Mooney (what's wrong)

[wanttaja]

Just out of curiosity Ron...anyone ever call you WaterNinja?

No, but I've been called a drip once or twice.

Been called "Montoya" a few times, by people who heard the name without seeing the spelling.

Ron "they call the wind" Wanttaja

 

[Timbeck2]

Oh, well then....<looks around nervously>.....WATER NINJA!! <runs away>


side note: based loosely on the character "Rex Kramer, danger seeker" in Kentucky Fried Movie.

 

[mondtster]

Not what I meant at all. I have heard the same thing from a few different mechanics. I would like to hear some specifics from actual mechanics. That's all I was saying.

I'm a mechanic and I hate working on them. 10 million screws to remove to do just about everything and you always seem to have to drill at least a few out because some previous mechanic either out the wrong screw in or angered the head of the screw out while installing it. Add to that the fact that there is very little room to work on any of the accessories. They just aren't fun to deal with.

The newer ones are better to work on but in my opinion only marginally so.

I've never had trouble finding parts, either new or used. As with any older airframe, some things are getting tougher to find.

There is really nothing wrong with the Cirrus, but I swear I have never seen a cult like mentality since Jonestown. For the uninformed, this is an extension of the ****ing contest that erupted in the Icon crash thread which precipitated the All things Cirrus thread. But I do think we needed this Mooney sucks thread.

I've always felt like the Mooney crowd had more of a cult like following than the Cirrus. Kind of amusing that both are represented in this thread.

 

[nauga]

side note: based loosely on the character "Rex Kramer, danger seeker" in Kentucky Fried Movie.

Very loosely!

(one of my favorite movies)

Nauga,
a Samuel L. Bronkowitz production

 

[Velocity173]

I expect no less from someone that flies a backwards built airplane with a training wheel on it......

Lol! I just caught that. Yes, I'd take any canard over a Vans as well.

The thing Vans has going for them is they have impeccable support and they can do it all. While I like canards, for the most part, they aren't approved for aerobatics and they aren't popular short field / grass field aircraft. Still, there's just something about them. Like prefering a Starship over a King Air if you will.

 

[unsafervguy]

A friend calls them "Van-cans."

The Vans don't win "hands down," at least compared to Cirrus. At the peak, RVs constituted about 40% of new homebuilts; if I remember right (traveling, don't have access to my data), this has been 25% in recent years. With about 800 to 1000 new EAB added to the US registry each year, this puts the RV totals a bit below Cirrus. Add the foreign sales, and they're probably about equal.

Ron Wanttaja

The latest number I have heard is about 1.5 compleations a day, that's about 550 airframes a year. The foreign numbers are large because of the support and acceptance of foreign authorities. That number is growing, it wasn't to many years ago it was quoted as 1 a week.

 

[citizen5000]

RVs are kit planes. The only factory version is an SLSA. They are not certified aircraft. They can't really be compared to either Mooney or Cirrus.

But if you are just talking about something that flys then drones are by far outnumbering all other aircraft made combined.

 

[Timbeck2]

Very loosely!

(one of my favorite movies)

Nauga,
a Samuel L. Bronkowitz production

A friend of mine has a friend whom I've never met but he talks of him all the time. Every time he mentions his name I laugh. His name:


Jim Slade

I asked if Jim was a big guy; he is not.

 

[nauga]

His name:

Jim Slade

And the capital of Nebraska is Lincoln!

Nauga,
who is rough and toothless

 

[Tantalum]

I don't think Cirrus has a "cult like" following nor does Mooney, both are unique planes (compared to Cessna and Piper) and that means the owners tend to really love and defend them

Mooney folks get very sensitive about low sales numbers and comfort issues and Cirrus guys are perpetually fighting the "it can't recover from a spin so it needs a chute" rumor

Cirrus sells more first and foremost because it gives the GA world a very comfortable, new, easy to fly and manage airplane that their non flying spouses like flying in, and yes, the chute is a huge selling feature

Mooney suffers because there's really nothing fundamentally new there, and unlike Piper and Cessna they're trying to market to a special "non training wheel crowd" - Mooneys marketing always seemed a little standoffish whereas Cirrus has built a customer centric company


**I hope they succeed because GA needs it.. but they need something new to refresh the product line and overhaul their PR group

 

[FloridaPilot]

There is really nothing wrong with the Cirrus, but I swear I have never seen a cult like mentality since Jonestown. For the uninformed, this is an extension of the ****ing contest that erupted in the Icon crash thread which precipitated the All things Cirrus thread. But I do think we needed this Mooney sucks thread.

Mooney has a cult like following as well, but Cirrus knows what there customers want and provide it to them. Like I mentioned in a previous post even if you like one particular brand you should want the other to do well. As a buyer you want companies to compete for your business because you will get better deals. I do it all the time. Oh your price is this? I will go down the block and get a better deal..Oh wait wait...lol

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Not what I meant at all. I have heard the same thing from a few different mechanics. I would like to hear some specifics from actual mechanics. That's all I was saying.

We're the mechanics you heard this information from pretend mechanics?

 

[kyleb]

Back to "What is wrong with Mooney?"

I'd submit that many people are put off by the thought of investing >$500k on a product (even a great product) where there is a decent chance the product won't be factory supported in 2 or 10 years...

 

[EminiTrader]

Back to "What is wrong with Mooney?"

I'd submit that many people are put off by the thought of investing >$500k on a product (even a great product) where there is a decent chance the product won't be factory supported in 2 or 10 years...

That seems like a fair point.

 

[kyleb]

RVs are kit planes. The only factory version is an SLSA. They are not certified aircraft. They can't really be compared to either Mooney or Cirrus.

I'd argue that an RV-10 can be directly compared to a Mooney or Cirrus. From an owner's perspective, the main difference is the amount of work the owner is allowed to do (unsupervised) on the airplane. Oh, and parts availability. You could probably get virtually any airframe part for an RV in 3-5 days if you're willing to pay for premium shipping.

 

[dennyleeb]

We're the mechanics you heard this information from pretend mechanics?

No. Just lacked specifics

 

[Tarheelpilot]

No. Just lacked specifics

In general I deem most sarcastic silly remarks to be unworthy of response especially a serious response.

 

[unsafervguy]

RVs are kit planes. The only factory version is an SLSA. They are not certified aircraft. They can't really be compared to either Mooney or Cirrus.

But if you are just talking about something that flys then drones are by far outnumbering all other aircraft made combined.

I realize that you are either a schill for cirrus or an employee, but the performance of an rv-10 can be compared with either .yes it is a kit but on the used market it is in the same class with a large price advantage. to some of us, the cirrus, although a good airplane it's not gods gift to aviation and at close to a million a pop, with outrageous fixed maintenance costs, will never be on our short list of planes to own. I just don't get the cult following of it. The whole point was that 300 airframes a year is not great numbers. I'm glad they can make money at that level but the production of new aircraft is in a downward spiral, and with the pricing where it's at it's not going to get any better. If a kit company can push out those numbers with a plane that must be built by the buyer, what could an affordable certified aircraft do?

 

[MetalCloud]

Back to "What is wrong with Mooney?"

I'd submit that many people are put off by the thought of investing >$500k on a product (even a great product) where there is a decent chance the product won't be factory supported in 2 or 10 years...

Nailed it

 

[Velocity173]

Mooney parts shortage wouldn't be a concern of mine if I was thinking about buying. A Mooney service department works on my aircraft and I've asked about getting parts. Generally, whatever they can't get from factory, they go through other PMA / OEM suppliers. Now, fuel tank leaks?

 

[GRG55]

Mooney parts shortage wouldn't be a concern of mine if I was thinking about buying. A Mooney service department works on my aircraft and I've asked about getting parts. Generally, whatever they can't get from factory, they go through other PMA / OEM suppliers. Now, fuel tank leaks?

Sometimes there are delays finding an unusual, low production volume part, but I don't think I've ever come across a situation where a plane of whatever vintage was permanently grounded because of a lack of a part. The type clubs are pretty good at helping keep these old birds flying.

The worst case I know of personally was a friend with a 112TC Rockwell Commander. Took a few months to find a replacement cylinder for his limited production Lycoming.

 

[hindsight2020]

Sometimes there are delays finding an unusual, low production volume part, but I don't think I've ever come across a situation where a plane of whatever vintage was permanently grounded because of a lack of a part. The type clubs are pretty good at helping keep these old birds flying.

The worst case I know of personally was a friend with a 112TC Rockwell Commander. Took a few months to find a replacement cylinder for his limited production Lycoming.

LOL try finding gear conduits for a comanche "out of batch season", or fuel selector valves for same, or Cessna 172/182/210 wobble gear pivot/actuator/housing, or.....you get my point.

I was down for the count for 90 days based on a mickey mouse rear spar alone. and that was on on a PA-28 wing component mind you. It would have been quicker to replace the entire wing, but that's no different than the economics of automotive windshields, where the big one is cheaper than the tiny glass windows because of frequency of demand and parts stock dynamics. At any rate, if that had happened on a PA-24? Game over. I just don't want to rely on a "type club" to keep my XC commuter in flying status. At some point dispatch rate has $$$ equivalency, even for an avocation.

 

[GRG55]

... I just don't want to rely on a "type club" to keep my XC commuter in flying status. At some point dispatch rate has $$$ equivalency, even for an avocation.

"Permanently grounded" and dispatch rate are two different things. If the latter is important, that's understandable, but 40 +/- year old airframes probably create many frustrations in that circumstance. I've been rebuilding one system at a time on my 38 year old Aztec since I bought it 5 years ago, specifically to improve the reliability/dispatch - and it was not a neglected or abused airplane prior.

I hear the new Mooneys are pretty nice.

 

[Matthew K]

I'm honestly surprised mooney is keeping their doors open...moral has to be low at the business. I'm happy cirrus is selling, but it's still depressing to me to hear that only 300 are being built a year. These numbers just don't sound like thriving business, if only more people bought new and these new ones were the same price as in the 1980s(factoring in inflation of course).

 

[OkieAviator]

#allplanesmatter

 

[wanttaja]

Oh, well then....<looks around nervously>.....WATER NINJA!! <runs away>

Don't forget, you have to do that in the middle of a bunch of my relatives to count.

"Huh? Wut'd he say?"

side note: based loosely on the character "Rex Kramer, danger seeker" in Kentucky Fried Movie.

Rex Kramer is ALSO the name of Robert Stack's character in "Airplane."

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Cluemeister]

They clearly resented Cirrus for dominating the market. They felt they had a superior plane, and couldn't imagine how they were losing to Cirrus. Thus, the insulting "when you're ready for the training wheels to come off" marketing attempt, suggesting Cirrus buyers were like 5 year olds.

The first step of the new Mooney CEO should have been to assemble 100 recent Cirrus buyers and interview them and ask "what did you like or dislike about Cirrus?", and "what did you like or dislike about the Mooney?", and finally "Why did you choose a Cirrus over a Mooney?" That would have been the blueprint to success.

 

[FloridaPilot]

I went to their display at sun n fun and they had some beautiful planes but I couldn't even get a Rep to talk to me.

I had the same experience. I go to the Mooney tent every year at SnF but my buddy Richard wasn't there because he was celebrating an anniversary. He is a real stand up guy I go and look for him every time anytime I speak to someone else....

 

[Rotero]

The lead time on a new SR2x is 90 days at present

Lead time on a new SR22T is seven months at present.
How do I know that?

 

[Bill]

Few years ago before i bought my first plane i wanted to buy a Mooney. My AP said depending on what goes its hard to get parts.

Anecdotal for sure, but 10 years of ownership has shown a well maintained Mooney to be a very robust aircraft. The only Mooney specific repair I can remember is replacing the gear donuts. Everything else has been germane to all small singles.

 

[Grum.Man]

I think the main difference between Mooney and Cirrus is a lot like how traditional car makers are loosing the electric battle to Tesla.

Cirrus came on the scene as a new name producing a different concept. They didn't have a ton of airframes in the market to compete against them selfs. They brought a car like interior to a stale aircraft design field and proposed a fix for single engine anxiety by adding the shoot. They marketed like an automotive company and provide the complete package from training, maintenance, and everything in between. There is a vast dealer network and continue to bring updates and upgrades to keep interest going in their new aircraft.

Money on the other hand is a lot like why Lancair is still going strong and Glasair is struggling. Consumer confidence is all but gone. They are producing products that are very traditional in the airplane market. Much smaller dealer and service network. Since airplanes are so highly maintained they don't really wear out to the point they get trashed. It's hard to sell a new one when there are so many used ones for 1/4 of new price.

Lastly whether it's true or not, the retractable gear brings with it a perception of high insurance cost, high maintenance cost, higher risk, and minimal speed increases given how aerodynamic you can make a fixed gear now.

 

[Shepherd]

Anyone here actually work for Cessna, or Mooney or any of the other aircraft producers?
I was at a meet and greet a few years ago and was talking with a guy who claimed that it cost Cessna less than $30,000.00 to build a fully loaded C-182 and that all the rest was mark-up.
Anyone have any real numbers to share?

 

[Glen R]

Anyone here actually work for Cessna, or Mooney or any of the other aircraft producers?
I was at a meet and greet a few years ago and was talking with a guy who claimed that it cost Cessna less than $30,000.00 to build a fully loaded C-182 and that all the rest was mark-up.
Anyone have any real numbers to share?

Since the engine alone costs more than that I would seriously question the sources sanity.

 

[Jeff Cutler]

Think everyone hits it pretty good, Cirrus came in with a new 'product consept' while Mooney (Cessna & Piper for that matter) are still basically the same airframes they've always produced. Cirrus did build an airframe around a big-bore engine that pushes through the air very fast. So what did Mooney do? Same. They are both fast. They are both expensive to buy. If there is 50% mark up over COGS, then the answer for Mooney to discount to the market (price war), while investing in rebuilding the reputation of being a bullet proof airframe & fully supportive parts source to the aging Mooney fleet. Do Auto dealers make money in selling new GM/Fords, or do their service departments carry the enterprise? New sales are a one & done for Mooney since they do not really offer upgrade equipment in their product line. In fact, they went in the other direction with a water'd down version for 'first plane owners & trainers' in a declining market by the numbers. BTW, the folks at Piper do not keep in stock out of the ordinary parts for the P28... you still may have to wait 4-6 weeks for gear door actuator mount, unless you poney up to Avial that'll charge 3x list price b/c it's been sitting on their shelf for 10yrs. Bottom line, Mooney is suffering from a revolving door of owners and leadership, with nothing spent on marketing/promoting themselves to the market.

 

[dennyleeb]

I forgot to mention. When I was looking at new planes a year and half ago I called and left mooney a message wanting to at least look at their product. I didn't get a call or email in return. It was unlikely I was going to buy the mooney because the 22 fits my mission to a T. But I was a little surprised not to even get a call back.

 

[EminiTrader]

I realize that you are either a schill for cirrus or an employee,

Pretty sure Cirrus does not need a shill in a message forum to sell planes.

 

[GRG55]

Anyone here actually work for Cessna, or Mooney or any of the other aircraft producers?
I was at a meet and greet a few years ago and was talking with a guy who claimed that it cost Cessna less than $30,000.00 to build a fully loaded C-182 and that all the rest was mark-up.
Anyone have any real numbers to share?

I must have missed the press release when Cessna moved C-182 production to Vietnam.

 

[drotto]

I think Mooney's problems boils down to a few basic items.

1. It is an old airframe. Any tweaks are just that, and consumers are drawn to new products.
2. Worries about stability of the company. Mooney made no planes for 5 or 6 years, so buyers are concerned if this restart is going to stay.
3. Support for the new plane if the company does not make it.
4. Cirrus marketing and service is very very good. I have heard many people complaining about how Mooney has been dealing with customers.
5. Perceived value. Yes all planes are overpriced for what you get. With that said people will pay more for perceived new and innovative design. Cirrus hold a big edge here.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[MetalCloud]

I forgot to mention. When I was looking at new planes a year and half ago I called and left mooney a message wanting to at least look at their product. I didn't get a call or email in return. It was unlikely I was going to buy the mooney because the 22 fits my mission to a T. But I was a little surprised not to even get a call back.

Similar to another poster's story about how he got zero attention at the mooney booth at an airport day recently. Can't find the post but that's sad. Yes you aren't going to sell a plane to every person that wants to look inside. But have some enthusiasm.

And to not get a call back? Crazy. I met a cirrus rep at an airport day back when I didn't even realize ownership would be a possibility. Just introduced myself and said, "maybe one day.." so as to be totally up front. Her response, "no worries. Want to go for a flight?" We spend almost an hour and a half up there. No strings, no expectations, just having fun in a kickass aircraft. I realize that's her job... but that's my point. That's her job. Cirrus puts that responsibility on her. And she loves it.

Mooney needs to find its own place like THAT. If you're going to attract a new owner for a 500k+ aircraft, you can't live in the past or just naively expect customers to come just because you have a few new features. You need the whole model to win over the buyer.

 

[citizen5000]

I'd argue that an RV-10 can be directly compared to a Mooney or Cirrus. From an owner's perspective, the main difference is the amount of work the owner is allowed to do (unsupervised) on the airplane. Oh, and parts availability. You could probably get virtually any airframe part for an RV in 3-5 days if you're willing to pay for premium shipping.

You can't compare a kit built experimental 120kt plane to fully factory built, certified 220kt planes. The RV is in a completely different market niche of price, capability and performance.