Mooney vs Cirrus

[gsengle]

I'm with Erik on this one. It is important to not keep perpetuating unsubstantiated and disproven rumors. The Cirrus could pass the spin test just fine and was regularly spun during certification. They sensibly chose not to spend the time and dollars to get the spin cert given the technical and marketing advantage of the chute.  'nough said.

I'm surprised more don't comment though on the stall spin pattern accidents we've seen lately... and historically... the bungee trim system in the Cirrus does absolutely affect control feel, and makes that mushy slow speed feel less pronounced - something that's hard to ignore in a Mooney. As someone schooled in human factors, frankly this jumps out at me to be a danger of the design. No chute saves either a Mooney or a Cirrus spun at 1000agl.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Samurai Husky]

Spins are a madder of poor training; Its hard to stall a cirrus.

I can see how it 'can' happen on take off; you are climbing start a turn an think oh i should put up the flaps; Well, if you are just doing the normal 85knt climb enter into a 30* turn then flip the switch, then you can stall; I also see a lot of people not paying attention to the slip indicator, especially on climb which would then lead to the spin. Thats what happened in the texas crash. 

But the chute works at 500agl and as low as 400 (though you might hurt your self by then); 

You can recover a Cirrus from a Spin, its been demonstrated; Its just not certified; 

[kris_adams]

While I'm a Mooney lover, I did get overtaken by a -22 about a year ago coming back into Atlanta.  It wasn't by much but it did result in me being given a vector and rerouting into LZU.  No big deal though.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Kris_Adams said:

While I'm a Mooney lover, I did get overtaken by a -22 about a year ago coming back into Atlanta.  It wasn't by much but it did result in me being given a vector and rerouting into LZU.  No big deal though.

I hope an SR22 overtook your January by a large margin--it's got 100 more horsepower . . . .

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, Ah-1 Cobra Pilot said:

This one is slightly older, but a bargain in comparison:  http://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=ACCLAIM+TYPE+S&listing_id=2197288&s-type=aircraft

You should get a discount on the sales price for leaving the advertising in place.  The only thing I cannot figure out is why you would have A/C but not TKS ice protection?

Let's see...

1) you live in Nebraska and he lives in Florida.

2) with only 870lbs of useful, not a lot of room for additional options.

3) TKS is mission dependent.  I think it could be argued that departing into conditions where significant icing is probable in a recip single is stupid even if it is FIKI certified.

Perhaps the original purchaser was very conservative with his personal minimums and did not want he and his passengers sitting in a sauna for the 30 mins of the flight.. 

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, Danb said:

Notice the UL. 870

Not a realistic airplane for me.  That is sadly almost 200lbs less than my old F which doesn't need nearly the fuel payload.

[Andy95W]

10 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

It reminds me of Windows v Novell and Microsoft v Lotus. 

I thought Lotus made unreliable cars and Microsoft made unreliable software?

Oh, I see the similarity now...

[carusoam]

Sam Husk,

you have demonstrated some fine skill tonight! 

Have you flown the Cirrus home to Chicago at all yet?

looks like the crude futures market came through pretty well for you. (If my memory is working)  we have come a long way since last February.

Best regards,

-a-

Edited February 17, 2017 by carusoam

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

13 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Let's see...

1) you live in Nebraska and he lives in Florida.

2) with only 870lbs of useful, not a lot of room for additional options.

3) TKS is mission dependent.  I think it could be argued that departing into conditions where significant icing is probable in a recip single is stupid even if it is FIKI certified.

Perhaps the original purchaser was very conservative with his personal minimums and did not want he and his passengers sitting in a sauna for the 30 mins of the flight.. 

If you look at the Mooney web site, they offer only one or the other as an option.  Temporary comfort on the ground is no reason to sacrifice safety.  If the OAT is too hot, climb a little higher.

BTW, I have had icing in FL, too!

[smccray]

1 hour ago, Ah-1 Cobra Pilot said:

If you look at the Mooney web site, they offer only one or the other as an option.  Temporary comfort on the ground is no reason to sacrifice safety.  If the OAT is too hot, climb a little higher.

BTW, I have had icing in FL, too!

Different areas of the country have different considerations.  Flying in TX in the summer, I regularly see OAT north of 75 degrees at 8 or 9K feet.  For weekend flying or a pleasure airplane (when I can control it and fly early) I don't care if it's warm.  It's also tough to climb higher when ATC likes to bring me down to 4-5K ft 50 miles from the airport coming home at 4PM in July/August.

If I were up north- TKS and no A/C- I get it.  For business travel in Texas (90%+ of my flights), I'm interested in AC.  Different strokes...

[Hank]

Mooney vs. Cirrus . . . . I say our metal airframe may suffer bent sheet metal (just cosmetic damage, and some extra drag), but the Cirrus would have some shattered  (structural) components rendering flight ill-advised or impossible. As long as no spinning props hit either plane, anyway.  

[Samurai Husky]

10 hours ago, carusoam said:

Sam Husk,

you have demonstrated some fine skill tonight! 

Have you flown the Cirrus home to Chicago at all yet?

looks like the crude futures market came through pretty well for you. (If my memory is working)  we have come a long way since last February.

Best regards,

-a-

Thanks. Not yet, still working on the IFR. I might try this summer if the cubs do well enough to warrent a visit  

IFR training right now has been very productive because we have been able to go up in IMC; Wed we went out to the mountains and ended having to climb to fl18 to get out of the clouds. While in the clouds we started to pick up some trace icing and got to test my TKS system... which i am sad to say is only working on 1 wing

I have been staying out of oil because its back to that 'this doesnt make sense' category. We set a new all time high in storage and yet oil is going up. There is just too much hope put on congress to pass a tax bill and infrastructure bill. If that doesnt go through or keeps getting delayed then crash. Im sitting all cash right now, except for the shares i bought in my IRA for CXW, not selling that since im making a 16% div on it. 

36 minutes ago, Hank said:

Mooney vs. Cirrus . . . . I say our metal airframe may suffer bent sheet metal (just cosmetic damage, and some extra drag), but the Cirrus would have some shattered  (structural) components rendering flight ill-advised or impossible. As long as no spinning props hit either plane, anyway.  

We have fixed gears, so were not going to clean the pavement because of error or malfunction. In that case when we go down, we go down. So its either at a point where we can pull the chute or crash and die. Though someone in Co. last month did land with out pulling the chute after a engine out, so it shows people still do that as well. I think he landed in a pasture or something like that. 

Either way, my thought is, at that point its the insurance companies problem not mine. I just have to get to the point where i can cash the check. 

[gsengle]

Remember with the TKS it has to be run frequently run it at least every couple of weeks until it's all flowing. So it will be ready when you need it and the boards won't be all dried out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shadrach]

11 hours ago, Ah-1 Cobra Pilot said:

If you look at the Mooney web site, they offer only one or the other as an option.  Temporary comfort on the ground is no reason to sacrifice safety.  If the OAT is too hot, climb a little higher.

BTW, I have had icing in FL, too!

It's likely because with AC, full TKS and fuel tanks, the airplane would only have enough useful load for a single 12 year old pilot. As currently configured the tanks full payload of the linked aircraft 258lbs.

I am aware that icing occurs nationwide. My point was more to the brutal, humid heat in FL.   Not having TKS is sacrificing safety? So are all of the non FIKI turbo owners on this board and elsewhere sacrificing safety by not dropping $60K for a TKS install? Seems a lot safer and more cost effective to learn how to read a Skew T and stay on the f #(&\%!g ground when ice is likely.  I think that some folks let FIKI give them the confidence to do things they shouldn't ought to be doing. One of the more dramatic and high profile examples of this occurred back in 2011; recall the TBM700 that launched out of Teterboro and then distributed parts and people all over I287.  

"The controller asked the pilot to advise him if the icing worsened, and the pilot responded that he would let them know and that it was no problem for him."

Indeed it was a problem for him and he stalled just before reaching 18,000ft. He and his passengers must have had quite a ride down in an ice and pilot induced spin while IMC. The plane had likely already come apart when they broke out of the clouds.

No problem indeed...

[Alain B]

4 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

It's likely because with AC, full TKS and fuel tanks, the airplane would only have enough useful load for a single 12 year old pilot. As currently configured the tanks full payload of the linked aircraft 258lbs.

I am aware that icing occurs nationwide. My point was more to the brutal, humid heat in FL.   Not having TKS is sacrificing safety? So are all of the non FIKI turbo owners on this board and elsewhere sacrificing safety by not dropping $60K for a TKS install? Seems a lot safer and more cost effective to learn how to read a Skew T and stay on the f #(&\%!g ground when ice is likely.  I think that some folks let FIKI give them the confidence to do things they shouldn't ought to be doing. One of the more dramatic and high profile examples of this occurred back in 2011; recall the TBM700 that launched out of Teterboro and then distributed parts and people all over I287.  

"The controller asked the pilot to advise him if the icing worsened, and the pilot responded that he would let them know and that it was no problem for him."

Indeed it was a problem for him and he stalled just before reaching 18,000ft. He and his passengers must have had quite a ride down in an ice and pilot induced spin while IMC. The plane had likely already come apart when when they broke out of the clouds.

No problem indeed...

No problem indeed , here in QC , if you dont have TKS and instrument rating , you dont fly 8 month out of 12 . As for me , an airplane is a mean of transportation , not something to look at in the hangar . 

[Shadrach]

56 minutes ago, Alain B said:

No problem indeed , here in QC , if you dont have TKS and instrument rating , you dont fly 8 month out of 12 . As for me , an airplane is a mean of transportation , not something to look at in the hangar . 

 It is my sincere hope that you get all of the utility you wish out of your new aircraft.  If I lived where you did, had your year round dispatch requirement, and could afford to pay 800K for an aircraft, I would be shopping for a used twin with engines made by Garrett or P&W. We are a family of 3 soon to be 4.  An Acclaim wouldn't fit our mission.  I need to be able to but at least 700lbs in the cabin and go somewhere.

[Alain B]

6 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

 It is my sincere hope that you get all of the utility you wish out of your new aircraft.  If I lived where you did, had your year round dispatch requirement, and could afford to pay 800K for an aircraft, I would be shopping for a used twin with engines made by Garrett or P&W. We are a family of 3 soon to be 4.  An Acclaim wouldn't fit our mission.  I need to be able to but at least 700lbs in the cabin and go somewhere.

I would agree with you if i would live south of the border , however here we have many short runway that i need to go to , i need something that has a very short take-off run and can fly fast . I dont have any childs , my girlfriend has an ATPL , so it's her and me alone , more often i am all by myself . A twin would not make it , a turbine beaver would be great but not fast enough . So my intend is to go with 310 HP STC and 4 blade prop to minimize the take-off run . By the way . the P&W hangar is just adjacent to mine in CYHU , and the plant just across the street . I hate Garret's .

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, Alain B said:

I would agree with you if i would live south of the border , however here we have many short runway that i need to go to , i need something that has a very short take-off run and can fly fast . I dont have any childs , my girlfriend has an ATPL , so it's her and me alone , more often i am all by myself . A twin would not make it , a turbine beaver would be great but not fast enough . So my intend is to go with 310 HP STC and 4 blade prop to minimize the take-off run . By the way . the P&W hangar is just adjacent to mine in CYHU , and the plant just across the street . I hate Garret's .

I don't hate Garretts, but I hate the way some folks operate them.  We have two Conquests in the cross hangar and they run the things for 15 seems like an eternity before they will taxi.  If I am working in the hangar I have to leave due to the fumes.  I have had a number of discussions with them about blasting cars and hangars.

It will be interesting to get your take on the short field performance of the Acclaim after you get comfortable in it.  I'd bet that more than a few C90s have been in and out of 2000ft strips.  1600ft is my min for my F model but I would never do it at gross.

[Alain B]

To be honest , i had never paid attention  for C90 short field capability , Maybe they are very near the 2000 foot mark. One thing i know is that an Acclaim with a standard engine can leave the ground within 2000 feet in standard condition .as per the POH . If you had to this a 10 % increase in power i am pretty sure i can shave a few hundred feet out of this number . Up to that , adding a four blade prop will probably shave another couple of hundreds . My gut feeling : after seeing one or the other in action , with a combinaison of both it can get off the ground within the 1000 foot mark if not too heavy . 

[Wingdude]

I would be super interested if anyone has written a post comparing the Ovation (2005 - 16)  G1000 to Cirrus Perspective G1000 (or could add to this thread)

 

I understand

1. STC55 vs GFC700 integration issues - No GA, poor FMS annunciation, digital vs analog capture.
2. No keypad

Are there basic software version issues too?

Trying to decide whether to purchase a Mooney Ovation with a GFC700 (or new STEC3100 55 upg) or a Cirrus

[carusoam]

Add to your decision tree...

Older Ovation looking for a complete panel upgrade...

The new TXI displays, GTN radios, And GFC autopilots are fantastic...

That allows you to be flying the coolest, most capable bird, with the ultimate navigation panel...

There are a few MSers on board that have complete modern updated panels... looks like the planes were built this year...  

If you like speed and efficiency, Go Mooney!

Best regards,

-a-

[Danb]

Wing dude I don’t understand the comparison of course the O

[steingar]

As much as I love my Mooney, nobody ever geared up a Cirrus.  While Mooney has gone through one bankruptcy after another, Cirrus is selling more airframes than anyone.  Hard to argue with success.  And you really think Mooney wouldn't want to be making jets if they could?

No for me, I don't feel like spending 1.5 AMU's a year on chute repack costs.  Then again, if the chips are ever down that bad I might miss having one.

[bob865]

On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 7:34 AM, bradp said:

These discussions are fun. No cirri drivers to defend themselves. A higher proportion of cirii have weather capabilities and they keep upping the useful load.

Mooney needs to get on the game. The problem is that they haven't innovated on a great Air frame in what, 25 years. A second door and fancy glass doesn't count as innovation in my book. It's like a stagnation of ideas.
 

Reading through since this thread got revivied, and this comment about us still flying a 25yr old design reminded me of something I read the other day.  Was reading about Roy LoPresti and the design of the mooney and found this comment "In a 1979 interview, LoPresti predicted that by the year 2000, most general aviation aircraft would be essentially unchanged in airframe and powerplants. He felt radical new designs and materials would not be marketable and only a few examples would be produced."  He said this in an inteview for an article called "Designers Talk About the Future" in Air Progress magazine.

[Wingdude]

Thanks for the replies everyone... I will write a separate post about what I am planning to buy.

I have been warned that the Mooney G1000 software has not been upgraded by Garmin over the years with the same enhancements as the Cirrus G1000 software...

Interested in an answer to my Q re G1000 differences if anyone knows..

**Differences between Mooney ( with GFC700) G1000 and Cirrus G1000

....Apart from the no keypad, are there any other differences in features between the current G1000 software versions?