What is going to happen to Mooney's?

Anthony said:
I think Mooney offers effeciency, and speed. Yes, you can buy a Cirrus and get similar speeds.
Click to expand...

If Mooney would cut a set of molds and change to a composite construction, the production costs would drop dramatically and speed of production increase considerably.
 
If the Chinese take over Google and Apple maybe they'll stop putting apostrophes in where we don't want them.:dunno:
 
Henning said:
If Mooney would cut a set of molds and change to a composite construction, the production costs would drop dramatically and speed of production increase considerably.
Click to expand...

So the FAA certification process is neither lengthy, nor expensive? If I wanted that, I'd just buy a Lancair.
 
Anthony said:
So the FAA certification process is neither lengthy, nor expensive? If I wanted that, I'd just buy a Lancair.
Click to expand...

The Chinese certification process?:dunno: No clue. The U.S. market is irrelevant to Mooney now, it's a pimple of a market.
 
James331 said:
I don't see myself ever flying a aircraft built in China, I haven't had the best luck with most of their products.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the movie Back to the Future Part III.

1950's Doc Brown: No wonder this circuit failed. It says "Made in Japan".
Marty McFly: What do you mean, Doc? All the best stuff is made in Japan.

Makes me wonder how many people that lived through the 50's were still wary of Japanese products in the 1980's and whether those that grew up after 2005 are like Marty with respect to China.
 
LevelWing said:
The fact that China owns Mooney had nothing to do with the fact that that Mooney crashed. It was built in Kerrville, TX. I understand that a brand new Mooney crashing shortly after production has re-started doesn't look good, but it has nothing to do with Chinese ownership.
Click to expand...

While I was at Sun and Fun I spoke to Richard the person that crashed the Acclaim, (He showed up, bruises and all) and he said since the new ownership they have been running a skeleton crew and they are always worried about being fired. I'm sure this has a dramatic effect on everything that they do here in the states. I wanted him to elaborate further but he wouldn't.

I wish only the best for Mooney, in a perfect scenario someone buys Mooney here in the states and bring the company back to what we know they can do....Make awesome airplanes!
 
Anthony said:
How many planes can cruise at 160 KTAS on 10.5 GPH?
Click to expand...

At altitude, my SR22 could actually get 160ktas on under 10 gph - 9.3 in the below image.

15072497308_97a5c748e3_c.jpg
 
As long as the Mooney design has value in the market it will be around. If this Chinese owner can't make it work, they will sell to someone who thinks they can.. The current owners won't burn the blueprints and tooling.
 
The reason they bought all these GA aircraft is for the price of 1 JSF, they can build 200 GA aircraft, so when we go to war, they will just swarm us!
 
FastEddieB said:
At altitude, my SR22 could actually get 160ktas on under 10 gph - 9.3 in the below image.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize they were that effecient. You were pretty high.
 
bnt83 said:
How many different manufacturers of new airplanes use a 300 horse engine? How many of those models are so similar that eliminating some of them wouldn't really be noticeable?

How many different manufacturers of new airplanes use a 200 horse engine? How many of those models are so similar that eliminating some of them wouldn't really be noticeable?

...
Click to expand...

How many car manufacturers build a 4 door 5 seat sedan? How many build a 4 door SUV?

Yes the car market is exponentially larger, but that doesn't mean that there cant be different models of a similar product and be successful.
 
Cpt_Kirk said:
I don't see myself ever flying a aircraft built in China, I haven't had the best luck with most of their products.
Click to expand...

Ive had fantastic luck with the 1965 Super 21. Im a big fan of that particular Mooney and the idea behind the design.
Click to expand...

You realize that the 65 Super 21 was built in Texas right?
 
My C will get about 140 or so on about 8gph.
 
Hank S said:
It's amazing the difference it can make.

"Let's eat grandma" or "Let's eat, grandma." Just a single comma left out, but boy what a difference it will make to grandma . . . :yikes:

Do try to be clear. "Mooney's" means something that belongs to Mooney. "Mooneys" means more than one Mooney. What the OP should have used was simply "Mooney."

--signed, an Engineer who knows better
Click to expand...

And these are Moonies:

enhanced-buzz-wide-5645-1361199518-3.jpg
 
teejayevans said:
Yea, those are from the POH for a fully loaded 201, add 5 knots if 350 under max.
Click to expand...


Here is a real world example:
2881f49e290c45d6b51327ecf50dedaf.jpg

Obviously winds affect the ground speed, you'll notice that on a J you start losing speed at higher altitudes, 8000-10000 is the sweet spot.
 
FastEddieB said:
At altitude, my SR22 could actually get 160ktas on under 10 gph - 9.3 in the below image.

15072497308_97a5c748e3_c.jpg
Click to expand...

I've never understood the point of posting an image of the panel at one point in time to prove a point. You need to post a video because how do we know you didn't quickly drop the power (and corresponding GPH) and then quickly take a picture before the speed bled off? Or maybe you were descending? This is not proof. Post a video of 30 seconds steady state behavior if you really want to provide solid proof.
 
^^^^^^^Very cool. Thanks.
 
narchee said:
I've never understood the point of posting an image of the panel at one point in time to prove a point. You need to post a video because how do we know you didn't quickly drop the power (and corresponding GPH) and then quickly take a picture before the speed bled off? Or maybe you were descending? This is not proof. Post a video of 30 seconds steady state behavior if you really want to provide solid proof.
Click to expand...

Sheesh.:rolleyes2:
 
asicer said:
Reminds me of the movie Back to the Future Part III.

1950's Doc Brown: No wonder this circuit failed. It says "Made in Japan".
Marty McFly: What do you mean, Doc? All the best stuff is made in Japan.

Makes me wonder how many people that lived through the 50's were still wary of Japanese products in the 1980's and whether those that grew up after 2005 are like Marty with respect to China.
Click to expand...

Big difference between Deming and Moore and Marx and Engels.
 
I am learning to fly a Mooney right now. A gorgeous M20C. Yes, it is fast and uses less gas that most airplanes. And it is a comfy aircraft.
 
steingar said:
I am learning to fly a Mooney right now. A gorgeous M20C. Yes, it is fast and uses less gas that most airplanes. And it is a comfy aircraft.
Click to expand...
I'd enjoy seeing pictures of it. I remember you posted on MooneySpace about it but I don't remember seeing pictures. :D
 
SkyDog58 said:
So that's why you are called Fast Eddie, trying to pull a fast one, eh? :rofl:
Click to expand...

Actually, that was a nickname my ex gave me after our honeymoon.

Back to the hijack...

Mooneys are fantastic and efficient machines - I've never owned one but have a bunch of hours in them, much of it instructing.

But the Cirrus is also pretty darn efficient. To wit...

I used to live in S FL and routinely fly my Tiger to a N GA vacation home. At 132 kts it took about 5 hours. At 10gph about 50 gals. And with about 50 gals capacity, almost certainly a fuel stop.

After stepping up to my SR22, it became about a 3.5 hour trip at about 170 kts and 13.5 gph. That meant I was making the same trip in an hour and a half less, and using a bit less fuel in the process. And no fuel stop.

Like I said, not putting down Mooneys - they're great! But they're not the only efficient plane out there.

Oh, and of course I might be lying. Sorry if I can't provide satisfactory proof. :mad2:
 
FastEddieB;1862275But the Cirrus is also pretty darn efficient. To wit... I used to live in S FL and routinely fly my Tiger to a N GA vacation home. At 132 kts it took about 5 hours. At 10gph about 50 gals. And with about 50 gals capacity said:
less[/I] fuel in the process. And no fuel stop.

Like I said, not putting down Mooneys - they're great! But they're not the only efficient plane out there.

Oh, and of course I might be lying. Sorry if I can't provide satisfactory proof. :mad2:
Click to expand...

If you are going to fly distances, if the extra speed allows you to skip a fuel stop, that is a big win/win. I believe the numbers for the SR22. They are excellent cross country planes, and I know a few guys that sold their older Bo's, and picked up an SR22, and are happy about it.
 
Heck, if we're talking strictly efficiency, the Cardinal RG can be flown very efficiently LOP. The trouble is, it then becomes only slightly faster than a 172.

YMMV - I've heard of people with 140 KTAS Cardinals... mine won't do anywhere close to that. :(
 
Cirrus are modern designs and materials for the most part. If someone applied those to the Mooney, it could be even faster and more efficient. Substitute carbon fiber and titanium for aluminum and steel would save 500 lbs
 
FastEddieB said:
Actually, that was a nickname my ex gave me after our honeymoon.

Back to the hijack...

Mooneys are fantastic and efficient machines - I've never owned one but have a bunch of hours in them, much of it instructing.

But the Cirrus is also pretty darn efficient. To wit...

I used to live in S FL and routinely fly my Tiger to a N GA vacation home. At 132 kts it took about 5 hours. At 10gph about 50 gals. And with about 50 gals capacity, almost certainly a fuel stop.

After stepping up to my SR22, it became about a 3.5 hour trip at about 170 kts and 13.5 gph. That meant I was making the same trip in an hour and a half less, and using a bit less fuel in the process. And no fuel stop.

Like I said, not putting down Mooneys - they're great! But they're not the only efficient plane out there.

Oh, and of course I might be lying. Sorry if I can't provide satisfactory proof. :mad2:
Click to expand...

I like the Cirrus, especially the 22. What made you get rid of it?
 
FastEddieB said:
Oh, and of course I might be lying. Sorry if I can't provide satisfactory proof. :mad2:
Click to expand...

That's okay. You're not alone. :D

And I think you're being too hard on yourself. Lying is too harsh. Exaggerating maybe. ;)
 
narchee said:
That's okay. You're not alone. :D

And I think you're being too hard on yourself. Lying is too harsh. Exaggerating maybe. ;)
Click to expand...

20576489491_3ceded5566_c.jpg


I maybe was doing a little bit better than book, since...

1) Those performance numbers are for max gross and I was well under.

2) 500' extra would make a tiny difference.
 
rbridges said:
I like the Cirrus, especially the 22. What made you get rid of it?
Click to expand...

Cost, mainly.

I'll repeat what I said in an open letter to Alan Klapmeier in 2005*: high parts prices which appear predatory** will ultimately dissuade owners.

And in retirement, I no longer had a real need for fast and efficient crosscountry flying - my little Sky Arrow scratches my flying itch just fine right now.


*Which had about 30 COPA members signing on, and which was never responded to.

**Right now there's a thread on COPA about Cirrus wanting $450 for the drawings needed to drill a hole in the belly for an additional antenna. Some feel it's justified. I think to nickle and dime owners who may have spent over $700,000 for your product has got to leave a bad taste.
 
I fly an M20C. I get 150 kts TAS anywhere between 7 and 10K ft burning 8 gph. Mine is an exceptionally slicked up Mooney, and that means it's fast and efficient. At $50k valuation, make that cheap, fast, and efficient. I only carry 52 gal useable, but that's more range than my bladder so enough.

In addition to the above, I like the fit and seating position in the Mooney. I also like the retractable gear. I think they just look cool.

I'd not turn down a ride in any airplane, but I love owning a Mooney.
 
FastEddieB said:
Cost, mainly.

I'll repeat what I said in an open letter to Alan Klapmeier in 2005*: high parts prices which appear predatory** will ultimately dissuade owners.

And in retirement, I no longer had a real need for fast and efficient crosscountry flying - my little Sky Arrow scratches my flying itch just fine right now.


*Which had about 30 COPA members signing on, and which was never responded to.

**Right now there's a thread on COPA about Cirrus wanting $450 for the drawings needed to drill a hole in the belly for an additional antenna. Some feel it's justified. I think to nickle and dime owners who may have spent over $700,000 for your product has got to leave a bad taste.
Click to expand...

I have a friend that's been looking at 22s and mentioned partnering. As you mentioned, they're not cheap. If I sold my mooney, I'd get a plane with a little more speed and more fuel burn, but much better ergonomics and higher useful load. The thing I love about the mooney is the lower hull value and the fact that I can comfortably afford it by myself.
 
FastEddieB said:
Cost, mainly.

I'll repeat what I said in an open letter to Alan Klapmeier in 2005*: high parts prices which appear predatory** will ultimately dissuade owners.

And in retirement, I no longer had a real need for fast and efficient crosscountry flying - my little Sky Arrow scratches my flying itch just fine right now.


*Which had about 30 COPA members signing on, and which was never responded to.

**Right now there's a thread on COPA about Cirrus wanting $450 for the drawings needed to drill a hole in the belly for an additional antenna. Some feel it's justified. I think to nickle and dime owners who may have spent over $700,000 for your product has got to leave a bad taste.
Click to expand...

Why not partner with someone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top