Mooney Company sold

[Perezhr]

Chinese conglomerate Meijing Group has obtained the permission of US authorities to buy US aviation company Mooney. The deal could be completed in November if it is approved by the US Department of State, according to Chinese aviation news website CAN Press.

Meijing Group announced on its official microblog on Oct. 2 that the deal has been approved by the US Committee on Foreign Investment and set the completion date to two months. The group will become the first private Chinese company to acquire a well-known US aircraft maker after the deal is completed.

Mooney Airplane Company is an US single-engine piston aircraft maker established in 1929. Although it has sold over 11,000 aircraft and built its brands and reputation, its business operations have been seriously affected by market fluctuation and poor management. After a slew of bankruptcies and restructuring, it halted production and laid off some of its workers in 2010.

The company remains a valuable acquisition as a debt-free resource full of experienced experts, professional technicians, a US permit to produce and verify aircraft and loyal customers.

The US authority approved the deal because the company's clients are not involved in the military, said Gu Jianquan, vice director of Henan province's Academy of Social Sciences. Along with national security, connections to these two fields are the main cause for the rejection of Chinese business acquisitions in the US.

The Meijing-Mooney deal still needs to be approved by the state department but it is expected to get a green light soon and without much fuss.

The middle price range bracket of airplanes manufactured by Mooney could entice the Chinese market, said Yang Qingxian, director of the aviation school at the Anyang Institute of Technology. Industrial insiders estimated that the deal will be worth around US$100 million.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Perezhr]

Well, looks like article above may not have been entirely accurate. Below was posted in MooneySpace by Bill Eldred, Chief Engineer, Mooney International.


Hello Mooney Followers,
It is time for all of you to take a deep breath and listen to what I have to say about Mooney International, now that I am allowed to speak.
We have been working for months with Dr. Jerry Chen, President of Soaring America on a deal to provide funding to restart production of Mooney aircraft in Kerrville, TX. This last Friday, all of the necessary hurdles being jumped, Mooney Aviation Company became Mooney International Corporation, with a funding injection by Soaring America. Soaring America is a U.S owned company, with its home office located in the Los Angeles, Ca area.
If you were to meet Jerry, you would find a very intelligent, likable guy. I mean this guy is a full Professor of Aeronautics at UCLA, and he saw the potential in resurrecting one of the most advanced aircraft designs in the world, and growing on that for future Aerospace products. When Jerry first approached us, one of the first visions he presented to us was to maintain a high quality aircraft brand, made in the USA by American workers, sold worldwide including up and coming Emerging markets worldwide. Restarting Production of the Ovation and the Acclaim Type S is an expensive proposition, and Soaring America has the kind if financial backing to get this place up and running again. You, as Mooney owners can expect a serious improvement in parts flow and customer care in the coming months. An example would be the Elevator skins, which have not been available for years, are now shipping from the factory in Kerrville to needy customers everywhere. Why? Because Jerry spent $16,000 to replace the rubber press plate on our Large Hydro Press that had deteriorated beyond use several years ago. We are currently receiving bids to refurbish the factory, and are looking to hire upwards of 100 people in the coming year. This will allow us to start Production of new aircraft in early 2014, delivering later in the year.
Last week, an unfortunate, and inaccurate Press Release found its way onto some of the internet aviation websites. That subsequently lit up the chatlines with all manner of speculation and comment, including one commenter that was ready to sell his F Model because “he wasn’t going to put any Chinese Junk” on his airplane. Really??
Allow me to present some FACTS to you, that you may not be aware of:

- Mooney International Corporation is a U.S. Corporation. Want proof? Friday I transferred the Type Certificate 2A3 to Mooney International Corp. under the authority of FAA Order 8110.4C Paragraph 3-2(f)(2) which states: “Certificate Transfer to a Domestic Holder. When a TC holder transfers a TC within the U.S., the FAA must reissue the TC immediately. The TC holder submits the original TC to the ACO after completing the transfer endorsement on the reverse side of the TC. This changes the TC holder, and the effective date is the date of the TC holder’s signature…

- I personally do not care if another country makes “junk”, or not. I am Chief Engineer for Mooney International, and Mooney International makes aircraft and its parts, in Kerrville, Texas that conform to our Type Design. The people that are, and will be employed here are Americans that live in the Kerrville area. Always has been, always will be.
- Is the source of this financing originating in other countries? Probably. Let me remind you of another fact: Mooney, for more than the last decade, has been financed by (GASP!) European investors. So if the source of the financing that funds a U.S Company, building a U.S. product in the U.S built by U.S. workers bothers you, then maybe you should check out one of our competitors. Oh, wait! Most of them are owned by foreign companies! But not Mooney International. Oh, and by the way, Dr. Chen’s lineage is not Chinese, rather Taiwanese.

In closing, I hope I have been able to put these rumors to rest. If I were you, I would look for news releases that come from here. What is happening here in Kerrville is GREAT NEWS, and should be greeted as such.

Bill Eldred
Director of Engineering
Mooney International Corp.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Bravo!

Well, looks like article above may not have been entirely accurate. Below was posted in MooneySpace by Bill Eldred, Chief Engineer, Mooney International.


Hello Mooney Followers,
It is time for all of you to take a deep breath and listen to what I have to say about Mooney International, now that I am allowed to speak.
We have been working for months with Dr. Jerry Chen, President of Soaring America on a deal to provide funding to restart production of Mooney aircraft in Kerrville, TX. This last Friday, all of the necessary hurdles being jumped, Mooney Aviation Company became Mooney International Corporation, with a funding injection by Soaring America. Soaring America is a U.S owned company, with its home office located in the Los Angeles, Ca area.
If you were to meet Jerry, you would find a very intelligent, likable guy. I mean this guy is a full Professor of Aeronautics at UCLA, and he saw the potential in resurrecting one of the most advanced aircraft designs in the world, and growing on that for future Aerospace products. When Jerry first approached us, one of the first visions he presented to us was to maintain a high quality aircraft brand, made in the USA by American workers, sold worldwide including up and coming Emerging markets worldwide. Restarting Production of the Ovation and the Acclaim Type S is an expensive proposition, and Soaring America has the kind if financial backing to get this place up and running again. You, as Mooney owners can expect a serious improvement in parts flow and customer care in the coming months. An example would be the Elevator skins, which have not been available for years, are now shipping from the factory in Kerrville to needy customers everywhere. Why? Because Jerry spent $16,000 to replace the rubber press plate on our Large Hydro Press that had deteriorated beyond use several years ago. We are currently receiving bids to refurbish the factory, and are looking to hire upwards of 100 people in the coming year. This will allow us to start Production of new aircraft in early 2014, delivering later in the year.
Last week, an unfortunate, and inaccurate Press Release found its way onto some of the internet aviation websites. That subsequently lit up the chatlines with all manner of speculation and comment, including one commenter that was ready to sell his F Model because “he wasn’t going to put any Chinese Junk” on his airplane. Really??
Allow me to present some FACTS to you, that you may not be aware of:

- Mooney International Corporation is a U.S. Corporation. Want proof? Friday I transferred the Type Certificate 2A3 to Mooney International Corp. under the authority of FAA Order 8110.4C Paragraph 3-2(f)(2) which states: “Certificate Transfer to a Domestic Holder. When a TC holder transfers a TC within the U.S., the FAA must reissue the TC immediately. The TC holder submits the original TC to the ACO after completing the transfer endorsement on the reverse side of the TC. This changes the TC holder, and the effective date is the date of the TC holder’s signature…

- I personally do not care if another country makes “junk”, or not. I am Chief Engineer for Mooney International, and Mooney International makes aircraft and its parts, in Kerrville, Texas that conform to our Type Design. The people that are, and will be employed here are Americans that live in the Kerrville area. Always has been, always will be.
- Is the source of this financing originating in other countries? Probably. Let me remind you of another fact: Mooney, for more than the last decade, has been financed by (GASP!) European investors. So if the source of the financing that funds a U.S Company, building a U.S. product in the U.S built by U.S. workers bothers you, then maybe you should check out one of our competitors. Oh, wait! Most of them are owned by foreign companies! But not Mooney International. Oh, and by the way, Dr. Chen’s lineage is not Chinese, rather Taiwanese.

In closing, I hope I have been able to put these rumors to rest. If I were you, I would look for news releases that come from here. What is happening here in Kerrville is GREAT NEWS, and should be greeted as such.

Bill Eldred
Director of Engineering
Mooney International Corp.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Wow... I was hoping someone would post that!

Mooney has not been purchased by the Chinese.

The whole Meijing thing was a hoax. Not sure who started it or why, but Mooney was purchased by an American company and is staying in Kerrville. Read the post right above Troy's for the details.

Bravo!

Hah! I see what you did there.

(I'd love to have a Bravo. 270hp, and turbo, and otherwise like the Ovation. And you can get FIKI!)

 

[Jim_R]

The whole Meijing thing was a hoax. Not sure who started it or why...

The Chinese company who claims to have purchased Mooney started it, and it was reported on a "reputable" (I think?) Chinese news site on Oct 8: Chinese Radio International. And then AOPA, AvNet, and dozens of other sites picked up the story and repeated it.

The one aviation news site I'd trust to explain away any confusion is AvWeek, but they're silent on the matter.

I don't know about "hoax" just yet. Sounds to me like it could simply be Chinese investment money funneled through an American holding company, so they stay one step removed from direct ownership. The note from Mooney a couple posts back admits that could be the case.

 

[KSMooniac]

I don't know about "hoax" just yet. Sounds to me like it could simply be Chinese investment money funneled through an American holding company, so they stay one step removed from direct ownership. The note from Mooney a couple posts back admits that could be the case.

Exactly. Dr. Chen is on the younger side, and spent enough time in school to earn a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from USC, I believe. I'd love to know where he/his company got the millions to do such a deal as I doubt he is a self-made rich guy so far. If he were a dot-com millionaire I wouldn't think twice about it, but getting rich quickly in the engineering, especially as a professor, is rare. (or I'm doing it wrong!) The money came from somewhere, and seeing how the companies involved are private, I doubt we'll ever truly know.

All that aside, this is very good news from my viewpoint. Restarting production means a better supply of spare parts, and new planes that turn into used planes that some of us might be able to purchase in the future. If they make good on ideas to enhance/improve or even replace the current models, then that is even better.

EDIT: I know of one aero prof that got quite rich after applying his CFD skills to the financial markets in some capacity, although I don't know the details.

 

[jmp470]

Can you please add 2 additional seats, another door, 4 inches across and a parachute? If not, RIP.

 

[Jim_R]

Can you please add 2 additional seats, another door, 4 inches across and a parachute? If not, RIP.

??? Translated to another industry:

Dear Chevrolet:

Can you turn the Corvette into a Tahoe? If not, RIP.

 

[Alexb2000]

??? Translated to another industry:

Dear Chevrolet:

Can you turn the Corvette into a Tahoe? If not, RIP.

I took that as be able to compete with Cirrus or RIP.

I actually agree with that notion, they are the big dog on the porch.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I took that as be able to compete with Cirrus or RIP.

I actually agree with that notion, they are the big dog on the porch.

First of all... Cirrus doesn't have 6 seats either.

Second of all - How do you "compete" with an identical product? If there's no differentiation, there will be no competition on the product, at that point it's all marketing.

FWIW, Mooney can compete with Cirrus. For example, among their current normally-aspirated products, the Mooney can go the same speed on ~5 gph less (about 1/3 less fuel). As fuel prices will do nothing but rise, that is a compelling argument for the Mooney.

 

[Clark1961]

Can you turn the Corvette into a Tahoe? If not, RIP.

No but I nearly turned my Camaro into a bus the other day...

 

[Bill]

First of all... Cirrus doesn't have 6 seats either.

That, and I don't know of any 6 seaters with BRS.

 

[SCCutler]

First of all... Cirrus doesn't have 6 seats either.

Second of all - How do you "compete" with an identical product? If there's no differentiation, there will be no competition on the product, at that point it's all marketing.

FWIW, Mooney can compete with Cirrus. For example, among their current normally-aspirated products, the Mooney can go the same speed on ~5 gph less (about 1/3 less fuel). As fuel prices will do nothing but rise, that is a compelling argument for the Mooney.

That, and the stone-cold reality that Mooneys are bad-ass.

 

[poadeleted21]

...
FWIW, Mooney can compete with Cirrus.

Recent history doesn't agree with that hypothesis. They better have a better plan than just burning through some Chinese investment capital doing the same ole thing. Just restarting the same ole Acclaim production line, probably isn't it.

 

[JimNtexas]

According to AW&ST, Chinese buyers prefer 'Made in America'.

 

[N2124v]

Split the fuselage down the middle and make it 4 inches wider and add a pilot side door, or a rear seat door, and you've got a great airplane.

 

[FastEddieB]

In his aviation humor session today at AOPA Summit 2013, Rod Machado said that at the rate things are going, we won't rent airplanes anymore, they'll just be offered as takeout.

And when selecting options, you get to choose one from Column A and one from Column B!

 

[poadeleted21]

Split the fuselage down the middle and make it 4 inches wider and add a pilot side door, or a rear seat door, and you've got a great airplane.

I believe that's called a G36 Bonanza.

 

[Alexb2000]

First of all... Cirrus doesn't have 6 seats either.

Second of all - How do you "compete" with an identical product? If there's no differentiation, there will be no competition on the product, at that point it's all marketing.

FWIW, Mooney can compete with Cirrus. For example, among their current normally-aspirated products, the Mooney can go the same speed on ~5 gph less (about 1/3 less fuel). As fuel prices will do nothing but rise, that is a compelling argument for the Mooney.

I look at it like this, there were Beech, Mooney, Cessna, Piper and any number of smaller GA manufacturers. Along came some new players, primarily Cirrus and to some extent Diamond. For those missions where someone wanted a new 4 seat, go fast, airplane, Cirrus has all but eliminated the competition. Since that was Mooney's only product segment they went out. If the 400 was Cessna's only bird they would be gone next month. Right now no one can touch Cirrus, look at the sales numbers. The G-5 is another game changer and in many ways challenges the 6 seaters.

They innovate, everyone else reluctantly follows in the single engine piston category. I've never owned a Cirrus, it's just how I see it.

 

[Henning]

I look at it like this, there were Beech, Mooney, Cessna, Piper and any number of smaller GA manufacturers. Along came some new players, primarily Cirrus and to some extent Diamond. For those missions where someone wanted a new 4 seat, go fast, airplane, Cirrus has all but eliminated the competition. Since that was Mooney's only product segment they went out. If the 400 was Cessna's only bird they would be gone next month. Right now no one can touch Cirrus, look at the sales numbers. The G-5 is another game changer and in many ways challenges the 6 seaters.

They innovate, everyone else reluctantly follows in the single engine piston category. I've never owned a Cirrus, it's just how I see it.

Actually the Columbia is probably more innovative, what Cirrus did right was use a chute and market it in the right places to attract the yacht, Ferrari and Maserati owning businessmen. They even had one parked at Miami Beach Marina for a while. Marketing is where all the others fail, not design.

 

[Alexb2000]

Actually the Columbia is probably more innovative, what Cirrus did right was use a chute and market it in the right places to attract the yacht, Ferrari and Maserati owning businessmen. They even had one parked at Miami Beach Marina for a while. Marketing is where all the others fail, not design.

How so?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Recent history doesn't agree with that hypothesis. They better have a better plan than just burning through some Chinese investment capital doing the same ole thing. Just restarting the same ole Acclaim production line, probably isn't it.

I dunno, the Acclaim sold a decent number of copies in 2007 and the first half of 2008 before the line got shut down.

If they could "restart the same ole Acclaim production line" and then market like Cirrus, they'd make a killing.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Split the fuselage down the middle and make it 4 inches wider and add a pilot side door, or a rear seat door, and you've got a great airplane.

I believe that's called a G36 Bonanza.

Try again.

The Mooney is an inch and a half wider than the Bonanza already.

The Bonanza doesn't have a pilot side door either.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I look at it like this, there were Beech, Mooney, Cessna, Piper and any number of smaller GA manufacturers. Along came some new players, primarily Cirrus and to some extent Diamond. For those missions where someone wanted a new 4 seat, go fast, airplane, Cirrus has all but eliminated the competition. Since that was Mooney's only product segment they went out. If the 400 was Cessna's only bird they would be gone next month. Right now no one can touch Cirrus, look at the sales numbers. The G-5 is another game changer and in many ways challenges the 6 seaters.

They innovate, everyone else reluctantly follows in the single engine piston category. I've never owned a Cirrus, it's just how I see it.

Actually the Columbia is probably more innovative, what Cirrus did right was use a chute and market it in the right places to attract the yacht, Ferrari and Maserati owning businessmen. They even had one parked at Miami Beach Marina for a while. Marketing is where all the others fail, not design.

Henning's got it.

Mooney had FIKI, turbos, etc. long before Cirrus did. The only thing the Cirrus has that the others don't is a chute. Well, as far as the airplane goes. As far as the company goes, Cirrus marketing is head, shoulders, and torso better than the rest.

Alex, what is so innovative about Cirrus? Sure, it's composite... But it wasn't the first certified composite plane. Yeah, it's got a parachute... I'll give 'em that one. But most of their "innovations" appear to be trying to make up for the substandard pilots that tend to buy 'em (that'd be the bad side of having such a good marketing department).

Is there anything that makes the Cirrus a better pilot's plane than the others? They've clearly made it a better passenger's plane, but I don't think they've done anything that the automotive industry didn't do first there. Even if they were first to bring any of that stuff to the aviation market, I still don't think it's that innovative.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Recent history doesn't agree with that hypothesis. They better have a better plan than just burning through some Chinese investment capital doing the same ole thing. Just restarting the same ole Acclaim production line, probably isn't it.

One problem with the M20 line is they are fairly labor intensive to build, even by airplane standards.

But an Ovation would have my name on it if I had the bucks.

 

[N2124v]

One problem with the M20 line is they are fairly labor intensive to build, even by airplane standards.

But an Ovation would have my name on it if I had the bucks.

Bring composite technology into the manufacturing process and I bet you could reduce the labor costs.

 

[peppy]

One problem with the M20 line is they are fairly labor intensive to build, even by airplane standards.

This is the big deal many people don't talk about. When Cirrus went from G1 to G2 a lot of effort was put into manufacturability. Build hours were reduced. That's the problem with the Columbia (oops, Corvalis). It is very expensive to build.

 

[Getonit]

You guys are arguing over who is going to buy a $600,000+ airplane? Most likely they are not on POA.

 

[Henning]

You guys are arguing over who is going to buy a $600,000+ airplane? Most likely they are not on POA.

Correct, which is why Cirrus is in Robb Report and DuPont.

 

[Dav8or]

Split the fuselage down the middle and make it 4 inches wider and add a pilot side door, or a rear seat door, and you've got a great airplane.

But a significantly slower one. The Mooney is built the way it is for a reason. Efficiency. It is this efficiency that has allowed them to stand out from the rest. More doors, bigger doors, wider cabin... pretty soon you have a Piper.

I agree with the nay sayers. The market has already shown that the M20 airframe has passed it's prime... unless, they can dramatically reduce the cost to manufacture and bring the price down. A BRS system would help too.

I believe where we left off in 2008, the Mooney cost significantly more than an SR22. So with the nicer cabin, two doors and a parachute, the Mooney's speed and efficiency just wasn't resonating with buyers. Particularly with wives I imagine. Adding a chute and lowering the cost gives it a fighting chance... for a little while. Ultimately, there needs to be an all new Mooney.

 

[Dav8or]

You guys are arguing over who is going to buy a $600,000+ airplane? Most likely they are not on POA.

Pilot forums argue about everything. I'm just glad this is actually about airplanes for a change.

 

[peppy]

Cirrus brought glass to the certified GA market. Alan Klapmeirer pushed Avidyne to make the AI wide. Remember when a glass cockpit AI was just a graphical representation of a mechanical one? Composites were used where complex curves gave an advantage but the control surfaces are aluminum because it is about value rather than composite vs. aluminum religion. The side yoke allows dropping the glare shield so that the view forward is much better. The dual doors allow convenient entry without climbing over someone. The way the doors go forward and up mean you can stand straight up and step into the back seat area. That may mean nothing as a pilot's plane but it means a lot as a family travel plane. Cirrus introduced the straight and level button. Cirrus introduced ESP feedback when off the AP. Cirrus was the first to make TAWS standard.

You are correct that a lot of items had been done by others. However, one thing Cirrus has done is make sure they don't lose in a features war. Cirrus wasn't the first with airbags but they quickly added them. If it wasn't innovative to bring automobile features to the aviation market then why hadn't someone else done it earlier?

How many other planes in its class have added 200 lbs of useful load with a redesign?

For 2014 Cirrus redesigned the brakes so that they stay cooler, weigh 7 lbs less total, and stop the plane in a shorter distance. They also allow the use of tubeless tires which should reduce the number of flats. Just one small nice upgrade. Even though they have the number one seller they aren't sitting still.

Alex, what is so innovative about Cirrus? Sure, it's composite... But it wasn't the first certified composite plane. Yeah, it's got a parachute... I'll give 'em that one. But most of their "innovations" appear to be trying to make up for the substandard pilots that tend to buy 'em (that'd be the bad side of having such a good marketing department).

Is there anything that makes the Cirrus a better pilot's plane than the others? They've clearly made it a better passenger's plane, but I don't think they've done anything that the automotive industry didn't do first there. Even if they were first to bring any of that stuff to the aviation market, I still don't think it's that innovative.

 

[peppy]

I believe where we left off in 2008, the Mooney cost significantly more than an SR22. So with the nicer cabin, two doors and a parachute, the Mooney's speed and efficiency just wasn't resonating with buyers. Particularly with wives I imagine. Adding a chute and lowering the cost gives it a fighting chance... for a little while. Ultimately, there needs to be an all new Mooney.

When I was married I tried to get my now ex (a pilot too) interested in a Mooney. I was sitting in the copilot's seat and she climbed in over me to get in the pilot's seat. At the time we were in a fractional in a Cirrus. She sat, paused and then looked at me and said "No way."

 

[Alexb2000]

Henning's got it.


Alex, what is so innovative about Cirrus? Sure, it's composite... But it wasn't the first certified composite plane. Yeah, it's got a parachute... I'll give 'em that one. But most of their "innovations" appear to be trying to make up for the substandard pilots that tend to buy 'em (that'd be the bad side of having such a good marketing department).

Is there anything that makes the Cirrus a better pilot's plane than the others? They've clearly made it a better passenger's plane, but I don't think they've done anything that the automotive industry didn't do first there. Even if they were first to bring any of that stuff to the aviation market, I still don't think it's that innovative.

I think they did their homework and still do it today. They built a package that gave buyers of new 4 place single engine aircraft what they want while everyone else said, "here's what we've got". They adapted quickly, resolved design issues, and have produced 4 models in 14 years when every other manufacturer struggles to do one every 20 years. Along the way they made countless small changes, improvements, ad ons, etc. Enough that buyers always have something on the new models that you can't get on the ones from last year. Show me ONE current SR-22 owner that wouldn't love to have a G-5?

Is that how Mooney owners used to feel?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

They adapted quickly, resolved design issues, and have produced 4 models in 14 years

4???

SR20, SR22. There's 2.

SJ50? That's not in the realm of "have produced" yet.

SR22T? Throwing a turbo on it does not make it a different model IMO... Though you could argue that the Bravo and Ovation are otherwise the same as well (though those two have different engines and different horsepower as well as turbo vs. N/A).

VK30? That was a lot more than 14 years ago, and they didn't "produce" them.

What 4 are you talking about?

Along the way they made countless small changes, improvements, ad ons, etc. Enough that buyers always have something on the new models that you can't get on the ones from last year. Show me ONE current SR-22 owner that wouldn't love to have a G-5?

Again, that's true of everyone. I would love to have the newer Ovation based at my field that has G1000 and FIKI TKS too.

Is that how Mooney owners used to feel?

Yep. Every airplane gets those countless small changes/improvements. Probably not so many on a 172 any more, but ask anyone who knows a type really well and they'll probably be able to tell you those differences each model year. The difference, again, is Cirrus' marketing - They go and paint "G5" on the tail and then the next guy who only has "G3" painted on his has gotta have one. Keeping up with the Joneses and all.

Maybe all Mooney really needs to do is paint "Type S" on the side of the Acclaims and "Ovation3" on the side of the Ovations and they'll have the same effect.

Look, I'm not saying Cirrus does nothing. They've brought an awful lot to the GA market. But today's Mooney is not the Mooney of 20 years ago either.

 

[Dav8or]

But today's Mooney is not the Mooney of 20 years ago either.

Actually, it pretty much is, other than the avionics upgrade that every other manufacturer got as well. 1993's M20M TLS is pretty much exactly the same plane as today's M20TN Acclaim, but with an updated avionics package (everybody has it), ten more HP, very minor aerodynamic tweaks and a different prop.

 

[denverpilot]

Can you please add 2 additional seats, another door, 4 inches across and a parachute? If not, RIP.

Disagree. I'd buy a Mooney (metal) over a Cirrus (plastic) any day of the week.

BRS doesn't toot my horn, much. It's very low on the list of priorities, below the must-have/nice-to-have dividing line.

 

[poadeleted21]

Try again.

The Mooney is an inch and a half wider than the Bonanza already.

The Bonanza doesn't have a pilot side door either.

Or a rear seat door

 

[Alexb2000]

4???

SR20, SR22. There's 2.

SR22T? Throwing a turbo on it does not make it a different model IMO... Though you could argue that the Bravo and Ovation are otherwise the same as well (though those two have different engines and different horsepower as well as turbo vs. N/A).

What 4 are you talking about?

The SR22T is a good example. They had a NA SR22, but people wanted a turbo. So they made a deal with GAMI to engineer and install a turbo normalized system. They offered it as a factory option vs. making people take it there aftermarket, people liked that. Then Continental came up with a true factory turbo so they changed to that, all inside of a decade. I don't think it's the same thing as just throwing a turbo on it.

I think we're differing on the definition of model, I just mean there are 4 generations of SR-22 within 14 years. Each version has significant differences well beyond paint and a giant G whatever on the tail.

Don't get me wrong I think Mooney is a great aircraft. They choose to bet the ranch that speed was the single factor that buyers cared the most about. Look at their sales presentations as late as 2008 it's all about speed. The market says there's more to it, they want a balanced package.

 

[Henning]

Disagree. I'd buy a Mooney (metal) over a Cirrus (plastic) any day of the week.

BRS doesn't toot my horn, much. It's very low on the list of priorities, below the must-have/nice-to-have dividing line.

In the marketing scheme of things though, you don't matter. Getting in new guys is what matters, and parachutes sell planes to new guys because their wives say "Get that one", the left side door has the same effect.