Mooney's are beautiful, very well built, stable, great for IFR and efficient. I don't begrudge anyone for loving their Cirrus or Bonanza or Arrow. I would just say that Cirrus and Mooney are not apples and apples. And those who criticize Mooney probably haven't flown one. I have 500+ hours in a C model. Insurance (full coverage and 1M liability) was less than $800/year. Landing gear did require some maintenance (ok it is a 50 year old airplane). I'm guessing the lifetime cost of maintaining a Mooney's retractable landing gear is no more (and probably less) than maintenance on the Cirrus parachute. The main thing is when you open the hanger, or see it on the ramp, you want to love what you see. When your in the clouds, in the rain, strong winds, you want to trust it will get you home again. I love the way Mooneys look, and fly. So whatever makes you happy, go fly it.
I've been watching your channel for a while and finally decided to subscribe yesterday. I just want to say how great of a job you're doing. You are by far the most informative and unbiased aviation channel on UA-cam. Keep up the good work!
Back in the latter '60's, I learned to fly in Santiago, Chile, bought a Money Mark 20 A(laminated-wood wing spars), flew it around Chile, and flew it back to DC. Flat out, a marvelous, leggy dream to fly. At that time, the wonderfully efficient landing gear lever (Johnson Bar), created a Mooney-pilot ID...a scar between the middle finger and ring-finger knuckles, created by a bolt head on the front passenger seat, as the bar seated itself on the floor between the two seats. When you came across another Mooney pilot, you just flashed your right fist, fingers down, for bonding ID.
Paul, your descriptive language of the crow hop put me in mind of my early days in the 1968 Cessna 177 Cardinal. I had a few major hops in learning to land that plane. But after a time you master it and the Cardinal was a great airplane beyond that Stabilator tail. It is a sad thing to see Mooney once again closed down. Apparently the Chinese didn't have the magic touch either.
I love my mooney. It’s been a capable and comfortable trip airplane. With built in O2, I can climb above weather and terrain. The efficiency can’t be beat. I’m regularly clocking 170TAS at 11-12GPH.
I also thought 750000 bucks is a joke. I bought mine for 30.00 just yesterday. Well the one with instruments from the nineties and a G530 mixed in. Not the Ovation Ultra. :) I would hope Carenado would upgrade her later. I would buy her again.
Growing up reading Gordon Baxter it's hard not to have a soft spot for Mooney, would love to fly one one day and see if the handling is as good as they say. And while all of the competition mentioned have beautiful panels, I think Mooney did an exception job with their update. And nice job with all of the graphics and superimposing your image, that was pretty cool.
@6:33 the Mooney Acclaim it still rising beyond 25,000 feet. She can cruise above the clouds! We (family, friends and I) built these birds for decades, starting in the 70's until 2008. They are amazing airplanes! Does the pilot side door weaken the rigidity of the cabin/airframe, throw balance off center, or increase the noise level?
In Paul's Acclaim video for this same generation of bird, he says the new doors are made of carbon fiber and fit better so the noise level in the cabin is lower.
Fastest certified* piston single. Velocity XLRG has a 250 ktas rated cruise speed with that engine. It recorded cruise speed of 271 ktas on the way to Oshkosh a few years ago.
Superb Video about the Mooney! Keep up the good work Paul! I always loved the Mooney M20J from our flight club and the ovation seem like a nice step up. I would always prefer a Mooney Ovation/Acclaim to a Cirrus Sr22/22T but sadly the amount of sold Airplane shows that the people prefer the Cirrus. Greetings from Germany
Love to see your report on the Acclaim Ultra, doubt you will do it any time soon since you missed your chance while in Kerville. That would have blown BOTH DOORS out of the Cirrus and TTx drivers. Love Mooney, flew many hours in mine. Now Bonanza Turboprop... still slower than the Mooney Acclaim. GREAT REPORT THANKS
Another excellent story, Paul, love your style! I really like Mooneys and appreciate your ability to point out a few of the reasons folks like continue to appreciate their value proposition. Getting there a little faster and burning a little bit less fuel is what Mooneys are all about... #MooneyZoom
It still might be a little tight compared to the wonderful Cirrus produts, but it's sexy and METAL. These structural attributes, combined with the speed and economy, make the Ultra series Mooney's my 1st choice. Chinese investors or not, I'm glad someone has infused capital into this iconic American design. Sign me up.
All light sport planes are too slow for mainly cross country use. I would like to see 160 knot cruise 2 seater kit plane for hopefully under 100K finished price.
She's a beauty. Although I've been blessed and have the funds, I'm not the sort of person who'd ever feel comfortable paying $700k for a plane (or house for that matter). I've settled, happily, for a used Baron. Can haul six at 185 kts and do it babying the engines (2300 rpm). Sure, it's not as efficient as the Mooney but I've got better than a half million still in the stock market, making me money. If my mission changes and I can get by hauling 3-4 folks, I might look at the used Mooney's but don't much like the China connection.
Flown um both, luv um both. But I know for a fact that the Mooney wing will take at least 12.3 gs pos. and the wings will still stay on. I can't say that for the Bonanza.
I always wonder, why the factory doesn't capitalize on it's production capacity and add a lower-end "entry model around 200k.But that's probably because you can buy used Mooneys for that amount and get more...
Excellent Paul as always! Yep, just need a winning lottery ticket. I hope Mooney has success but it’s a crowded market. We need Elan Musk to build a four seat airplane that cruise 160 KTAS so us commoners can afford to own a new airplane. $700 G’s is getting steep but I know Cirrus is well beyond that.
I am sure that Elon Musk will be glad to oblige and announce a Tesla electric aircraft, since he needs to raise more money. He might even let you put down a deposit. On the other hand, he will almost certainly not deliver it... :-)
Maybe Pipistrel will get their Panthera certified...Flying magazine stated less than a year ago it would be faster @ a starting price of $480,000... www.flyingmag.com/panthera-evolves-as-easa-certification-nears
The airplane is stupid expensive. For that money in the used market one can have a turbine with huge speed, load and range advantages without sacrificing technology. Aircraft manufacturers need to wake up to market realities.
Thank you for your excellent technical video. It is clear to me that both companies segmented and chose perfectly well the market and their niches respectevely. Cirrus nevertheless incorporates other non performance features that common people value a lot.
In a way you are absolutely correct. I was doing some research and found that a Cessna 150 back in 1958 cost about $7,500 new. And so I went to the inflation calculator, and it is about $66,000 in today's dollars. It's true they don't make 150s or 152s anymore, but a 172 today, roughly costs a whopping $400,000!! The 172 cost about $9,500 new, back in 1960. That is $82,000 in today's money. So the 172 costs nearly an insane *500% MORE* than what it cost back then *_adjusted for inflation_* ......And that is certainly an outrage, because it is still the same basic airplane, even though it now has a few more goodies here and there. And here's the kicker: Someone who bought a 172 back in say 1970 for around $12,000 and maintained their aircraft well, could sell it for around $30,000 to $40,000 today!! Meaning they would have not lost anything in depreciation and would even get back some of the cost of inflation! _THAT_ is also insane!
GA is totally fucked and planes are way way way too expensive to be owned by any normal people. I might as well just settle for an ultralight, since that’s the only way to own a reasonably priced airplane.
@@opticalecho119 Don't agree at all. I'm flying an older Bonanza but she has new paint, new prop, 450 hrs on a rebuilt engine, ADSB & some instrument upgrades. Paid about as much as a nice SUV... It's not a new model but has been extremely reliable hauling 4 folks. It's all about priorities.
In the uk it's even worse, I couldn't get a rust bucket for less than a house. Less and less people are flying and the aviation industry thinks that the fix is fancy screens because " It apeals to the younger croud :D who is actually buying these aircraft? 700 thousand!!! Fuck that!!!! Even if I was a millionaire I would tell them to go do one, but the best part is the fact that they offer finance lol 3000 a month for the rest of your life lol .
Here’s the tldr I guess the Mooney is better for speed and efficiency while the cirrus hauls more and is a little more comfortable. Both fantastic airplanes but I’m Mooney all the way
Anyone have an opinion on the overall best single-engine single-prop to learn flying? At least when one's goal is to get a PPL with instrument rating, eventually. So I'd think not a piper cub, necessarily.. but who knows? Cessna 172? I think there must be something else that's even better, more reliable perhaps? FWIW I'm in Connecticut, so would be flying out of either KOXC or KDXR primarily, most likely.
A 172 is a great trainer, but not the most practical plane if you plan to use it for travel or whatever after you get your ratings. Learning to fly in a more complex single (182, SR22, etc.) will take a bit more time because there are more systems to learn to manage, but it will probably save you money in the long run since you're only going through the time and expense of the purchase process once. In theory, the simple airplane (172) will be more reliable since there is less stuff to break, but it all depends on the age, condition and how you keep up the maintenance.
PPL in a 152. Instrument in a 172. There's no reason to get overwhelmed and pay extra money for a more complex plane just to get your ratings. The more complex planes will be easy to transition to after you have your ratings, and some flight time built up, instead of trying to learn them while trying to learn your basic flight training. Also you should learn on a traditional cockpit.
I bought and learned in a older 172, and found it to be a great plane to learn in, and pretty cost effective. They are easy to sell and everyone knows how to work on them. They are slow if you use them for traveling, but with a power flow exhaust you can get up to about 700 pounds of weight with 40 gallons of fuel, and cruise at about 125 mph on 8.5 gallons of fuel. I bought my 1972 for $38k with 1400 hours left on the engine TBO, and both my wife and I learned to fly in it. Have taken many many trips to the Bahama in it and has been a great airplane.
Surely those "M20" Mooneys aren't going to be considered an M20 for FAA type certification purposes with an entirely different airframe and the "legacy" M20's "safety record". And looking at the "illustrations" of the Acclaim compared to its "competition" it sure as hell doesn't look "smaller" unless "smaller" is shorter wingspan or some other "dimension" besides length, height, cabin "length", etc. And if its smaller, lighter and has retractable gear how is it "comparable" to those other airplanes anyway?
Surely they are. They're re-certified with modifications in the same way that Cherokee 140s and Dakotas are both PA-28s, no? The Mooney's wingspan is two feet shorter, the fuselage is two feet shorter , the tail is an inch lower and the cabin is four inches narrower. So yeah, it's smaller. They're the same class because they have four seats and go like hell. I know you could figure this out if you tried.
Sure a Continental engine might be a little more efficient but they do not have the cost efficiency to own like a lycoming as far as repair and maintenance. I find a lycoming engine is more reliable than continental engines
Great video and nice craft. Yes I know, same old replies like this. Here we go again with expensive aircraft's marketing to the very few. Out of those few SR's seem to be the pick. Mooney as well as the others in class, really need to market middle class. More money, volume and easier to bring new owners into GA. You watch, Mooney will be in trouble again just like the Cessna TTx sad to say. I am in the market for a 4HPSE, just not new. IMO they are not worth 700-800k, even if I wanted to spend that. Many others in the price range to look into. Ex. Piper Matrix with more seats too, even a nice older Kingair. Manufactures need to remember the"hey day" when a nice aircraft was the price of a nice car or even a high end auto. What happened? Many sold and flying today. I too am looking into kits now. Many options for glass and much cheaper. Build you say? Well you can pay someone or buy one built. Of course you would not be the builder, but..... Your not with cert aircraft's as well. PS keep these great vids coming, love them and learn much. Thanks
I've been seeing the same things you are in the market, hogster. What do you think is the biggest driver of the high prices? My top 2 suspects are FAA regulations / expensive certification process and product liability. I'm interested in other opinions, however.
Reverse argument. I love my Mooney. Strongest airframe in its category, strongest wing, chrome moly roll cage protecting me, Way more efficient and faster than every competitor. My wife and I can pack the cabin up to the gills with full fuel and smoke any and all comperable competitors to the destination.
Why does the useful load of pretty much every plane suck? There’s not really any planes I see covered here that can fill all their seats and carry a full load of fuel.
Welcome to America - there are a lot of super rich people here. The real question is what else could you be flying for $700K? You're well into good used turbines for that money.
As someone who's working in GW/climate change research it's irritating that they'll spend millions on a single conference, but getting money to verify planetary albedo over the last 40 years (processing satellite imagery) is nearly impossible to get (it's about $250k of processing and data storage). (If you know albedo (reflectivity), atmospheric gas composition and sunlight radiance at any particular date, then you can work out how much is (or isn't) being reradiated to space, and therefore you can validate the various models for warming that are being thrown around. We have #2 and #3, but not albedo on a planet-wide basis, and until we do have it we don't know how bad things are going to be (We already know it's bad, because stuff that was predicted based on "best guess" is happening 10-30 years earlier than predicted (mostly along the lines of the "worst case" predictions and in some cases even worse than that), the question is a matter of "how bad?)) That said, aircraft are a tiny contributor to the problem. Unfortunately they're also one of the easiest targets when governments decide to "do something" as they're high visibility.
The single driving factor for the costs is liability insurance. Those nice people who sued aircraft makers during the 1970s and 80s for crashes that happened because of pilot errors almost destroyed the GA market entirely - and not just in the USA where all the lawsuits happened. I'm a little surprised that GA makers don't put black boxes on their products so they can pull up records and say "Nope, wasn't our fault" (All USA/EU cars have had them since the late mid-late 1990s(*) and a solid state looping recorder is very light even when potted for fireproofing.) (*) If you have airbags, then you have some form of black box incorporated and evidence from them has been used by insurers to refuse payouts (such as the mercedes which crashed in a 30mph zone and was shown to be going over 100mph when the brakes went on and the driver lost control, plus a previous near-crash brake application about 90 seconds earlier at similar speeds where the driver had managed to recover despite the car starting to go sideways)
Rich mans hobby, I've loved aircraft since I was 10 years old but making low to mid 50K a year will bills to pay there is no point trying for a private pilots license, perhaps someday I'll win the lottery.
There is a reason for the single engine aircraft community going to experimental aviation. Many no longer pay much attention to the 51percent rule and maintenance much less expensive....kit airplan s go together much faster than the old plans aircraft like I built. 700k....too much for me with only one prop.
Man why did Mooney sell to a Chinese company?? Mooney is distinctly American--built in Texas, it doesn't get more American than that. They should have held out for an American buyer!
ValhalaFiveSix right, 100k a year in fuel, 100k a year for the annual, 100k a year in engine maintenance, and if your are buying a Lear jet foot 700k... another 300k foot updates... good luck with that
Mooney's are beautiful, very well built, stable, great for IFR and efficient. I don't begrudge anyone for loving their Cirrus or Bonanza or Arrow. I would just say that Cirrus and Mooney are not apples and apples. And those who criticize Mooney probably haven't flown one. I have 500+ hours in a C model. Insurance (full coverage and 1M liability) was less than $800/year. Landing gear did require some maintenance (ok it is a 50 year old airplane). I'm guessing the lifetime cost of maintaining a Mooney's retractable landing gear is no more (and probably less) than maintenance on the Cirrus parachute. The main thing is when you open the hanger, or see it on the ramp, you want to love what you see. When your in the clouds, in the rain, strong winds, you want to trust it will get you home again. I love the way Mooneys look, and fly. So whatever makes you happy, go fly it.
Beautiful aircraft, love flying ours
An F-5, F-104, & B-58 hustler make me happy, but that's easier said than done.
I've been watching your channel for a while and finally decided to subscribe yesterday. I just want to say how great of a job you're doing. You are by far the most informative and unbiased aviation channel on UA-cam. Keep up the good work!
Uhhh, Paul's alright...but he ain't all that.
JUST KIDDING!
Paul's an awesome person/extremely informative and seasoned Pilot for sure!👍🇺🇸
If i ever hit the lottery.1st stop kerrville tx here i come .i know it will never happen but its my little dream.Mooney allways been my bird
Back in the latter '60's, I learned to fly in Santiago, Chile, bought a Money Mark 20 A(laminated-wood wing spars), flew it around Chile, and flew it back to DC. Flat out, a marvelous, leggy dream to fly. At that time, the wonderfully efficient landing gear lever (Johnson Bar), created a Mooney-pilot ID...a scar between the middle finger and ring-finger knuckles, created by a bolt head on the front passenger seat, as the bar seated itself on the floor between the two seats. When you came across another Mooney pilot, you just flashed your right fist, fingers down, for bonding ID.
Paul, your descriptive language of the crow hop put me in mind of my early days in the 1968 Cessna 177 Cardinal. I had a few major hops in learning to land that plane. But after a time you master it and the Cardinal was a great airplane beyond that Stabilator tail. It is a sad thing to see Mooney once again closed down. Apparently the Chinese didn't have the magic touch either.
I love my mooney. It’s been a capable and comfortable trip airplane. With built in O2, I can climb above weather and terrain. The efficiency can’t be beat. I’m regularly clocking 170TAS at 11-12GPH.
What model?
Damn...that's pretty good!
Your videos have always been interesting, informative and amusing. However, you've excelled yourself in this one. Well done!
You just a viewer fan or his agent looking for a bigger commission check?
Paul, you are the best. I loved watching this.
Paul, as usual, informative, easy to understand and nothing left to chance or left out.
I own all of them... The Mooney Ovation, Acclaim, SR22T, D40....
....in my simulator that is. lol
Cheapest way to fly! LOL!
I also thought 750000 bucks is a joke. I bought mine for 30.00 just yesterday. Well the one with instruments from the nineties and a G530 mixed in. Not the Ovation Ultra. :) I would hope Carenado would upgrade her later. I would buy her again.
Excellent cross-platform review! The "STEM" stuff is absolutely what I'm looking for in ANY review. Thank you Paul. Keep up the GREAT work.
Love these comparison videos. The math is understandable, and informative. I'm not in the market, but enjoyed it greatly!
Ive Always Loved Mooney Aircraft! Paul, Thank You again for a thorough video!
Love your quick “all facts” style of reporting!
Growing up reading Gordon Baxter it's hard not to have a soft spot for Mooney, would love to fly one one day and see if the handling is as good as they say. And while all of the competition mentioned have beautiful panels, I think Mooney did an exception job with their update. And nice job with all of the graphics and superimposing your image, that was pretty cool.
*insert usual protest of outrage* :-)
Awesome airplane. Awesome video. Thank you sir.
I saw the lanyard around the co-pilot's neck. War Eagle from Auburn, Alabama!!! I wonder if he went to the Auburn University flight school.
Gread video, Fantastic script and production quality! Good stuff team!
@6:33 the Mooney Acclaim it still rising beyond 25,000 feet. She can cruise above the clouds! We (family, friends and I) built these birds for decades, starting in the 70's until 2008. They are amazing airplanes! Does the pilot side door weaken the rigidity of the cabin/airframe, throw balance off center, or increase the noise level?
In Paul's Acclaim video for this same generation of bird, he says the new doors are made of carbon fiber and fit better so the noise level in the cabin is lower.
Mooney... the airplane I have been drawn to all my life.
But... 700 thousand?... nope.
Fastest certified* piston single. Velocity XLRG has a 250 ktas rated cruise speed with that engine. It recorded cruise speed of 271 ktas on the way to Oshkosh a few years ago.
Just to add clarity , T B M is also a Mooney that is built in France
I do love flying my turbo Mooney. Granted its 30 years old... maybe in 20 years I can afford one of the Acclaim Ultra's.
Superb Video about the Mooney! Keep up the good work Paul! I always loved the Mooney M20J from our flight club and the ovation seem like a nice step up. I would always prefer a Mooney Ovation/Acclaim to a Cirrus Sr22/22T but sadly the amount of sold Airplane shows that the people prefer the Cirrus.
Greetings from Germany
If I’m not wrong, I own the Mooney from your club now ;-)! GL, right?
Love to see your report on the Acclaim Ultra, doubt you will do it any time soon since you missed your chance while in Kerville. That would have blown BOTH DOORS out of the Cirrus and TTx drivers. Love Mooney, flew many hours in mine. Now Bonanza Turboprop... still slower than the Mooney Acclaim. GREAT REPORT THANKS
Remember driving by the factory off highway 27 when I lived in Kerrville.
Another excellent story, Paul, love your style! I really like Mooneys and appreciate your ability to point out a few of the reasons folks like continue to appreciate their value proposition. Getting there a little faster and burning a little bit less fuel is what Mooneys are all about... #MooneyZoom
Very professional .. with all the right information
Usual protest of price here. :-)
Awesome Lee, and War Eagle!
AUsome WDE!!
It still might be a little tight compared to the wonderful Cirrus produts, but it's sexy and METAL. These structural attributes, combined with the speed and economy, make the Ultra series Mooney's my 1st choice. Chinese investors or not, I'm glad someone has infused capital into this iconic American design. Sign me up.
Can you do some videos on "affordable" cross country kit planes? Besides the RV stuff.
Brent the Velocity and Lancair IV
www.bydanjohnson.com/
The velocity is "affordable" but its so ugly. The new Lancair looks very nice but at 200K+ I wouldn't call it affordable
All light sport planes are too slow for mainly cross country use. I would like to see 160 knot cruise 2 seater kit plane for hopefully under 100K finished price.
You know what they say; “If God had meant s to fly he would have given us more money”
You gotta like Paul Bertorelli
Best in the business.
Hey it's a Mooney, there is nothing like a Mooney. I'm on a Cops salary so I'm sticking with my C model. Maybe if I win the lottery
@can you see me ???
Great looking Mooney! Now I just have to wait 40 years to be able to buy it. 😀 But for now I’ll keep my M20C.
Only 38 years to go
@@91bdoug lol 😂. Yes sir!
This guy is basically the Cooley of the aviation world.
She's a beauty. Although I've been blessed and have the funds, I'm not the sort of person who'd ever feel comfortable paying $700k for a plane (or house for that matter).
I've settled, happily, for a used Baron. Can haul six at 185 kts and do it babying the engines (2300 rpm). Sure, it's not as efficient as the Mooney but I've got better than a half million still in the stock market, making me money.
If my mission changes and I can get by hauling 3-4 folks, I might look at the used Mooney's but don't much like the China connection.
I like it fully loaded, I would have one in yellow and black... How come they never came out with turbo prop?
Sat in the back of a 70s model Mooney, by myself and felt cramped. At the time, I weighed only 165-pounds/5'-8 and 3/4" in height.
Flown um both, luv um both. But I know for a fact that the Mooney wing will take at least 12.3 gs pos. and the wings will still stay on. I can't say that for the Bonanza.
@Sig Bauer Especially at 23 square.
Paul do you think they will take buyers away from Cirrus in the non turbo market segment?
Come do the Lancair Mako!
Where the heck was this that there were 3... 727s? on the ramp?
Do you think Mooney will ever come back?
It's hard to believe Mooneys are gone. =(
I sat in the back of an older Mooney by myself and was cramped, hated it!
I would like a pressurised Mooney.
Ouch on price?
I'd take a used DA 42 over these high performance singles. 10.4 GPH in a Twin at 179 kts (19.7 mpg)
Thank you for the video.
Good review, good promotion.
I always wonder, why the factory doesn't capitalize on it's production capacity and add a lower-end "entry model around 200k.But that's probably because you can buy used Mooneys for that amount and get more...
Such a sexy plane, I'd love to fly one some day.
I’m glad produced an aircraft that can compete with the Cirrus SR series.
Excellent Paul as always! Yep, just need a winning lottery ticket.
I hope Mooney has success but it’s a crowded market. We need Elan Musk to build a four seat airplane that cruise 160 KTAS so us commoners can afford to own a new airplane. $700 G’s is getting steep but I know Cirrus is well beyond that.
I am sure that Elon Musk will be glad to oblige and announce a Tesla electric aircraft, since he needs to raise more money. He might even let you put down a deposit. On the other hand, he will almost certainly not deliver it... :-)
Edwin Slonim, or his kids will deliver it to your children!
Nice plane, but Lottery airplanes are usually way nicer... Usually from France... Or classic resto-mod wonders of yesteryear.
Maybe Pipistrel will get their Panthera certified...Flying magazine stated less than a year ago it would be faster @ a starting price of $480,000...
www.flyingmag.com/panthera-evolves-as-easa-certification-nears
Yeah right. When Pipistrel's fly.....
And Mooney is now gone...sold 7 airplanes to Cirrus' 380. Price does matter.
I’m outraged by the price. That is all. Good day.
Great analysis!
How many of these Ultras were actually build before the Chinese owned Mooney folded shop? Such a shame.
The airplane is stupid expensive. For that money in the used market one can have a turbine with huge speed, load and range advantages without sacrificing technology. Aircraft manufacturers need to wake up to market realities.
Thank you for your excellent technical video. It is clear to me that both companies segmented and chose perfectly well the market and their niches respectevely. Cirrus nevertheless incorporates other non performance features that common people value a lot.
Maybe do a video on why only Cessna thought 4 passenger planes need 2 doors. 8-)
It’d be very good to have a fully innovated Bonanza A36 like what they did in this moony , Bonanza is a better airplane in the first place
Van a tener q hacer algo pronto para competir con cirrus, yo en lo personal me sentiria seguro comprando un cirrus por el paracaidas
700 Grand for a piston A/C? The end of GA is truly approaching...
In a way you are absolutely correct. I was doing some research and found that a Cessna 150 back in 1958 cost about $7,500 new. And so I went to the inflation calculator, and it is about $66,000 in today's dollars. It's true they don't make 150s or 152s anymore, but a 172 today, roughly costs a whopping $400,000!!
The 172 cost about $9,500 new, back in 1960. That is $82,000 in today's money. So the 172 costs nearly an insane *500% MORE* than what it cost back then *_adjusted for inflation_* ......And that is certainly an outrage, because it is still the same basic airplane, even though it now has a few more goodies here and there.
And here's the kicker: Someone who bought a 172 back in say 1970 for around $12,000 and maintained their aircraft well, could sell it for around $30,000 to $40,000 today!! Meaning they would have not lost anything in depreciation and would even get back some of the cost of inflation! _THAT_ is also insane!
You can thank product liability and FAA certification costs for that.
GA is totally fucked and planes are way way way too expensive to be owned by any normal people. I might as well just settle for an ultralight, since that’s the only way to own a reasonably priced airplane.
@@opticalecho119 Don't agree at all. I'm flying an older Bonanza but she has new paint, new prop, 450 hrs on a rebuilt engine, ADSB & some instrument upgrades. Paid about as much as a nice SUV... It's not a new model but has been extremely reliable hauling 4 folks. It's all about priorities.
In the uk it's even worse, I couldn't get a rust bucket for less than a house. Less and less people are flying and the aviation industry thinks that the fix is fancy screens because " It apeals to the younger croud :D who is actually buying these aircraft? 700 thousand!!! Fuck that!!!! Even if I was a millionaire I would tell them to go do one, but the best part is the fact that they offer finance lol 3000 a month for the rest of your life lol .
Great video to kick off 2018
Its a great looking airplane. But I am adding my price related protest of outrage as requested.
Here’s the tldr I guess the Mooney is better for speed and efficiency while the cirrus hauls more and is a little more comfortable. Both fantastic airplanes but I’m Mooney all the way
Anyone have an opinion on the overall best single-engine single-prop to learn flying? At least when one's goal is to get a PPL with instrument rating, eventually. So I'd think not a piper cub, necessarily.. but who knows? Cessna 172? I think there must be something else that's even better, more reliable perhaps? FWIW I'm in Connecticut, so would be flying out of either KOXC or KDXR primarily, most likely.
A 172 is a great trainer, but not the most practical plane if you plan to use it for travel or whatever after you get your ratings. Learning to fly in a more complex single (182, SR22, etc.) will take a bit more time because there are more systems to learn to manage, but it will probably save you money in the long run since you're only going through the time and expense of the purchase process once. In theory, the simple airplane (172) will be more reliable since there is less stuff to break, but it all depends on the age, condition and how you keep up the maintenance.
PPL in a 152. Instrument in a 172. There's no reason to get overwhelmed and pay extra money for a more complex plane just to get your ratings. The more complex planes will be easy to transition to after you have your ratings, and some flight time built up, instead of trying to learn them while trying to learn your basic flight training.
Also you should learn on a traditional cockpit.
I bought and learned in a older 172, and found it to be a great plane to learn in, and pretty cost effective. They are easy to sell and everyone knows how to work on them. They are slow if you use them for traveling, but with a power flow exhaust you can get up to about 700 pounds of weight with 40 gallons of fuel, and cruise at about 125 mph on 8.5 gallons of fuel. I bought my 1972 for $38k with 1400 hours left on the engine TBO, and both my wife and I learned to fly in it. Have taken many many trips to the Bahama in it and has been a great airplane.
The Nxi is a very nice upgrade to the G1000. It's a shame this beautiful airplane has struggled for viability in the GA marketplace.
700 grand. Yikes. Who is this geared towards?
It's probably just me, but I think it's a bit of a downer that every new plane now has a Garmin panel. Bring back variety!
Surely those "M20" Mooneys aren't going to be considered an M20 for FAA type certification purposes with an entirely different airframe and the "legacy" M20's "safety record". And looking at the "illustrations" of the Acclaim compared to its "competition" it sure as hell doesn't look "smaller" unless "smaller" is shorter wingspan or some other "dimension" besides length, height, cabin "length", etc. And if its smaller, lighter and has retractable gear how is it "comparable" to those other airplanes anyway?
Surely they are. They're re-certified with modifications in the same way that Cherokee 140s and Dakotas are both PA-28s, no? The Mooney's wingspan is two feet shorter, the fuselage is two feet shorter , the tail is an inch lower and the cabin is four inches narrower. So yeah, it's smaller. They're the same class because they have four seats and go like hell. I know you could figure this out if you tried.
Now you know why Mooney is out of business. $$$$
Sure a Continental engine might be a little more efficient but they do not have the cost efficiency to own like a lycoming as far as repair and maintenance. I find a lycoming engine is more reliable than continental engines
Nothing better than a Lycoming, just the way it is.
Great video and nice craft. Yes I know, same old replies like this.
Here we go again with expensive aircraft's marketing to the very few. Out of those few SR's seem to be the pick. Mooney as well as the others in class, really need to market middle class. More money, volume and easier to bring new owners into GA. You watch, Mooney will be in trouble again just like the Cessna TTx sad to say. I am in the market for a 4HPSE, just not new. IMO they are not worth 700-800k, even if I wanted to spend that. Many others in the price range to look into. Ex. Piper Matrix with more seats too, even a nice older Kingair. Manufactures need to remember the"hey day" when a nice aircraft was the price of a nice car or even a high end auto. What happened? Many sold and flying today. I too am looking into kits now. Many options for glass and much cheaper. Build you say? Well you can pay someone or buy one built. Of course you would not be the builder, but..... Your not with cert aircraft's as well. PS keep these great vids coming, love them and learn much. Thanks
I've been seeing the same things you are in the market, hogster.
What do you think is the biggest driver of the high prices? My top 2 suspects are FAA regulations / expensive certification process and product liability. I'm interested in other opinions, however.
I love Mooneys, like a true 2 seat sports car with space for like 1-2 bags. I just think they're very overpriced.
Usual protest of outrage
For $730 000 I would prefer an SR22, more moderne, better finition, BRS and an real 4 places,,, too bad mooney Will have hart time to stay alife
Reverse argument.
I love my Mooney. Strongest airframe in its category, strongest wing, chrome moly roll cage protecting me, Way more efficient and faster than every competitor. My wife and I can pack the cabin up to the gills with full fuel and smoke any and all comperable competitors to the destination.
I hope AVIC buys the beech bonanza and makes it with a Diesel
I won't waste my time protesting the price. It just won't be in my hangar unless a rich relative that I am unaware of DIES. 😊
Mooney just furloughed their staff due, presumably, to low sales. I wish them and the Mooney company the best of luck.
Protest of outrage!
I've jumped outta planes (civilian) but I hate flying in 'em! Don't like heights either.
I'd still buy the TTx over this. Just loved flying the 400.
Kaipeternicolas because it’s actually a lancair
Sorry no more TTx
Agree. TTx is really nice. Watching the prices....
Sounds like the Cirrus out preforms the Ovation in every way....
Why does the useful load of pretty much every plane suck? There’s not really any planes I see covered here that can fill all their seats and carry a full load of fuel.
Who buys this airplane - at $700K USD. Owner operator is super rich at this price point.
Welcome to America - there are a lot of super rich people here. The real question is what else could you be flying for $700K? You're well into good used turbines for that money.
Just look at any airport where they are hosting a GLOBAL WARMING conference. Lots of new expensive airplanes on the Tarmac.
As someone who's working in GW/climate change research it's irritating that they'll spend millions on a single conference, but getting money to verify planetary albedo over the last 40 years (processing satellite imagery) is nearly impossible to get (it's about $250k of processing and data storage).
(If you know albedo (reflectivity), atmospheric gas composition and sunlight radiance at any particular date, then you can work out how much is (or isn't) being reradiated to space, and therefore you can validate the various models for warming that are being thrown around. We have #2 and #3, but not albedo on a planet-wide basis, and until we do have it we don't know how bad things are going to be (We already know it's bad, because stuff that was predicted based on "best guess" is happening 10-30 years earlier than predicted (mostly along the lines of the "worst case" predictions and in some cases even worse than that), the question is a matter of "how bad?))
That said, aircraft are a tiny contributor to the problem. Unfortunately they're also one of the easiest targets when governments decide to "do something" as they're high visibility.
Alan Brown interesting work. Keep it up and let the facts speak for themselves, not conjecture or opinion (not that you need telling)
"Tarmac" LOL....oh boy. No such thing.
It's a Chinese plane now - that's a deal breaker for me because it was the plane I preferred. I'm a Cirrus guy now.
I think the Chinese also own Cirrus.
$700k!?!?! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!
The single driving factor for the costs is liability insurance. Those nice people who sued aircraft makers during the 1970s and 80s for crashes that happened because of pilot errors almost destroyed the GA market entirely - and not just in the USA where all the lawsuits happened.
I'm a little surprised that GA makers don't put black boxes on their products so they can pull up records and say "Nope, wasn't our fault" (All USA/EU cars have had them since the late mid-late 1990s(*) and a solid state looping recorder is very light even when potted for fireproofing.)
(*) If you have airbags, then you have some form of black box incorporated and evidence from them has been used by insurers to refuse payouts (such as the mercedes which crashed in a 30mph zone and was shown to be going over 100mph when the brakes went on and the driver lost control, plus a previous near-crash brake application about 90 seconds earlier at similar speeds where the driver had managed to recover despite the car starting to go sideways)
@@alanbrown397 Buy a Cirrus Gen 6 and you'll have the snitch boxes.
Rich mans hobby, I've loved aircraft since I was 10 years old but making low to mid 50K a year will bills to pay there is no point trying for a private pilots license, perhaps someday I'll win the lottery.
Why build a composite AC if there isn't a weight reduction? All Aluminum would last longer. So, Mooney did it to save money? sad.
There is a reason for the single engine aircraft community going to experimental aviation. Many no longer pay much attention to the 51percent rule and maintenance much less expensive....kit airplan s go together much faster than the old plans aircraft like I built.
700k....too much for me with only one prop.
Man why did Mooney sell to a Chinese company?? Mooney is distinctly American--built in Texas, it doesn't get more American than that. They should have held out for an American buyer!
Taiwan is not China.
It is really disheartening to learn that every really sweet plane I see is priced 3 times what my house costs.
$700k rage rage rage rage
THANKS CHINA for trashing one our best aircraft !
PROTEST OF OUTRAGE!!!
Hello 800k for fiberglass and tubing with a 4 banger what the ..... nice video I like to have one just let's have a lottery I enter $4.00 saludos
It has an io550...which is a 6 cyl engine.
@@markg4459 hello thanks for commenting I thought was a 4 cylinder engine. Saludos
Chinese in Kerrville Tex, well wadda ya know, maybe we can learn something
$700K I could be a pre owned lear Jet for that price!
yeah but that is cheap compared to cirrus and cessna
yeah but you sneeze at 700k your learjet will not be doing much flying....
ValhalaFiveSix right, 100k a year in fuel, 100k a year for the annual, 100k a year in engine maintenance, and if your are buying a Lear jet foot 700k... another 300k foot updates... good luck with that
That is very true Brian but I have women seem to be more impressed if one has a jet over and egg beater.
ValhalaFiveSix way to invalidate my argument! Well played sir, well played lol 😁👌👍👊