Mooney Ovation / Cirrus SR22

[gsengle]

2 minutes ago, gsengle said:  

The only thing that would have tilted things the other direction for me would have been if I needed to do lots of night flying - then the chute is a very good thing - although I'm cringing just thinking about waiting for impact in the dark, not knowing if road, tree, lake, house, power line, etc etc... So I just don't fly much after dark...

Now I'm lusting after the new DA 62, no chute, 2nd engine.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For the well north of 1 million dollar price you could completely rebuild a Piper Twin Comanche and have 800,000 or more in the bank.

Clarence

Yes but ooh so sexy and I could fly the world burning jet-A

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aviatoreb]

18 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

For the well north of 1 million dollar price you could completely rebuild a Piper Twin Comanche and have 800,000 or more in the bank.

Clarence

For 1.3M - the price as test flown in the video I saw, that DA62 is....expensive.  So expensive it seems as if it is for people where price is simply not an object.  If that is the case, then yeah, I would much sooner have the DA62 and its refinement, modernness, look, etc, than a twinkie.  I have a couple of hours in a twinkie, a bit of an old ratie one, but even fixed up and gorgeous, I would sooner the DA62 if I were a billionaire who likes to fly himself sometimes.

But back to earth.....I'm not buying a twinkie either.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, gsengle said:

 

The only thing that would have tilted things the other direction for me would have been if I needed to do lots of night flying - then the chute is a very good thing - although I'm cringing just thinking about waiting for impact in the dark, not knowing if road, tree, lake, house, power line, etc etc... So I just don't fly much after dark...

Now I'm lusting after the new DA 62, no chute, 2nd engine.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Keep lusting for a while, I'm not yet at the point I'm ready to buy an R . . .  

just keep in mind that the second engine is often a liability when the first engine goes out. Please practice your single engine procedures frequently! And double-check everything before takeoff, so that if one takes a dump on the takeoff roll you'll know what to do. Stay under gross, too, so you'll be able to actually climb on one engine.

[gsengle]

Still lusting. Then again a TBM 900 would be great too...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Piloto]

My M20J may not have a parachute but it has a relief tube that I use more often than a parachute. An when the emergency comes I will have dry pants vs those in the Cirrus with wet pants. 

José

[Godfather]

1 hour ago, gsengle said:

Still lusting. Then again a TBM 900 would be great too...

The TBM 850/900 and the PC-12...the only two aircraft out there I dream about.

[romair]

If I was in the market for a single, and could actually afford a Cirrus, I would definitely go for that. 2009 model with FIKI and G1000 and GFC700 AP. I really don't understand why people are so against the parachute - it is a great addition especially in IFR/night flying/urban areas. There was a recent engine out crash in NY - without the chute we would likely be saying RIP. Instead, we get to look at this picture... 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, romair said:

If I was in the market for a single, and could actually afford a Cirrus, I would definitely go for that. 2009 model with FIKI and G1000 and GFC700 AP. I really don't understand why people are so against the parachute - it is a great addition especially in IFR/night flying/urban areas. There was a recent engine out crash in NY - without the chute we would likely be saying RIP. Instead, we get to look at this picture... 

Do you think the Cirrus marketing team posed them for that shot?

[romair]

Right....I'm sure there are some very happy cirrus PR people right now...but in all fairness, that is a great save by the parachute. It worked exactly for what it was intended to do.

[carusoam]

There's a nervous Continental Motors marketing guy waiting for the NTSB report...

There's a nervous IO550 owner hoping the NTSB report shows no fuel in the tanks...

Next step, single turbine Mooney... Or twin Mooney  TBM or aero Commander...

-or- 

Last step, beautiful Mooney M20E, with a magical panel...

Best regards,

-a-

[CaptainAB]

A friend of mine said he lost his engine in his new sr 22. He choose to land it. They gave him a brand new engine, but never told him what happened.  

[carusoam]

That Cirrus company is so nice...?

Sounding more like a Takata airbag company.  Or VW Diesel engine group.

What makes a company want to be so generous to hand out new IO550s...?

If it were the insurance company handing out a big gift,  that is understandable...

Best regards,

-a-

[romair]

Rumors are that there was a problem with the fuel line.

Cirrus does not make the engines...its not their fault the engine fails.

2010-2014, comparing Bonanza A36 and Cirrus SR22, the percentage of "mechanical failure - engine" as the cause factor for accidents was 20.3 for A36 and 19.4 for Cirrus. Likely Cirrus gets slightly more press and more discussion on forums because of the parachute deployment.

Again, buy what you want, and also what your budget allows you to. A Cirrus is indeed significantly more expensive to maintain than our Mooneys. That's why I don't have one. But don't use arguments such as giving up control under the chute. It is not like once the engine fails the parachute automatically deploys. The pilot is still in charge and chooses when and if to deploy. That being said, statistically you are less likely to be harmed if your engine fails over an airport and you deploy the chute rather than try to make an engine out landing. Just think of the last time you practiced engine out landings...were you supremely confident in your skills to completely pull the mixture off and turn off the mags, or did you do it by idling the throttle? I bet most of us would feel quite nervous to completely shut down the engine and practice an engine out landing. So far, when pulled within the envelope the parachute has resulted in no fatalities. There was one instance I believe where the parachute did not work and the pilot was actually able to land the airplane, which resulted in changes in the design of the chute. 

 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, romair said:

Rumors are that there was a problem with the fuel line.

Cirrus does not make the engines...its not their fault the engine fails.

2010-2014, comparing Bonanza A36 and Cirrus SR22, the percentage of "mechanical failure - engine" as the cause factor for accidents was 20.3 for A36 and 19.4 for Cirrus...

 

Assuming this is per 100,000 flight hours, this tells us is that IO550s fail at about the same statistical rate regardless of airframe...

[Piloto]

On 3/12/2016 at 2:58 PM, romair said:

If I was in the market for a single, and could actually afford a Cirrus, I would definitely go for that. 2009 model with FIKI and G1000 and GFC700 AP. I really don't understand why people are so against the parachute - it is a great addition especially in IFR/night flying/urban areas. There was a recent engine out crash in NY - without the chute we would likely be saying RIP. Instead, we get to look at this picture... 

"Oh honey I promise I will put more gas next time" "Darling I hanged your underwear on the chute ropes, wait until it dries" "Thanks honey, nothing like a Cirrus chute"

Edited March 14, 2016 by Piloto

[Tony Armour]

You can but a LOT of fuel for $100,000 :-)   25,000 gallons/1250 hours/ 231,250 miles  :-)

Flight planning on mine:  

Probably a little excessive on fuel and a touch slow on speed (but safer for planning)

NOTE: fuel calculations do not include required reserves.kfxe-Tjbq 
Flight totals: fuel: 88 gallons, time: 4:17, distance 857.8 nm.
Average groundspeed 200 knots.

Add long range tanks to be safe: (maybe forget a little fuel and recover the seats too :-)  )

And from 22,000 feet you don't need a chute !!

 

 

Edited March 16, 2016 by Tony Armour

[Piloto]

You are very right Tony, from 22,000 ft you can glide to a runway on land vs ditching on water with a parachute. But if you need to ditch there is plenty of boating activity along the Mona Channel that can rescue you.

José

Edited March 16, 2016 by Piloto

[Danb]

Jose, think there documented. This election has turned into a circus and you've been in the middle in Fla.

[LANCECASPER]

9 hours ago, Piloto said:

You are very right Tony, from 22,000 ft you can glide to a runway on land vs ditching on water with a parachute. But if you need to ditch there is plenty of boating activity along the Mona Channel that can rescue you.

José

It says Delta on the boat. I knew there wasn't much legroom in Coach, but I had no idea . . .

Edited March 17, 2016 by LANCECASPER

[NotarPilot]

A couple other factors to consider about the Cirrus. I believe the 10 year CAPS repack costs about $10k. The airframe has a limited, albeit high, finite number of hours before its no longer flyable. And the maintenance costs on the Cirrus are much much higher.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, NotarPilot said:

A couple other factors to consider about the Cirrus. I believe the 10 year CAPS repack costs about $10k. The airframe has a limited, albeit high, finite number of hours before its no longer flyable. And the maintenance costs on the Cirrus are much much higher.

Owning a shop which is authorized for both Mooney and Cirrus, I disagree that a Cirrus is more costly than a Mooney.  Both models can be costly.

Clarence

[Guest]

On March 16, 2016 at 0:59 AM, Tony Armour said:

You can but a LOT of fuel for $100,000 :-)   25,000 gallons/1250 hours/ 231,250 miles  :-)

Flight planning on mine:  

Probably a little excessive on fuel and a touch slow on speed (but safer for planning)

NOTE: fuel calculations do not include required reserves.kfxe-Tjbq 
Flight totals: fuel: 88 gallons, time: 4:17, distance 857.8 nm.
Average groundspeed 200 knots.

Add long range tanks to be safe: (maybe forget a little fuel and recover the seats too :-)  )

And from 22,000 feet you don't need a chute !!

 

 

Wow! That Lycoming sure loves its fuel.  88/4.3= 20.4gph.  People think my IO-720 is thirsty. 

Clarence

[Yetti]

On 3/12/2016 at 10:47 AM, Godfather said:

 the PC-12...the only two aircraft out there I dream about.

With the cargo door.  Throw the  motocycle in the back and some Jet A in the tanks and go.

[Tony Armour]

9 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Wow! That Lycoming sure loves its fuel.  88/4.3= 20.4gph.  People think my IO-720 is thirsty. 

Clarence

Figure 27 on climb and almost 20gph cruise. Cruise stays the same 5,000' or 22,000' :-)

Tooling around the house I'll go economy mode, 16gph LOL

i tell people Mooney's are known to be fast and efficient ........ Until this model.

Like I said, $100,000 buys mucho fuel though !

Edited March 18, 2016 by Tony Armour

[gsengle]

If I was in the market for a single, and could actually afford a Cirrus, I would definitely go for that. 2009 model with FIKI and G1000 and GFC700 AP. I really don't understand why people are so against the parachute - it is a great addition especially in IFR/night flying/urban areas. There was a recent engine out crash in NY - without the chute we would likely be saying RIP. Instead, we get to look at this picture... 

I'm allergic to "down and welded" or in this case whatever you do with fiberglass...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk