Mooney Ovation / Cirrus SR22

[Tony Armour]

On March 12, 2016 at 7:25 PM, 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. 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. 

 

If it were the fuel line, that may be a specific to Cirrus issue just like the oil fitting issue. Just because it has thee same type engine does not mean it's not the airframe manufacturer or a problem specific to the airframe.

I imagine there are a LOT of folks here that can afford a  Sillious but choose to stay with a better airplane.

[romair]

NTSB report is not out yet, so it's all speculation so far. Regardless, I don't understand the Cirrus hating at all. It is a good airplane. It is a modern airplane. Since the emphasis on training was placed in the last 4 years it has become the safest travel piston airplane in the fleet with a rate of about 0.70 fatal accidents per 100k hours. In contrast, last year Beech had its worst year since 2010, by A LOT. Cirrus is also one of the best selling airplanes currently, and getting people into new airplanes is a good thing. I get the fact that it may not be the airplane for you, just like a Beech or a Piper may not be the airplane for you, but no reason to have this weird hatred towards a successful airplane just because it is made of composite and has a parachute. 

Edited March 19, 2016 by romair

[Godfather]

No reason to get in a bind...  The Cirrus is a great plane and many people like flying them.  I have very little time in type but I really enjoyed it.  However, to keep quoting that it is the safest aircraft out there if you look at just three or four years is misleading.  I could say the fatalities almost doubled going from 2014-15 or that this year is not starting off the best but that would again be misleading.

I do think a younger higher time fleet is more predictable - sit a Cirrus on the ramp for 30 years while not being flown regularly and you will have a new set of problems.

I do think training is important with recent comprehensive training in type being key.  1 in 4 recent Cirrus buyers are acquiring $6k flight sims so they are trying to be proactive with training.

IMO a lot of new Cirrus buyers have deep pockets which can help to lower the barrier to upgrade systems, keep everything working 100%, train more, burn more fuel, hire professional pilots, or whatever...

[Shadrach]

8 hours ago, romair said:

NTSB report is not out yet, so it's all speculation so far. Regardless, I don't understand the Cirrus hating at all. It is a good airplane. It is a modern airplane. Since the emphasis on training was placed in the last 4 years it has become the safest travel piston airplane in the fleet with a rate of about 0.70 fatal accidents per 100k hours. In contrast, last year Beech had its worst year since 2010, by A LOT. Cirrus is also one of the best selling airplanes currently, and getting people into new airplanes is a good thing. I get the fact that it may not be the airplane for you, just like a Beech or a Piper may not be the airplane for you, but no reason to have this weird hatred towards a successful airplane just because it is made of composite and has a parachute. 

 I've read the thread and I missed all the hate. Every time there is a thread, about Cirrus aircraft someone starts talking about all the Cirrus hatred that they can't understand. Please quote some of this hatred so we can see the vitriol identified.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Shadrach said:

 I've read the thread and I missed all the hate. Every time there is a thread, about Cirrus aircraft someone starts talking about all the Cirrus hatred that they can't understand. Please quote some of this hatred so we can see the vitriol identified.

Ross,

Perhaps hate is too strong a word, but there sure are some prejudiced comments here every time there is a chute pull.  Luckily none of us where in the plane when the decision was made.  A Mooney pilot may have knock the Cirrus pilot out cold and made a safe landing, but there wasn't one in the video.

Clarence

[gsengle]

The main thing I like about the cirrus is the chute. But that's like saying I like Continentals... Other airplanes have chutes too, it's not what makes a cirrus a cirrus.

Personally I dislike the fixed gear, I wonder about the longevity of the airframe and dislike needing to paint them light colors. I think the tail looks like something doc Suess would have drawn. And I prefer a stick or yoke, and I really don't like the bungee trim system. I also believe they are expensive to insure. I dislike that they skipped spin testing - I don't think this should be allowed as there are altitudes like in the pattern that render the chute moot. Look at what Icon achieved!

What I do like is the cabin comfort and the look and feel of the cockpit. I like that someone is taking a run at a modern product to keep GA going.

I just don't find the sum total package attractive. Not hate but long considered preference.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[M20F]

8 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Ross,

Perhaps hate is too strong a word, but there sure are some prejudiced comments here every time there is a chute pull.  Luckily none of us where in the plane when the decision was made.  A Mooney pilot may have knock the Cirrus pilot out cold and made a safe landing, but there wasn't one in the video.

Clarence

The Mooney pilot has no choice but make the safe landing.  The Cirrus pilot can do the same or yank the chute, the chute is an option not a requirement.  I know you get that but would agree with Romair the Kool-aide on these threads gets a little silly, thanks for the objective post.

[M20F]

1 minute ago, gsengle said:

I dislike that they skipped spin testing - I don't think this should be allowed as there are altitudes like in the pattern that render the chute moot. 

Spin any plane beyond a Cub below the chute altitude and it is more than likely crash into the ground, thus a moot point. 

[gsengle]

It's not just recoverability, it's how easy it is to get there in the first place...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[M20F]

4 minutes ago, gsengle said:

It's not just recoverability, it's how easy it is to get there in the first place...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They all get there the same way, a Cirrus isn't going to magically enter a spin any different than a Mooney.  While I have never spun a Cirrus, I have a Mooney and if you are not holding the maneuver (and a spin is a maneuver) it proceeds very quickly to a spiral.  I own a Mooney, love my Mooney, but nothing wrong with a Cirrus or anything else out there.  A Mooney fits a very specific mission, a Cirrus fits a broader one is all.  

Edited March 19, 2016 by M20F

[gsengle]

Then why can't you spin an Icon? Smart aerodynamic design is why...

Different airplanes handle differently. Our Mooneys have poor spin recovery characteristics.

There is no reason why all aircraft would have the same risk of inadvertent loss of control as they all handle somewhat differently. They're different!

Bonanzas and spiral dives from IMC for example.

I really do hope it was the pilot population rather than the plane that was responsible for the large number of stall/spin in the pattern loss of control accidents in the cirrus historically...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[M20F]

6 minutes ago, gsengle said:

Then why can't you spin an Icon? Smart aerodynamic design is why...

Why can't you go 240kts TAS at FL240 in an Icon?  It is just a design that changes one thing for another, there is no free lunch.  

[gsengle]

Yes that could be the case. Or maybe that new canard airplane that is going to try and outspeed the Acclaim might be faster *and* stall resistant.... We will see!

http://www.wired.com/2015/11/cobalt-aviation-valkyrie-canard/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy95W]

15 hours ago, romair said:

I don't understand the Cirrus hating at all. It is a good airplane. It is a modern airplane.

For me, as I've said before, I don't hate the Cirrus.  Its usually the owners and their attitudes I don't like.

[Shadrach]

I don't think there is anything wrong with Cirrus or the Chute. The only issue I have with the chute is when someone in a perfectly controllable aircraft that could be flown away from people and property relinquishes control of said aircraft to save their own ass before ensuring they've done everything they could to ensure the safety of the non-flying public.  As I said in another thread, I personally witnessed an SR20 driver who landed at KCBE due to low oil pressure and while adding 6qts to his crank case told me it had happened before. He then took off and flew over some very inhospitable terrain and then directly over the city Baltimore before landing at KMTN.  Stupid Pilot tricks are certainly not unique to Cirrus drivers.  I just find it off-putting when people change their risk profile due to the chute. Things like skipping gas stops, taking off into weather they have no business in etc. etc. The day will come when the first person on the ground is killed by a Cirrus under chute and while that will be aweful for all involved, except for the press...the press will happily spin it in the worst way. 

[romair]

So far there have been no fatalities on the ground because of the a parachute pull. There have been multiple ground fatalities due to plowing through a house or a beach while attempting a crash landing. The accident referenced above probably would have resulted in injuries on the ground in an airplane without a parachute- look at the attached image of the crash site. Shadrach, while you may be right that at some point a parachute pull will result in an injury/fatality to a person on the ground, overall it is LESS likely to do so then the regular fleet. Skipping gas stops and taking off into weather is done by all pilots, not just Cirrus pilots. Pilots have been killing themselves and their families in predictable ways for decades, no matter of the type of airplane flown. As far as flying over inhospitable terrain, night, IMC - yes the risk profile changes, and it is normal to do so. The same would happen if you fly a twin, or a turbine. It adds a layer of safety as long as you are well trained in those systems. Otherwise, we should all fly VFR during daytime hours in order to keep the risk profile at a minimum, no matter of skill or equipment. 

[Tony Armour]

15 hours ago, Shadrach said:

 Please quote some of this hatred so we can see the vitriol identified.

Crickets :-)

 

This is nothing, go see Beechtalk after a "save" LOL

 

Edited March 20, 2016 by Tony Armour

[romair]

This came through on Beechtalk - NTSB prelim out

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20160307X01829&key=1

Valve strikes on all cylinders. No fuel starvation. 

Did not mean to hijack this thread. Mooney vs Cirrus, it is personal preference in the end. I like the Mooney, and currently still have one. If I bought another single engine airplane and had enough funds available I would probably go with a Cirrus since it has a parachute and that gives me piece of mind when flying IFR or over bad terrain, and frankly even when its nice outside and there are open fields nearby. If Mooney put a parachute on their airplane, I would go with a Mooney in a heartbeat. We tend to think that engine failure is an exceedingly rare event, and unfortunately that belief does not necessarily appear to be as accurate as we want it to be. That being said, it is still unlikely enough that many pilots have no second thoughts about jumping in a single engine and flying hard IFR or at night, or over mountains and they do very well. I just don't belong in that camp. This was not meant to start an argument of which airplane is better, I think they are both good airplanes, and for me personally the Cirrus has an edge over a Mooney at this time due to having a parachute. That's all.

[Andy95W]

Ah, geez.  Now you've gone and done it.

[ChristianGodin]

I called my insurance brooker today an got a quote of 3000$ can for a Ovation of 200000$ us. They refuse to quote at first an SR22 of the same price because of the chute. I have 1100 hres with 300 in a 201 and 200 IFR.

 

 

[Godfather]

That number should drop very quickly to the low 2's after your first year.  Keep calling around on the Cirrus I'm sure there are multiple companies that will insure pilots with a fresh ticket let alone a 1k hr pilot.

[romair]

That's interesting. Last time I looked into the costs of insurance for a Cirrus, here in the States the rates are comparable to any other high performance airplane due to its safety profile in the last few years. Also, if I remember correctly some of the insurance companies will actually waive the deductible if the pilot pulls the parachute - airplane claims tend to be cheaper than fatality claims. Maybe its different in Canada, but you should shop around a bit.

[ChristianGodin]

On 11 mars 2016 at 2:51 PM, carusoam said:

There was an Acclaim in MA for sale too.  

Christian, are you able to travel to go see a really nice O in TX?   ^^^

While in TX, there is AAA...

Buying a specialized plane is a lot of work just to go see them as they are spread around the continent...

Once you have it the fun really starts...

Transition training is going to be really smooth going from a J to an O. Kind of a reacquaintance...

Best regards,

-a-

Traveling anywhere in us is not a problem. Looking for a tks equiped since living in Canada...

[mike_elliott]

On ‎3‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 7:56 PM, LANCECASPER said:

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

They should be glad they didn't book with Spirit or Allegiant Air.....

[whiskytango]

On March 11, 2016 at 9:43 PM, aaronsn said:

I've got time in SR22 G2s, G3 turbos, and Mooney M20 Js, Ks, and Rs. The Mooney is by FAR the better choice, in my opinion.

The Cirrus has an undersized elevator and is not a very stable IFR platform (the autopilot and yaw dampers in the later models mitigate this to some extent, however). It's borderline neutrally stable in roll and it has a relatively high roll rate. The Mooney is a much better IFR platform.

It's also a plastic airplane which makes hangar rash repairs incredibly complicated as compared with the Mooney. Also remember that when you pull the parachute you instantly become a passenger. Cirrus has a brilliant marketing team, especially when it comes to the parachute.

My 2 cents.

-Aaron

Aaron -

You are right about repairs.  The difficulty of repairs on a Cirrus would be the deal breaker for me.  A friend who has one told me that Cirrus must do an engineering analysis for even the simplest of repairs to the plastic, and this takes weeks before the repair can even start.  No thanks.