Mooney furloughs entire staff and shudders plant

pwttogfk

Well-Known Member
I doubt Textron would think about Mooney. Their focus is elsewhere. They had a Cirrus-killer in the TTx but for many reasons it was a failure. And, the TTx is as fast as the Acclaim anyhow. The FIKI one is faster ;)

Cliffnotes:
  • Sexy-looking design that was poorly engineered under the skin. A lot got fixed with the redesign and re-certification as the TTx (it's actually a different airplane than the 400, certified as the Cessna T240) but there was a lot left to do. The trim tabs were pop-riveted on, for instance. And one bolt holds the rudder to the airplane. Still better designed than the SR-series in my opinion though. Columbia chose to figure out how to make a kitplane certifiable and Cirrus chose to figure out how to mass produce a kitplane. Even a brand-new Cirrus has aluminum control surfaces because small composites are expensive and hard to do.
    • Related, significant engineering required to increase MTOW/MLW/MZFW. It was on par with a G3 SR22T for useful load but Cirrus fixed the UL issue and Cessna didn't.
  • Lack of commitment. A significant investment to create a true top-of-class airplane and ongoing investment to keep it on top could've done wonders. When certified it beat the pants off of the G3 SR22T in every metric. G5 made it hard to sell and G6 killed it. Company management at the time just cared about big jets. When I started at Cessna we sold as many pistons as Cirrus. That dwindled, and then with the Beech acquisition it was back to Beech+Cessna=Cirrus. Now it's something like Beech+Cessna=1/2 Cirrus sales. I don't know if they can climb back out of the hole they've dug.
  • Inept sales/marketing (understatement). And a competitor that doesn't let little things like the truth get in the way of selling a plane. About all I've got to say there.

Now...a re-engineered TTx with 300# more useful load (and therefore re-engineered landing gear), Safe Return, BRS (as an option, even if none are sold with it having as an option would start the conversation with members of the Cirrus cult), FADEC (easily certified due to the electrical system), and pressurization (again, easier than you'd think to do)...I think the SR22'd be in a world of hurt. But it'll never happen. The short-term money's in jets and Textron could care less about anything that doesn't boost quarterly earnings.
 

Springer

Well-Known Member
The barriers to entry are too high for most people who aren't doing it as a career. A PPL is, what, $10k-$12k these days? What's a basic, brand new 172 go for, $400k? It's definitely not a hobby for those with an average income.
10,599 Van's RV's have been completed, 1.5 per day for a fraction of the cost of a certified a/c and in most cases better performance.


 

jynxyjoe

The Kickin' Chicken!
Never once have I had a 737 pilot complain about not being able to make restrictions on a departure. Yet almost daily 321 pilots are crying they can’t make crossing restrictions. Just sayin
737-900? Compared to the 800 it's a bit of a pig, but it might be more comparable to the 321. Although I don't know that much about 321 so maybe I'm talking out the butt
 

Prino

Well-Known Member
737-900? Compared to the 800 it's a bit of a pig, but it might be more comparable to the 321. Although I don't know that much about 321 so maybe I'm talking out the butt
yeah still haven’t had a single 737 guy say they can’t meet a crossing restriction in the 4 years I’ve been here.
 

jtrain609

Uniting the black vote.
yeah still haven’t had a single 737 guy say they can’t meet a crossing restriction in the 4 years I’ve been here.
They're just being cautious. At the gate the A321 will say it can't make the restrictions, but I've never NOT made them out of Vegas.
 

Alchemy

Partner, Ally, Friend
We were just discussing this in another thread, but not all new aircraft are that much. A top of the line 260hp 1200lb useful load maule comes in 50k less than a 172. More comparable, a MXT7-180 comes in at a little over 200k, or roughly half the price of a Cessna. A brand new 210hp top of the line Scout comes in at 210k. Yes, that's still ridiculous, but only half as ridiculous.
I've read on other forums that Maule operates their production without insurance. Not sure how true that is. I really tried talking my partners into buying a year 2000 M7-235 for 90k at hood, but they wouldn't go for it! Someday, I just hope Maule is still around in 10 years when I can afford a brand new M7/M9 plus a hangar to keep it in....

I grew up about a mile from the Mooney factory, have 2 or 3 hours in an M20C. They closed down once a decade or so when I was a kid. Seemed like decent airplanes, although I never got to fly the newer ones.
 

Murdoughnut

Well sized member
Lawyers ruin everything.

Fueled improperly and didn’t sump the tanks or insufficient fuel quality that led to a crash - sue the FBO for failures in PIC responsibilities.

Inadvertent IMC preceding the disorientation and crash - sue the manufacturer and flight school for poor aeronautical decisions made by the PIC.

Loaded over gross and out of CG - sue the manufacturer because of the PIC’s poor judgment.

Lawyers ruin everything. Okay, maybe just personal injury attorneys.
One of the older members of my flying club scared me off to ever doing a leaseback. A 172 he owned was being used for instruction at a flight school. Student, with instructor on board went CFIT, killing the instructor and badly injuring the student. Airplane was squeaky clean and not a factor, yet he was still sued. Fortunately his insurance settled for the coverage amount, but the emotional toll it took on him was far more expensive.
 

Derg

Cap, Roci
Staff member
They're just being cautious. At the gate the A321 will say it can't make the restrictions, but I've never NOT made them out of Vegas.
Sometimes if you make sure the jets sensed OAT matches the actual value, it gives a better prediction of climb performance. You can usually make the crazy restrictions out of LAS. It’s still tight though.
 

jtrain609

Uniting the black vote.
Sometimes if you make sure the jets sensed OAT matches the actual value, it gives a better prediction of climb performance. You can usually make the crazy restrictions out of LAS. It’s still tight though.
You ever just change the thrust reduction altitude or accelerate height? Playing with either of those, whether you use it or not, will show you what you need to do to make the restriction.
 

NovemberEcho

Dergs favorite member
The only two jets I don’t turn off departure end are the 717 and A321. Gotta let em run a bit to get altitude or they’ll never top the EWR downwind that’s at 6000 15 miles to the west without additional vectors. At least in the summer for the A321. 717 year round.
 

Richman

Well-Known Member
There are so many small changes to the tax code, business environment and other issues that there is a world of difference between a leaseback today vs one in, say, 1982.

Just the rental situation alone is a good example. Back in the day, the rental/school operator was part of the FBO. That means that fuel & MX was provided by those facets of the FBO, and so was either wholesale, or heavily discounted. Heck, the plane itself may have even been covered under the FBOs blanket policy.

These days FBOs actual business are actually very, very narrow, and most components are outsourced to other business entities. The end result means you’re paying full retail on everything, and your “leaseback” has become a profit center for numerous entities, of which you are not one.
 
Top