![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "Dude" wrote: I can see you point, but you are really stretching here IMO. First, Mooney now has a quality level similar to that of Beech. Maybe so, but says who? Me, I compared. Also a recent mag article agreed. Second, there are financially sound manufacturers who have left buyers in similar situations even without going TU. Cite? The only specific I can name by buyer is Art P who got a Cirrus lemon beyond compare. However, we have all heard stories about C, P, and B leaving a customer in a lurch. Here's an idea, call Cessna and ask a question about recommendations on how to fix your plane. See if you like their "service". I recently saw a new 182 with bad paint that the guy had to fight for 6 months to get fixed. Have you ever talked to people in the next hangar? So the plane needs a new spar, that does not make the plane worthless. I didn't say it did. Airplanes get parked for a lot less than total loss. What do you reckon replacing the main spar would cost? Even if the owner bites the bullet and fixes the spar, he's still screwed for an awful lot of money. Plus, his airplane now has a major repair in the logs, which will affect its value. There are lots of bad things that can screw you out of lots of money that are more likely to happen. Sit and worry if you will. BTW, did any Mooney owners ever get burned on their warranties? I remember they were worried, but do not recall if the new company cleared it up each time. I suppose you are of the everything but Beech and Cessna is a cr*p sandwich variety? Why do you suppose that? You're setting some kind of record for putting words in my mouth. Note the question mark. I didn't put words in anyones mouth. I have had it up to hear with these attitudes, and they mostly end up being about the same. Sorry if you don't quite fit the mold. One day, barring a new design that is not forthcoming, those guys will pull out of piston planes for good. Here, I agree with you. If they don't manage to kill off our little hobby (which they would do in a minute if they could sell more jets by doing it), It's no secret that B and C are dubious about the pi No, but you are worried about losing lots of money. Tried selling an orphan lately? Furthermore, I believe they will do whatever they think costs least in the long run. One day, some accountant in either company says they should stop making parts, they will do it. CORRECT OR NOT! what do you plan to do? Are you willing to buy a Cirrus, Diamond, or Lancair? I seriously doubt I'll *ever* buy a new airplane. If I were in the market, I would consider the above. Under no circumstances would I consider an old design from a company that had just emerged from bankruptcy. Its nice to know there is hope for you. I can understand not buying new, and I can understand being wary of a recent bankruptcy. What I don't understand is your motivation to comment at all. Serious, if you are not ever going to buy new, then where do you get off telling people that buy a new Mooney they are stupid. What do you know about it all? People who keep up the "nuth'n but a Cessna" attitude are just killing GA slowly. I see them running all over the alphabet organizations, including AOPA. It's so disappointing. Uh, Cirrus is selling 40 piston planes a month; that's more than Cessna. So tell me again: how is the "nuth'n but a Cessna" attitude killing GA? -- 40 is not enough to get the level of investment we need for real innovation. Please compare to the hundreds a month levels of production from the days of yore. New investors are looking at Cirrus, and have to be thinking that they are nuts to risk so much money. Only aviation enthusiasts are going to play, which may be a positive, but we really need to attract more pilots and more money. Companies like Cessna exist in many fields, and they keep investment down due to their sheer market presence. The difference between Cessna and Microsoft is that MS has done something new in the last 10 or 20 years for its customers. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | May 1st 04 07:29 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 1 | January 2nd 04 09:02 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 2nd 03 03:07 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 4 | August 7th 03 05:12 AM |