Can Mooney and Cirrus save General Aviation?

Jeff Cutler said:
20 years ago there use to be what I'd call 'traveling sales' people that would fly the new stuff around. Ran in to one guy on the ramp in what was then a brand new Mooney, must have been the first Bravo. It was really something to see. And the guy was very friendly, and extremely knowledgable - asking people if they wanted to go up and fly. Today, it's either major air shows or fly to the factory with only serious buyers that get a demo flight. Down sizing has hurt the knowledge base of flying Reps if not totally eliminated, or say another way - that level of Reps have seen a brain drain since those companies have gone through hard economic times, buyouts, or worse bankruptcy and re-emergance... don't know if flying Reps would work today, its always hard to measure proposition value to PR.
Click to expand...

Just a couple of years ago Cirrus did a tour through my region with one of their airplanes. They used the civil aircraft register to mail out RRSP invitations to owner/pilots.
 
MetalCloud said:
Meanwhile I met a cirrus rep I was pre-ppl. Talked about how I loved the planes and she offered to take me up. Went spent an hour and a half flying, doing landings and maneuvers. I was in no way thinking I would or could buy one and I even told her that.

Almost two years later, it actually happened. And she's nice, knowledgeable, excited, never once put the pressure on (even when I told her I was considering a purchase).

So it's not just amazing planes and slick brochures. It's the whole package. They are doing it right, as the sales figures and number of planes on frequency indicate.
Click to expand...

You are spot on,

They are doing it right. Think of it this way, How many people and businesses out there can make a better burger than McDonalds? I can think of 5 off the top of my head easily. Why is McDonalds more successful? Because of their marketing and business systems. Mooney doesn't need to copy Cirrus airplanes, there airplanes are nice enough they need to revamp their marketing, get dedicated sales people, reward them well based on performance, (Like someone mentioned previously) focus on what they do best. Make fast efficient aircraft.
 
Mooney is old news. Cirrus clearly cannot be matched by them. Take a look at the Innovator. They are bringing two to Oshkosh (or at least trying to get them ready for the event). If these guys get real they will be a leader with a completely fresh and new design. http://commutercraft.com/innovator-aircraft
 
Cessna TTx sold 31 planes in 2016. Mooney sold 7.
 
Broken record, fanboy, blah blah blah


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Broken record, fanboy, blah blah blah


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

I see your always bashing cirrus. What do you own/fly?

Although it might be a broken record it seems like it bothers your ego that cirrus out performs all the others in the marketplace. I feel like they out perform others in air as well.
 
GRG55 said:
Just a couple of years ago Cirrus did a tour through my region with one of their airplanes. They used the civil aircraft register to mail out RRSP invitations to owner/pilots.
Click to expand...

They also used to mine the state licensing databasess for targeted marketing. A friend of mine is a surgeon. Knows nothing about airplanes but he does know that if he buys one, it is going to be a Cirrus.
 
dennyleeb said:
I see your always bashing cirrus. What do you own/fly?

Although it might be a broken record it seems like it bothers your ego that cirrus out performs all the others in the marketplace. I feel like they out perform others in air as well.
Click to expand...

I'm not bashing anyone. I make comments good and bad on every airframe. Cirrus deserves some criticism, and since no one ever seems willing to acknowledge those criticisms, they get called fanboys. No airplane is perfect except evidently Cirrus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think the next step for Cirrus will be to pressurize the SR22. Nor sure it they can do it for the -22 but a pressurized single would be logical. The guys at Evolution aircraft say they get many Cirrus owners coming over to them because the wife doesn't want to wear cannulas.
 
jkgoblue said:
I think the next step for Cirrus will be to pressurize the SR22. Nor sure it they can do it for the -22 but a pressurized single would be logical. The guys at Evolution aircraft say they get many Cirrus owners coming over to them because the wife doesn't want to wear cannulas.
Click to expand...

I'd be all over this.
 
jkgoblue said:
I think the next step for Cirrus will be to pressurize the SR22. Nor sure it they can do it for the -22 but a pressurized single would be logical. The guys at Evolution aircraft say they get many Cirrus owners coming over to them because the wife doesn't want to wear cannulas.
Click to expand...

Mooney came out with a pressurized version in the 60's, M22... Looked kinda boxy, but they were ahead of their time back then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_M22_Mustang
 
citizen5000 said:
Mooney is old news. Cirrus clearly cannot be matched by them. Take a look at the Innovator. They are bringing two to Oshkosh (or at least trying to get them ready for the event). If these guys get real they will be a leader with a completely fresh and new design. http://commutercraft.com/innovator-aircraft
Click to expand...

Now if starting was 50-60K they might be onto something!

citizen5000 said:
Cessna TTx sold 31 planes in 2016. Mooney sold 7.
Click to expand...

Mooney can catch those numbers it's not much of a stretch. Even if you like just one brand you should want other manufacturers to do well because it generates competition. When companies compete for your business it's more favorable to the buyer. Prices will be more reasonable.


jkgoblue said:
I think the next step for Cirrus will be to pressurize the SR22. Nor sure it they can do it for the -22 but a pressurized single would be logical. The guys at Evolution aircraft say they get many Cirrus owners coming over to them because the wife doesn't want to wear cannulas.
Click to expand...

Great Idea, Cirrus should also make a Turbo Prop as well, (Similar to a TBM) so they can have all three classes of airplane. Most past Cirrus buyers upgrade to TBM's that is why they advertise in the Cirrus Magazine.
 
There will be no pressurized SR22. Cirrus's pressurized plane is the SF50 VLJ. If you want a pressurized piston single you have to go to the Piper M350 for $1.2m (213kt cruise) or the Evolution Lycoming for $1m (240kt cruise).

Before the SF50 the Cirrus SR22T owners wanting an upgrade went to the Eclipse SE refurb twin-jet. There are two of these guys a few hangars down from me on the field.
 
Tantalum said:
[snipage about spring loaded stick]

[Response to "whole package comment":]
True dat! people can debate all day about retractables, Mooney vs Cirrus verse others, however Cirrus has found a way to give you the entire package. It is not the fastest or most capable plane out there, and for the very high end buyer it does leave some elements to be desired, like pressurization, but overall the entire product gives you the least amount of compromises
Click to expand...

Which sounds exactly like how folks describe C-182s. "It doesn't do anything the best but it does almost everything pretty well."

And I've flown a Cirrus. And it is a sweet airplane and would make a very nice traveling bird. And the fit and finish is superb. But dang, so much money!

John
 
citizen5000 said:
Mooney is old news. Cirrus clearly cannot be matched by them. Take a look at the Innovator. They are bringing two to Oshkosh (or at least trying to get them ready for the event). If these guys get real they will be a leader with a completely fresh and new design. http://commutercraft.com/innovator-aircraft
Click to expand...

Well, it seats two, not four. And (I assume the pictures are of a prototype) the fit and finish have a LONG way to go. And this is purely subjective, but it's ugly.
 
gsengle said:
I'm not bashing anyone. I make comments good and bad on every airframe. Cirrus deserves some criticism, and since no one ever seems willing to acknowledge those criticisms, they get called fanboys. No airplane is perfect except evidently Cirrus.


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

C'mon now..we all know Cirrus planes are beyond reproach. I mean any objection can always be overridden with "but I have a chute"...:)
 
SR-22 is already too heavy. Making a pressurized plastic bathtub? Oh boy, piggie piggie. 300 won't be enough. The perf number would be atrocious to marketing, and they will do the boneheaded thing of upping the legal certified continuous power to compensate, and here comes the double digit engine failures a la Malibu. I don't think it is in their economic interest to attempt to pressurize a consumer grade plastic airplane.
 
jsstevens said:
And this is purely subjective, but it's ugly.
Click to expand...
I'm always happy to see there are people out there looking to get a new GA plane on the market, so I'd be happy to see just about anybody (non LSA) at this point find success. But I agree, it's not an attractive plane and I worry that the "canard" Iit's not a true canard?) design and pusher prop configuration doom this thing from the start. You need to push aesthetic design envelope just enough to stand out, but not so much that you're swimming upstream of the pack. Human nature is to feel like you're a unique individual, but not necessarily "different" from everyone else. Cirrus and Panthera I think get this spot on, their designs are well executed.. Mooney as well have that sleek low profile look... whether or not you like these planes most people will agree that Cirrus, Panthera, Mooney, are good looking birds
 
hindsight2020 said:
SR-22 is already too heavy. Making a pressurized plastic bathtub?
Click to expand...
Completely agree, and like someone else said the jet was their answer to this. I believe their jet will be immensely successful. But again, that shows good foresight on their part... and again the design is sharp. I haven't met anyone who thinks the Cirrus Jet is ugly. Even the crowd who gets upset with Cirrus will admit the jet is one hell of an attractive plane (at least those that I've met, but I'm sure someone will come along shortly to prove me wrong :))

Piper again tried to follow suite and they experimented with a jet, but it basically looked like a DC-10 and a Meridian had a drunken tryst one night, that was never going to compete with Cirrus
 
FloridaPilot said:
Now if starting was 50-60K they might be onto something!
Mooney can catch those numbers it's not much of a stretch. Even if you like just one brand you should want other manufacturers to do well because it generates competition. When companies compete for your business it's more favorable to the buyer. Prices will be more reasonable.
Click to expand...

If they can stay afloat that long. Selling 7 planes a year, scrapping product lines, and time for building / certifying new designs is not a good combination for an aviation company. But I'd like for them to do well even though I have no interest in their planes. Competition is a good thing. It fosters innovation and keeps the guys at the top sharp and focused.

FloridaPilot said:
Great Idea, Cirrus should also make a Turbo Prop as well, (Similar to a TBM) so they can have all three classes of airplane. Most past Cirrus buyers upgrade to TBM's that is why they advertise in the Cirrus Magazine.
Click to expand...

Hell to the yeah. I'd buy a Turbo Prop over the Vision Jet. Hands down.
 
gsengle said:
I'm not bashing anyone. I make comments good and bad on every airframe. Cirrus deserves some criticism, and since no one ever seems willing to acknowledge those criticisms, they get called fanboys. No airplane is perfect except evidently Cirrus.


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

So again what is it that you own/fly?
 
hindsight2020 said:
SR-22 is already too heavy. Making a pressurized plastic bathtub? Oh boy, piggie piggie. 300 won't be enough. The perf number would be atrocious to marketing, and they will do the boneheaded thing of upping the legal certified continuous power to compensate, and here comes the double digit engine failures a la Malibu. I don't think it is in their economic interest to attempt to pressurize a consumer grade plastic airplane.
Click to expand...

My 22 has fiki, air conditioning, seats 5, and has 1200 lb useful load. What other aircraft comes close to that with those options? SEP? Doesn't seem to heavy from my pov
 
I see several people quoting the different manufacturers sales forgiven years. Where is this data published?
 
skier said:
I'd be all for a Cirrus if they learned how to put the tail on in the right direction. ;)

Al Mooney was a cool guy and developed some interesting aircraft (not always for Mooney), but Mooney as a company has been a mess pretty much since they produced the original M-18s.
Click to expand...

Al was a great designer/engineer. He just had no head for the business side of things. He also had some bad luck at certain times, like falling on a freshly waxed floor and being in a body cast at a really bad time.
 
midcap said:
100k worth of car lease is still going to be over $1000 a month. Imagine if you saved $12,000 a year for 5 years.
That would net you $60,000 dollars.
That is enough money to get your PPL, have a nice big Mx reserve and have 20% down for a $50-75k dollar plane.
When you tell someone to have $60k to be a pilot, they'll crap their pants. But when you point out how they are spending.
Click to expand...

The problem with using the car logic is this: $60k worth of new car everyone sees and you get to drive it daily..VS...$60k for a plastic card in your wallet, plus the months of studying to get said card, a 50 year old plane sitting in a hangar that nobody sees in which it sits more than it flies. In todays world its all about impressing people and having expensive cars now that you can show off to everyone every day. And not to mention most people view general aviation planes as death traps. Buts thats a whole 'nother story...

When people find out I'm a pilot they always ask about cost. Then when they find out I own my own plane they assume I'm rich. Then when they find out my plane is a '68 model they ask "isn't that too old to be still flying it?". Its really a lack of education about GA and priorities in ones life. GA can be as inexpensive or as EXPENSIVE as you make it. I mean if your the type who has to have new... well GA is expensive, but if you can handle a 50 year old plane that cost as much as a used car its fairly inexpensive. Take it notch lower and get an UL and your still flying for even less.
 
simtech said:
Then when they find out my plane is a '68 model they ask "isn't that too old to be still flying it?"
Click to expand...
Many NA people would be surprised to learn how old the average plane is, even in the commercial world, Delta has MD-88s that average almost 30 years old. It's not like a car... more like a house or a boat. The principles of physics and the laws of flight don't change, so if you keep something maintained it will fly a long time

To that point that, Cirrus has some airframe limits on their birds, but I understand as the fleet ages and they have data those limits may be revised

To "save" GA Piper and Cessna need to step up their game and start selling some nice not-necessarily-strictly-trainer-level planes in a reasonable price bracket. Like someone else said the RD costs should be recouped. A new 172 in the 1960s adjusted to today's dollars would be $70K to $100K... so why can't we have new planes today for that much or cheaper?
 
We also need to make aviation romantic again. People lost interest in space and aviation, the world revolves around Facebook now. If it wasn't for SpaceX we really wouldn't have a space program (let's be honest)
 
Can someone rationally and impartially explain why Mooney sold jack **** 2010-2014? Not picking on them specifically because I really don't care... but they are in the title of this thread and I'm just curious.
 
MetalCloud said:
Can someone rationally and impartially explain why Mooney sold jack **** 2010-2014? Not picking on them specifically because I really don't care... but they are in the title of this thread and I'm just curious.
Click to expand...

They shut down production when the 2008/09 financial crisis put them under yet again. It wasn't until late 2013 Mooney announced it had secured financial backing to restart production.

Cirrus just about went under at that time too. At one point Cirrus was laying off staff and 16 months behind on rent for their production facility in Duluth.

It was a tough time all around for GA. Even the venerable Beechcraft didn't survive after hanging on until 2012, when it finally declared bankruptcy, and later bought by Textron (Cessna's parent company) after it was restructured.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
They shut down production when the 2008/09 financial crisis put them under yet again. It wasn't until late 2013 Mooney announced it had secured financial backing to restart production.

Cirrus just about went under at that time too. At one point Cirrus was laying off staff and 16 months behind on rent for their production facility in Duluth.

It was a tough time all around for GA. Even the venerable Beechcraft didn't survive after hanging on until 2012, when it finally declared bankruptcy, and later bought by Textron (Cessna's parent company) after it was restructured.
Click to expand...

Right on ok. Thank you. I saw that mentioned earlier but wasn't aware they completely shut down production.
 
GRG55 said:
Cirrus just about went under at that time too. At one point Cirrus was laying off staff and 16 months behind on rent for their production facility in Duluth.
Click to expand...

There's also the question of whether or not Cirrus is now, or has ever actually made a profit. It's privately held, so such information is not readily available. Does anyone know?
 
FastEddieB said:
There's also the question of whether or not Cirrus is now, or has ever actually made a profit. It's privately held, so such information is not readily available. Does anyone know?
Click to expand...

I don't think they have made over 6000 aircraft over 2 decades for the love of it.
 
dennyleeb said:
I don't think they have made over 6000 aircraft over 2 decades for the love of it.
Click to expand...

Which does not answer the question: are they actually making money?

I don't think the Klapmeiers would have sold out to Arcapita (Crescent Capital) if they had been making money.

I doubt that Arcapita would have sold out to CAIGA if they had been making money, though that's possible.

It really seems like no buyer other than the Chinese was willing to step up to buy Cirrus.

I wish them well, but remain curious about their profitability. It will take a LOT of jets sold to ever recoup those development costs!
 
FastEddieB said:
Which does not answer the question: are they actually making money?

I don't think the Klapmeiers would have sold out to Arcapita (Crescent Capital) if they had been making money.

I doubt that Arcapita would have sold out to CAIGA if they had been making money, though that's possible.

It really seems like no buyer other than the Chinese was willing to step up to buy Cirrus.

I wish them well, but remain curious about their profitability. It will take a LOT of jets sold to ever recoup those development costs!
Click to expand...

The Chinese tried to buy everything during and shortly after 2008. Not just Cirrus and other aircraft companies. Many business like aircraft are truly feast or famine.

It will take a large number of jets to recoup their investment but I think they will. But that's just my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top