I need advice. Mooney, 182, or nothing.

[ArtVandelay]

1 hour ago, Alan Fox said:

Put 4 people in your Mooney , add 75 gallons of fuel , take off from a grass strip , ....... Oh wait.....  You cant put people and fuel in it never mind.....

Sure you can....they just can't be....gravitational challenged.

[Hank]

2 hours ago, Alan Fox said:

Put 4 people in your Mooney , add 75 gallons of fuel , take off from a grass strip , ....... Oh wait.....  You cant put people and fuel in it never mind.....

Let's put the same number of people / bags in my C and a 182, with fuel for the mission. A nice grass field isn't a problem for me. For the 182, 75 gals = 5 hours fuel, which is 45 gals for me. I've made that trip from a 3200' paved strip, from East Alabama to the other side of Mobile and back. Climb was a little slow, though. 

[Danb]

2 hours ago, Alan Fox said:

Put 4 people in your Mooney , add 75 gallons of fuel , take off from a grass strip , ....... Oh wait.....  You cant put people and fuel in it never mind.....

Why would u want to, I don't know that many people, all these great planes are built for one purpose or another, once you define your need then get the plane that fills that need. Nice to meet you in LNS Alan

[chrisk]

A Mooney M20J or a Cessna 182 are both great planes.  Which ever one you get, you will love it.    And no matter which one you get, you will want a plane that goes faster, further, higher, and carries more.  The things I like about my Mooney are:  it glides well, cross winds are never an issue, its got good range, goes fast, doesn't use too much fuel.  One of my friends has a 182 with extended tanks.  At lower altitudes, it's 10 knots slower and uses more fuel.  But it also gets off the ground much faster and I would consider taking it to a grass field, since it has plenty of prop clearance.  

Also, every plane has some things that it is not perfect at.  Mooney is know for a plane with very few ADs.  The most well known maintenance issue weeping fuel tanks, which can be costly to repair.  Most live with this minor inconvenience for many years before addressing it.  I'm not sure what 182's issues are, but I've heard many have a crinkled firewall due to the landing characteristics.  --Certainly some things to look into if you are considering buying one. 

 

[Marauder]

Alan - I'm ready. I got my 4 passengers



And that extra gas




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Hyett6420 said:

No problem at all. I take four people all the time. G-OBAL used to fly out of Panshanger (a grass strip) all the time.  75 gallons well that would give me an 7.5hour range at 10gph which at 155 knots equals 1162.5miles still air. That would get me happily to southern Italy.  However those four people would probably be having bladder problems.  Now where would your 7.5 hours get you?  

His 182 won't fly 7½ hours on 75 gallons . . .More like 5 hours.

[DaV8or]

To the OP, if you still give a crap about this silly thread-

Go to the Cessna forum and ask the exact same questions. Compare and contrast the answers here and there. Then when your choice is clear as mud, go with your gut instinct... OR, ask your wife to decide. You'll be fine either way.

[Danb]

She just wants a chute.

[EtradeBaby]

1 hour ago, Danb said:

She just wants a chute.

She didn't really care about the chute. I kinda liked the idea of one, but as one person said: it had to have to chute to pass certification. Soooo I think I'll pass on the partnership, Pass on the cirrus, and keep looking at airplanes that were designed to keep flying in the first place.

[DaV8or]

4 hours ago, Danb said:

She just wants a chute.

Me too. If one can afford a Cirrus, it's a great choice. One can do much, much worse.

[DaV8or]

2 hours ago, EtradeBaby said:

She didn't really care about the chute. I kinda liked the idea of one, but as one person said: it had to have to chute to pass certification. Soooo I think I'll pass on the partnership, Pass on the cirrus, and keep looking at airplanes that were designed to keep flying in the first place.

Seriously, in all fairness even on a Mooney site, you need to do more research. Cirrus did not need the parachute to pass certification. The company argued that because the plane had a parachute that there was no reason to do the whole stall regimen that is very costly. It was a strategy to lower the cost of the plane.

The parachute was designed into the plane from day one. One of the co founders of Cirrus survived a mid air collision and vowed that the airplane that he was to sell would have this feature. Never was it a band aid for poor stall characteristics.

Since the plane already had the chute, they argued that the spin testing wasn't necessary and so they could save their customers some cash as that can be very expensive. The FAA bought it and the rest is history. The Cirrus then and since has been tested by many in spin recovery and it recovers quite well. It recovers better than a Mooney in the real world.

The Mooney loves to dive for a spin and if allowed to spin can take as much as 3000 ft to recover. This is why all the test pilots that did spins in the Mooney as well as the factory itself, say never spin a Mooney. Basically the CAA, the precursor to the FAA back when the Mooney M20 was awarded it's type certificate, the same certificate all Mooneys share, was not so strict on stall performance. Basically they said that the plane had to demonstrate the plane could recover from various stalls and it did. I don't think there was too much mention of how easy that was to be, or how much altitude was lost in the process. If the modern Mooney were forced to re-certify from scratch under Part 23 regs, it would likely fail the spin testing IMO. Ironically, if the Cirrus were to try to pass the CAA Part 3 spin test, I'm sure it would pass with flying colors from what I've read.

People have spun the Cirrus and have been pleased with the result. Before you discard the Cirrus as a choice, you should read up on it. I personally would take the chute over marginal spin recovery any day.

[KLRDMD]

38 minutes ago, DaV8or said:

Me too. If one can afford a Cirrus, it's a great choice. One can do much, much worse.

Of the 14 airplanes I've owned, the Cirrus SR22 stayed the shortest amount of time. It wasn't for me.

[Jerry 5TJ]

 

We are lucky any way you slice it, guys.  We get to fly our own planes around.  

Yeah, get your wife to pick the next plane.  Mine now tells me the Mooney is too small, she liked the bigger PA46 cabin. 

I say, "yes, dear" and start shopping.  

 

 

[Jerry 5TJ]

2 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

Of the 14 airplanes I've owned, the Cirrus SR22 stayed the shortest amount of time. It wasn't for me.

FOURTEEN!   Way to go!  Thanks, now I feel better: I've only owned six.  I'll keep shopping.  

[Danb]

Hey Jerr ready for that Evloution?

[Jerry 5TJ]

44 minutes ago, Danb said:

Hey Jerr ready for that Evloution?

I flew one last month.  Impressive little plane.  At 4000 pounds & 750 hp it is plenty frisky, and only 1,500 AMU brand sparkling new.

Evolution is roomy enough inside.  Bigger baggage door & baggage area than the M20R.  Entry/exit ease was a worry--it is a bit harder than getting in/out than the Ovation.

That may earn it the spousal veto: She wants an air stair door, lots of room & the all-important potty.  

I tell her, "We can't get by with just one plane." 

 

[Danb]

Back to the Meridian 

[DaV8or]

49 minutes ago, Danb said:

Back to the Meridian 

Best to future proof as they say these days, just go strait to the TBM-950. 

[DaV8or]

11 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

Of the 14 airplanes I've owned, the Cirrus SR22 stayed the shortest amount of time. It wasn't for me.

Of course. Different airplanes appeal to different people of different reasons. I was in no way trying to say that the Cirrus is the greatest plane out there. I just wanted the OP to know that the folk lore that the Cirrus needed the chute to get certified is patently false.

[gsengle]

Please cite your source I've read otherwise. It suffices to say they didn't pass that part of certification, and for whatever reason went a separate route.

Many have said that this was unwise and lead to many pattern stall spin accidents at altitudes too low for chute deployment.

Finally, the bungee trim system leads to a lack of slow flight "feel", that has been conjectured contribute to accidents.

Can I prove any of this? No. would I be concerned? Yes.

So again, without the chute, the airplane isn't certified, so give me some credible source as to how this is "patently false".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cnoe]

I love this thread but it's gotten WAY above my pay grade. Evolutions, TBMs, Meridians, hell even SR22s and Ovations don't fit my retirement budget! On slow business days I sometimes wonder if I shouldn't have bought a modded F instead of my J.

It all makes me feel a little less sorry for those complaining about their $10 AMU maintenance bills.

I don't begrudge you at all and consider myself blessed for simply being able to "slip the surly bonds of earth" on a whim.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DaV8or]

33 minutes ago, gsengle said:

Many have said that this was unwise and lead to many pattern stall spin accidents at altitudes too low for chute deployment.
 

Oh brother.  There is not a Mooney made that can recover from a spin at pattern altitude. Most high performance planes cannot. Sure, a 152, or Cherokee 140, or a Skyhawk, maybe a Pitts, you might have a good chance of recovering an accidental spin at pattern altitude, but most else, not so much. With each successful deployment of the Chute in the real world, it turns out the lowest altitude for deployment keeps going down. I believe it was pulled at 800ft and people survived.

So again, without the chute, the airplane isn't certified, so give me some credible source as to how this is "patently false".

The airplane did not need the chute to be certified. They did not ever say- "Holy crap! This plane can't recover from a spin! We better put a parachute on it!!" I explained the reasoning above. Cirrus spun the plane before certification and knew it would recover. Many out in the real world since certification have spun a Cirrus. It has always predictably recovered.

To your point- Yes the Cirrus was certified with a parachute and if you remove that parachute, it is no longer a certified airplane because it no longer conforms to it's type certificate. So in this sense the Cirrus needs the parachute to maintain it's certification status.

Hate Cirrus, fine. I'm not here to sell Cirrus. You shouldn't buy one. It's a death trap. But to the OP who was considering one, I strongly suggest he do some research before discarding the Cirrus option due to OWTs and the usual pilot speculation.
 

[gsengle]

You didn't answer my questions at all. I dislike the SR20/22 for specific stated reasons not because I have any grudge, personally I want to see all GA manufacturers succeed. I am no ones fanboy.

Im pointing out that there have been significant concerns about the safety of a Cirrus *despite* being, perhaps dangerously, marketed as the safe choice.

I think the slow control issues may well be real. I know they are more expensive to insure despite the chute and fixed gear, dollar for dollar, which also makes me go hmmm. I know their annuals are often more expensive, than my high performance plane, again despite the fixed gear.

I know they've done a commendable job making the fleet pretty safe with remedial training. Bravo. Training that emphasizes not hesitating to use the chute.

I think the chute has sold a lot of airplanes, which is great. I just would like a chute in a different airframe, personally, since I'm not a fan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy95W]

On December 4, 2016 at 10:43 PM, KLRDMD said:

When you fly a Mooney, you look like a confident aviator; when you fly a Cirrus you look like a dork.

From a former Cirrus owner.

'Nuff said.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, gsengle said:

I think the chute has sold a lot of airplanes, which is great. I just would like a chute in a different airframe, personally, since I'm not a fan.

 

So would I! My definition of "a different airframe" is "one that belongs to someone else." So far, that's holding true!