Peter,
we do not need to argue about Europe/EASA's goals, we know them well. They want GA gone, sunk, reduced to possible a few UL's flying circuits on some farmstrips. That is a fact and that is why airplane prices are plummeting on this continent. They want those who fled under the American flag to either convert back to European Law or to leave the country and go fly where their license is (and that is a quote of a EASA official a few years back on AOPA) or to finally stop flying and go to work on the great socialist project....
I am not willing to throw anything at it but if you look at the original subject of this thread, we are talking of a new possibly quite lovely airframe which now sets it's horses on Avgas. I would not do that with a new design. Clearly, we won't be able to convert all the older airframes, be it Mooneys, TB's, Cessnas, Pipers and even Cirruses. Clearly, most of them are going to be sold on to the US (and ruining the prices there for a while) or otherwhere once the time comes, but what can WE here possibly still fly? If we can fly at all?
Yes, I can buy a TB20 which as 1300 NM range or an Ovation which as 1600 NM. Yes, this will help me with the problems, but it won't solve them. Would I buy any of those airframes now? No. Would I have come back into aviation in 2009 had I had any idea just HOW bad the situation is? Yes, but with an airframe I know will probably be reduced to zero value in the next 10 years, when I may be able to fly it out and sell it before it will be reduced to scrap value by the Eurocrats. Not a 150k $ airplane, let alone a 300k one.
I have talked to people who told me that they fully expect that by 2015 (yes that is in 2 years) there will be a decision taken on the future of Avgas and it will to 90% be the one we expect: Cessation of production, with the last Avgas being produced by 2020. By then, either we have a solution or we deliver our planes to the scrap yard.
Peter, today I went to see a plane with someone who still has the faith in aviation... great Mooney with a 0 hour engine and prop and good avionic in mint condition. He's been trying to sell for 5 years and got ZERO replies... even with a very good price. Next door, someone sold a fully IFR certified EASA reg M201 with less than 200 hrs on prop and engine for less than £30k after trying to sell for 6 years. Our airframes basically are even now loosing value by the day.
I am not going to debate the great european socialist project theory, other than to say that if you listen to enough employees of any large organisation you will get somebody with any crazy view. And those people enjoy airing those views before an audience - it's human nature to enjoy authority; real or imagined. The official gets get a kick out of it; out of scaring people who get several times more salary than he gets. Go to almost any presentation by police, ATC, EASA, Eurocontrol, or any similar control or legislation-generation profession. They all recruit a largely self-selected character profile. You will come out feeling a bit sick.
Cooler heads usually prevail at the end.
I would suggest that Mooneys are not worth much is because they are what they are... competent 1950s aerodynamic solutions, in a world where today anybody with the money wants something nicer. The market has long moved on, to performance and style. Mooneys flogged that "speed no matter what" horse until it was absolutely dead.
I don't think Avgas is really going away anytime soon but it will become harder to get. I am also thinking of a Jetprop PT-6 conversion for a variety of reasons but Avgas availability is certainly relevant although a minor point really.
Flying into Schönefeld, no Avgas now.
I would suggest that Mooneys are not worth much is because they are what they are... competent 1950s aerodynamic solutions, in a world where today anybody with the money wants something nicer. The market has long moved on, to performance and style.
By my observation 'people with money' aren't much into run-of-the-mill new touring aircraft, Mooneys, Pantheras or similar. They tend to like exotica and have something overtly practical to back it up. 35 year old Cessna 185s, 15 year old 182s etc. GAMA says 881 factory built piston engined aircraft were shipped in 2012, by all their manufacturers combined. How many Pantheras will Pipistrel sell? Fifty or a hundred a year? Two hundred if they are really successful? Your guess is as good as mine, but its not many. Who would buy them in quantity?
Meanwhile if you're looking for where the new piston aircraft market moved on to, 8,112 Vans RVs have flown to date - one kit plane manufacturer equaling ten years of current factory production by all manufacturers combined worldwide. There are some good European designs too, but they never catch on because (surprise) their local government regulates away the potential for similar success in their home markets. No crossing borders without hassle, no IFR. So the perception becomes that the 'real' new aircraft market has moved on to ever more expensive "nicer" aircraft for an ever narrower elite. That might be the predictable effect of European government, but its not where numbers say the world market for new GA aircraft has moved.
Mooneys are pretty cool regardless, and for sure a good deal. I like the first metal winged version with the round back window and the short cabin. I do think they need spades to lighten up the ailerons ;-), not just the beveled type.
I don't think one can compare the US Experimental scene to anything possible outside the US.
I also think that to achieve really good sales (like Cirrus were doing, before the recent collapse of "everything") one has to deliver both reasonable performance and style.
I do also agree 
that Panthera won't ever sell more than a hundred a year in the USA, simply because it's not invented there, but I am sure they would be extremely happy with that! And for that the IO390 is the perfect choice.
Socata had truly inept marketing in the USA all the time through their piston era (till 2003), they never had any significant performance edge over the traditional US offerings (that would be relevant to the US market), but they still managed to sell something of the order of 500-1000 planes there.
I had a very interesting meeting at EASA on Monday. Included in the discussion was the perception future of GA aircraft engines, as my two EASA hosts saw it. They stated that the future is pointed toward very small turbines. They will run happily on jet fuel, but are much lighter than diesels, and probably more dependable. The higher fuel consumption would be mitigated by the other favourable factors in their opinion.
However, for the cost to develop and certify an engine, much less a turbine, will demand quite a market, and I really wonder if it is there.
It is the young aviators who are going to have to stand up and defend their future interests in the economic availability of aviation, particularly in Europe. It's true that GA "mosquitoes" are mostly a nuisance for regulators, and more easily swatted. GA will have to defend itself, and the young will have to lead, 'cause many of us old guys will just fade over the horizon when flying really becomes a regulatory misery.
Those young aviators better have a good budget, or be willing to fly old mogas planes!
I had a very interesting meeting at EASA on Monday. Included in the discussion was the perception future of GA aircraft engines, as my two EASA hosts saw it. They stated that the future is pointed toward very small turbines
Interesting, they must know more than everyone else and be able to see the progress in small turbines that the mere mortals fail to see. Also a very progressive point of view to ignore the lack of efficiency of small turbines versus piston engines.
It is the young aviators who are going to have to stand up and defend their future interests in the economic availability of aviation, particularly in Europe.
Speaking as one of those young aviators, I couldn't agree more. Sadly, I also can't see what we can do to help: those of us who have the money to fly barely have the time to do it - and we certainly don't have extra time to devote to lobbying etc.
Those young aviators better have a good budget, or be willing to fly old mogas planes!
I have yet to meet another sole owner/pilot of an IFR machine under 35 (I'm sure they exist; in single digits in the UK). Owning an aeroplane is expensive and time consuming - with the same money I could pay the deposit and mortgage on a nice flat, and flying almost every weekend is time I could easily fill with any number of other things (having kids seems to be a popular one right now...).
Much as I would love to own a Panthera (and I am seriously considering putting a deposit down), I think the future of GA is in aircraft more like the Virus SW - fun and fast, cheap to fly (compared to anything else with the same performance) and most definitely not IFR.
I would suggest that Mooneys are not worth much is because they are what they are... competent 1950s aerodynamic solutions, in a world where today anybody with the money wants something nicer. The market has long moved on, to performance and style. Mooneys flogged that "speed no matter what" horse until it was absolutely dead.
Mooney have gone wrong in many aspects and that is why they are now where they are, namely closed and just providing spares, for which we of course are grateful. They went wrong when they jumped on the "HP for Speed" bandwagon instead of improving what they did best, which is to make airplanes which can fly economical. I recently made a comparison just for myself on the fuel per mile figures which were floating around and it is amazing to me that I found that TO THIS DAY the Mooney M20C is still the most efficient of all Mooneys followed closely by the 201. The later Mooneys, particularly the Acclaim which has a specific consumption higher than a Twin Commanche, I think they lost the plot totally, trying to outdo Cirrus and Columbia, both of which are very inefficient airplanes. Figures?
M20C 0.064 USG/NM
M201 0.066 USG/NM
M231 0.069 USG/NM
Ovation: 0.079 USG/NM
Acclaim: 0.1 USG/NM
In comparison: TB20: 0.081 USG/NM (which makes it in the range of the Ovation)
PA28: 0.095 USG/NM
PARO: 0.070 USG/NM
PA30: 0.087 USG/NM Twin Commanche
SR22-G2: 0.091 USG/NM
PASE II : 0.128 USG/NM Seneca II
So the idea that the oldest planes are the last crap simply does not hold. The most efficient airplanes available on the market today in the normal class are the M20C, 201 in the SEP normally aspirated class, the M231 in the Turbo class and the PA30 Twin Commanche in the Twin class, who even outdoes the Cirrus! The TB20 is in a very good mid field here.
I do a lot of advising these days of people who are first time buyers, who have a tight budget, in many cases a wife who will watch with eagle eyes on expenses and who wish simply to go for the best bang for buck, that is an airplane which will fly the furthest in a good time and with the least money involved. Usually we go back and forth and will end up with Mooneys sooner or later, simply for the figures. Me, I could not afford ANY other plane in that class of 140kts +, retracable and variable prop than a 201 or the M20C which I am flying. And by now, since I have started flying my M20C, 5 more folks out have done the step from renter to owner and 3 of those own Mooneys now, one E, one F and one 201.
The Panthera might change that in a big way if they manage to get 200 kts out of that engine, it would then be at 0.050 USG/NM, a true quantrum leap.
Silvaire,
Mooneys are pretty cool regardless, and for sure a good deal. I like the first metal winged version with the round back window and the short cabin. I do think they need spades to lighten up the ailerons ;-), not just the beveled type.
Actually, that is exactly what I am flying :) , mine has the straight back window however...
The experimental market... it is the FAA's way of saying "leave us alone and do what you want" in the GA sector as well as circumnavigating the horrendous liablility laws. Thankfully, the FAA plays the game and lets you fly these great airplanes properly, here however, experimentals will never be allowed to fly IFR which makes planes like the Lancairs or others in that range without purpose.
