Define “we need”. If you mean “the market demands”, then you are wrong. Otherwise, they would indeed be building and selling it. Remember, it would cost at least 500.000$…
Anyway, everybody is entitled to have his ideas, that’s fine.
#139:
I have a puritanical distaste for investing in the disposable.
Soon afterwards, in #159, the same contributor wrote:
I did the same as Peter and his Scirocco when buying my last two new Japanese cars …. I run them from new to outrageous mileages, then toss ’em. Cars are appliances today.
I trust both ended up in a recycling bin 
dealer told me he’d appreciate it if I waited two months before paying off the incentivized loan – because he gets a hit from the finance company too.
Exactly the same here; the internet dealer (possibly selling off the back of some corporate fleet deal – they are normally list minus 20%, allowing the company to auction it after 2 years and more or less recover their original purchase price) suggested I leave it for a few months.
owners construct a non-depreciating RV for $70K,
As the English saying goes, there is no accounting for taste but I don’t think many would put an RV in the same category as a Mooney, Bonanza, TB20, Cirrus, etc. I know several RV owners and have flown in one. They would charitably be described as “basic” and the one I flew in had enough holes to enable visual navigation without using the windows It certainly didn’t need an OAT gauge – you could stick a finger out through a hole. Definitely a low altitude summer plane, and the owner is proud that he cannot read tafs/metars (he uses the BBC) and has never been above 2000ft (IIRC). I am sure the holes etc were due to a wide variation in build quality – building a plane is a long and nontrivial job, and building one really well takes much more skill and dedication than most will have (you clearly need to be a real engineer – like you Silvaire) which is why such a large % of homebuilts are never finished by the starter.
I think US GA hangs together much better than European and particularly UK GA where the various groups like to bite pieces out of each other in the various forums, but I am sure the communities, and pilot character profiles, are very different between homebuilts and off the shelf types. I can see why RVs are popular (you get an awful lot of bang for the buck, they are much more sturdy than most homebuilts, and crucially they can fly IFR in the USA) but I don’t see them competing with any of the other certified types.
I trust both ended up in a recycling bin
The first one might have – I don’t know what happened to it after sale. The second one (bought in 2006, I think) is heading to 200,000 miles and is used daily. I dislike every penny spent on modern cars, but I don’t control the market or the products it produces. So what I do is compartmentalize. I spend as little money and attention as I can on transportation cars, buy Japanese because they do ‘planned obsolescence’ better than anybody else, and don’t think about them. That way neither my mind or most my money gets wasted on throw away products like modern cars. About the same way I approach dishwashers, actually.
I know several RV owners and have flown in one. They would charitably be described as “basic” and the one I flew in had enough holes to enable visual navigation without using the windows
Peter, most of the RVs I’ve flown in are a lot more up to speed in my mind than the average Bonanza or whatever, and arguably better built than brand new production aircraft. Come have a look sometime and I’ll show you some nice planes.
PS It was fun to show our Canadian colleague a local production plane that was built by individuals out of a total wreck, and explain that to him. The rebuild included designing and building a carbon fiber wing including production style tooling, if that adds something to the explanation. The build quality and finish is as good as any new exotic car, and the new wing is flown to 12 G. I only wish my #2 production plane looked as good. Maybe someday, #1 is OK.
Never flown in a Mooney, but always had a soft spot for them. An un breakable wing (I think never had a wing failure?), which gives me more comfort than the Beech Bo with wing bolts. There is a character that takes a 20C into the Idaho back country strips! the flatter ones at least.
If they did resurrect the 201, what updates might they introduce, in addition to a -390?
They used to be priced in line with a 182, so perhaps a 201 redux might come in at 500k, ideally lower!
Philip.
I am writing on my mobile so can’t be too long in explaining but the “we” I referred to is the Mooney community. Again, I am clear on the fact that someone who has the means and will to invest in a Cirrus is not in the market for a Mooney enty model. On the other hand, Cirrus never abandoned the SR 20, did they? Even though the SR22 outsells it significantly.
That is where I believe Mooney went wrong when they axed the M20J. Like with Cirrus, most buyers who look at an SR20 will end up buying a SR22, but it is marketingwise important that the SR20 is there!
Mooney in the other hand today has the equivalents of the SR22 and the SR22T.
That is my rrasoning, add to it that the sold numbersnwithin the Mooney crowd speak a clear language as to which models they preferred. Both the C and J sold more than the rest combined.
If they go this way, they neednto find a way to price it somewhere below the SR20 and then the model offering would be approximately similar. Only, they would win the race for efficiency and cost of operation on all 3 easily. A J is faster than a SR20 . An Ovation will outrun a SR22 and there is no production single which outruns the Acclaim.
That is what I meant.
Best regardsbfrom Rome
Urs
Silvaire,
is a RV 8 suitable for tall pilots? I’m 1.92m.
Robert,
I’d recon they would offer glas and Ap as standard, possibly either G1000/700 or Aspen/Avidyne as a lower cost variant (Aspen 2000 + DFC90). Someone close to the team once said it would be easy to equip the Ovatio cell thus with some savings in wt and money.
we will have to see. For me, from the efficiency angle a Diesel would be very attractive. I do believe that a J Cell with an Austroengine or SMA could easily do 150 to 160 kts at 5-8 gph Jet A1. Especcially for Europe thus would be very attractive.
Silvaire, is a RV 8 suitable for tall pilots? I’m 1.92m.
I’m 2.5 cm shorter than you but very tall from the waist up. I think you’d OK in an RV8.
The very similar looking but smaller RV4 would probably be too tight.
With my NA SR22 I flew from the Munich area to Split in Croatia in 2 hours an 10 minutes – never using more than 65 percent power, and with a fuel consumption of around 12.5 GPH. At FL 110 I had an average TAS of 170 kt. Do I need to get there faster? Would I trade the very comfortable and big cabin for another 25 knots? DEFINITELY not!
FWIW I thought of this comment today as I stopped to visit a kit built Lancair 4 owning friend returning from a flight.
His flight today was IFR, 500 statute miles out, do some business, same distance back. He told me he was cruising at roughly 20,000 ft with fuel flow of around 13 GPH (same engine as the Cirrus Turbo as I recall) at 230 kts TAS. Apparently most people run them harder but my friend is known to to be, ummmm, ‘economical’ by nature so keeps it at lower power settings.
I find the Lancair 4 to require gymnastics to enter and exit in the front, although its OK once you’re in. Back seats are tight. That’s the trade off.
