As stated above somewhere, it is likely that the new investor has plans to sell the planes somewhere other than the West, in which case we have no idea what their customers' tastes will be.
But looking at where they are likely to be going, I bet they will be giving away the top end gold and diamond decorated Breitling watch, customised with the owner's name, with every plane.
Plus the sort of upholstery that normally comes with the territory
True, Cirrus with their parashute are a huge act to match these days. Sexy outlines, decent performance on fixed gear and that "spouse calmer" on the back are killing arguments for those who are new to the business and quite a few who have been around.
However, all this comes at a quite high price. Yes, Cirruses do not have "expensive" retracable gears but they have that parashute which needs repacks again and again for a price which could easily exceed Mooney retracable gear costs, which to me so far have been exactly zero. The gear of the Mooneys is extremely easy maintenance, especcially the hand driven "Johnson Bar" Gear on the C and E Models.
Now I am not suggesting Mooney should bring those back, but if they were to consider "efficient" not only in terms of performance and operating cost, it actually might be an option. Fail safe, cheap to maintain. Yet, their electric gear also is.
I think if Mooney get their act together as outlined above and possibly in other ways, they can shine where they used to: With low operating costs and high speeds.
Looking at operating costs, the speeds of Cirrus and Columbia come at the price of quite high fuel burn. Mooney always has been better than that and they can improve on that. Fuel and its cost is going to be a MAJOR factor in the near future, even more than it is now. So yes, it does matter if a plane burns 8 GPH to achieve 150 kts or 12 GPH. Right now, a USG of Avgas in Europe costs around 11-12 Euros. Means, that a Mooney 201 will operate up to 40 Euros cheaper on fuel alone per hour than competition which needs horsepower to do it. Not to speak of Mogas (IO390) or Diesel/Avtur driven aircraft, which could end up with even less.
Frankly, the M20C I operate is the ONLY aircraft I can afford right now with any sort of sensible performance and range but manageable operating costs. 140 kts @ 8 GPH and very low maintenance bills are one heck of an argument over airplanes I could have watched through the shopping window for the rest of my life or not be able to afford to fly them. There are more people out there like me, who look for decent performance at low price. Mooney used to be their heroes and they can be again.
In recent years I have had a lot of questions about my airplane as it is sitting there prominently on the internet. Quite some folks have asked me for advice on what to buy as first time buyers or re-entry owner pilots who cherished their Bonanzas and even Senecas in days when fuel was still halfways affordable. 5 of them have bought vintage Mooneys by now, 2 E's, 2 C's and one 201. Some of those as well as myself were looking at Cherokees as cheap rides, yet they find that a Mooney can do much more than a Cherokee at the same price despite it's constant speed prop and moving gear. One of the sellers owns a SR22 now. He sais, even without counting capital cost (his was new) his yearly outlay has doubled to trippled with the larger engine and the upkeep of this airplane vs the old "F" Model Mooney he had.
Cost of operation will be one of the most important decision factors.
It is a well known fact that GA is in a depression it may not recover from. It is equally clear that most GA makers are in deep crisis and even the "market leaders" of today sell much less than was sold in old market conditions. However, if the consequence is, and one could assume it to be from reading some statements here, that all but Cirrus should close up shop and just surrender, that would be catastrophic for the industry more than anything. Monopolies never pay off, just the opposite.
Now Mooney have a chance to take their fate into their own hands. If they don't and just restart Ovation and Acclaim production, I agree with Philip that they will not survive. If they, possibly over the new owner, answer the challenge, they can not only survive but repeat their act of the past. Which does not mean the Acclaim and Ovation are outdated planes, they need a face lift and payload increase but otherwise are great matches for the SR22 and Columbia/Corvalis 400. Still faster, with better range and greater efficiency. But that is not enough, not by a long run. The niche which made the M20C and M201 succeed today is an empty void. And that is where their chance is. Especially in Europe, where the way out which exists in the US with experimental planes does not exist. At least not for IFR.
but they have that parachute which needs repacks again and again for a price which could easily exceed Mooney retracable gear costs The parachute is exchanged every TEN years and it costs $ 10.000 or $5/h if you fly 100 hours annually.
So yes, it does matter if a plane burns 8 GPH to achieve 150 kts or 12 GPH. My SR22 can do 140 KTAS on 8 gallons, and burns about 12 Gallons at 165 KTAS.
Sexy outlines, decent performance on fixed gear and that "spouse calmer" on the back are killing arguments Well the Mooney is AT LEAST as sexy – but the parachute is much more than a "spouse calmer". It saved almost 8o people until now and failed once (very early early model and problem was solved with an AD) when deployed within the POH parameters
I think that no company that further ignores the advantages of the CAPS system will be able to compete with Cirrus.
Bu I agree completely that a used Mooney (my favourite is the 252) is great value for the Money.
There may be a twist to that Alexis.
I just finished reading a report by the Swiss SUST about dangers of these systems and I am hearing rumblings that EASA might come up with some rather harsh ruling against them. It could well be that Cirrus and others who have explosive parts in their rescue systems are going to loose this marketing tool very soon, at least here in Europe.
SUST / SAIB Final report on the risks of ballistic parashute systems
BTW, the report originates from the same organisation who have published an accident report implying that "on condition" should be banned for good, including time limits. And guess what EASA now brings up... Yes, right, all TBO recommendations including time limits will become binding if you fly IFR in Europe (and under some other conditions too).
That will never happen. Do you have an idea how many Ultralight planes in Europe have a BRS system? YOu are hearing "rumblings"? Anything more concrete that that?
My SR22 is G-registered and all the manufacturer's TBO recommendations are binding for this type in the UK anyway. Doesn't bother me so much at the moment becasue all the expensive stuff was done last year (before I bought it) and the next expensive items are years away. The parachute is next, in 2016. But I had those € 10 K already in my Excel sheet ....
Ahhh... we need to commission a study to find out whether fireworks (oops, sorry, solid propellant rockets) are indeed likely to explode when on fire.
My tax CHF at work!
I wonder if the BFU showed the same "concern" about military ejection seat systems.
You might need a warning text on the outside of the hull but if they ban BRS they will also need to ban all oxygen systems - including all gaseous oxygen systems in bizjets and pressurised turboprops.
It will never happen.
Doesn't stop somebody making a mint out of writing yet another taxpayer funded report...
The parachute is next, in 2016. But I had those € 10 K already in my Excel sheet ....
I bet you, from what I've read about this, that the vast majority of Cirrus owners didn't know about that life limit...
Peter, i've really never met one who didn't know that. It's really one of the things i learned first. And it's really the only big difference to all the other comparable planes.
Plus the sort of upholstery that normally comes with the territory
sorry the picture I placed here was a bit too large ...
but you can find it here (http://adogbreeds.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/White-Miniature-Poodle-2-1280x872.jpg)
Well, rescue crews have had their share of problems with those things. What I think will happen is not a ban, not even EASA is that crazy, I would rather presume they might one day make them compulsory and therefore hand Cirrus e.t.c. the market on a platter. What it looks like right now however is that they will ask for a modification of the system so that it can be deactivated from the outside easily by rescue crews. That on the other hand can be a very costly exercise especcially if this will be another European thing of which Cirrus in the US (and the other makers of BRS equipped planes) will wash their hands of.
I know quite a few buyers here who have shied away from Cirrus due to high maintenance and revision costs, not least with the parashute. Quite a few are for sale just before the repack. It is simply a 3rd major item on the list of engine and prop. And if it becomes compulsory to tear down half time engines at calendar TBO, costs will once again escalate massively.
TBO compulsory for all components also for private IFR ops will be a M A S S I V E show stopper over here. The killer is the kalendar limit, not so much the 2000 or so hours. But most planes will then need to send their engines and props for total overhaul at 800-1200 hours. No privately owned airplane I know makes more than about 100 hours per annum, most make significantly less. In Switzerland, where TBOs are still recommendation for private ops like in the US, I know of a LOT of planes which would be grounded immediately and probably would never fly again or be force sold as the owners can't come up with the budget for overhaul.
