Well, the handle “Mooney Driver” somewhat gives away your position on the product
Of course. But I can tell you one thing: Before I got my Mooney I knew next to nothing about them, basically what I hear from some posters here. It took me, even after I bought it, a good 2 years to really realize what I had and for what money. And it took a while to understand the people who fly them and who are enthusiastic enough, with good reason, to make this effort to keep it alive. Jolie Lucas and her organisation, mooneyspace and some others helped with that process.
Silvaire makes VERY valid points. People don’t buy Mooneys because they think it is the newest or latest, but because of performance, efficiency and trust. There has been, in the 50+ years that Mooney exists, exactly ONE in flight failure of the structure, in the middle of a thunderstorm. Not many brands and models can equal that record. Equally, when I look at the people who fly especcially vintage Mooneys (B-F models), many of them are people who could usually afford a Cherokee 140 but have decided that if they can get a 150 kt airplane for the same money and fly it for the same money (which is true for the models with the Johnson Bar gear especcially) then they will do it. So alone from that point of view, the Mooney crowd is fundamentally different from the crowd which goes for the latest and most fashionable.
Achim,
am convinced there are more people lobbying for a restart of the Trabant production than Mooney on a global scale
you are aware of course that Trabant have a quite faithful following group… I’ve had the chance to drive one a few years back and believe me, apart from the cabin size, there are no similarities 
But would I deny those who like them to do so or call them backwards or stupid? Why should I? There are VW bug clubs, there are Fiat 500 clubs and there are those who drive classic cars. Thank god for that, how boring it would be otherwise.
the largest GA market in the world is composed of people who are at core enthusiasts –
That, Silvaire, ist a key statement. Yes, absolutely. And it has a lot to do with why the market is not as narrow as some might think.
If you look at the automobile market, if we were to use the arguments often stated in this and other similar threads, there would be one or two makes. One in the US, one in Europe and another in Japan. Cars don’t get sold on rational reasons, otherwise we’d end up having a world wide fleet of Prius’ type cars and nothing else. Well, I for one still enjoy seeing variety and also seeing competitors profit from each other in the sense that without competition, you’d see exactly what the people behind the Iron curtain saw: 3 brands which stand still technologically.
I, for one, as an obvious Mooney enthusiast, am VERY glad that Cirrus and Columbia exist and that we see a lot of innovation especcially in the experimental market. There is pressure on the companies who have been the leaders for decades and the message is, improve or perish. Mooney will have to do the same, nonwithstanding the fact that the legendary wing is still unmatched by any competition, but they will need to answer the challenge. And they will. And it does help that the two planes they are producing still have not found their match in either speed nor efficiency. There simply ARE no other 2400 NM range 180 kt or 1600 NM range 240 kt piston singles. And today, with rising Avgas prices especcially in Europe, efficiency WILL be a major concern.
In that regard, I am much less concerned for them, particularly as they have the dedicated folks you see in that movie, than people like Piper or Cessna. If you look at a Cherokee 180 and a Archer III, there is not that much of a difference as e.g. between a M20C and an Ovation. Mooney for years have done what Cirrus does today, bring a new model regularly with significant improvements. I am not really seeing that with the rest of the competition.
Anyway, if you look at some of the Mooney crowd and what they do other than fawning over their planes, we could use their enthusiasm and their dedication in GA today. People like Mitch and Jolie make it worthwile to stay in this hobby more then the mostly negatively minded folk you meet at the local European flying clubs, who mainly complain but not do anything to change it. There are some people like that in this very forum who try to support and better GA, there are others, but they are few and far between. I’d like to see the enthusiasm take over from the pessimism and outright despair in our lands again. Easier said than done, but at least we have people to look at who demonstrate what CAN be done.
If there was a “like” button I would click it…
All nice, MooneyDriver – but, sorry … I don’t buy the second part of your post.
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 ?
I mean Cirrus at least developed a completely new plane and set a new standard. Even they could not get beyond the old engine technology, but at least the rest of the plane is really the latest technology, aerodynamics, avionics, integration, CAPS, comfort … nobody else did anything similar with the exception of Diamond and (to a point) Columbia wih the 350/ 400 model, now Cessna.
>>>>There are some people like that in this very forum who try to support and better GA, there are others, but they are few and far between. I’d like to see the enthusiasm take over from the pessimism and outright despair in our lands again
And what is this supposed to mean, please? As much as I love flying (I mean I even have TWO planes and spend amounts of money on flying i do not tell my non-flying friends out of fear they will send me an ambulance!) … there’s really ENOUGH reasons to be frustrated. Extreme cost for gas, unnecessary and stupid regulations, unfair spare part prices (yes, Cirrus too), ridiculous maintenance rules, unqualified shops, low standards in flight training, low maintenance quality in many shops, low build quality in many components and engines, lack of customer service …. Want more? Of course it frustrates me. 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.
Of course I enjoy flying, but if you look at it realistically then there’s a rather big chance that GA as we know and love it will disappear. within the next 100 years, or earlier. And I know that we are such a minority that we will not change much. Enjoy it while I can, that’s my slogan.
I, for one, as an obvious Mooney enthusiast, am VERY glad that Cirrus and Columbia exist and that we see a lot of innovation especially in the experimental market.
Sure, that’s right. I see Cirrus and Columbia’s new aircraft sales as one niche of a very broad worldwide GA economic activity, and just like all the other companies, their activity is roughly as important on a global scale as their value of sales in proportion to the total activity. For any individual, the only thing that matters is the value and reliability of that individual’s sales. I know of several fairly recognizable GA company names that support only 3 or 4 people, but they’re happy. They have nobody to please but themselves and their modest customer base… and who knows, sometimes they grow up to be Van’s Aircraft.
I think you’re making the mistake of confusing your enthusiasm for a particular brand with economic viability of the product. There will be a few enthusiasts willing to plunk down 600k or maybe even 1M for “the fastest piston single”. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that the product necessarily makes any money, or makes sense on a larger scale. In the end that’s what counts for any business.
I don’t think anyone here ever said that pilots of Mooneys are stupid or backwards, 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.
Together with some friends I explored the 201 and 231 a number of years ago. I love the speed and economy compared with most other aircraft of the same size and capability. I also happen to think the Mooney looks cool. In the end there were a number of reasons that made me join up on a Commander 114B instead and my friends bought a 112TC. Not so much speed, but built like a tank and plenty of space, two doors, rock solid in IMC, all the gadgets one could ask for. I don’t think Commander would be successful marketing that aircraft today, but I still love it and would consider having one again. I can sympathize with your feelings for the Mooney and I would probably still consider a 201 if it fit my mission profile. Wouldn’t buy a new one though, don’t really see the point, as with most aircraft.
Yes, exactly …
Nobody will deny that a Mooney is cool. I like it a lot. 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.
I like Mooney as well. But they are old and I am not committed to them like a religion. Old Mooney’s compare well to other old planes.New planes are far beyond a new Mooney,should one emerge. Enthusiast purchases won’t fund the business.
Old Mooney’s compare well to other old planes.New planes are far beyond a new Mooney,should one emerge.
Well said.
Enter the Panthera, a Mooney of the new era. Perhaps.
Enter the Panthera, the Procaer Picchio of the new era. More likely.
Speaking of the Panthera, has anybody actually been in the prototype and made an honest evaluation of the forward view in climb? In terms of forward view it continues to look blind as a bat to me. It did occur to me that they could put a camera on the bottom of the cowling, but I don’t think the market would buy it. I also noticed this statement on the Panthera Wiki page…
The company intends to offer the aircraft first as a kit for amateur construction and may later type certify it
I wonder how many kits they imagine they can sell, at what price? I think the volume of the kit-built market falls off a cliff at above (say) $75K USD for the airframe. Previous complex kit ventures like the SX300 and the Questair did not sell enough to set the world on fire. The Lancair IV did perhaps a little better. Otherwise, I’ve seen the plant on a visit to Ajdovscina with a Slovenian friend – ‘very impressive overhead cost’ was my initial thought. Maybe land and construction is cheap there, plus they publicize their receipt of EU money.
