Why Not...SR20 VS M20J

[aviatoreb]

Forget SR20 vs Mooney.  Forget Ford vs Ferrari.

 

[Shadrach]

49 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Both designs are superior to the Mooney Electric Gear system, in the event of a failure in a Comanche you disconnect the transmission from the mechanical system and lower the gear.  If the spring or gears fail in a Mooney transmission, there is no way to disconnect the transmission and lower the landing gear and a gear up landing will result.

Clarence

Your last post was short a few words...all better now. 

[aviatoreb]

Yesterday KHFD - KPTD direct there was an SR22 at exactly the same altitude in almost exactly the same ground track but 4 miles ahead - they were going to Lake George.  I was overtaking and that pilot got on radio and asked ATC if there was an airplane behind him - ATC said yes its a Mooney going a little faster but not to worry h is ground track was just a few degrees different and there would be no problem.  I over took a few minutes later...

It was a 2017 normally aspirated Sr22.  ADSB is neat since it shows you the tail number and at 6500 ft I had cell reception to look up the identity of the tail number.

I waved as I past but I am not sure they saw me waving....3 miles to my right at that point.  We were at 6500 ft (huge head winds and even more so up high so I stayed low).  Down low is where the Sr22 should best shine.  

So an almost new SR22 vs my old bird....

Edited December 1, 2019 by aviatoreb

[aviatoreb]

On 11/28/2019 at 10:13 PM, jetdriven said:

lightning is perhaps a distant 4th or 5th in the list of hazards of thunderstorms. The Cirrus has a certified system of mesh to conduct lightning.  Not a concern. 

My previous plane was a Diamond DA40 that also had a metal mesh embedded in the carbon wings to wick electricity.  Problem was they used hardware that stuck out and acted as a corrosion conduit that causes the metal mesh to start to corrode.  Then bubbles started forming in the wing.  I was very mad - my carbon fiber wing was corroding?!!!  Which is MUCH more expensive to fix than just replacing a metal part.  The process is called "scarfing" where you scrape back material and replace with more carbon fiber.  After that I was done with carbon fiber airplanes.  I had caught it early so it wasn't so expensive.  I sold that airplane and bought a mooney.  Then ... I see that airplane in a flight school suffered a hard landing and was sold for scrap...on ebay no less - which is a sad way to see one's old airplane.  No one was hurt though.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Your last post was short a few words...all better now. 

Thanks for correcting my oversight!  Did I mention that the Comanche also has a Johnson Bar?  The best of both worlds.

Clarence

[Brian E.]

9 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Thanks for correcting my oversight!  Did I mention that the Comanche also has a Johnson Bar?  The best of both worlds.

Clarence

Whhaaaattttt?  Shows what I know about GA.  If the Comanche's tail faced the right way it would be perfect   

[Browncbr1]

11 hours ago, flyer338 said:

There is a big difference in the control feel of the ‘65 C model I used to own and the ‘83 J I just bought. The C was much more nimble feeling.

As to buying a pimped out twin, buying gas for or two engines does not pencil out for me, no matter how cheap to buy.  I understand Comanches have gear motor issues that make the Mooney back spring issues seem like a blessing. I do not know if they apply to Twin Comanches.

If you compare a twin Comanche to the cirrus, the fuel burn is the same.   And you can overhaul two bulletproof Io-320 engines for the same or less than the big 6 cylinder.   

You do need to keep the gear properly maintained and don’t push full rudder when retracting.  

[aviatoreb]

7 minutes ago, Browncbr1 said:

If you compare a twin Comanche to the cirrus, the fuel burn is the same.   And you can overhaul two bulletproof Io-320 engines for the same or less than the big 6 cylinder.   

For the reasons you said - I always figured the Twinkie was a sleeper in the GA market.  Fuel wise a pair of IO320's isn't that hungry either and just a tad more than an IO550.  And quite decent speed from a Twinkie.  A shame that hurricane and they stopped making them.  

Not to revive a twin vs single debate but imagine if Mooney had gone ahead with that test they did and had developed a twin version of the M20 with a pair of IO320s.  I bet it would have been a tad faster than the Twinkie.  And otherwise a familiar M20 but with a pair of engines on the wings, and faster by a tad than a M20J, and a good load hauler.

[Yetti]

I think the wacky leading edge causes a nasty break when getting too slow.   There have been 4 Cirri around me that have stall spun in.  Coupled with the side stick so there is no reference of straight and level, I think it has demised several pilots.

[Tony Starke]

7 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Not to revive a twin vs single debate but imagine if Mooney had gone ahead with that test they did and had developed a twin version of the M20 with a pair of IO320s.  I bet it would have been a tad faster than the Twinkie.  And otherwise a familiar M20 but with a pair of engines on the wings, and faster by a tad than a M20J, and a good load hauler.

...or triples. Need more speed? Add an engine.

[aviatoreb]

56 minutes ago, Tony Starke said:

...or triples. Need more speed? Add an engine.

Oh my.

I would almost like it but...And fixed gear on that thing?!  Its a monstrosity!

Its as if O320's came in a 6-pack and they wanted to pull them out of their plastic pill box packaging and hang them wherever they found a spot.

Edited December 1, 2019 by aviatoreb

[flyer338]

3 hours ago, M20Doc said:

You may be misinformed regarding Comanche gear transmissions.  They come in 2 models, Dura and Dukes, the Dura is the weaker of the designs.  The forward bearing is known to come loose, but can be bonded with any number of Loctite products.  Dukes is the preferred model but is more rare.  Both single and twin Comanche use the same transmission.

Matt Kurke of Comanche Gear in Florida machines new housing from stronger materials and copies the Dukes bearing retainer.

Both designs are superior to the Mooney system, in the event of a failure in a Comanche you disconnect the transmission from the mechanical system and lower the gear.  If the spring or gears fail in a Mooney transmission, there is no way to disconnect the transmission and lower the landing gear and a gear up landing will result.

Clarence

It seems that I was misinformed. Thank you for getting me the correct information. 

[KLRDMD]

On 11/28/2019 at 10:43 PM, DXB said:

This is a vast exaggeration , though admittedly Bonanzas do seem to have an edge on control feel in my very brief experience.  But with essentially all my time in a Mooney, the V36 Bo seating position felt a little odd - more like sitting at a kitchen table than in a cockpit.

 

There's no such thing as a V36 Bonanza. There are various flavors of 36s, A36s and B36s. Then there are the 35 series which are the VTails. Not all 35s are V35s, mine is an S35 and there are other letters depending on year. With well over 1,000 hours in Mooneys and about half that in Beech products, there is no comparison whatsoever in handling characteristics. The crisp, nimble, effortless Bonanza absolutely blows away the truck-like, heavy Mooney. There is no comparison whatsoever. The Bonanza is much more comfortable with tremendously better visibility. But the Mooney is more efficient. All airplanes are trade offs.

[DXB]

2 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Thanks for correcting my oversight!  Did I mention that the Comanche also has a Johnson Bar?  The best of both worlds.

Clarence

It's a little skinny and small compared to a Vintage Mooney Johnson.  I guess there are those who say size doesn't matter. 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, DXB said:

It's a little skinny and small compared to a Vintage Mooney Johnson.  I guess there are those who say size doesn't matter. 

What I loose in Johnson bar size is made up for in engine displacement!!

[DXB]

2 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

What I loose in Johnson bar size is made up for in engine displacement!!

So then you're compensating for a small Johnson bar using an IO-720-A1A ?  

[chrixxer]

On 11/28/2019 at 3:25 PM, INA201 said:

This article sums up the Cirrus pretty thoroughly.   

https://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20

 

1.  Mooney Cruises a little faster

2.  Mooney is more efficient

3.  Repairs are easier and less expensive on the Mooney.

4.  Chute repack may be comparable to tanks leaking in the Mooney

5. Insurance?

6.  Maintenance costs?

7.  Useful load is better in the Mooney

5.  The Continental will require a top before a Lycosaur and a more expensive overhaul cost.

6.  Cirrus has the chute

7.  Cirrus is a little roomier and ergonomic on the inside.

8.  Mooney gear retracts, looks better when flying

9.  Longevity of the airframe is proven for decades in the Mooney

10.  The Mooney is depreciated out the Cirrus may still drop some in value

12.  Factory support?

13.  It is a tough competitor but who's to say that the Cirrus doesn't have a ton of squawks while the Mooney is clean.  It is hard to make a real accurate comparison by an ad alone.   

We need more data

 

SR20s climb like dogs. Gross weight, ~500 fpm sea level, dropping to about 300 fpm by 2000' on a 20°C day. BTDT.

[INA201]

2 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

Took a guy flying in my J the other day (normally instructs on SR20 thingies).  We were told to climb to FL060, so i adjusted the AP up at 500 fpm .  He looked at me aghast and laughed "saying thats ALL you have to do, not change power setting or anything"  "nope just adjust up, and up she goes, occasionally adding Mp as the air gets thinner, and a little bit of lean, but otherwise nothing"  "I fly the wrong plane, I want one of these"

QED.

Heck,  you should’ve adjusted the AP to 800 just for kicks. Any comments on True Airspeed for comparison?

[Alan Fox]

23 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Yesterday KHFD - KPTD direct there was an SR22 at exactly the same altitude in almost exactly the same ground track but 4 miles ahead - they were going to Lake George.  I was overtaking and that pilot got on radio and asked ATC if there was an airplane behind him - ATC said yes its a Mooney going a little faster but not to worry h is ground track was just a few degrees different and there would be no problem.  I over took a few minutes later...

It was a 2017 normally aspirated Sr22.  ADSB is neat since it shows you the tail number and at 6500 ft I had cell reception to look up the identity of the tail number.

I waved as I past but I am not sure they saw me waving....3 miles to my right at that point.  We were at 6500 ft (huge head winds and even more so up high so I stayed low).  Down low is where the Sr22 should best shine.  

So an almost new SR22 vs my old bird....

Comparing a NA Cirrus , to a turbocharged Rocket converted J , Is no comparison at all , 

[Alan Fox]

21 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

There's no such thing as a V36 Bonanza. There are various flavors of 36s, A36s and B36s. Then there are the 35 series which are the VTails. Not all 35s are V35s, mine is an S35 and there are other letters depending on year. With well over 1,000 hours in Mooneys and about half that in Beech products, there is no comparison whatsoever in handling characteristics. The crisp, nimble, effortless Bonanza absolutely blows away the truck-like, heavy Mooney. There is no comparison whatsoever. The Bonanza is much more comfortable with tremendously better visibility. But the Mooney is more efficient. All airplanes are trade offs.

Be careful , you might get labeled a "Mooney Trasher" like me.....  PS I love my S 35.... and my Mooneys 

[aviatoreb]

26 minutes ago, Alan Fox said:

Comparing a NA Cirrus , to a turbocharged Rocket converted J , Is no comparison at all , 

Isn't the NA Cirrus supposed to be at its best at 6500 ft and a Rocket not at its best?  I think the engine is a bit better in the Cirrus at that altitude certainly for fuel burn, and the only advantage I had was hiding my gear.

...but that was the trip home into head winds because of fierce winds.  The trip there...ok I had the advantage - I hit 250kts at 13000.

[skykrawler]

On 12/1/2019 at 8:42 AM, Yetti said:

I think the wacky leading edge causes a nasty break when getting too slow.   There have been 4 Cirri around me that have stall spun in.  Coupled with the side stick so there is no reference of straight and level, I think it has demised several pilots.

The cuffed wing design makes the stall break less abrupt and reduces the spin tendency.

http://whycirrus.com/engineering/NASA Stall Spin Paper from 1970s (WhyCirrus).pdf

Now how the pilots respond when they do stall is a different question.

[Seth]

I have signifcant time in Mooney's and Cirrus's now.  For most missions I prefer Mooney's.  Just my person preference.

Just like the M20J mid body Mooney matches so well with the IO360 (and My Missile has a hot rod IO550 on it), the best engine for the Cirrus is not the 200HP, it's the IO550 as well.  

The SR20 does not climb as well.  The SR22 with the bigger engine climbs so much better, and it's the right engine for the Cirrus airframe.  The SR20 works, but the SR22 is a much better plane simply because of the better engine to help with climb.

Wing wise, the SR20/22 wing is designed with two separate airfolis with the cuffs on the outer edge stalling slightly slower than the inboard section of the wing (Similar to F-18's).  For my part 135 training in the SR22 I had to push the plane to it's edge and really figure out when it would stall, how bad the stall got, etc.  You have to really mess up to spin stall a Cirrus.  It happens, but the warning signs are blaring at you (similar to a Mooney if you get to slow, it gets mushy, and you know it).  I was in a deep stall when training in a Cirrus holding it as best I could until I couldn't.  Then you drop the nose, power up, recover.  It's not meant to be a low/slow airplane.  But you really have to not be listening or lack the pilotage skill to stall spin one (don't get too slow).  

Cirrus aircraft lack elevator pitch control once you get below about 78 knots.  Important to know when landing/flaring.  When in a Mooney and you lose your engine in the pattern, trim, fly a smaller pattern, glide it in.  Engine out practice in a Cirrus in the pattern (if high enough, you are supposed to pull the parachute, no joke), you have to dive for the numbers just like a Piper Arrow - they don't glide well - and sacrifice altitude to keep the airspeed up so you can flare at the end.

The Cirrus has a much more comfortable cabin for passengers - I personally like the seat in my Mooney more (I get uncomfortable in the Cirrus after a few hours).  The side sticks I don't love.  The spring feedback is not the same as real feedback in our Mooney pushrods or even cable controls.  Cirrus's have pushrods, but it's the springs that make the feel seem odd.  It can get tiring when hand flying.  

Trim - Most singles have a trim wheel, Cirrus aircraft do not.  All trim is electric.  There's no fine movement with it, so it's hard to get perfect straight and level.  A trick is to engage the autopilot, then disengage so it's trimmed perfect vs just a bit off.  I'd rather have a trim wheel to manually get it just right.

If going Cirrus, get the SR22 - it's the right engine for the airframe.  If you missing doesn't need the climb performance nor speed of the SR22, and you are looking for a slightly roomier cabin for passengers, side-stick, parachute, and fixed gear for no chance of a gear up, go Cirrus.  Both are airplanes and you can't go wrong.  I love my Mooney.  I see why people like their Cirrus's.

More important, have your spouse sit in both.  If your spouse is into it, it makes your love of flying that much better.  Your spouse assisting in aircraft selection is a big factor.

-Seth

 

 

 

 

 

[Hank]

4 hours ago, Alan Fox said:

Comparing a NA Cirrus , to a turbocharged Rocket converted J , Is no comparison at all , 

It's closer than the thread comparing M20-J to an A-36!

[aviatoreb]

21 minutes ago, Hank said:

It's closer than the thread comparing M20-J to an A-36!

I figured at 6500 ft that the rocket would be at its worst and the NA Cirrus at its best, so it was an interesting place to make the comparison. And that is where I was faster but the least faster I would be.