Mooney article in this month's Flyer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mooney article in this month's Flyer
So flyer took the incredible Mooney Acclaim-S for a 1hr40min test flight, criticised the hell out of its cabin width numerous times, never tested the factory's claimed 242kts max speed (they would have got a bit less than that in a TKS equiped airframe methinks) and compare the Mooney's well time proven FIKI certified deicing with the Cirrus version. (Actually the Mooney TKS works extremely well even in bad icing, I have first hand experience.)
A pretty lukewarm article really - the report seemed to simply be going through the motions of a perfunctory write up rather than extolling the virtues of a superlatively engineered aviation legend with unsurpassed range, speed and economy.
I think I'll be looking at a proper flight test in one of the US mags to gauge its true performance - this article was poor and did not test the aircraft in the profiles it is likely to be flown in by owners i:e long range, high altitude, 1 or 2 on board (on a business trip).
SB
A pretty lukewarm article really - the report seemed to simply be going through the motions of a perfunctory write up rather than extolling the virtues of a superlatively engineered aviation legend with unsurpassed range, speed and economy.
I think I'll be looking at a proper flight test in one of the US mags to gauge its true performance - this article was poor and did not test the aircraft in the profiles it is likely to be flown in by owners i:e long range, high altitude, 1 or 2 on board (on a business trip).
SB
Last edited by scooter boy; 28th Mar 2009 at 23:00.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not read the article but will do so.
The Mooney is a superb aircraft, albeit I think it occupies a niche market which has been eroded by the Cirrus. The Mooney is quicker and more economical, but the speed differential has been substantially eroded and may no longer be enough taken with the other drawbacks. In a similiar vien I doubt the saving in fuel is a signifcant factor if contemplating a capital investment on a new aircraft of that order.
The Cirrus cockpit is large and comfortable (I always say built for fat Americans, but not a comment I would want to make on here), the Cirrus version of the G1000 is way ahead of the avionics fit of the latest generation of Mooney's and the aircraft is likely to be less costly to maintain. Cirrus's recent FIKI approval is the icing on the cake.
These issues will continue to make the market a tough place for Mooney but horses for courses it is a superb aircraft even if I think Cirrus have the edge in terms of the overall package.
The Mooney is a superb aircraft, albeit I think it occupies a niche market which has been eroded by the Cirrus. The Mooney is quicker and more economical, but the speed differential has been substantially eroded and may no longer be enough taken with the other drawbacks. In a similiar vien I doubt the saving in fuel is a signifcant factor if contemplating a capital investment on a new aircraft of that order.
The Cirrus cockpit is large and comfortable (I always say built for fat Americans, but not a comment I would want to make on here), the Cirrus version of the G1000 is way ahead of the avionics fit of the latest generation of Mooney's and the aircraft is likely to be less costly to maintain. Cirrus's recent FIKI approval is the icing on the cake.
These issues will continue to make the market a tough place for Mooney but horses for courses it is a superb aircraft even if I think Cirrus have the edge in terms of the overall package.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I often find the flight tests in the UK flying magazines rather dull, I don't know why but the US ones always seem a bit more comprehensive and interesting somehow.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it comes to airplane tests there is only 1 place to look : Aviation consumer. They don't have any advertisers, so they have no reason why to put their number 1 advertiser (cirrus) above a lower paying advertiser (mooney)
You can compare a Mooney pilot with a Cirrus pilot but you can't put them into the same boat, it is impossible. We have all met both. People who own new Mooneys have selected a Mooney for their quality, handling and because it fits their mission profile. People who own new Cirrus has been talked into it most of the time and don't know that much about planes, have you seen the Cirrus POH ? If x happens, pull the chute, if y happens, pull the chute, if z happens, pull the chute. Yeah right.
I take subscriptions of Aviation Consumer, IFR refresher and ABS magazine. The rest can go straight to the waste basket, and that's how you should treat their articles too scooterboy.
You can compare a Mooney pilot with a Cirrus pilot but you can't put them into the same boat, it is impossible. We have all met both. People who own new Mooneys have selected a Mooney for their quality, handling and because it fits their mission profile. People who own new Cirrus has been talked into it most of the time and don't know that much about planes, have you seen the Cirrus POH ? If x happens, pull the chute, if y happens, pull the chute, if z happens, pull the chute. Yeah right.
I take subscriptions of Aviation Consumer, IFR refresher and ABS magazine. The rest can go straight to the waste basket, and that's how you should treat their articles too scooterboy.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji, I forgot to mention resale values. The Mooney still holds its value reasonably well. As for the Cirrus - the value plummets like a non-BRS equipped stone. Too many used versions on the market, too many new model upgrades instantly devaluing the previous model.
Horses for courses you are right - Mooney vs Cirrus is like this is like comparing a champion thoroughbred to a seaside donkey.
As for "fat Americans" - our Flyer flight test team seemed to have that angle covered nicely.
SB
Horses for courses you are right - Mooney vs Cirrus is like this is like comparing a champion thoroughbred to a seaside donkey.
As for "fat Americans" - our Flyer flight test team seemed to have that angle covered nicely.
SB
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used Cirrus values were bound to bomb because a) Cirrus was marketing them like cars so they were bound to shift a fair # of them to people who then "discovered" that the despatch rate of an SEP is not quite the same as the despatch rate of a car, and b) the regular technical upgrades made the "old" versions less desirable.
The advertising style was IMHO essential to break the "GA anorak" mould. The innovation was also something to be pleased about but ultimately it was going to catch up with them by saturating what is a pretty well limited market.
The advertising style was IMHO essential to break the "GA anorak" mould. The innovation was also something to be pleased about but ultimately it was going to catch up with them by saturating what is a pretty well limited market.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all like certain aircraft which can result in a bias view.
I am not sure the evidence suggests Cirrus depreciate more quickly than a TB20 or a Mooney. For example, a quick search shows Trade-A-Plane has an almost new 2008 Mooney for $538K and the closest model 3 years later with 520 hours is $340K. A Cirrus of the same vintage and the same hours is $369K and a 2008 model is $450K which would suggest on a very limited sample the Cirrus has done better.
Trade-A-Plane's own stats would suggest there is little in it comparing like for like.
A manufacturers market will undoubtedly be effected by confidence. Diamond's customers have suffered a set back with the Theilert debacle and prices have suffered. Mooney have not helped themselves by stopping production - will they survive, probably, but who knows for sure. Cirrus have just about got themselves into the same environ as Cessna with sufficient weight of numbers to have a business just supporting the existing population - much as Diamond. Socata survive on the back of their turbine business and, probably, French subsidies.
The single most significant impact on values is a manufacturer going bust. Confidence evaporates as fast as the cost of parts rises.
All that said the market is not what it seems at the moment. No one is paying the head line price for anything and therefore it is very difficult to establish what is selling and for how much.
Oh, and Sternone, dont get yourself into a twist over the chute, it is a great marketing tool and sells aircraft. Better have sound marketing at the moment and sell aircraft than go down the chute.
Personally having flown them all the Mooney is a little cramped for me but I love its speed, the Cirrus is a very good aircraft much better now they have replaced the Avidyne with the G1000, the TB20 is a great aircraft if a little slow in this company and dated, and the Diamonds are too slow and the cockpit leaves you feeling like a F1 driver which might be OK if the performance even came close to a F1 car.
A Perspective system in a DA42 with the interior of a Cirrus with two PT6s or, at a push, two Lycos, or diesels if they get them working, and the wings of a Aztec and the quality of finish of a Mooney would just about be perfect.
I am not sure the evidence suggests Cirrus depreciate more quickly than a TB20 or a Mooney. For example, a quick search shows Trade-A-Plane has an almost new 2008 Mooney for $538K and the closest model 3 years later with 520 hours is $340K. A Cirrus of the same vintage and the same hours is $369K and a 2008 model is $450K which would suggest on a very limited sample the Cirrus has done better.
Trade-A-Plane's own stats would suggest there is little in it comparing like for like.
A manufacturers market will undoubtedly be effected by confidence. Diamond's customers have suffered a set back with the Theilert debacle and prices have suffered. Mooney have not helped themselves by stopping production - will they survive, probably, but who knows for sure. Cirrus have just about got themselves into the same environ as Cessna with sufficient weight of numbers to have a business just supporting the existing population - much as Diamond. Socata survive on the back of their turbine business and, probably, French subsidies.
The single most significant impact on values is a manufacturer going bust. Confidence evaporates as fast as the cost of parts rises.
All that said the market is not what it seems at the moment. No one is paying the head line price for anything and therefore it is very difficult to establish what is selling and for how much.
Oh, and Sternone, dont get yourself into a twist over the chute, it is a great marketing tool and sells aircraft. Better have sound marketing at the moment and sell aircraft than go down the chute.
Personally having flown them all the Mooney is a little cramped for me but I love its speed, the Cirrus is a very good aircraft much better now they have replaced the Avidyne with the G1000, the TB20 is a great aircraft if a little slow in this company and dated, and the Diamonds are too slow and the cockpit leaves you feeling like a F1 driver which might be OK if the performance even came close to a F1 car.
A Perspective system in a DA42 with the interior of a Cirrus with two PT6s or, at a push, two Lycos, or diesels if they get them working, and the wings of a Aztec and the quality of finish of a Mooney would just about be perfect.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 29th Mar 2009 at 09:55.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure the evidence suggests Cirrus depreciate more quickly than a TB20 or a Mooney.
My opinion is based on direct conversation with a US based aircraft broker friend.
It is also rooted in reading articles on aircraft depreciation in the aviation press written by brokers and dealers of single piston aircraft.
Cirrus produce lots of glossy ads and before you know it every new PPL wants a plastic fixed-gear jelly mould to fly around in. Cirrus have a great marketing strategy and a huge marketing budget.
What a triumph of style over substance they are.
Equally Cirrus' giant advertising spend buys lots of column inches and loyalty from the aviation press in this country. I remember reading a gushy article on a cirrus with a slightly bigger engine and better go-faster stripes than the last one very recently. We are all victims of bias in the media.
For example, a quick search shows Trade-A-Plane has an almost new 2008 Mooney for $538K and the closest model 3 years later with 520 hours is $340K. A Cirrus of the same vintage and the same hours is $369K and a 2008 model is $450K which would suggest on a very limited sample the Cirrus has done better.
Trade-A-Plane's own stats would suggest there is little in it comparing like for like.
Fuji - You're the one not comparing like for like.
Oh, I just figured out what you meant, you obviously mean comparing a normally aspirated Mooney ovation2 with a turbocharged cirrus? The Mooney gives a similar cruise speed, and double the range but on a fraction of the fuel. Or is this not what you meant? Shhh! Best not tell the cirrus drivers out there.
A manufacturers market will undoubtedly be affected by confidence. Diamond's customers have suffered a set back with the Theilert debacle and prices have suffered. Mooney have not helped themselves by stopping production - will they survive, probably, but who knows for sure.
I agree entirely - Mooney have probably saved themselves by stopping production.
The single most significant impact on values is a manufacturing going bust. Confidence evaporates as fast as the cost of parts rises.
Mooney are still producing parts, servicing + repairing aircraft and covering existing aircraft warranties.
Their strategy is to hunker down and wait out the recession. They have not gone bust.
All that said the market is not what it seems at the moment. No one is paying the head line price for anything and therefore it is very difficult to establish what is selling and for how much.
Absolutely. Asking prices are fantasy at present. This is why the trade-a-plane statistics fall down. They are what people are asking for - not what they are getting. In a market flooded with cirruses prices have to be driven down. The aircraft is only worth what somebody is prepared to pay for it.
I will tell you what my ovation 2 sells for over the next couple of weeks if you are interested.
My opinion is based on direct conversation with a US based aircraft broker friend.
It is also rooted in reading articles on aircraft depreciation in the aviation press written by brokers and dealers of single piston aircraft.
Cirrus produce lots of glossy ads and before you know it every new PPL wants a plastic fixed-gear jelly mould to fly around in. Cirrus have a great marketing strategy and a huge marketing budget.
What a triumph of style over substance they are.
Equally Cirrus' giant advertising spend buys lots of column inches and loyalty from the aviation press in this country. I remember reading a gushy article on a cirrus with a slightly bigger engine and better go-faster stripes than the last one very recently. We are all victims of bias in the media.
For example, a quick search shows Trade-A-Plane has an almost new 2008 Mooney for $538K and the closest model 3 years later with 520 hours is $340K. A Cirrus of the same vintage and the same hours is $369K and a 2008 model is $450K which would suggest on a very limited sample the Cirrus has done better.
Trade-A-Plane's own stats would suggest there is little in it comparing like for like.
Fuji - You're the one not comparing like for like.
Oh, I just figured out what you meant, you obviously mean comparing a normally aspirated Mooney ovation2 with a turbocharged cirrus? The Mooney gives a similar cruise speed, and double the range but on a fraction of the fuel. Or is this not what you meant? Shhh! Best not tell the cirrus drivers out there.
A manufacturers market will undoubtedly be affected by confidence. Diamond's customers have suffered a set back with the Theilert debacle and prices have suffered. Mooney have not helped themselves by stopping production - will they survive, probably, but who knows for sure.
I agree entirely - Mooney have probably saved themselves by stopping production.
The single most significant impact on values is a manufacturing going bust. Confidence evaporates as fast as the cost of parts rises.
Mooney are still producing parts, servicing + repairing aircraft and covering existing aircraft warranties.
Their strategy is to hunker down and wait out the recession. They have not gone bust.
All that said the market is not what it seems at the moment. No one is paying the head line price for anything and therefore it is very difficult to establish what is selling and for how much.
Absolutely. Asking prices are fantasy at present. This is why the trade-a-plane statistics fall down. They are what people are asking for - not what they are getting. In a market flooded with cirruses prices have to be driven down. The aircraft is only worth what somebody is prepared to pay for it.
I will tell you what my ovation 2 sells for over the next couple of weeks if you are interested.
Last edited by scooter boy; 29th Mar 2009 at 10:12.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scooter
I am not "having a go" at Mooney. I like the aircraft.
As to values I was comparing a Turbo Cirrus with a Turbo Cirrus but an Ovation 2GX M20R with a Ovation 3GX so in fact it is to the Mooney I am being generous because the Ovation is a later and "better" aircraft. The Ovation is quicker and more economical but its cabin is a much cosier place to spend time together - as I said horses for .. .. ...
Cirrus do produce a jelly mould aircraft and I suspect any volume manufacturer would do so today. The economies of scale are significant. Moreover, I suspect a jelly mould aircraft will prove safer in an accident given the reaction of the material to impact and the ability of the designers to readily match the material to their needs. F1 designers use composite for a reason - and you can bet the cost is not a factor.
I am not "having a go" at Mooney. I like the aircraft.
As to values I was comparing a Turbo Cirrus with a Turbo Cirrus but an Ovation 2GX M20R with a Ovation 3GX so in fact it is to the Mooney I am being generous because the Ovation is a later and "better" aircraft. The Ovation is quicker and more economical but its cabin is a much cosier place to spend time together - as I said horses for .. .. ...
Cirrus do produce a jelly mould aircraft and I suspect any volume manufacturer would do so today. The economies of scale are significant. Moreover, I suspect a jelly mould aircraft will prove safer in an accident given the reaction of the material to impact and the ability of the designers to readily match the material to their needs. F1 designers use composite for a reason - and you can bet the cost is not a factor.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I think I've said before, values are holding up on good quality products which are still reasonably current.
That's why the most recent TB20s (2001/2002) still fetch good prices. And I am taking into account the fact that most sellers don't like to admit how much money they lost on something...
Recent Mooneys will also fetch good prices.
It is the 1980s production stuff which has bombed. For example you can buy a 1985 TB20 for about £40k. It's going to be a dog with loads of things that need doing but so long as it legally flies it's still a TB20... That same plane would have been £60-80k 2 years ago.
Cirrus values have dropped more because they have been continually changing their specs, so their "most recent" offering is actually really recent, and something say 5 years old is going to appear well out of date. I should think they Avidyne models have well bombed since the G1000 ones came out.
Socata and Mooney will always be around making the parts because of the fleet sizes (~2k for the Socata TB; no idea of the Rallye fleet size) and since the TC owner can generate the paperwork from fresh air, it's a massively lucrative business. A 3rd party parts maker would need to get an STC for most parts which would be silly. Look at Piper - they are selling very few planes these days, but have a huge worldwide parts operation. Only an idiot will run a business like that into the ground and leave it there, so the TC is lost.
I think you will find the TB20 does the same speed, at a given flow rate, as an SR22 or a Cessna 400. Mine does 165kt IAS flat out but who wants to be burning 20GPH? The SR22 is ~10kt faster than the TB20 at say 75% power but you pay for it in fuel. Dated, yes, the latest avionics are the late-1990s stuff, but it's the least dated airframe of all the non-composite airframes in IFR GA.
A glass cockpit means you are over the barrel on any significant avionics work; OK if you have the facilities handy (and don't fly too far away) but a right pain otherwise. The one thing I have noticed recently is that the installation and maintenance manuals for these are very tightly held. Garmin have had their legal team hitting all websites which carried any of their maint/install manuals; too late as the manuals for most of the pre-glass avionics are all over the place (I have a huge collection myself but obviously not on an open website) but they have evidently been successful in keeping the G600/G1000 manuals out of circulation and restricted to the authorised dealers only, so even simple stuff needs to go to the pukka dealer. I would hate a deal like that. Honeywell are the same in theory but in practice they have not really bothered to keep the stuff tightly held, so most avionics shops (or freelancers) can work on the 1990s stuff and older. Autopilots are the exception as they need some weird adaptors / bus extenders (which the dealers have to buy for £xxxxx in order to qualify for the dealership) but otherwise setting them up is trivial enough.
With a 1990s outfit if an instrument goes you pop in an exchange unit and off you go. If however you are tied to a specially authorised dealer and (generally in light GA) you have to go to him, it's a whole day wasted each way.
The reality is that with most planes one gets little "issues" and the owner will eventually get fed up with what he sees as avoidable hassle, so I think glass cockpit planes (which are frankly not flyable with major cockpit defects except under VFR) will depreciate faster. I know of a number of people who would like to dump the stuff they recently bought, and some of the "stuff" I am talking about is well above the piston level. Technology is good and glass cockpits are the best way of presenting the information but not with the way the maintenance scene has been tied up. It's not so bad on jets because the maintenance people travel to the customer but in piston GA you have to make the trip every time.
That's why the most recent TB20s (2001/2002) still fetch good prices. And I am taking into account the fact that most sellers don't like to admit how much money they lost on something...
Recent Mooneys will also fetch good prices.
It is the 1980s production stuff which has bombed. For example you can buy a 1985 TB20 for about £40k. It's going to be a dog with loads of things that need doing but so long as it legally flies it's still a TB20... That same plane would have been £60-80k 2 years ago.
Cirrus values have dropped more because they have been continually changing their specs, so their "most recent" offering is actually really recent, and something say 5 years old is going to appear well out of date. I should think they Avidyne models have well bombed since the G1000 ones came out.
Socata and Mooney will always be around making the parts because of the fleet sizes (~2k for the Socata TB; no idea of the Rallye fleet size) and since the TC owner can generate the paperwork from fresh air, it's a massively lucrative business. A 3rd party parts maker would need to get an STC for most parts which would be silly. Look at Piper - they are selling very few planes these days, but have a huge worldwide parts operation. Only an idiot will run a business like that into the ground and leave it there, so the TC is lost.
the TB20 is a great aircraft if a little slow in this company and dated
A glass cockpit means you are over the barrel on any significant avionics work; OK if you have the facilities handy (and don't fly too far away) but a right pain otherwise. The one thing I have noticed recently is that the installation and maintenance manuals for these are very tightly held. Garmin have had their legal team hitting all websites which carried any of their maint/install manuals; too late as the manuals for most of the pre-glass avionics are all over the place (I have a huge collection myself but obviously not on an open website) but they have evidently been successful in keeping the G600/G1000 manuals out of circulation and restricted to the authorised dealers only, so even simple stuff needs to go to the pukka dealer. I would hate a deal like that. Honeywell are the same in theory but in practice they have not really bothered to keep the stuff tightly held, so most avionics shops (or freelancers) can work on the 1990s stuff and older. Autopilots are the exception as they need some weird adaptors / bus extenders (which the dealers have to buy for £xxxxx in order to qualify for the dealership) but otherwise setting them up is trivial enough.
With a 1990s outfit if an instrument goes you pop in an exchange unit and off you go. If however you are tied to a specially authorised dealer and (generally in light GA) you have to go to him, it's a whole day wasted each way.
The reality is that with most planes one gets little "issues" and the owner will eventually get fed up with what he sees as avoidable hassle, so I think glass cockpit planes (which are frankly not flyable with major cockpit defects except under VFR) will depreciate faster. I know of a number of people who would like to dump the stuff they recently bought, and some of the "stuff" I am talking about is well above the piston level. Technology is good and glass cockpits are the best way of presenting the information but not with the way the maintenance scene has been tied up. It's not so bad on jets because the maintenance people travel to the customer but in piston GA you have to make the trip every time.
Last edited by IO540; 29th Mar 2009 at 16:04.
...extolling the virtues of a superlatively engineered aviation legend with unsurpassed range, speed and economy...
...the Cirrus version of the G1000 is way ahead of the avionics fit of the latest generation of Mooney's and the aircraft is likely to be less costly to maintain. Cirrus's recent FIKI approval is the icing on the cake.
I think you will find the TB20 does the same speed, at a given flow rate, as an SR22 or a Cessna 400...
I'm confused. Where's the Columbia 400 nut?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bath
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Scooter boy
So flyer took the incredible Mooney Acclaim-S for a 1hr40min test flight, criticised the hell out of its cabin width numerous times, never tested the factory's claimed 242kts max speed (they would have got a bit less than that in a TKS equiped airframe methinks) and compare the Mooney's well time proven FIKI certified deicing with the Cirrus version. (Actually the Mooney TKS works extremely well even in bad icing, I have first hand experience.)
A pretty lukewarm article really - the report seemed to simply be going through the motions of a perfunctory write up rather than extolling the virtues of a superlatively engineered aviation legend with unsurpassed range, speed and economy. I think I'll be looking at a proper flight test in one of the US mags to gauge its true performance - this article was poor and did not test the aircraft in the profiles it is likely to be flown in by owners i:e long range, high altitude, 1 or 2 on board (on a business trip).
Originally Posted by sternone
If it comes to airplane tests there is only 1 place to look : Aviation consumer. They don't have any advertisers, so they have no reason why to put their number 1 advertiser (cirrus) above a lower paying advertiser (mooney)
I'm around on Monday and Tuesday this week, give me a call in the office if you want to discuss the Mooney and my views.
Ian
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Goodwood
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair response Ian, good stuff. BTW I presume that you are referring to Flyer as opposed to Aviation Consumer when you say "I can also guarantee you that the size or value of an advertiser makes no difference to opinions/conclusions in the reviews"?
I'd also like to officially confirm that you are a little way off being nominated for slimmer of the year - believe this was officially confirmed near Elgin
I'd also like to officially confirm that you are a little way off being nominated for slimmer of the year - believe this was officially confirmed near Elgin
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can also guarantee you that the size or value of an advertiser makes no difference to opinions/conclusions in the reviews.
It is good to know journalism hasn’t succumbed to commercial pressures – at least in aviation circles at any rate. Mac McClellan in Flying recently commented that despite Eclipse pulling all advertising he didnt change his view that the aircraft would not succeed.
The TB20 and Mooney occupy niche markets for a reason. If the aircraft ticked the majority of the boxes (and to be fair to the TB20 we must consider the GA environment at that time, which was quite different from five years ago, as will the market be quite different for the next five years) they would have sold in volume.
For good or for bad Diamond and Cirrus have sold their aircraft in volume – they have identified a product pilots or flying schools want and capitalised on the market in a way neither Mooney or Socata were able to. In short speed alone does not sell aircraft nor does FIKI and nor does speed and FIKI.
As to glass there is much merit in your views IO, however I suspect glass is her to stay. It is far easier to design an aircraft around glass and the manufacturing costs of an integrated panel are significantly less. I have also found very few pilots who do not prefer glass once they have given it a fair trial. However don’t be deceived into believing it is complicated. As you will well know IO Garmin’s incarnation is really little more than the traditional black boxes tied together via a CPU and an LCD. Swapping out the modules is easier than with a conventional panel so although the cost may be higher initially as volumes increase inevitably prices will fall.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to glass there is much merit in your views IO, however I suspect glass is her to stay.
............. however my view on limited avionics maintenance options stands.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble with Mooneys is that if you put four people in them , you only have enough fuel for one circuit...
I'd also like to officially confirm that you are a little way off being nominated for slimmer of the year