I sat in the Panthera at Aero last year. When the aircraft sits on the ground, it has a slight pitch up attitude and the visibility over the nose is very poor. When in level flight, the visibility is allegedly a bit better.
However, the thing is that the vertical space between the upper edge of the glareshield and the pilot’s eyes is only a few centimeters. And you can’t move the seat much higher, otherwise the head will touch the canopy, which is very flat-sloped (almost horizontal).
In general, sitting in this thing felt like sitting in a sports car. In addition, the rear passengers have rather little space for their feet as the wheelwells get in the way. All very bad ingredients for selling a cruising aircraft in big numbers.
In fact, when I mentioned these things to the Pipistrel people, they admitted very openly that the design was totally slanted towards speed, with no real compromises taken. Again, a very poor idea in my opinion if they want to sell big numbers, which implies getting at the mainstream GA customer, not the sportscar type.
Boscomanico, thanks for that information.
There may be a chance for me to come to AERO Friedrichshafen this year, so maybe I’ll see it myself if they fly it over from Slovenia again.
I think this pic here…
says it all.
Oh, and as I said once before….that tail looks like the one of a Taifun motorglider…why couldn’t they have come up with something more suitable and pleasant??…
Right. I find that whole design very dramatic – but ugly.
Alexis,
Is it the CUSTOMER’S job to motivate the company to develop new products? Or is it (maybe) enough that people are willing to spend three quarters of a million Euros today for a 4 seat airplane ?
How does Cirrus do it? I understand they have a rather large pilots association which is pretty active. I reckon Cirrus also listens to them what they would like in the new model line? Equally, the COPA as I belive they are called, is pretty active in promoting Cirrus? And what the heck is wrong with that? Cirrus has a large budget for advertizing, yet I don’t think they are particularly mad to have a large fan club to promote them further?
That is how I see the Mooney Ambassadors. Only, that in recent years Mooney did not have the means, nor did it make much sense to advertize, but the MA’s as well as MAPA and other organisations kept going. And btw, what about the Commanche Society or the Beech clubs? They all do promotion work for their brands, some of which are no longer active. The more important they become.
But I think you got me wrong. People like Jolie and Mitch work a lot more for GA than “just” as Mooney Ambassadors. They also work for AOPA (and got reckognized for it) and in their own support association for their airport e.t.c. I reckon one difference between here and the US is that the supporters of aviation are as vocal or more than the opposition? And I reckon we can see the difference.
And what is this supposed to mean, please?
Well, actually I meant people like yourself with your journalistic work, which I regard as valuable to GA, or Philipp with his great sites or Peter with this forum. All of you contribute to GA in their very own way. As opposed to those who only sit and complain but do nothing.
But we are the customers, and we spend enough money. We are not the ones who have to get all this in order, it’s the industry itself that’s responsible.
Interesting statement Alexis, especcially from an aviation journalist. So you are saying, by buying an expensive airplane, you reckon it is the company’s duty to see to it that you can continue using it? To fight the problems you rightly point out which frustrate the hell out of all of us?
I think that is making it too easy. I believe the companies today are doing their very best in that regard, out of pure self preservation. Yet, it is up to each one of us, to each pilot, mechanic, FI, other involved person who wishes to see GA prevail to do their own share. If we sit back and wait for others to do it, it won’t happen. We have seen this in recent years. Especcially the press, journalists who KNOW what GA is about can do a lot. Be it as a magazine like P&F or the other serious mags on the market, be it in other publications, where we can place and post pro GA material. Papers are not adverse to taking this, apart from some obviously left wing rags, but they would love to hear from US, not only from the anti airplane league. And that is what, amongst others, Jolie and Mitch stand for. Or, btw, people like Harrison Ford or John Travolta, who promote GA whenever they can.
if you look at it realistically then there’s a rather big chance that GA as we know and love it will disappear
There is that chance, yes. But do we simply sit back and do nothing? In Europe, people have always shown a certain “Kadavergehorsam” in such matters, unfortunately. But if you simply sit there and wait for it to happen, it will. If we want to save GA in Europe, we need a lot more people who are willing to put a lot on the line to make it happen. And there we can all learn from the American lobby. The results show clearly what better job they do.
The problem is: Me and all the other people who really like the Mooney – in the end we buy the Cirrus. Because, all in all, it’s the better product.
Then why do we still have such a diverse auto industry for instance? If there is one “better product” which, by the assessment of those who own it, fits all and everybody, then we should be seeing ONE make and a few models on our streets. We don’t, thank God. How boring would that be? And you really want this for aviation? I don’t. Actually, the more diverse a product offering is, the more people will find THEIR particular brand. We are not Chinese with boilder suits and bicycles, just yet anyway. And the Chinese, as we can see, are getting away from that, so why should we go there?
If one product is the “better” product, everyone has to decide for him/herself. Cirrus ticks boxes for much more people than most other brands combined, but I would find it problematic, if they became the only company on the marketplace. Where Cirrus definitly scores over everyone else is sexiness and the parashute. That is why I have compared them to the Apple/Iphone/Ipad line. Yet, a lot of people are happy with Android. And likewise, a lot of people will be happy with other brands.
All I am saying is, be careful what you wish for. It may well come true.
Krister,
it’s more a question of the rationale of reintroducing a product at the top end that has such stiff competition from, in this case, the Cirrus, Cessna TTx, DA42-VI as well as pre-owned Ovations, Acclaims, SR22Ts, C210 Silver Eagles and what have you.
Two different client groups. Those who buy new are much less concerned about the initial purchase cost than those who try to get the best bang for buck on the used market. Yet, I have said so repeatedly that unless Mooney comes up with innovation, you and Alexis are most probably right, they will not succeed to re-enter the business. But let’s give them a bit of time for that. And remeber: Also Cirrus was on the verge of failure when the Chinese bought them, Columbia actually HAD failed.
The used market is something else entirely. And again, there are those who have the means to choose freely to what ever suits their mission profile best or those who will have to evaluate carefully. I agree with you that for a large percentage of pilots, Cirrus will tick more boxes than not. Yet, they do have their price and they can do the specific profile they have. For many that is more than adequate.Others prefer the range and speed of an Ovation or even a Twin Commanche on longer trips, where Avgas is scarce or expensive enough that being able to fuel for 1600 NM is a really nice thing.
I can’t even tell you what my choice would be, HAD I the means, that is a quarter million Euros to buy an upgrade to my C model. Would I opt for a Cirrus for the obvious advantages of the parashute? Or would I spend maybe 150-200 k for a GX2 Ovation (with G1000 and all) for the long range travel i really want to do? I really can’t tell you. But I can see readily why Alexis will choose a Cirrus and others will choose something else. Maybe I’d go and buy that Twin Commanche I am thinking of after all.
has anybody actually been in the prototype and made an honest evaluation of the forward view in climb?
I have sat in it and thought it was like a Ferrari or a Lambo – OK for those who like that sort of position, and obviously great many do.
Those of us used to modern unpressurised cockpits (TB20, SR22, say) get a bit of a shock going to anything pressurised because the view shrinks dramatically. The Panthera is of a similar magnitude. However if they achieve anywhere near their perf claims they will have a “Ferrari” style winner, no question.
I will be at Aero 2014. Will come by TB20 if the wx is good, probably Thursday, and have bought a Saturday return ticket for Justine in case it is less than great on the way back 
It would be great to meet up – that is the main use of that event. Not a lot changes in the exhibits. Well, it is also amusing to see the Honeywell rep deny the KFC225 ever existed
IMO, the Mooney is a niche product. It has great range and great speed but at a cost. The cost is that it looks slightly querky, is slightly smaller (and dare I say it, cramped?) and there simply aren’t many customers who want such compromises, which is why they stopped production. When they re-start, they aren’t offering anything new, different or innovative and I simply can’t see that they are going to reintroduce a product with such ongoing compromises and be successful.
Cirrus on the other hand, offered a product which was new and innovative (the chute, PFD / MFD etc), comfortable enough for four people (albeit at the cost of higher speed), with reasonable range and reasonably good speed and which was relatively simple (fixed gear, single lever operation). They ticked a lot of boxes when it was first introduced and continue to improve range, useable weight etc. etc. The result was that it appealed to a very wide market, hence their success. Sure, they could have introduced something with a smaller cross section which went faster, they could have made it with bigger tanks to increase range etc. etc. but I’m pretty sure that they did their market research and realised :
(a) most customers won’t want to be sitting in a small cramped cockpit for 7+ hours – who would? and just how often are those sorts of flights going to be carried out when a commercial flight can get to destination significantly quicker, cheaper and more reliably?
(b) comfort was clearly more important than range
(c) good avionics were one of their USP’s
(d) the chute was ground breaking and clearly tremendously attractive
(e) other manufacturers along the way missed the mark because of one, or more of the above.
it would be fantastic if there was more direct competition to the Cirrus – and certainly the Panthera seems to tick many of those boxes. however, I’ve not sat in a Panthera before so I’ve no idea how comfortable or otherwise it is. if it truly is too cramped, then they’ve missed their opportunity and it will be consigned to the history books (or at least the “niche” history books). They have clearly designed it to be fuel efficient due to the small cross section and my gut feeling is that they may have gone a little too far in this respect. Cirrus sales continue to remain strong (look at sales of the new G5) and people who part with circa $6 – 700k are unlikely to be over bothered by another one or two miles per gallon.
I simply can’t see Mooney making a successful comeback as it is just too much of a niche product. Comparing it to cars is a nonsense, which are aimed at mass markets and which appeal to almost every adult in the western world.
I know this is a bit of a can of worms but I would not agree with some claims of “innovation” by Cirrus.
Their chief innovation is in the marketing department – combining the BRS chute with “this plane is like a car” advertising and thus uncovering whole new strata of customers. They did very well with this and ate everybody’s lunch.
Certainly they deliver very modern planes but anybody who wants to sell IFR tourers today would have to do that, and it isn’t rocket science
Removing the prop RPM lever is IMHO a bodge which costs them significant fuel. But nobody judges a nice plane on the fuel burn unless it is totally excessive.
After all that, what you have left is a very standard plane…
I think it is a “given” that any new Mooney would have the same avionics as any newcomer. They have to do that. They would probably tart up the 1960s cockpit, in the same way that everybody in GA would (except Cessna who seem to manage in their time warp – presumably because of their other advantages e.g. short field) and this is easy. In fact they showed something like a G1000 cockpit at EDNY c. 2008 – I didn’t look closely and it might have been the Avidyne glass. With the “single flat panel” that dominates GA cockpit designs it is easy to stick glass in there.
So I think there is far less technical innovation than many believe. Of course the salesmen like to point to technical innovation but really any current-model tourer has the same stuff today – or can have if the customer wants to pay for it (some of the fully-loaded list prices are eye watering, towards $800k). The innovation is mainly marketing stuff which costs a huge amount of money and no way will Mooney come up with that.
My original Q still stands: what does the investor want to do with the company? The demand for the new planes obviously fell to close to zero, so they must feel they have some bright idea. I am not saying they can’t have. I just wonder what it is. One thing is for sure though: nostalgia won’t sell these days. It worked for the motorcycle business, via the “born again biker” revolution (I was on 2 wheels too in the 1970s) but there is no comparable demographic in GA where the customer base just gets older and older.
I wonder whether the parachute was the key to their success. There is/was also the quite comparable Columbia 400 which doesn’t play any role in this market. It has everything (some parts even better) than the Cirrus, except the parachute.
Whether the innovations were down to good marketing is almost irrelevant. The facts are that they introduced a 4 seater aircraft, which was roomy, reasonably quick, reasonable range, with the added safety feature of the chute (i appreciate this is debatable but there’s no denying it was introduced as a safety feature), and although the die-hards will argue that the removal of the prop lever costs them fuel, it is only about 10%, so i agree with you Peter, that unless fuel burn is excessive, then no-one will judge it purely on that aspect alone (just look at the fuel burn across all of GA, we’ve seen these comparisons before and no-one drops their current ride purely because they are 8th or whatever from the top of the list).
IMO, unless anyone can tell me otherwise, as far as I can tell Mooney won’t be introducing anything significantly new, so on that basis, their belief appears to be that there is still demand for a fast, long range SEP without the other features.
