The off topic discussion on electric cars etc has been moved to the usual place
Let’s keep this thread on the topic of Mooney.
Peter wrote:
Where did the money go?
Good question. I imagine somebody here could say where the money went from the sale of Cirrus and (half of) Diamond to the Chinese. In those cases I imagine the money may have been reinvested into aviation. Otherwise, GA in the US has been reinventing itself over time but I don’t think the Experimental stuff at the forefront has many financial or business links to certified manufacturers. I imagine whatever money came out of selling Mooney (or Continental engines) is now invested in somebody’s retirement fund, but I have no idea, and there was no net gain from the Thielert sale to the Chinese.
Peter wrote:
You don’t sell something unless you don’t want it anymore. You might sell something if you know it’s not worth much (but nobody else knows) if an unsuspecting buyer appears…
Almost everybody knows there’s little money in piston engined GA, but obviously only those with lots and lots of cash could afford not to care and buy anyway, on a whim. That very small group might include representatives of the cash rich government of a country easily impressed by brand names regardless of current financial return, and inexperienced in piston engined GA manufacturing or commerce. I think they might buy the names and whatever assets remain just for the short term educational value.
Where did the money go? You don’t sell something unless you don’t want it anymore. You might sell something if you know it’s not worth much (but nobody else knows) if an unsuspecting buyer appears…
achimha wrote:
It’s just that a 2017 Golf is so much better than a 1980 Golf and people are willing to spend the €30k it costs instead of picking up a serviceable 1980 model for 300 €.
There is precisely zero chance that I’d spend the equivalent of $35K for a new VW Golf! Are you kidding? $12K is what I’d spend for one of those, probably slightly used as a throw-away car for a kid or whatever.
From the ‘80s era of German cars I’d choose a 1987 BMW 535is, which was a US-specific model. I’d rather have a new one today than what BMW currently sells – European cars in general lost their appeal to me and a lot of other Americans in the 80s, although German manufacturers continued to sell some interestingly durable and reliable stuff into the mid-90s, mid-90s mid-size Mercedes being a good example.
achimha wrote:
Mooney without Chinese money equated to pretty much nothing at all.
I agree, the GA stuff that was sold off to the Chinese was sold for a reason, Diamond included. It’s was to extract some money while it could be done. There are lots of existing Mooneys for those who want them.
During the last few years, there was a lot of Chinese buying of Western companies with Chinese capital to develop technology. This has recently changed as the Chinese government has introduced strict oversight over overseas investments for fear of a financial bubble and debt crunch. It has caused many Chinese companies to be less bullish.
A possible explanation I think. Mooney without Chinese money equated to pretty much nothing at all.
Indeed … why do people think Mooney abandoned the M10?
Is it just a lack of money / need to concentrate on immediate cash generators?
AdamFrisch wrote:
that Volvo has pledged to be all hybrid and all electric by 2019 model year.
That statement is not really major news as it is extremely soft and non-committal. It is very simple to make a hybrid as that can mean everything from a larger starter motor to an half-electric car. Therefore Volvo didn’t really promise anything.
I don’t think there is any car manufacturer that disagrees that the drive train will be all electric in the future. Some think it will happen sooner, some later. Technologically the electric car is uninteresting because it is a rather level playing field. Everybody uses the same battery technology, electric engines are fairly simple to make and all car makers rely on the same established suppliers anyway.
The really interesting game is self-driving cars. That’s massive technology and not easily replicated. It seems car vendors are starting to form groups to share the technology. The big companies have realized that and they will provide electric cars as customers will buy them. W’re not in a situation where there is a massive market pull that carmakers don’t have the right products for.
Getting back to the M10. It’s too bad because it has some innovative elements and it looked fresh. It might be a premature decision. Sometimes you just have to do your thing and don’t follow “market research” with a bit of patience. To do that, you need cashflow or Elon Musk to spin stories for continued capital influx…
PS: With my new Concorde battery and high speed SkyTec starter, I think I can taxi from the hangar to the fuel station by just cranking the starter. I should call my aircraft Hybrid and ask for a €10k tax subsidy!
And yet people with the required funds tend to go for the newest models.
The problem is that they do so only if they feel they get the $1M’s worth, which is clearly achieved by Cirrus but was never achieved by Mooney. Why, one could debate… I reckon it’s obvious. Just look at the adverts. If you buy a Cirrus, you get a pretty wife, good looking kids, a nice car, you grow some very good hair, and the parachute saves all their lives. Mooney have no way of climbing that barrier. They also don’t have a product with a slick looking cockpit. The rest of the plane could be identical but few will care about that. A newcomer would have to leapfrog forward, and there is no obvious way to do that.
A person (charlatan?) like Elon Musk runs around a stage, promises the moon and >100k people make a deposit on a non existing car because they think it delivers salvation
As a shareholder in Tesla, I think he’s a hero 
Would I buy one? No.
the fact is that we just can’t get our hands on what a 2017 design should look like
Indeed. But I don’t think there is any magic free lunch. The MTBF of pistons is pretty much the same no matter what you put around the “piston”… and the planes all make so much noise that you need to wear headsets. All the solutions are frankly crap – petrol or diesel.
400 new aircraft a year making up for attrition??…
Actually, that is probably true 
Take a small sample: the TB fleet. Size peaked at about about 2k and is reportedly down to 1.5k, over ~35 years. I don’t think TBs crash more or less often than other SEPs. That is a loss of ~15 airframes per year. Only a few of those are due to crashes. Now extrapolate that to the worldwide SEP fleet. What would be the required replacement rate? It’s actually less than it looks because Cessnas and Pipers are more repairable than Socatas due to the better “ecosystem” especially in the USA.
a Vans is not useful as a touring aircraft. Yes, I know, it would be great if Europe “solved” the bureaucratic problems of flying such aircraft privately across the place, but there are no signs of this happening, so “we” have to mostly stick with full CofA aircraft.
Exactly, and there is a reason for this: everybody knows that allowing non-CofAs to fly freely would demolish the European maintenance business and thus demolish the national CAA income stream in that area. I severely doubt more people than currently do would actually build any homebuilts but importing them from the USA and serially building the kits here would make a lot of sense. Especially on say G-reg where the “builder owner” gets no better privileges than the subsequent owner. So the UK would become a good base for serially building RV kits an exporting them all over Europe
Silvaire, I think we have by now understood your point of view on old vs. new aircraft….
This one was little like that, it was a bunch of newbies at Chino, spending Chinese money.
Yes, but this just goes to show that without skills, you can’t excel.
The ‘problem’ right now is a huge number of perfectly serviceable aircraft that can be bought for a fraction of the price, and do the job well.
Well, I think “servicable” is indeed the right word. Likewise, you could take a 1980 Volkswagen Golf and render it “servicable” if you threw a lot of money at it each year and didn’t care about safety, comfort, performance, environment or other irrelevant aspects…
Still, this can’t be considered a “desirable” or “sustainable” solution.
Textron is making enough planes to make up for attrition.
You joking? 400 new aircraft a year making up for attrition??…
I think Vans Aircraft is the best example of a real 2017 GA manufacturer
As we have discussed many times, outside of North America (and possibly Australia), a Vans is not useful as a touring aircraft. Yes, I know, it would be great if Europe “solved” the bureaucratic problems of flying such aircraft privately across the place, but there are no signs of this happening, so “we” have to mostly stick with full CofA aircraft.
boscomantico wrote:
Anyway, I have lost all my faith in the ability of the classic US american aircraft manufacturers at developing, producing and properly marekting simple two and four seat light GA aircraft.
This one was little like that, it was a bunch of newbies at Chino, spending Chinese money. The Chinese are going to make a lot of mistakes before they figure out what they can sell somewhere, to somebody. The ‘problem’ right now is a huge number of perfectly serviceable aircraft that can be bought for a fraction of the price, and do the job well. That’s why the manufacturers were sold off to the highest bidder, the Chinese. They may just roll up in a ball and die at some point with the former US owners having taken their money and run. That said, for those of us benefiting from that situation, it’s not a problem at all and Textron is making enough planes to make up for attrition.
I think Vans Aircraft is the best example of a real 2017 GA manufacturer, developing new products and selling them in volume. Europeans are excluded by regulation from full participation in that market, and I think that’s a regulatory problem that should be solved in Europe because along with nationally regulated microlight-types it’s contributing to the conversion of European GA into a national activity, within national borders.
