Mooney (what's wrong)

[RudyP]

I also don't agree that repeat customers would be a bad thing. Do you not think Porsche or BMW likes developing repeat customers who buy a new car every 2-3 years? To do that, they know they have to constantly innovate - Cirrus takes the same approach.

The alternative of making very few, very rare upgrades (Most of the other GA manufacturers) is what results in such terrible sales numbers because owners rightfully don't see a need to upgrade from their 19xx version to the 2017 version of the same plane just to get a different panel and a few minor tweaks (most of which they could retrofit).

 

[RudyP]

Can someone explain it to the challenged among us?

Someone asked him (Timbeck2?) if people ever called him WaterNinja based on his name.

 

[MBDiagMan]

hooray, another mooney-bashing thread WHOOP WHOOP

Yep,

Since the time I made it clear I was buying a Mooney, I have heard about Mooneys from three different categories of pilots; the dissenters that have never flown in one, the fans that have flown in or own one, and the dissenters that have flown in one. The first category is the most common, the second category is the next most common and the third is the least common.

I have found it quite interesting that so many people who have never flown in one, have developed Mooney hate based solely on second or third hand information. It reminds me of a friend of mine who used to bash Fords to a point where he said he would not let anybody park one in his driveway. I am not a car brand bigot. I have driven them all. So, one time I asked him "what model Ford did you own that was so bad that you developed such a bad opinion of them?" His response was being insulted that I would imply that he had ever owned one. Is it just me or is anyone else curious how you could develop such a strong opinion without actual first hand experience? Ford happened to be the brand he hated, but my question and thoughts would have been the same regardless of which particular brand he hated.

 

[eman1200]

...Is it just me or is anyone else curious how you could develop such a strong opinion without actual first hand experience? Ford happened to be the brand he hated, but my question and thoughts would have been the same regardless of which particular brand he hated.

see the 'people are stupid' thread.

 

[RudyP]

Yep,

Since the time I made it clear I was buying a Mooney, I have heard about Mooneys from three different categories of pilots; the dissenters that have never flown in one, the fans that have flown in or own one, and the dissenters that have flown in one. The first category is the most common, the second category is the next most common and the third is the least common.

I have found it quite interesting that so many people who have never flown in one, have developed Mooney hate based solely on second or third hand information. It reminds me of a friend of mine who used to bash Fords to a point where he said he would not let anybody park one in his driveway. I am not a car brand bigot. I have driven them all. So, one time I asked him "what model Ford did you own that was so bad that you developed such a bad opinion of them?" His response was being insulted that I would imply that he had ever owned one. Is it just me or is anyone else curious how you could develop such a strong opinion without actual first hand experience? Ford happened to be the brand he hated, but my question and thoughts would have been the same regardless of which particular brand he hated.

Agreed - that makes no sense. As someone who is a fan of Mooneys I don't get why anyone (regardless of what they fly/own) would be a dissenter of the brand. They have compromises, like any airplane, but it's hard to argue that they are efficient, fast, capable and economical airplanes that are a great fit for a pretty wide range of missions. I also happen to think they look good but that is subjective.

That said, I suspect that we are all a bit sensitive about our own favorite brand. As a sideliner with no real dog in the Mooney hunt, I see pretty limited Mooney 'bashing' (not saying there is none) whereas I see a LOT of Cirrus bashing. I think it is easy to interpret more balanced assessments (I like Mooney/Cirrus features X,Y,Z but don't like A,B,C) as criticism when it's your baby that is being evaluated. But then there are certainly a few uninformed, irrational legit haters out there. I could give you some Cirrus hater examples on this site but then again I don't want to trigger them...

 

[drotto]

Yep,

Since the time I made it clear I was buying a Mooney, I have heard about Mooneys from three different categories of pilots; the dissenters that have never flown in one, the fans that have flown in or own one, and the dissenters that have flown in one. The first category is the most common, the second category is the next most common and the third is the least common.

I have found it quite interesting that so many people who have never flown in one, have developed Mooney hate based solely on second or third hand information. It reminds me of a friend of mine who used to bash Fords to a point where he said he would not let anybody park one in his driveway. I am not a car brand bigot. I have driven them all. So, one time I asked him "what model Ford did you own that was so bad that you developed such a bad opinion of them?" His response was being insulted that I would imply that he had ever owned one. Is it just me or is anyone else curious how you could develop such a strong opinion without actual first hand experience? Ford happened to be the brand he hated, but my question and thoughts would have been the same regardless of which particular brand he hated.

I will come right out and say, I have never flown a Mooney, but I do have a lot of respect for the airplane. If that makes me less qualified to speculate on what the companies problem may be, you are free to have that opinion. But what is being said about Mooney, I think can be applied to most of the legacy airframe makers; Piper, Cessna, Mooney, and Beachcraft. They are no longer seen as innovators, they just tweak models that are very old at this point. In reality, you can buy any solid older airplane from the last 30 years from any of those companies, refurbish them completely, and have basically the same airplane they are selling new for 1/2 to 1/3 the cost. Furthermore, they supply of planes on the used market is enough to keep up with the demand. With that in mind, there is really no mystery why they are not selling many new planes.

Along comes Cirrus with a new plane. Granted the hull is nearing 20 years old at this point, but it is still one of the newer certified planes on the market. The design has had some tweaks, and has matured, but it gives the perception of being more modern and safer. They are marketed far more aggressively, and costumer service is excellent. The question (which I am not going to argue either way) as to how good the planes is almost irrelevant. Just as in the car market, new models, and extensive refreshes to existing models always sell better then older competitors offerings. Why do you think car companies change everything up so frequently. So we have a situation where the new model is beating out many older models, and the makers of the older models are refusing to overhaul their offerings. They are not giving good reasons for people to buy their product, and are not adapting to the new market.

Now I do understand that overall market, where the legacy makers coming up with new planes or massive changes may not be economically feasible. But until one of them does, Cirrus will continue to dominate the new plane market. The only way to ascertain if Mooney, Cessna, Piper, or Beachcraft could truly reassert themselves, would be one of them making a new plane to challenge Cirrus. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening.

 

[Bill]

Now I do understand that overall market, where the legacy makers coming up with new planes or massive changes may not be economically feasible. But until one of them does, Cirrus will continue to dominate the new plane market. The only way to ascertain if Mooney, Cessna, Piper, or Beachcraft could truly reassert themselves, would be one of them making a new plane to challenge Cirrus. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening.

Makes you wonder if some of the older legacies should merge, combine funds, and produce a new model or two to compete with Cirrus.

 

[Jeff Cutler]

Isn't the Cessna TTx suppose to be a direct competitor of the Cirrus, all be it a 'me too' product line that they bought the rights of the airframe, then put the ginormous twin turbo'd 550 in it just like Cirrus? Out of all of Cessna's selling numbers, wonder how many TTx's they sold last year. Bet Cirrus beat them in head-to-head unit sales. When you think of that product line who really thinks of the TTx? marketing, marketing, marketing... and to other's on this thread, it's more than just print marketing -- press the flesh and let's go fly'n!!!

 

[drotto]

I was excited when they announced they would be making planes again, but Mooney is in the weakest position of the certified aircraft makers. Cirrus seems to have its market figured out, and the Vision Jet will sell well. Texatron owns Beachcraft and Cessna and they do enough business (especially with their high end offerings) to keep making smaller planes. Finally, Piper seems to have found enough of a market with its PA46 hull, especially the turboprop varieties, to stay viable. Plus, both Cessna and Piper have good contracts with several large training programs, which maintains some demand for their trainers. Mooney is basically offering one plane with different engines. It is likely one of the better piston singles on the market, but they have nothing else to fall back on if that product does not sell.

 

[genna]

I'm not sure "repeat customer" is a great statistic to have in the new airplane biz. If your customer base thought they got what they needed the first time around... they probably wouldn't be back for seconds... so to speak...

I would think that repeat customer is one of the most important statistics from the business point of view. You can make an argument like you did about something being "wrong" with the product if customers want to update it all the time, but it's a false premise. Just like cars, planes are perishable. They get old and outdated(albeit slower than cars). If your customer spends more money to buy your product again, it means that they trust and like your product. It is not only the best/cheapest way for the company to get more business, but it is the most honest way of rating the product.

Car manufacturers spend many millions to try to retain their customers.

 

[drotto]

Isn't the Cessna TTx suppose to be a direct competitor of the Cirrus, all be it a 'me too' product line that they bought the rights of the airframe, then put the ginormous twin turbo'd 550 in it just like Cirrus? Out of all of Cessna's selling numbers, wonder how many TTx's they sold last year. Bet Cirrus beat them in head-to-head unit sales. When you think of that product line who really thinks of the TTx? marketing, marketing, marketing... and to other's on this thread, it's more than just print marketing -- press the flesh and let's go fly'n!!!

Yes it is, but as your pointed out, they purchased the design, and again it is almost 20 years old at this point. The TTX has been poorly promoted, and when people think Cessna, they think high wing. The TTX does not seem like a Cessna. Again, however, we come back to the fact that it is not a new plane at this point, and does not seem to have the wow factor. A truly new model is needed to counter Cirrus. It needs to be very modern, and seem to be the latest and greatest. Then it needs to be aggressively marketed. I would love to see it happen, as competition would help just about everything about the GA market.

 

[wanttaja]

Out of all of Cessna's selling numbers, wonder how many TTx's they sold last year.

Looks like 27.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Salty]

Businesses don't tend to dump loads of money into r&d for markets that don't exist. It seems like it would be hard to justify creating and certifying a new model in this market. It would be decades before you saw a return on your money.

But, I admit I do not understand the GA market. At all. Not even a little bit. I can't comprehend buying a new mooney for the price they are asking. Even if I had the money, it just doesn't seem worth it to buy new.

To me, it's akin to choosing between an iPhone 7 or an iPhone 7 with a screen protector for twice the price.

 

[drotto]

I would think that repeat customer is one of the most important statistics from the business point of view. You can make an argument like you did about something being "wrong" with the product if customers want to update it all the time, but it's a false premise. Just like cars, planes are perishable. They get old and outdated(albeit slower than cars). If your customer spends more money to buy your product again, it means that they trust and like your product. It is not only the best/cheapest way for the company to get more business, but it is the most honest way of rating the product.

Car manufacturers spend many millions to try to retain their customers.

And the legacy makers have not given customers enough reasons to come back for a second new plane. Many private pilots buy their first plane as if it is going to be their last plane. Unless your mission changes, most people have no reason to upgrade. So if I purchase a Cessna 182, I have no reason to buy a new 182, 10 or even 20 years later. I just refurbish the one I have already, they are easy to upgrade, and a new one does not offer any real advantages that can't be incorporated into the old one. Car makers realize this. Each refresh brings new efficiency, new features, more performance, more safety, and a new look with generally very little increase in cost. They are giving us a new and better product with each generation. Other than avionics upgrades, can we really say that aircraft makers are doing the same?

 

[genna]

And the legacy makers have not given customers enough reasons to come back for a second new plane. Many private pilots buy their first plane as if it is going to be their last plane. Unless your mission changes, most people have no reason to upgrade. So if I purchase a Cessna 182, I have no reason to buy a new 182, 10 or even 20 years later. I just refurbish the one I have already, they are easy to upgrade, and a new one does not offer any real advantages that can't be incorporated into the old one. Car makers realize this. Each refresh brings new efficiency, new features, more performance, more safety, and a new look with generally very little increase in cost. They are giving us a new and better product with each generation. Other than avionics upgrades, can we really say that aircraft makers are doing the same?

it's a catch 22. Not enough customers to economically create new products and not enough new products to attract customers. Cirrus took a risk and timed it reasonably well. But now that they have crowded the meager remaining market, nobody is willing to take another risk.

 

[GRG55]

...The only way to ascertain if Mooney, Cessna, Piper, or Beachcraft could truly reassert themselves, would be one of them making a new plane to challenge Cirrus. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening.

There's no economics to try to challenge Cirrus in the piston market with an expensive new certification. Even Cirrus can't sell half as many new airplanes as it was originally capable of producing.

Piper moved up-market with the pressurized Malibu (now called the M350 and the better selling turboprop M600). Cirrus is going to try to compete in that market segment with the Vjet. We'll see if Piper has the development funding resources to respond.

Cessna has more interest in advancing its family of jets, the Caravan and the new Denali turboprop than trying to certify a new piston model. If demand for the TTx and Bonanza wanes I expect it will permanently discontinue production. In the meantime Cirrus doesn't make anything that can be put on floats so Cessna has a niche for the load hauling high wing with no serious competition.

SOCATA (now Daher) discontinued all piston aircraft production and rightly figured out the market for profitable personal certified aircraft was a single engine turboprop.

The Daher TBM is the plane Beechcraft should have figured out, with its long experience in high performance personal airplanes and its turboprop knowledge from the King Air. Instead it wandered off squandering time and money on the Starship, and never really recovered. The fact that the Denali is to be marketed as a Cessna suggests the Beechcraft name will be phased out of the Textron lexicon in due course.

Mooney is in a difficult situation, unless it too can find the funding to move further upmarket. Certifying a new piston will bankrupt it.

Methinks the light airplane industry is going the same way as the automotive industry. Venerable names like Packard and Studebaker, Oldsmobile and Pontiac, and others have disappeared under the influence of market forces and the consequences of poor strategic decisions that are often too late to reverse.

 

[citizen5000]

And the legacy makers have not given customers enough reasons to come back for a second new plane.

Cirrus does incremental improvements on a set of three models based on the same airframe year over year. Each model fills a specific price/performance niche. This gives their repeat customers incentive to buy up to a newer year. Car makers are not constrained by FAA certification and manufactring rules so they are free to make radical changes to products.

The TTx is promoted the same as Cirrus. The two products are converging largely because Cessna has been duplicating the Cirrus SR22T. But it remains a mystery why Cessna has still not put a parachute into the TTX. They should have added that when they they redesigned the Corvallis and re-certified it and renamed it the TTx after FAA fined them after a wingskin bonding failure a few years ago.

http://www.compositesworld.com/news/faa-fines-cessna-24-million-for-composite-part-failure

 

[GRG55]

Makes you wonder if some of the older legacies should merge, combine funds, and produce a new model or two to compete with Cirrus.

You are describing Cessna. Who bought the Columbia (now TTx) from Lancair and the Bonanza/Baron when it bought Beech. Now it has a mishmash piston product line that I expect will preoccupy and distract it with rationalization decisions over new product development.

 

[drotto]

Methinks the light airplane industry is going the same way as the automotive industry. Venerable names like Packard and Studebaker, Oldsmobile and Pontiac, and others have disappeared under the influence of market forces and the consequences of poor strategic decisions that are often too late to reverse.

The more I think about it you may be right. Gone will be the days of Piper, Mooney, and Beech, to be replaced by Technam 2010's, Pipistrel Panthera's, Flight Design C4's, Diamond DA50's and Cirrus SR22's. I know not all of these are certified yet, but they are all in the pipeline.

It is not that new designs are not out there, they are just not being made by the old standbys.


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[zaitcev]

Not a single new better product that's worth the new price tag in quite a while, but they have the cult going. Same with Starbucks, Amazon, to a lesser extend car manufacturers, etc.

I'm not sure I see how Amazon got on the list. When was the last time you priced a few VMs on Amazon, Azure, Google, and, heck, Rackspace or OVH? Not to mention, their performance is constantly improving and they have tiered products like Dynamo that competition has no answer for. As for prices, they undercut everyone, even Azure. I see people seriously discussing if prices for Amazon Glacier are real of subsidized, based on available technologies.

Yes, there is some of the network effect and they acquire some customers by virtue of being the default. In addition, they are not beyond good old lock-in, using the data gravity with offerings like Snowball. But overall, it is my observation that Amazon is absolutely crushing everyone on the merits. It's not just a cult like Apple.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Oh my.....Pipistrel Panthera....

 

[denverpilot]

I'm not sure I see how Amazon got on the list. When was the last time you priced a few VMs on Amazon, Azure, Google, and, heck, Rackspace or OVH? Not to mention, their performance is constantly improving and they have tiered products like Dynamo that competition has no answer for. As for prices, they undercut everyone, even Azure. I see people seriously discussing if prices for Amazon Glacier are real of subsidized, based on available technologies.

Yes, there is some of the network effect and they acquire some customers by virtue of being the default. In addition, they are not beyond good old lock-in, using the data gravity with offerings like Snowball. But overall, it is my observation that Amazon is absolutely crushing everyone on the merits. It's not just a cult like Apple.

Poorly worded sentence. Apple is the company without a new / interesting product. The rest were examples of companies that do have them.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Mooney is fine. I think they hurt themselves by marketing the Ultra models for the past year while they were not certified until very recently. Most companies have figured out that it's a bad idea to market things that aren't actually available yet, because everyone will wait for the next thing and not buy the thing you can sell them today.

So, let's come back in a year and see how they're doing. Now that they can actually sell the Ultras, they'll probably do better.

I'm not worried about support in the least. In 2008 when the market crashed, Mooney essentially pushed the pause button - They didn't make any new airplanes and they didn't even finish the partially-done ones, but they did stay open for parts and support. I just had a very pleasant interaction with Mooney support last week, they were very helpful and friendly.

As far as the airplanes:

1) Yes, they're somewhat harder to work on - But just barely. Every aircraft has trade-offs, and this is Mooney's: They're optimized for speed and efficiency, not ease of maintenance - If you want that, get a Cessna and burn more gas to go slower. In addition, I have *never* had to replace a Mooney part. Whelen, King, etc but the Mooney is the most solidly-built airplane I've ever had the pleasure of being responsible for.
2) No, they are NOT small and cramped. Ask any of the many PoAers who have met me, I am a big dude - 6'4" and 300+#. The Mooney Ovation is one of the most comfortable four-seat piston singles I've flown. Al Mooney was 6'5" and he built himself an airplane.
3) Useful load on 7ST is over 1000 pounds. Four 200# adults and three hours of fuel, or myself and my wife and bags for the weekend and the full seven hours of fuel.

At some point the factory not being open and owned by foreign investors could hurt the used market though. Especially if parts become scarce or overly priced.
It was closed for what the last 6-8 years? Did that affect any owners getting parts?

Not closed. They just weren't building new airplanes. They were still in business and selling parts.

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...

Mooney has gone out of business and come back more than probably any other manufacturer, and I've never heard any stories about a lack of parts. They seem to have figured out how to stay in business without making any airplanes at all, so I'm not worried about that at all.

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.

Bingo. They're a stoutly built aircraft. And, FWIW, the gear donuts can be gotten from a third party as well; some of the people on the MAPA list put together a group buy now and then to get them cheaper.

Not a single new better product that's worth the new price tag in quite a while

Says the guy whose newest car is about 20 years old.

No one is "losing" an electric car war since there is no electric car market yet. Tesla makes a tiny fraction of cars compared to any one model of any of the big three makers. When the technology gets settled and people want an electric car then the big boys will make them and undercut Tesla overnight.

There is an electric car market - It's called California. But in reality, people are looking for longer range than the non-Tesla electric cars provide, and they're not looking for the eco-box weirdmobiles that the other manufacturers are selling. So far, Tesla is playing in the luxury market and has captured a 32% market share in luxury sedans with the Model S. So, in the market they're in, the other manufacturers are clearly losing. With the Model 3 beginning to ship this year, they're going to be in a new market segment, and the 400,000+ preorders already tell us they're going to do well. Detroit needs to realize that they're in the position now that Nokia was in early 2007. (Remember Nokia?)

Finally, they've figured out a lot of things along the way and are WAY ahead of ANYONE when it comes to volume production of batteries. Gigafactory 1 is open and producing already, even though they're not finished building the whole building yet because it's going to be the largest footprint building in the world. When it's done, it will have doubled the entire world's production of Li-ion batteries, producing more than the rest of the planet combined. The economies of scale there will lead to them being able to either enjoy much larger profits on EVs than the "big boys", or simply price them out of the market entirely.

What Tesla and Apple have both shown is that if you make a well-designed product that people want, you'll do well, regardless of what the conventional wisdom is. Cirrus does that to some extent, but the next disruptor in GA is not going to look anything like the airplanes we're all used to... And it might not even require a pilot.

 

[denverpilot]

Says the guy whose newest car is about 20 years old.

9 years old actually. And we own four. Oldest is 17. The 9 year old will have more serious problems than the rest too, but Karen wanted a Ford, so... LOL. Looking forward to the next spark plug change in that stupid Triton probably breaking something again, because you know... a company making cars for over 100 years can't figure out how to put spark plugs in an engine block properly. ROFLMAO.

I see nothing wrong with not playing the debt game with car makers who know 30%+ of the value of the thing is lost the second it drives off the lot...

... but will happily carry both the loan through their own "bank" and also sell you some nice gap coverage since you'll owe more on it than its worth for a number of years.

They know they're ripping you off, or they wouldn't offer the gap insurance. LOL.

(Have had THREE friends now not buy gap coverage and got the joy of paying payments on vehicles that were totaled and gone.)

Some models lose more value than than that. Very few less. The first seven years of a vehicle's fiscal life is a numbers disaster for the owner for the most part.

Since most vehicles will EASILY go longer than seven years / 100,000 (a common warranty term for well built vehicles) you're best off buying at around the five year mark into something that all the problems are known on and maybe even some have been dealt with under warranty.

But you're right. I don't park car payments in the driveway if I can avoid it.

I also watch the mechanics and maintenance info closely. I thought those little GM mid sized trucks looked like good little run arounds -- until videos like the above I linked where you need to change the timing *chain* before 100,000 miles AND it takes a quoted 30 hours of shop time to do it, started surfacing.

No thanks. Keep that poorly engineered dumpster fire... the joke is it'd be faster to swap an entire LS engine into the thing! Ha.

I loved that same mechanic putting a small Cummins into an '04 Tahoe/Yukon. Wow. Nice. 20+ MPG, will tow anything up to the point it breaks the Chevy transmission. Replacement used transmission to rebuild is $500. That's a good combo! Want!

(If the Yukon ever blows the 5.3L V8 there is a good chance I'd do that. Awesome. But then again the chance the Yukon will blow a Chevy 5.3L V8 is nearly zero...)

 

[kyleb]

Can someone explain it to the challenged among us?

There was an earlier thread where the pronunciation of Ron Wanttaja's name was discussed. Someone mentioned "water ninja". Voila, new Avatar.

 

[citizen5000]

There is an electric car market - It's called California.

The point brought was that the number of Tesla's being made (76,000 in 2016) are a tiny fraction of auto manufacturing (88 million in 2016). Sure they make the most inside the niche of electric cars, but compared to fossil fuel cars they are not in the game at all. Ultimately all electric cars get most of their power from fossil fuels anyway (coal/oil/nat gas plants).

In the somewhat distant future we will see electric planes and cars hopefully mostly getting their juice from fusion reactors. But that day is still sadly pretty far off.

 

[Timbeck2]

There was an earlier thread where the pronunciation of Ron Wanttaja's name was discussed. Someone mentioned "water ninja". Voila, new Avatar.

I refuse to be relegated to just "someone." ....just sayin.

 

[G-Man]

All hail Timbeck2 - The Great Appellator!

 

[GRG55]

Mooney is fine. I think they hurt themselves by marketing the Ultra models for the past year while they were not certified until very recently. Most companies have figured out that it's a bad idea to market things that aren't actually available yet, because everyone will wait for the next thing and not buy the thing you can sell them today...

Huh?
Isn't selling what wasn't actually available yet exactly how Cirrus built a roughly 600 unit pre-certification order book for their jet?

I agree with you completely about electric cars. Most of them do look eco-wierd, Tesla being the notable exception. I am sceptical of Tesla's business model, but Musk gets full credit for recognizing if he could only produce a limited volume he had to go after the high margin luxury car segment, to start.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

9 years old actually. And we own four. Oldest is 17.

*snip*

I'm not disagreeing with your financial decisions in the least, Nate - I'm just saying that maybe you're not the best person to judge whether something new is worth the new price when clearly you've made that decision already and you are not their target market.

Obviously, to some people it's worthwhile to spend the extra money to have an airplane that's got that new smell, configured exactly the way they want it, that hasn't been flown by anyone else except the production test pilot, or we wouldn't have any airplanes being sold at all.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Huh?
Isn't selling what wasn't actually available yet exactly how Cirrus built a roughly 600 unit pre-certification order book for their jet?

There are exceptions - I think Cirrus realized how many of their customers were moving on to TBMs, PC-12s, Citation Mustangs and other VLJs. They also weren't cannibalizing SR22 sales by selling the jet. So, the same rule doesn't apply.

For a more analogous situation, imagine if Cirrus said "We've got an SR22 coming out a year from now that will go 30 knots faster on half the fuel burn" (or pick another high-demand new feature). Do you think they'd sell any SR22s in the next year?

I agree with you completely about electric cars. Most of them do look eco-wierd, Tesla being the notable exception. I am sceptical of Tesla's business model, but Musk gets full credit for recognizing if he could only produce a limited volume he had to go after the high margin luxury car segment, to start.

The man is incredibly smart. It's quite inspiring to watch him make utterly ludicrous promises, and then actually deliver on them. I don't doubt much of what he says any more.

The point brought was that the number of Tesla's being made (76,000 in 2016) are a tiny fraction of auto manufacturing (88 million in 2016).

Of course - They're a new company that doesn't even have products in nearly every market segment. But in the market segment they've actually been in for more than a year, they're on top. Expect that they'll do the same to the luxury SUV market this year. And it'll take them several years before they're playing in enough market segments to have a significant portion of the overall car market.

Sure they make the most inside the niche of electric cars, but compared to fossil fuel cars they are not in the game at all.

If you look at electric vs. gas, sure. But that'd be like saying "iPhones make the most inside the niche of smartphones but compared to flip phones they're not in the game at all" back in 2007. If you look at the market segments they're in instead of the propulsion used, they're clearly a formidable player.

Ultimately all electric cars get most of their power from fossil fuels anyway (coal/oil/nat gas plants).

Dunno what that has to do with anything, but who cares? Even if the electricity is 100% from coal, they pollute about the same as a gas car. Very few places are still 100% coal.

I'm not into electric cars for environmental reasons. I like them because they're smooth, quiet, and really fun to drive! And I don't have to go to the gas station because I leave my house with a full "tank" every day.

In the somewhat distant future we will see electric planes and cars hopefully mostly getting their juice from fusion reactors. But that day is still sadly pretty far off.

Well, *WE* won't see it, but our kids or grandkids might.

 

[Salty]

There are exceptions - I think Cirrus realized how many of their customers were moving on to TBMs, PC-12s, Citation Mustangs and other VLJs. They also weren't cannibalizing SR22 sales by selling the jet. So, the same rule doesn't apply.

For a more analogous situation, imagine if Cirrus said "We've got an SR22 coming out a year from now that will go 30 knots faster on half the fuel burn" (or pick another high-demand new feature). Do you think they'd sell any SR22s in the next year?



The man is incredibly smart. It's quite inspiring to watch him make utterly ludicrous promises, and then actually deliver on them. I don't doubt much of what he says any more.



Of course - They're a new company that doesn't even have products in nearly every market segment. But in the market segment they've actually been in for more than a year, they're on top. Expect that they'll do the same to the luxury SUV market this year. And it'll take them several years before they're playing in enough market segments to have a significant portion of the overall car market.



If you look at electric vs. gas, sure. But that'd be like saying "iPhones make the most inside the niche of smartphones but compared to flip phones they're not in the game at all" back in 2007. If you look at the market segments they're in instead of the propulsion used, they're clearly a formidable player.



Dunno what that has to do with anything, but who cares? Even if the electricity is 100% from coal, they pollute about the same as a gas car. Very few places are still 100% coal.

I'm not into electric cars for environmental reasons. I like them because they're smooth, quiet, and really fun to drive! And I don't have to go to the gas station because I leave my house with a full "tank" every day.



Well, *WE* won't see it, but our kids or grandkids might.

Hopefully our kids will be smart enough to see that a battery that weighs more when "empty" than a gas tank weighs when its full is a bad idea in an airplane.

With the example we're giving them it's unlikely, but we can hope.

 

[genna]

Hopefully our kids will be smart enough to see that a battery that weighs more when "empty" than a gas tank weighs when its full is a bad idea in an airplane.

With the example we're giving them it's unlikely, but we can hope.

You don't necessarily have to have a battery in an electric plane. Fuel Cell... not saying that it's ready or will ever work(cheaply enough), but batteries are not required. Hydrogen needed is way lighter than batteries and it does get empty

Just saying

 

[denverpilot]

I'm not disagreeing with your financial decisions in the least, Nate - I'm just saying that maybe you're not the best person to judge whether something new is worth the new price when clearly you've made that decision already and you are not their target market.

Oh I'd buy new if I needed the depreciation for tax reasons. It's not an "already made decision" that can't change.

That's the vast majority of the value proposition for buying new.

I suspect their target market actually would be any people who could write a check for the thing or their competitor's product. They just haven't figured out a way to make that work without a business-use write off aspect to the purchase.

The majority of new aircraft owners I've talked to, wanted the depreciation. They had a business purpose and didn't care if it was an audit flag, the offset of the business income against the aircraft depreciation was worth it. At the very least, it easily paid for the tax attorney.

I haven't met any who bought for the new car smell. You can get that in an aerosol can.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Hopefully our kids will be smart enough to see that a battery that weighs more when "empty" than a gas tank weighs when its full is a bad idea in an airplane.

I dunno - The "fuel" for a battery electric airplane weighs more, but the "engine" (motor) weighs way less. There are certainly challenges presented by electric aircraft, but they're not insurmountable or there wouldn't be so many companies working on them right now.

 

[Salty]

I dunno - The "fuel" for a battery electric airplane weighs more, but the "engine" (motor) weighs way less. There are certainly challenges presented by electric aircraft, but they're not insurmountable or there wouldn't be so many companies working on them right now.

Uh. Ok.