Mooney or Cirrus?

[Mooney217RN]

I read the thread on the message board and felt compelled to start a new one, only because I have had this discussion with someone who recently opted for a new SR22 GTS.  Last evening, I had the pleasure of flying that brand new SR22 GTS.

I have about 25 hours +/- in the SR22 by sheer chance, I had thought about going from the Mooney line into a Cirrus years ago, but there were some issues with the Cirrus I didn't like.

From my perspective, Cirrus is beating Mooney in sales handily for a few reasons.  First and foremost, marketing.  I attend a few industry shows and open houses at airports throughout any given year.  I never, ever see a Mooney on display.  Yet Cirrus representatives seem to always be there.  Mooney is notoriously missing from most air shows and airport open houses.  I have been to three this summer, no sign of anyone from Mooney, but Cirrus was present at all three events.

When it comes to ergonomics, I think Cirrus has done a wonderful job.  Their aircraft are well appointed, comfortable, and the interior is well designed.  The side stick is a bit odd, but you quickly get used to it.  I am a huge proponent of the throttle quadrant being controlled by levers.  My 1974 E Model had levers.  My new Ovation has vernier controls.  I prefer the levers.  Cirrus has a quirky lever that controls throttle & prop through a mechanical linkage, but it works.  Their mixture control is a lever.  The interior layout in the Cirrus is better than the Mooney, period.  The seats are much nicer, the layout is user friendly and everything is easy to reach.  The fuel selector valve is on the center console, not on the floor.  (In my former E Model it was under my right heel, so who am I to complain?).

The Cirrus handles well, lands easily, flies pretty smoothly.  I have always liked it.  It's a good airplane, and if you ask me, if Cirrus is getting people to buy their product and get into airplanes, more power to them.  That's a good thing.

Now I am in a unique position, as I have a near new Ovation, so I can compare.  But why are we comparing?  That's the question we need to ask ourselves.  We're comparing oranges to nectarines.  Both round, both fruit, both taste good.  That's where it ends.

The Cirrus lacks a few things which I don't like.  Starting with retractable gear, nosewheel steering, speed brakes & true prop control.  I suppose the SR22 line doesn't need speed brakes.  Then there's the performance - you guessed it, we rock.  My Ovation can smoke an SR22 GTS in all performance categories, spare landing.  Climb rate, cruise speed and handling?  The Mooney has that Cirrus beat hands down.  Keep in mind we're talking an Ovation, a normally aspirated IO-550G against a turbo 550.  Something else I noticed last evening flying the Cirrus - while the cockpit is very nice, we have more room in the modern day Mooneys.  The new owner of this SR22 has flown with me in my Ovation, and she noticed it too.  I am not sure about useful load, nor do I care.  The Mooney is a far better bang for the buck no matter how you dice it.  Landing the Cirrus is a piece of cake.  Landing the Ovation, you better be on your game or else.

Now there's no question that Mooney manufactures a better product, so why are people gravitating towards the Cirrus?  Besides the obvious I have outlined above, which are correctable shortcomings, there are two primary reasons - first is culture being marketed by Cirrus.  They're going after a younger audience who might have very well learned in an SR20 at a flight school.  Mooneys don't exactly make it into flight schools very often, although my flight school years ago had an E model, which is likely why I am flying an Ovation today.  The younger crowd loves the digitization of the cockpit, and Cirrus has done an excellent job designing it.

The other reason Cirrus is selling airplanes at a good pace is that you can go from being a low time pilot into a Cirrus pretty easily.  The transition isn't as cumbersome or challenging as going from a C172 into an Acclaim or Ovation.  You really can't do that, it's not practical or feasible.  Cirrus has designed a plane for people to transition into once they get their certificate, it's just that simple.

Now for the hidden shortcomings.  Cirrus owners haven't a clue about what the maintenance expenses are going to be.  Those SR22's will kill your wallet on maintenance.  Further, the Cirrus concept is that you will buy one now, and buy one in 5-10 years to replace the one you have now, similar to an automobile purchase.  Brilliant marketing concept, and again, they're marketing this product phenomenally well.  Finally, let's remember the Mooney is a High Performance Complex aircraft.  The Cirrus is NOT a Complex aircraft.  You don't need a Complex endorsement.

One other dirty little secret they never tell the owners about those lovely Cirri - you pull the chute, you total the airplane right there and then, and there's no guarantee you're going to survive once the parachute is deployed.  But they need that parachute for more than the reasons you know about; the sink rate on an engine out is about as bad as it gets.  It comes down well, and if the engine poops out, you might as well be flying the Space Shuttle, because that's the kind of sink rate this thing has.  The glide ratio is horrible, I think it's about 8:1.  Another good reason why they have that parachute.

If Mooney wants to compete with Cirrus, they need to go back to manufacturing the 201 or the 252 Encore, better the ergonomics and market the line with enthusiasm.  You can transition into a 201 or Encore fairly easily in my opinion once you have a few hundred hours of experience.  To me, having flown both as recently as yesterday, the differences are glaring, and overcoming the shortcomings on the Mooney line are easily achieved.  Mooney Aircraft sell themselves, once you get into the cockpit and fly them.  And therein lies the problem, there's nobody committed at Mooney who is pushing the product line out to the public.

[mike_elliott]

11 hours ago, Mooney217RN said:

Their mixture control is a lever.  The interior layout in the Cirrus is better than the Mooney, period.  The seats are much nicer, the layout is user friendly and everything is easy to reach.  The fuel selector valve is on the center console, not on the floor.  (In my former E Model it was under my right heel, so who am I to complain?).

 

Compared to any E, I will have to agree, but this is a very subjective comment. Lets compare it to an Ultra to be fair.

 

11 hours ago, Mooney217RN said:

Now I am in a unique position, as I have a near new Ovation

Im curious, how new?  sit in a new Ultra. Its addicting. Im also curious to where you are located. YOu bring up many many valid points, especially about how Cirrus markets vs. Mooney. Mooney sells thru independent sales organizations who are tasked with having a demo, doing the show circuit as they deem fit. Cirrus is a factory direct sales model. Depending on where you are located would determine which sales organization would be "showing" the Mooney at the airshows and fly ins. I know Premier Aircraft sales participates in a lot of them in the Southeast. All in, you are correct, their presence pales compared to Cirrus at regional and local events.

 

11 hours ago, Mooney217RN said:

If Mooney wants to compete with Cirrus, they need to go back to manufacturing the 201 or the 252 Encore, better the ergonomics and market the line with enthusiasm.  You can transition into a 201 or Encore fairly easily in my opinion once you have a few hundred hours of experience

Brand New short and mid body Mooneys wont happen. That ship has sailed. Besides lacking economic substance, the tooling was all destroyed a few owners ago to do that. A clean sheet entry into the training market would be more viable, and they did attempt that and have shelved the project for now. While we are on what they should do, perhaps they should consider an upwards offering like Cirrus has with their jet. A lot of people have graduated from M's  R's and TN's into TBM's Meridians etc.

 

11 hours ago, Mooney217RN said:

The Mooney is a far better bang for the buck no matter how you dice it.  Landing the Cirrus is a piece of cake.  Landing the Ovation, you better be on your game or else.

To properly fly a Cirrus, you need to be on your game also. This is all training. Mooneys are like fine women. Treat them nice and they will reward you, Horse them like a 5$ puta, they will smite you. A Cirrus takes getting slapped around more than a Mooney because, well, its not quite a fine woman, but it does put on a lot of lipstick. Learning to transition from a Cessna that one didnt properly learn to fly into a Mooney is more difficult for this reason. Learning to transition into a Mooney where you have properly learned to fly a Cessna isn't so bad. Its all about speed, sink rate and site picture on landings, but this is just another maneuver one should learn in the transition process. I say this and I dont have any disrespect for Cirrus, just recognize it is not the precision efficient machine a Mooney is. I only have a half doz hrs in a Cirrus but that was enough for me to form an initial opinion. You are absolutely right, Cirrus does have the Apple like family culture thing down and they do have the step from 0 hrs to 200 pretty well covered, along with the net worth greater than 5 million in their gunsights.

[cbarry]

In a day and age where buyers want capability regardless of actually ever using it to the maximum, transporting vehicles, of any type, without the ability to do everything for the family (or traveling couples) are seen as archaic and out of touch with buyer demands.  For example, the latest Cirrus has seatbelts for five, ergonomics that equal a small crossover suv, , avionics that will dazzle all the way from a toddler to Grandpa, adequate speed to sort of brag about to your buddies and a chute to break your fall if you screw up—because let’s face it our wife has seen us screw up.  

The Mooney, of any vintage, is a pilot’s chariot.  It’s all about feel, speed and efficiency.  Although these traits are tangible, they are hard to buy into when most of the non flying public spend their days slogging around on the ground stuck in traffic in minivans and suvs.  It’s simply hard to imagine it as a reality for non pilots.  Cirrus has captured the imagination of how family air travel should be.    On the other hand, Mooney is  the art of flying.  It’s not explainable until you experience it and selling richness in experience is trumped by utility in almost every aspect of people’s lives on a daily basis.  In my opinion that’s the difference.  

 

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, mike_elliott said:

rand New short and mid body Mooneys wont happen. That ship has sailed. Besides lacking economic substance, the tooling was all destroyed a few owners ago to do that. A clean sheet entry into the training market would be more viable, and they did attempt that and have shelved the project for now. While we are on what they should do, perhaps they should consider an upwards offering like Cirrus has with their jet. A lot of people have graduated from M's  R's and TN's into TBM's Meridians etc.

Having transformed my own M20K to look and smell as if new.  New paint, gorgeous new interior, any non aviation person would think it is a new plane - if you don't know that square windows mean its old.  And, personally I am more comfortable in a Mooney than a Cirrus, because I am tall.  Cirrus was for sure on my finalist list when I was shopping to upgrade from my DA40 12 years ago, along with Beech, but Mooney was the most comfortable for a tall pilot at least.  ...and the best road feel.  For my money btw, Beech was second.  Cirrus third.

I wish for the health of the company - and we have hashed this over and over on this forum, that Mooney had something else in their line-up to step up to.  Something unique and absent currently from the certified world would be a M20 sized turbo prop.  There is that turbo prop conversion Bonanza A36 that I think would be a great example of what a M20 with a tiny turbo prop on the nose would be like.  The RR500...that never happened.... I think would have sold a lot of airplanes.  It would have filled a nice in the single turbo prop that currently does not exist.  The tiny certified turbo prop.

That and a diesel option such as a EPS graphite that would modernize the power plant to fantastic range and speed.  (I do believe a EPS engine rated at 400hp would result in a 260kts M20 - requiring structural gussets strengthening to increase the Vne- imagine that and at a lower fuel burn than anything continental).  That would sell.

Yes parachutes sell airplanes.  Forget the need, utility, real safety of having a parachute.  At the time of selling, they sell airplanes.

...and a super sales force....always useful.  Sales people sell airplanes.

[M20F]

Just now, aviatoreb said:

There is that turbo prop conversion Bonanza A36 that I think would be a great example of what a M20 with a tiny turbo prop on the nose would be like.  

Redline of 165kts and fuel make that Bonanza Turbo Prop a novelty.  An Ultra is faster/better.

Would require a new airframe to really make it work.   

[aviatoreb]

12 minutes ago, M20F said:

Redline of 165kts and fuel make that Bonanza Turbo Prop a novelty.  An Ultra is faster/better.

Would require a new airframe to really make it work.   

I consider the most important aspect of a turbo prop to be the reliability - they say the catastrophic failure rate of a turbo prop is something 100 times less likely than a piston engine.  I would feel more comfortable flying a single engine turbo prop over hostile terrain than even a twin engine piston.

The bonanza turbo prop is an entirely different purpose - it carries 6 people.  It now can operate out of a 900 ft field.  And consider that in some parts of the world avgas is not available.  The bonanza turbo prop had two different  conversions - one with an Allison RR and the other with a Pt6 by rocket engineering.  The pt6 is too much of a fuel hog, even down rated, making the fuel load in the standard Bonanza not so great.  A smaller turbo prop might have done the job - and more fuel.

To speed alone - you are right - the ultra is faster.

But to your point.  A factory certified airframe could be strengthened to accept a higher redline.  I am speaking in engineering terms - I have no idea how hard legally the requirements or how hard it would be for the factory to get that certified.    In the case of an M20, the frame could be strengthened to allow the redline to be raised.  In fact, the rocket engineering liquid rocket conversion (only 5 were ever done, with the liquid rocket - TSIO550L I think it was - 350hp), had airframe manipulations including gussets as I described.  Anyway I find it entirely plausible that the M20 airframe could be manipulated with some extra strengthening engineering to raise the redline to make it better enjoy a RR500.

...but I think a diesel EPS rated at. 400hp at 15gph....this would be the break out modern airplane that could go coast-coast nonstop at amazing speeds.  I want one.

Edited August 3, 2019 by aviatoreb

[M20F]

Just now, aviatoreb said:

Anyway I find it entirely plausible that the M20 airframe could be manipulated with some extra strengthening engineering to raise the redline to make it better enjoy a RR500.

Certainly plausible but not commercially viable in my opinion.

Also the A36 isn’t going to carry six people and full fuel either.  On a plane that burns 24 GPH in the best of cases with 100 gallons max fuel, you aren’t going far with 6 people and IFR reserves.  It is certainly safer but aside from that it under performs in every category.  A lot better options out there for the $$.    

[aviatoreb]

5 minutes ago, M20F said:

Certainly plausible but not commercially viable in my opinion.

Also the A36 isn’t going to carry six people and full fuel either.  On a plane that burns 24 GPH in the best of cases with 100 gallons max fuel, you aren’t going far with 6 people and IFR reserves.  It is certainly safer but aside from that it under performs in every category.  A lot better options out there for the $$.    

A36 TP can carry 6 people...for VERY short hops.  hahah...  Anyway the main reason for that airplane becomes the reliability of a TP but also for the unavailability of avgas in many parts of the world.

I have no idea if a TP M20 would be commercially viable.  But I want one...  So I am guessing others would want one.  Seems like an unfilled niche to me.  A tiny turbo prop- perhaps unpressurized with a tiny turbo prop engine optimized for mid teens.  I would feel happier flying that over hostile terrain than a piston twin.  And it could be faster than an ultra.  

...diesel EPS would be the smart money though I think.

[Mooney217RN]

1 hour ago, cbarry said:

In a day and age where buyers want capability regardless of actually ever using it to the maximum, transporting vehicles, of any type, without the ability to do everything for the family (or traveling couples) are seen as archaic and out of touch with buyer demands.  For example, the latest Cirrus has seatbelts for five, ergonomics that equal a small crossover suv, , avionics that will dazzle all the way from a toddler to Grandpa, adequate speed to sort of brag about to your buddies and a chute to break your fall if you screw up—because let’s face it our wife has seen us screw up.  

The Mooney, of any vintage, is a pilot’s chariot.  It’s all about feel, speed and efficiency.  Although these traits are tangible, they are hard to buy into when most of the non flying public spend their days slogging around on the ground stuck in traffic in minivans and suvs.  It’s simply hard to imagine it as a reality for non pilots.  Cirrus has captured the imagination of how family air travel should be.    On the other hand, Mooney is  the art of flying.  It’s not explainable until you experience it and selling richness in experience is trumped by utility in almost every aspect of people’s lives on a daily basis.  In my opinion that’s the difference.  

 

I couldn’t agree more with your comment.  Similar to those that buy an Acclaim but use it as an Ovation.  You’re spot on.

Edited August 3, 2019 by Mooney217RN

[Mooney217RN]

Somebody asked how new is my Ovation.  It’s an Ovation 3GX, pre-ultra.  I prefer the single door, I’m used to it after decades of Mooney flying.  I have been in two Ultras, one Ovation and one Acclaim.  A slight bit nicer than my Ovation,  but the Cirrus interior ergonomics are noticeably nicer, just my opinion.

i live in Northern California, and at the AOPA Fly In in June, no Mooney reps or factory new plane on display.  That’s simply unacceptable from my perspective.  The only AOPA event in the Western United States, and unless I missed it, we were not represented.  Pretty pathetic.  I attended an Air Show at my home airport (TRK) last month, Cirrus had multiple planes on display.  Went to an airport open house in Carson City, Nevada in June, same thing, new Cirrus aircraft with reps on display.  Cirrus is marketing their product line, Mooney is not.  Therein lies the biggest difference.

[NJMac]

Cirrus has definitely captured the image well. Seems like they’ve ID’d their target audience and are marketing to them well. Does this mean the direct to consumer model is better?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Wayne Cease]

13 hours ago, Mooney217RN said:

When it comes to ergonomics, I think Cirrus has done a wonderful job.  Their aircraft are well appointed, comfortable, and the interior is well designed.  The side stick is a bit odd, but you quickly get used to it. 

I was surprised how fast I got used to the side stick.  Years ago when I did the Cirrus Transition program I thought it would take several hours.  When I got done with the first flight I realized that I had hardly noticed after the initial climb.  The side stick sits quite nicely where your hand is from the armrest.  The feedback from the bungees on the early models isn't the best, but most of these planes are on AP flying on a cross country flight.  I flew a SR22 last month with the AP out (for repairs) and it wasn't as bad with the feedback as I was expecting, but it was trimmed out well, so maybe that was it.

One of the big bonuses of the side stick is no yoke in front of you, and more importantly your passenger.  It really opens up the space in the cabin.  Passengers really like not having the yoke in front of them; non pilot passengers that is.  Some feel if they touch the yoke the plane might fall out of the sky.    I fly Angel Flight missions and some of them have never been off the ground before.

The SR22 cabin is 7" wider than the M20 cabin.  That's a big deal.  There's a center armrest that's wide enough it has storage in it.  Bigger is the elbow room for the people.  

 

13 hours ago, Mooney217RN said:

The Cirrus handles well, lands easily, flies pretty smoothly.  I have always liked it.  It's a good airplane, and if you ask me, if Cirrus is getting people to buy their product and get into airplanes, more power to them.  That's a good thing.

One still has to have good speed control.  The flaps on the Cirrus are not big and the gear is not as draggy as the Mooney gear (when extended).  If one is going too fast that plane will float down the runway just like a M20 will.

13 hours ago, Mooney217RN said:

The Cirrus lacks a few things which I don't like.  Starting with retractable gear, nosewheel steering, speed brakes & true prop control.  I suppose the SR22 line doesn't need speed brakes.  Then there's the performance - you guessed it, we rock.  My Ovation can smoke an SR22 GTS in all performance categories, spare landing.  Climb rate, cruise speed and handling?  The Mooney has that Cirrus beat hands down.  Keep in mind we're talking an Ovation, a normally aspirated IO-550G against a turbo 550.  Something else I noticed last evening flying the Cirrus - while the cockpit is very nice, we have more room in the modern day Mooneys.  The new owner of this SR22 has flown with me in my Ovation, and she noticed it too.  I am not sure about useful load, nor do I care.  The Mooney is a far better bang for the buck no matter how you dice it.  Landing the Cirrus is a piece of cake.  Landing the Ovation, you better be on your game or else.

The nose wheel steering takes some getting used to, but it will turn quite sharply.  Early models many people heated of the brakes riding them too much due to steering via differential braking.

Sorry, but the climb rate is pretty much the same between the two.  Mooneys will cruise faster, but that's more bragging rights than making a difference in arrival time.  Mooney states 197 kts max cruising speed for the Ovation Ultra, Cirrus states 183 knots max cruising for the SR22.  For long range cruise Mooney lists 170 knots, which is the same speed the 2002 SR22 I used to fly running LOP.  Even at max cruise 14 knots is not that much.  Faster, yep.  Even at 500 nm that's ~12 minutes.

13 hours ago, Mooney217RN said:

Now there's no question that Mooney manufactures a better product, so why are people gravitating towards the Cirrus?  Besides the obvious I have outlined above, which are correctable shortcomings, there are two primary reasons - first is culture being marketed by Cirrus.  They're going after a younger audience who might have very well learned in an SR20 at a flight school.  

Not exactly.  Maybe more a crowd that didn't grow up in an aviation family, but not a lot of young people can cough up $900k for a new SR22.  There are lots of well established business owners that are buying those new Cirrus planes.

13 hours ago, Mooney217RN said:

The other reason Cirrus is selling airplanes at a good pace is that you can go from being a low time pilot into a Cirrus pretty easily.  The transition isn't as cumbersome or challenging as going from a C172 into an Acclaim or Ovation.  You really can't do that, it's not practical or feasible.  Cirrus has designed a plane for people to transition into once they get their certificate, it's just that simple.

Nope.  While you can do it, it's frowned upon from multiple directions.  Most rental fleets for a Cirrus want at least what I've seen from rental M20's, an IR and 250 hours, so want even more hours.  You can get insurance for either a Mooney or Cirrus without an IR, but it will cost you more.  Mooneys and Cirrus are traveling planes and insurance likes people in traveling planes to have an IR.

13 hours ago, Mooney217RN said:

Now for the hidden shortcomings.  Cirrus owners haven't a clue about what the maintenance expenses are going to be.  Those SR22's will kill your wallet on maintenance.  Further, the Cirrus concept is that you will buy one now, and buy one in 5-10 years to replace the one you have now, similar to an automobile purchase.  Brilliant marketing concept, and again, they're marketing this product phenomenally well.  Finally, let's remember the Mooney is a High Performance Complex aircraft.  The Cirrus is NOT a Complex aircraft.  You don't need a Complex endorsement.

And Mooney details the maintenance expenses to all buyers?

The biggest difference is the chute repack and line cutter replacement.  Those definitely add up on the expenses and they are calendar expenses, so added to your fixed costs.  That really kicks up the hourly costs on a Cirrus if you don't fly much.

Otherwise they both have IO-550, G1000, and more that are almost identical.

13 hours ago, Mooney217RN said:

One other dirty little secret they never tell the owners about those lovely Cirri - you pull the chute, you total the airplane right there and then, and there's no guarantee you're going to survive once the parachute is deployed.  But they need that parachute for more than the reasons you know about; the sink rate on an engine out is about as bad as it gets.  It comes down well, and if the engine poops out, you might as well be flying the Space Shuttle, because that's the kind of sink rate this thing has.  The glide ratio is horrible, I think it's about 8:1.  Another good reason why they have that parachute.

Oh good grief.  Everyone that has pulled the chute inside the parameters has lived.  Everyone.  And some of them that pulled outside of the parameters have lived too.  I forget the glide ratio, but the glide range is ~1.6 nm per 1,000'.

No, the plane is not a brick when the power is pulled.  You want that excitement put the gear and flaps down on an Piper Arrow (like you'd be on the downwind) and pull the power to idle.  It's an express elevator dooooooooown!     A CFI had me do that one time.  Holey moley!  He said if you lose the engine put the gear back up until you need to lower it again to land.  Glad I did that on purpose to see what happened instead of having to react to an actual engine out without knowing it.

I've pulled the power to idle (yes that's a little different than a dead engine) and glided fine in a Cirrus.  CFI had us do in the transition training and we made the runway from quite a ways away due to a good tailwind; it was outside of the no wind glide range.  I told him I thought we could make that airport with the tailwind, but if we couldn't there were fields between us and we could "pull" the chute over them.  We made the runway.

13 hours ago, Mooney217RN said:

 

[KB4]

14 hours ago, Mooney217RN said:

But they need that parachute for more than the reasons you know about; the sink rate on an engine out is about as bad as it gets.

Correct me if I am wrong. The chute was required because it failed to recover from spins and thus couldn’t get certification without a parachute.

 

I agree, It’s marketing and fleet age—Cirrus Never mentions the spin characteristics only safety from their CAPS system and as you said ppl can transition or primary students can easily train in a SR20 /22 with glass... harder to find Mooney schools, and if you do the panel is likely original and the gear isn’t welded in down position

[KLRDMD]

6 minutes ago, Wayne Cease said:

One of the big bonuses of the side stick is no yoke in front of you, and more importantly your passenger.  It really opens up the space in the cabin.  Passengers really like not having the yoke in front of them; non pilot passengers that is.  Some feel if they touch the yoke the plane might fall out of the sky.    I fly Angel Flight missions and some of them have never been off the ground before.

Cirrus was really innovative in removing the yoke from in front of the right seat passenger. Oh wait, Beech did that in 1947.

[Mooney217RN]

7 minutes ago, Wayne Cease said:

Everyone that has pulled the chute inside the parameters has lived

Wrong.  There have been fatalities and severe injuries from the impact.  I want to say that there was one earlier this year in San Diego with fatalities.  Could be wrong about that, but I vaguely recall it.

[Mooney217RN]

12 minutes ago, Wayne Cease said:

Sorry, but the climb rate is pretty much the same between the two.

The climb rate on my Ovation 3GX is far better than the Cirrus.  The cruise speed on the Ovation is around 190+ the Cirrus is 175.  I flew my Ovation Thursday morning, the Cirrus that evening.  I think I know the diffference.

[ZuluZulu]

24 minutes ago, MooneyMartian9 said:

Correct me if I am wrong. The chute was required because it failed to recover from spins and thus couldn’t get certification without a parachute.

If I recall correctly, you have the sequence backwards. They’d already decided to have a parachute to begin with and rather than undergo costly spin training, they convinced the FAA that spin testing would not be necessary thanks to the parachute. 

[MRussell]

28 minutes ago, Mooney217RN said:

Wrong.  There have been fatalities and severe injuries from the impact.  I want to say that there was one earlier this year in San Diego with fatalities.  Could be wrong about that, but I vaguely recall it.

No fatalities have occurred in the SR20/22 after a chute deployment within recommended parameters. Also no post-impact fires. 

[MRussell]

30 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

Cirrus was really innovative in removing the yoke from in front of the right seat passenger. Oh wait, Beech did that in 1947.

Cirrus moved it, but didn’t REmove it. There’s a difference. 

[MRussell]

15 hours ago, Mooney217RN said:

If Mooney wants to compete with Cirrus, they need to go back to manufacturing the 201 or the 252 Encore, better the ergonomics and market the line with enthusiasm.  You can transition into a 201 or Encore fairly easily in my opinion once you have a few hundred hours of experience.  To me, having flown both as recently as yesterday, the differences are glaring, and overcoming the shortcomings on the Mooney line are easily achieved.  Mooney Aircraft sell themselves, once you get into the cockpit and fly them.  And therein lies the problem, there's nobody committed at Mooney who is pushing the product line out to the public.

This is a very fascinating and thought provoking paragraph which I really enjoyed. I think the earlier poster who said you can’t compete with a short body Mooney today is right. But could you do a long body with smaller engines both NA and turbo? Probably. Could you widen the M20 body to compete with Bonanza and Cirrus packaging? My first guess is no, because you’d sacrifice the speed that distinguishes Mooney, yes even if it’s 12 minutes on a 500nm trip. Or you could take the current M20, widen it 5” (maybe not the whole 7”) using a full composite skin that hides all-new chute tethers and gives elbow room, and completely replace the dashboard/interior with a modern design (just steal from the car biz). But we’re talking hundreds of millions of engineering costs, and Mooney is broke, and then you’d still have a 4-seater most likely. The target demo often has 3 kids, not 2, as Diamond, Cirrus, and long ago Beech, recognize. 

But for 1 dude rocketing from point A to B on business or whatever, occasionally with a +1, nothing beats an M20. 

[Shadrach]

37 minutes ago, MRussell said:

This is a very fascinating and thought provoking paragraph which I really enjoyed. I think the earlier poster who said you can’t compete with a short body Mooney today is right. But could you do a long body with smaller engines both NA and turbo? Probably. Could you widen the M20 body to compete with Bonanza and Cirrus packaging? My first guess is no, because you’d sacrifice the speed that distinguishes Mooney, yes even if it’s 12 minutes on a 500nm trip. Or you could take the current M20, widen it 5” (maybe not the whole 7”) using a full composite skin that hides all-new chute tethers and gives elbow room, and completely replace the dashboard/interior with a modern design (just steal from the car biz). But we’re talking hundreds of millions of engineering costs, and Mooney is broke, and then you’d still have a 4-seater most likely. The target demo often has 3 kids, not 2, as Diamond, Cirrus, and long ago Beech, recognize. 

But for 1 dude rocketing from point A to B on business or whatever, occasionally with a +1, nothing beats an M20. 

I think a TN’d and intercooled mid body with the 2900lb MGW with special attention given to weight, ergonomics and all the aero clean ups that made the Acclaim faster would be a world beater. Essentially a high compression, TN’d 252 but lighter and cleaner. 1200ish of useful in a plane that burns 10-11gph and has real speed an altitude capability. The Mid bodies have more than reasonable room for 4 adults and baggage. My 50+year old F manages 1060 of useful at 2740. Mooney should be able to refine that further. Modern avionics weigh less not more. 

[KLRDMD]

3 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

Cirrus was really innovative in removing the yoke from in front of the right seat passenger. Oh wait, Beech did that in 1947.

 

2 hours ago, MRussell said:

Cirrus moved it, but didn’t REmove it. There’s a difference. 

It is not removed in the Bonanza. It takes about two seconds to swap the yoke from left to right, or back.

[ArtVandelay]

No fatalities have occurred in the SR20/22 after a chute deployment within recommended parameters. Also no post-impact fires. 

You were saying...

Tom

[Mooney217RN]

3 hours ago, Wayne Cease said:

Oh good grief.  Everyone that has pulled the chute inside the parameters has lived.  Everyone. 

Like this family?

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066691/Plane-Crash-near-Chicagos-Crystal-Lake-kills-businessman-Ray-Harris-2-daughters.html

[jetdriven]

1 hour ago, ArtVandelay said:

 

You were saying...

 

 

 

 

 

Tom

 

That’s not a post-impact Fire.  It’s a fire as a result of a mid-air Collision.