Mooney_Driver wrote:
Which would practically mean we would have a monopoly situation as Cirrus is the only one which has a chute as standard equipment in that cathegory?
Isn’t that the de-facto situation we have?
172driver wrote:
Isn’t that the de-facto situation we have?
No.
From the GAMA numbers so far for 2017 (Q1-Q3), Cirrus sold 355 piston singles out of 936 piston singles sold in total from Q1-Q3. While Cirrus sold more than any other single manufacturer, it’s still less than half.
172driver wrote:
Isn’t that the de-facto situation we have?
In the sense that whether you have a choice when you want to buy a fast traveller, not quite yet but it is getting closer.
At the moment, you can still choose between the SR22T (215 kt top speed) and e.g. the Mooney Ultras (242 kt Acclaim, 198 kt Ovation) when shopping for a fast 200kt plus traveller with FIKI capability, now that the Corvalis is gone. And of course there is the Bonanza G36 stil available even though it is a 170 kt plane, which means it competes to the SR22 non turbo.
If Pipistrel ever certify their Panthera, it will be another competitor in that segment, so might the DA50 be if it ever gets finished. Don’t know about FIKI capability of the latter two though.
If however the parashute becomes “compulsory” in the sense that consumers say we won’t buy any plane without parashute, then the monopoly is a fact today. Even now, it is abundantly clear that the shute has a massive influence over buyers decisions as in terms of performance, both the Corvalis and the Mooney Ultras are massively faster and also have a much better range.
I really hope the end of the Corvalis sales means more sales for Mooney. Those Ultras are gorgeous !
The 182/206 series hopefully soldier on although only around 40 units being sold p.a. The 182 has the option of a BRS being fitted, although am not sure if it is a factory option.
At FL100 the turbo versions cruise at 150KTAS with the 206 having a decent useful load.
Cessna never embraced the 400/TT/TTX, and they never marketed it properly. Compare that with Cirrus and the ressources they put into general marketing, COPA, pilot’s courses, instructor’s courses … the latter was initially to fix a surprisingly bad accident rate (the chute obviously didn’t help there), but eventually those courses (and special SOP’s etc that other brands never thought about producing) did not only fix the safety issue, it also served as effective marketing.
The chute/no-chute factor obviously played in, but if it really accounts for much of the 1:9 ratio between sales figures for Cirrus vs. C400/TTx, it is mostly because Cessna let Cirrus control the agenda with telling the world that chute = safety. Despite a higher wing loading and no chute, the C400/TTx had a very satisfactory accident rate from the beginning, much better than the Cirrus in those days. That was not really used by Cessna in the marketing.
Cessna did a great thing when they bought this great design in 2008, but maybe the world of rivets and aluminium never really understood the C400/TTx.
huv wrote:
Despite a higher wing loading and no chute, the C400/TTx had a very satisfactory accident rate from the beginning, much better than the Cirrus in those days.
I remember our local flight group buying one and collecting it in Bend Oregon themselfs. They documented even then what course they went through before they were given control of the plane, so maybe Columbia understood from the beginning they had to do factory training with the people to avoid just that bad accident rate. If I remember right, Cirrus only started to get serious about that after their as you rightly put it surprisingly bad accident rate.
huv wrote:
telling the world that chute = safety
Definitly. I remember that when the M10 was introduced nobody cared about anything but “has it got a chute” and when it turned out it did not, people walked away. There was no discussion about the model in Mooneyspace at all, which I found astonishing. Neither the Diesel, nor the performance and economy figures which were great had much of an impact. So for me, any new design without the chute does not need to even be introduced, it will fail. Never mind the whole experimental world with their thousands of kits sold with not one of them having a parachute projected.
huv wrote:
Cessna did a great thing when they bought this great design in 2008, but maybe the world of rivets and aluminium never really understood the C400/TTx.
I wonder who really took that decision, Cessnas board or their owners decided that they gonna plant this plane onto Cessna. But you are definitly right, they could have done much different marketing, but maybe they never saw it as a genuine Cessna (which it is not anyway) but as the Lancair it actually is.
airways wrote:
really hope the end of the Corvalis sales means more sales for Mooney. Those Ultras are gorgeous !
I think the Ultra is the best upgrade Mooney has done in years with the double doors and a very nice interior. The flying magazines who reviewed the Ultras were very positive about them but then again, lots of planes who never succeeded had superb reviews….. If some people who eyed the Columbia now will buy Ultras (they are cheaper than the CTTX too… ) it would definitly help. From what I hear the introduction of the Ultra has already increased the interest in the M20 again.
I really hope the end of the Corvalis sales means more sales for Mooney
The thing is, neither of them is really selling anything much these days…
Setting the recent slump (even affecting Cirrus) aside, something has happened in the GA market for new IFR tourers. Cirrus have done a slick marketing job (the plane itself is nothing particularly novel except the BRS chute integration on a plane in this class) and have redefined the market in this sector, making it very hard for new entrants.
Cessna also did poor marketing IMHO, with a particularly bad advert featuring that guy pretending to meet 3 customers in one day. Anybody who has $1M and an IR will know that is just a joke – nothing short of a turboprop or higher will give you that mission capability.
They also lost a lot of ground with the problems in the early years, and once you lose ground with a new product you usually never regain it.
I wonder if these pilots who buy a Cirrus even tried the competing products. And what made them go for an SR in the end (except the BRS).
I’m a big Cirrus fan, but the SR-line is not what I would like to fly. My stick & rudder needs are more satisfied in a Mooney. I guess I’d choose a plane like I choose a car…
