Mooney or Cirrus?

[MRussell]

23 minutes ago, Mooney217RN said:

My point exactly from the original post.  I was merely trying to elaborate why Cirrus outsells Mooney, which is clearly marketing, or a lack thereof.

I’m sorry, but it’s the product even more than it’s the work of the marketing agency. 

[HXG]

16 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

SO it is not fair to conclude that a new mooney is near the price of a turbo prop as differentiating cirrus.

I agree. I think the new Cirrus is pushing $900,00. Spending that much on either is outrageous to me living in a 2 professional income household. However, I certainly don’t fault anyone for spending their money as they like.  I was talking used turboprop. I consider older Mooneys to generally be better value than older Cirrus planes. But, like many Mooney owners, I worry about the future of Mooney. 

Edited August 4, 2019 by HXG

[irishpilot]

Your first paragraph conclusion.  I agree and interpreting my way (forgive me if it is not in perfect harmony - I don't mean to put words in your mouth - these are my words).  Both models have their incidents and NTSB reports.  The right way to judge is the over all statistics.  What is the crash rate and what is the fatality rate, per 100,000hrs of exposure.  Cirrus used to be worse but they have improved. Mooney has held steady I believe but is therefor now worse than Cirrus (since cirrus improves) but not by a ton, and it is inline with other high performance singles.  But there is no logic-ing this out about parachutes and I agree with what you said - the idea of them is attractive but perhaps exaggerated.  One can still get hurt in a cirrus.

This is where Cirrus and COPA, their pilot community got together and turned the safety rate around. As a community they analyazed that most Cirrus fatalities were related to the pilot not pulling the Chute. They've since had many fly-ins, clinics, and confererences to educate. This is a GA success story. My hat is off to both Cirrus and COPA.

We can do the same for our community. Instead of focusing on CAPS, we need to focus on recurrent training, emergency procedures (especially engine out), and avionics differences. Remember, the top 3 GA killers are loss of control, CFIT, and engine failure. These apply apply to both Cirrus and Mooney.

Fly Safe,
Safety Forum Mod

[CaptainAB]

The Last Expo I went to with a static display that had Mooney, well it was daunting. Not just Cirrus but the bulk of the competition shows even the Mooney to be a legacy airframe . Diamond, Tecnam, and Cirrus, not to mention the Honda Jet, Cirrus Jet. Piper even shows off their newer airframes well, and of course they have the niche of the only pressurized cabin class piston. Which is important because if I were to be able to afford a new ultra acclaim, I think I would in reality end up with a m350 or a used mirage.

I love speed and I believe in the old adage to buy the fastest airframe you can afford, but affordability can be a tricky question in aviation, like anything else I suppose. It’s a complicated question for each pilot to ad themselves based on skill, ability, finances and mission. Like can you afford to die and possibly kill others because you were to cheap to buy a safer / more capable plane. I moved up from a g2 SR22 to a g5 sr22 recently because I needed the fifth seat and a 300lb useful load boost. (G5, but also ditched de ice)

That dollar cost isn’t worth it except I can now legally and safely fly my family (I was flying with the girls sharing a seat belt). I also use my plane for a few business ventures, some require BRS. 

And the G5 seats are super comfortable and make a 4:30 leg pleasant . 

Also my insurance over the past few years  been 250 per month cheaper on the same price airframes (ovation vs sr22). Which actually flipped from when Cirrus first came to the market.

Its a tough spot for Mooney to be in. A lot of great airframes haven’t made it. Most recently the Columbia/Cessna 400. Which early on was widely regarded and I think even outsold the SR22.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, irishpilot said:

 

 

This is where Cirrus and COPA, their pilot community got together and turned the safety rate around. As a community they analyazed that most Cirrus fatalities were related to the pilot not pulling the Chute. They've since had many fly-ins, clinics, and confererences to educate. This is a GA success story. My hat is off to both Cirrus and COPA.

We can do the same for our community. Instead of focusing on CAPS, we need to focus on recurrent training, emergency procedures (especially engine out), and avionics differences. Remember, the top 3 GA killers are loss of control, CFIT, and engine failure. These apply apply to both Cirrus and Mooney.

Fly Safe,
Safety Forum Mod
 

 

COPA is a good organization.  We do pretty well here with Mooneyspace and also our safety foundations.

Back before I was on here, 10 years ago, I read that those Cirrus owners who were members of COPA enjoyed 4 times better safety statistics than the Cirrus population of those who were not. (Conditional probabilities).  So I figured, heck I better join up with Mooneyspace and become thoughtfully involved.  Better understanding of the machine, and the process of flying, weather, etc.  Essentially continued education.  Think about what I am doing.  Learn from my fellow aviators.  Group-think toward better decision making. no one has collected statistics but I would like to think that we here on Mooneyspace also enjoy better statistics.

Engine out...ugh.  Reminds me of my own scary experience...some will recall that just over a year and a half ago I had an engine out experience.  At 16k - knock on wood, I found an airport and made a successful and soft as could be dead stick landing on a runway.  In part it was a lot of luck, but perhaps in part having thought about "what if" for so long, I didn't hesitate much and did right away all the. things one is supposed to do in that situation.  Including in the first place flying high.  Including thinking about where are my airports or alternatives all the time enroute just in case, etc.  But knock on wood, I won't say that there is some luck too.  Anyway I think that one also chalks up in part to a success for the community.

[RogueOne]

Neither.  If I made enough money that I could afford either model new I would save for a Turbine Meridian USED.  The amount of money to purchase these airplanes is kooky and unjustifiable to me.

I have zero interest in a Cirrus.  I have zero interest in a long body Mooney when there are Mid Body Mooney’s in large quantity available.  There are NO used airframes under $150k that I would rather own than a Mooney.

It is clearly obvious as stated to the point of ridiculous (I think the nail is pounded through the wood) on why Cirrus outsells Mooney.  That people on a Mooney enthusiast site go on and on about the reasons is just kooky to me.

Perhaps Cirrus should have a link for prospective buyers to this thread.  “See, even Mooney owners pine for a chute, our interior and our room for five.

This has been a great read.  Sorry to all you Mooney guys that you can not afford a Cirrus with all they offer.  I am sure Mooney will get right on making changes that will result in them thrashing Cirrus in the single engine piston marketplace.  OR NOT.

[aviatoreb]

59 minutes ago, CaptainAB said:

Piper even shows off their newer airframes well, and of course they have the niche of the only pressurized cabin class piston. Which is important because if I were to be able to afford a new ultra acclaim, I think I would in r....

And the G5 seats are super comfortable and make a 4:30 leg pleasant . 

Also my insurance over the past few years  been 250 per month cheaper on the same price airframes (ovation vs sr22). Which actually flipped from when 

I think we on this forum as a group are pre disposed to buy used vs new at a given price point.  Thank goodness someone is buying new.  You said at $800 k you would rather buy a used piper piston pressurized. But a new piper piston pressurized costs more / then at that price point ... I would buy turbine rather than a new piston piper... etc.

interesting you say the cirrus is costing you less to insure at same price point.  About 3 years ago as a consideration I asked my long standing broker (12 years now) to quote for me a cirrus at the same price point and initially they wanted to decline to do it at all but then they said that because I was a long running customer they would / I can’t remember how much but it was a lot more.

if I wanted a cirrus I would sell my mooney and buy a cirrus.  I think it is nice but a less nice airplane from a pilots perspective. And slower and less unique. And from a safety perspective now that they have gotten their act together their safety statistics are a little better but not lots better.  That’s a bulk statement parachute included. And in both models individual choices of a given pilot owner and behaviors dramatically cause these conditional probabilities to vary in ways that we know it’s true but there is no useful data to actually compute how much.

seats.  My new seats with memore foam, lumbar support, I extended the bottom cushion length for my long legs, perforated leather are superbly comfortable - and the leg length of a Mooney is much better than any other small airplane, incl cirrus, for this tall pilot.

E

Edited August 4, 2019 by aviatoreb

[irishpilot]

Engine out...ugh.  Reminds me of my own scary experience...some will recall that just over a year and a half ago I had an engine out experience.  At 16k - knock on wood, I found an airport and made a successful and soft as could be dead stick landing on a runway.  In part it was a lot of luck, but perhaps in part having thought about "what if" for so long, I didn't hesitate much and did right away all the. things one is supposed to do in that situation.  Including in the first place flying high.  Including thinking about where are my airports or alternatives all the time enroute just in case, etc.  But knock on wood, I won't say that there is some luck too.  Anyway I think that one also chalks up in part to a success for the community.

Wow! I'm glad it went the way it did and that you handled that EP well. This is a perfect illustration that when we fly at night or IMC, we need to know our options and abilities to handle an engine failure. Dead-sticking is hard enough VMC let alone with wx.

If I may ask, after your incident, did it change your risk calculus and/or choice of plane?


Fly Safe,
Safety Forum Mod

[Austintatious]

On 8/3/2019 at 10:38 AM, Mooney217RN said:

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.

gonna agree with this... MY rocket cruise climbs at 110-120 at 1000 FPM until I want to stop climbing

the Cirrus I flew in climbed at around 90 at 800 FPM decreasing as altitude was gained (same HP but NA)

[Austintatious]

9 hours ago, irishpilot said:

. Remember, the top 3 GA killers are loss of control, CFIT, and engine failure. These apply apply to both Cirrus and Mooney.

Fly Safe,
Safety Forum Mod
 

Good training and airman ship can pretty much eliminate 2 of those.  Engine failure is always a possibility ( and I have experienced it several times) and I fly accordingly.  An engine failure at altitude does not worry me at all, especially in a mooney with a fully feathering prop (of course I am a glider pilot!) Its the low level engine failure that is the real danger.  being below 500 feet when it fails is not a good place to be, with or without a chute.

My .02 therefore on the parachute is that it is a false sense of security. 

Engine failure?  CAPS Not available until 500 feet (iirc) so engine failure short of that it is useless.  At altitude, I'm not so sure I would even choose to pull a chute if my mooney had one.

Loss of control?  sure if it isnt a low level spin entry.  But LOC can be eliminated with proper training and airmanship, which BTW should be promoted to ALL pilots, even those flying a CAPS system.

Fire in flight?  No, I want to get on the ground NOW and can do that a lot faster in a dirty dive than under a chute

Air frame failure in flight?  Ok, got me there... but how many planes when operated within limits break up in flight?

Mid-air collisions (which result in an un-flyable aircraft) ?  Certainly better than nothing in this scenario, I will admit.  however with proper vigilance and knowing that other goofballs are in the same air with me, I feel I can mitigate that risk ( side note, when I fly my glider I wear a parachute or dont join any gaggles if I dont)

Electric system failure?  This is why we have backup instruments (my G5 has its own 45 min battery built in)

Iced up airplane?  Sure, but this gets back to airman ship.

The most compelling reason, Pilot incapacitation.   I have been incapacitated during a flight due to a scratched cornea.  If I had been alone I would have been in serious serious trouble ( BTW I highly recommend that everyone keep a bottle of lubricating eye-drops in their flight bag, Lubricating only, not red eye relief)  So I can see where if a pilot was incapacitated, the remaining passengers would likely fair better by just pulling the throttle back and pulling the chute.   I plan to mitigate this by getting my wife into a spouses flying course soon.

 

 

When I really think about what scenarios I could find myself in where I would want a chute, I just don't find myself being all that desiring of one.  They seem to be a safety measure in place MOSTLY for poor flying abilities / airmanship.   If the air frame I was interested in happens to have one, then I would be OK with it and its associated cost.

That being said, to a novice pilot/owner, I am sure they sound absolutely amazing when a sales person talks about them.  I just don't find them all that compelling.

[RogueOne]

 

Not many options with a fixed gear...

[pwnel]

1 hour ago, RogueOne said:

 

Not many options with a fixed gear...

OK, but help me out here. According to news reports he had "sudden loss of oil pressure".  Would you pull CAPS for that?  I've had that too - my Mooney gauges was faulty (those pesky grounding straps).  I know the Cirrus POH says pull the chute at the first sign of any trouble but in my scenario I'd have written off the plane and y'all would have higher insurance next year...

Edited August 5, 2019 by pwnel

[carusoam]

He mentions the challenge early on in the video...  she blew oil... lost oil pressure... and some other explanations...

+1 for spot satellite tracker...

Best regards,

-a-

[jetdriven]

1 hour ago, RogueOne said:

 

Not many options with a fixed gear...

That guy would be dead were not for the CAPS parachute. Let’s admit this for what it really is. Ive flown over Ontario before in my airplane for hundreds of miles and I knew that if the engine quit I would also likely be dead too. Pay to play,  but technology saves lives. There is an active anti-intellectualism that somehow the BRS parachutes are somehow bad.  I just don’t get it. 

[NJMac]

Interesting point earlier was made. The secondary market for new planes.

Is this something the manufacturer influences and if not, how can Mooney attempt to do so?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Andy95W]

 

44 minutes ago, pwnel said:

OK, but help me out here. According to news reports he had "sudden loss of oil pressure".  Would you pull CAPS for that?  I've had that too - my Mooney gauges was faulty (those pesky grounding straps).  I know the Cirrus POH says pull the chute at the first sign of any trouble but in my scenario I'd have written off the plane and y'all would have higher insurance next year...

Awfully clean airplane for one that "blew oil".

[carusoam]

Awfully whole human for occupying the same space at the same time, as a tree...

pilot mentions strong fuel aroma... (possible breached tanks as well as cockpit...)

Did that tree come up through the floor?

Best regards,

-a-

[pwnel]

11 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

 

Awfully clean airplane for one that "blew oil".

Exactly.  

I'm not arguing that BRS doesn't save lives in some situations - as explained by @Austintatious above.  My contention is one of potential over-use for which insurance (and rescue services) foots the bill.  At least you get to shoot a viral YouTube video when it happens ...

Edited August 5, 2019 by pwnel

[jetdriven]

9 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

 

Awfully clean airplane for one that "blew oil".

I missed the part of the video that showed the bottom of the plane or the dipstick?

[jetdriven]

5 minutes ago, pwnel said:

Exactly.  

I'm not arguing that BRS doesn't save lives in some situations.  My contention is one of potential over-use for which insurance (and rescue services) foots the bill.  At least you get to shoot a viral YouTube video when it happens ...

you could total out 5-10 of these planes for every fatality insurance lawsuit. Are you somehow advocating property over human life? Because really Stuff is  stuff. Human life is something different right?  Do you want to establish some kind a ratio of airframes versus lives ?

[pwnel]

9 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

I missed the part of the video that showed the bottom of the plane or the dipstick?

I missed the part where the pilot saw the bottom of the plane and the dipstick before pulling the chute 

[RogueOne]

54 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

That guy would be dead were not for the CAPS parachute. Let’s admit this for what it really is. Ive flown over Ontario before in my airplane for hundreds of miles and I knew that if the engine quit I would also likely be dead too. Pay to play,  but technology saves lives. There is an active anti-intellectualism that somehow the BRS parachutes are somehow bad.  I just don’t get it. 

Really not Byron.  I don’t fly in Canada and with my Mission to Northern Wisconsin I have lakes literally everywhere to land on.  With a Mooney I am NOT worried about flipping on impact.  There was a HUGE body of water in this guys scenario.  You can clearly see it when he is lifted out.  This guy would NOT be dead if he had been in a Mooney.  Landing on water in a fixed gear plane?  Not my worry.  I literally DO NOT WANT A CIRRUS over a Mooney.  You do apparently.  Start selling some crap and move “up”.

[Guest]

Anyone here actually witness and airplane going in?  

I have, I watched from my airplane as my best friend went in after and engine failure in northern Ontario, rocks lakes and trees as far as you could see.   He barely made it over a small lake into the only piece of pasture for miles, he came to a stop inverted and trapped in the cockpit.  Had he gone into the lake he would have drown.  

A BRS system would have been a real good idea that day.

Clarence

[RogueOne]

5 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Anyone here actually witness and airplane going in?  

I have, I watched from my airplane as my best friend went in after and engine failure in northern Ontario, rocks lakes and trees as far as you could see.   He barely made it over a small lake into the only piece of pasture for miles, he came to a stop inverted and trapped in the cockpit.  Had he gone into the lake he would have drown.  

A BRS system would have been a real good idea that day.

Clarence

Can’t he swim?

[Guest]

Just now, RogueOne said:

Can’t he swim?

He can swim, but it’s hard to do if you’re trapped in the cockpit upside down under water.

Clarence