraded to Infiniti for a long time, got mad at the dealer and bought a Hyundai then Toyota. Now I'm in a Ford Ranger (same as Mazda truck) that I inherited. This covers almost 40 years--I'm in my sixth ride, plus the fun car I bought in 1996 and still have (Jaguar V12, that makes 7 vehicles and seven brands, not counting the Drivers Ed car).

Learned to fly in two Cessnas. Bought a Mooney. It's faster on less fuel, goes further between stops and looks much better.

Still never bought the brand I learned in. When shopping, I look for capabilities and performance, with an eye towards quality of the manufacturer.

No brand loyalty other than the shoes recommended by my cousin the podiatrist, my Levis and Lipton tea. It keeps my feet from hurting, the jeans fit comfortably, and the iced tea always tastes good. I'm only loyal to my shoe brand because they don't hurt, and I tried lots before calling my cousin. When the jeans don't fit or the tea isnt good, I'll change those, too.

 

[FormerHangie]

I don't understand the whole brand loyalty stuff. Sure I love my Levis, but big stuff? Buy what's good!

Took driving lessons in an old tank, Ford LTD. Drove a Chevy truck afterwards, forever. Then a Honda, upgraded to Infiniti for a long time, got mad at the dealer and bought a Hyundai then Toyota. Now I'm in a Ford Ranger (same as Mazda truck) that I inherited. This covers almost 40 years--I'm in my sixth ride, plus the fun car I bought in 1996 and still have (Jaguar V12, that makes 7 vehicles and seven brands, not counting the Drivers Ed car).

Learned to fly in two Cessnas. Bought a Mooney. It's faster on less fuel, goes further between stops and looks much better.

Still never bought the brand I learned in. When shopping, I look for capabilities and performance, with an eye towards quality of the manufacturer.

No brand loyalty other than the shoes recommended by my cousin the podiatrist, my Levis and Lipton tea. It keeps my feet from hurting, the jeans fit comfortably, and the iced tea always tastes good. I'm only loyal to my shoe brand because they don't hurt, and I tried lots before calling my cousin. When the jeans don't fit or the tea isnt good, I'll change those, too.

I bought a pair of Levi's recently. Every time I stick my hands in my pockets, they get stained blue. I switched to Texas Brand jeans, which are made in North Carolina. I like those a lot. I bought a pair of their flannel lined jeans, they're just the thing for working outside on a cold day.

 

[Hank S]

I bought a pair of Levi's recently. Every time I stick my hands in my pockets, they get stained blue. I switched to Texas Brand jeans, which are made in North Carolina. I like those a lot. I bought a pair of their flannel lined jeans, they're just the thing for working outside on a cold day.

Gotta wash new Levis before wearing them, or more than your hands will turn blue . . . . .

 

[FormerHangie]

Gotta wash new Levis before wearing them, or more than your hands will turn blue . . . . .

Oh, I did that. They've been washed 8 or 10 times now and they still turn my hands blue. I'm sticking with the Texas Brand jeans from now on.

 

[Shopshirt]

I switched to Texas Brand jeans, which are made in North Carolina.

Sorry...couldn't resist pointing out that Texas Brand jeans are made in North Carolina.?! WTH

Better than one of the Stans or China though...

 

[FormerHangie]

Sorry...couldn't resist pointing out that Texas Brand jeans are made in North Carolina.?! WTH

Better than one of the Stans or China though...

According to the makers, at one time they were made in Texas, but the company consolidated production in North Carolina.

 

[dell30rb]

Pretty good video. Turbo Mooney is where it's at.

The Cirrus definitely has a wider cockpit and more useful load. For someone like me (solo business travel about 60% of the time) it makes no difference. Also, while the cockpit in the Mooney is narrower, your passengers in the front or back should not have any complaints about legroom. And I think the quality of the interior in the new Mooney (judging from pics) is now on par with Cirrus.

The one thing they don't have is a Parachute, and I don't think they'll ever sell on par with Cirrus until they get one. I am guessing that would take a full redesign/new certification to do it and still keep the useful load and w&b at a reasonable level.