Would you trade your Mooney for a Cirrus Poll

[RJBrown]

Another similar marketing example.

A Scion X/B and a Kia Soul.

one is junk and the other is a Toyota.

one had no real marketing. The other had a Rat rob a bank during the Super Bowl. 
style vs substance nowadays in America is no competition.

You can buy the Rat car but the Original is out of the market.

‘Style Always wins out over substance, Always.

The Plastic Phantatic Plane has the style to overcome a much better Mooney, but only in the marketplace.

Sad reflection on our society.

[0TreeLemur]

On 4/1/2021 at 12:38 AM, carusoam said:

Flying Clorox bottle wasn’t really close enough, except for its similar appearance...

The answer to the question... is it a plastic plane..?

 

Reminds me of a story.  Once while upgraded to 1st class on Borg airlines, I was seated next to a dead-heading 747 freighter captain.   I asked him what he thought of the A-380.  His reply: "Oh, the flying potato?"

[JohnB]

I wouldn't trade my Mooney for Three Cirrusses.. (or is that Cirri?)

[Guest]

We’re about to import another Cirrus for a customer, the fifth one in two months.  Indeed the market has spoken.

Clarence

[M20F]

I have about 500hrs of SR22 time.  The seats and seatbelts are wildly uncomfortable (and I hate Mooney seats as well, my #1 gripe).  They are also awful to hand fly.  That being said they are really a great airplane. 

[Urs_Wildermuth]

Frankly before I would trade my IFR equipped C model for a Cirrus, I'd go twin. As here in Europe there is the paywall of 1999 kg, I would most likely go for a Seneca II or a Turbo Twin Commanche if I can find one with de-icing.

The Cirrus is a fantastic airplane, no question about it. The market has spoken abundantly clear, it is the only viable travel plane to sell new these days. I would say 80% of this is the shute, the rest is whatever else it has to make it attractive. Ramp appeal, it is large on the ramp, it is relatively comfortable to sit inside and it has that all important shute. For me it is perfectly clear that no SEP traveller which is expecting to carry wife and kids will be able to sell any significant numbers unless it features the shute..

The only Mooneys I'd upgrade to from my C is a J or K. The J has the better range the C lacks and slightly better speed with almost identical cost. The K is useful here in Europe due to the mountains.

I've had the chance to sit in an Acclaim Ultra. For me, the Ultra would not be a plane I'd consider. The payload is absymal, the cabin looks nice but is as tight as any other Mooney and the panel is way too high even for me at 6'2, I can hardly see over the panel when taxiing. Yes, it has a superb performance but if I spend close to 1 million for a new airplane (or half for a recent used one) I'd have to ask myself if for this kind of money, if I stay in the SEP range, I'd not rather go for one with the parashute but very much rather go for a FIKI twin, which I can pick up for 10% of the price of a new Mooney or Cirrus and which gives that safety of the 2nd engine and a comfortable cabin for my family.

Personally I think the J and the C were the two models which made Mooney the hit it was at the time. 180-200 hp, great performance and affordable for the lower income class of pilots. That is why I have a C and why I can afford to have it despite being in an income class where others wonder if they can afford a new bicycle. What I like in the J vs the C is the larger fuel capacity and the speed mods, which gives that magical 1000 NM number in range. They provide 150 kt for the money of a Cherokee 180. That is what I thought made Mooney really great.

When they started to go into the Lamborghini class of airplanes, expensive, huge engines, much worse economy, one can easily choose something else. For me, dumping the J was the reason they went bust over and over again.

So if I'd upgrade it would be either to a J or, with the money needed for a Cirrus or current Mooney, to a twin.

 

 

 

 

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, M20F said:

I have about 500hrs of SR22 time.  The seats and seatbelts are wildly uncomfortable (and I hate Mooney seats as well, my #1 gripe).  They are also awful to hand fly.  That being said they are really a great airplane. 

My Test Pilot Mentor told me that about a Cirrus and it’s why he doesn’t like them, he said they just don’t trim well and to use his word are obviously meant to be auto pilot flown.

I lost two of my friends to an inadvertent IMC in a Cirrus, both very experienced and likely they knew they were out of the window for parachute use.

As a mechanic with a lot of experience with repairing composites in military aircraft, I don’t want anything to do with them, way ,way easier to do sheet metal, and easy equates to way less expensive.

[Schllc]

10 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

My Test Pilot Mentor told me that about a Cirrus and it’s why he doesn’t like them, he said they just don’t trim well and to use his word are obviously meant to be auto pilot flown.

I lost two of my friends to an inadvertent IMC in a Cirrus, both very experienced and likely they knew they were out of the window for parachute use.

As a mechanic with a lot of experience with repairing composites in military aircraft, I don’t want anything to do with them, way ,way easier to do sheet metal, and easy equates to way less expensive.

My concern with carbon fiber is that the modulus of elasticity is almost zero once it’s over stressed. Under design load, and optimum conditions it is absolutely as advertised, but once it’s damaged it tends to fail completely.
I saw many examples of this with bike frames, both in racing them for 10 years, and while in college with our senior projects. An aluminum frame that’s damaged, you finish the race, a carbon tube breaks in the same fashion and you are carrying it home. 
While metals have a large range of strength loss after exceeding tensile, it always retains a large portion of its strength. 
Composite airplanes have been around a while and it’s obviously not a very prevelant problem, but it’s still one I would worry about when buying a used plane composite plane. 
For the cirrus fans reading this, I am NOT denigrating the airplane, and metal planes certainly have their own challenges. I also realize I am in the minority, and probably an anachronism...
When there are a fleet of 70 year old composite planes flying around, I will likely feel different.  Until then I prefer to observe from the sideline. 

[M20F]

19 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

My Test Pilot Mentor told me that about a Cirrus and it’s why he doesn’t like them, he said they just don’t trim well and to use his word are obviously meant to be auto pilot flown.

I lost two of my friends to an inadvertent IMC in a Cirrus, both very experienced and likely they knew they were out of the window for parachute use.

As a mechanic with a lot of experience with repairing composites in military aircraft, I don’t want anything to do with them, way ,way easier to do sheet metal, and easy equates to way less expensive.

They are meant to be flown by autopilot in my book and they have the panic button which will correct just about any unusual attitude (and I have tried some pretty funky ones).  They are with out a doubt a very safe plane, sorry to hear of your loss.  

[aviatoreb]

14 hours ago, Schllc said:

My concern with carbon fiber is that the modulus of elasticity is almost zero once it’s over stressed. Under design load, and optimum conditions it is absolutely as advertised, but once it’s damaged it tends to fail completely.
I saw many examples of this with bike frames, both in racing them for 10 years, and while in college with our senior projects. An aluminum frame that’s damaged, you finish the race, a carbon tube breaks in the same fashion and you are carrying it home. 
While metals have a large range of strength loss after exceeding tensile, it always retains a large portion of its strength. 
Composite airplanes have been around a while and it’s obviously not a very prevelant problem, but it’s still one I would worry about when buying a used plane composite plane. 
For the cirrus fans reading this, I am NOT denigrating the airplane, and metal planes certainly have their own challenges. I also realize I am in the minority, and probably an anachronism...
When there are a fleet of 70 year old composite planes flying around, I will likely feel different.  Until then I prefer to observe from the sideline. 

I don't know about AL in airplanes, in terms of how often it fails catastrophically but it certainly is straight forward to repair certain issues.

But I certainly I have had and also seen exciting catastrophic failures in cycling in all sorts of materials.

I have had 4 cranks fail - suddenly and catastrophically.  Amazingly I didn't crash any one of those times, but they were each under full load, sprint, and boom the crank arm snapped in two.  Twice AL (they were the old school campy cranks which were known to do that so I never rode them again after the second time) and twice in Ti - it was a bad design.

I have seen a cromoly steel frame fail on sprinter on track and he had a big bang of a crash.  I had a cromoly steel frame fail on me in a sprint to the finish - coming out of a turn and the seat stay separated and I got some good road rash out of that since it was a full speed catastrophic failure.  That was the Davis 4th of July crit - probably 1989.

I have had a pedal fall apart on me once - and I broke my thumb that time.

So I am very particular about what I will ride now for some time.  I have a Ti clydesdale spec'ed frame.

I wish our airplanes were built out of Ti.  Lots of great properties - light, strong, vibration resistant, doesn't corrode at all.

E

[ilovecornfields]

2 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I don't know about AL in airplanes, in terms of how often it fails catastrophically but it certainly is straight forward to repair certain issues.

But I certainly I have had and also seen exciting catastrophic failures in cycling in all sorts of materials.

I have had 4 cranks fail - suddenly and catastrophically.  Amazingly I didn't crash any one of those times, but they were each under full load, sprint, and boom the crank arm snapped in two.  Twice AL (they were the old school campy cranks which were known to do that so I never rode them again after the second time) and twice in Ti - it was a bad design.

I have seen a cromoly steel frame fail on sprinter on track and he had a big bang of a crash.  I had a cromoly steel frame fail on me in a sprint to the finish - coming out of a turn and the seat stay separated and I got some good road rash out of that since it was a full speed catastrophic failure.  That was the Davis 4th of July crit - probably 1989.

I have had a pedal fall apart on me once - and I broke my thumb that time.

So I am very particular about what I will ride now for some time.  I have a Ti clydesdale spec'ed frame.

I wish our airplanes were built out of Ti.  Lots of great properties - light, strong, vibration resistant, doesn't corrode at all.

E

For some context you should probably share that picture from your last workout.

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

For some context you should probably share that picture from your last workout.

Haha - what are those?!!  Are those plastic implants?  They kind of look silly.

Funny thing is those weight builder types so often seem a disaster when it comes to an endurance sport like cycling - or worse - running.  Its more about what's at the cellular level than the big muscles you see in terms of how hot you can run that metabolism and generate watts over time.

Here are some fun pictures, both pairs of legs represent actual professional cyclists.  One is a former tour de france winner, actually during his winning ride - the tattoos give away who it is.  One is a world cup track cyclist sprinter famous for his silly legs.  See if you can guess which is which.  And yes, they are both from the same species.  Homo Sapien.

[Schllc]

7 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I don't know about AL in airplanes, in terms of how often it fails catastrophically but it certainly is straight forward to repair certain issues.

But I certainly I have had and also seen exciting catastrophic failures in cycling in all sorts of materials.

I have had 4 cranks fail - suddenly and catastrophically.  Amazingly I didn't crash any one of those times, but they were each under full load, sprint, and boom the crank arm snapped in two.  Twice AL (they were the old school campy cranks which were known to do that so I never rode them again after the second time) and twice in Ti - it was a bad design.

I have seen a cromoly steel frame fail on sprinter on track and he had a big bang of a crash.  I had a cromoly steel frame fail on me in a sprint to the finish - coming out of a turn and the seat stay separated and I got some good road rash out of that since it was a full speed catastrophic failure.  That was the Davis 4th of July crit - probably 1989.

I have had a pedal fall apart on me once - and I broke my thumb that time.

So I am very particular about what I will ride now for some time.  I have a Ti clydesdale spec'ed frame.

I wish our airplanes were built out of Ti.  Lots of great properties - light, strong, vibration resistant, doesn't corrode at all.

E

I have had crank failures as well, all of them have been castings, never a machined set, or forged, which is a manufacturing defect, not a material deficiency.  I would bet most of yours are castings as well  
I have never personally seen a chromoly failure in a bike tube, but I have seen them fail at welds, which again is a manufacturing issue. I have seen forks fail,  but every one of those was really well beyond reasonable design loads!  
I have bent, and cracked frames during a race (all mountain bike races), and finished the race. I have seen more carbon fiber frames trashed and unridable after one crash than I can count. 
take a hammer to your aluminum, steel or titanium top tube and crush it in one spot. Then ride it home. 
Crush the top tube on your carbon fiber and see how far you get. 
But its probably not fair to criticize a material for failure beyond design loads.  
My concern would be something like a hard landing, bad turbulence or something that I was not present for and the previous owner being unaware of the affect on the airplane. You don’t have the ability to inspect like aluminum, and propagation of failures are not as evident as they are with metal, and when they are they are complete. 
I would not say anyone who buys one is foolish or making a bad choice. 
I just prefer to be a little more conservative, and stick with tried and true. 
I totally agree with your preference for titanium. It’s a little punishing for vibration on a bike, my preference is chromoly, and I still ride an old fat chance, specialized and paramount for that reason. 
If titanium wasn’t so difficult to work with it would be ideal for an airplane. 

[carusoam]

Ti manufacturing techniques continue to improve as well…

Still takes a long time… but machine time doesn’t have the same costs as human time…

Best regards,

-a-

[xcrmckenna]

I don’t plan on owning anything other than a Mooney for the rest of my flying career. But if I couldn’t own one my second choice would be a cirrus. I am impressed by them with the very short 10 hours I have in them. But they are still not a Mooney!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aviatoreb]

My second choice has two interpretations.

-if the Mooney were unavailable, what would you choose instead.  I would choose the Bonanza.  (Unless I got significantly richer and then I am in TBM category).  I think Cirrus would be my third place choice then.

-or-

-if I could have two airplanes then my second choice, would not be a Cirrus no matter what since it has significant mission overlap with my Mooney.  My second aircraft (again assuming I am rich enough to have two - and not so rich that then I want a jet) would be a super cub or maybe a R22 helicopter.  Those for absolutely no practical reason, but no one doubts they are just wicked cool - and no I am not from Boston.

[Andy95W]

My second aircraft:

 

[aviatoreb]

32 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

My second aircraft:

 

Yes!

[NJMac]

I suppose I started (resurrected) this whole conversation most recently with my thread asking if it's a sin to buy a Cirrus.

That conversation evolved into the realization that flying with your wheels hanging out is just ugly and awkward.  And that the Bonanza was a better fit for my growing family.  First transition training lesson has been done in the new 36 and I'm flat out thrilled.  Not an ounce of doubt or regret in my purchase.  The Cirrus didn't fit me that well being 6'2" or so.  The Bonanza feels just right and way more stable in the bumps.  I described it as built for a king.  And with 1450 useful that is likely to increase when I redo the panel, it's the perfect family SUV. 

I flew my E for one of the last times today and honestly, I'm sad to see her go.  It's an amazing 2 place airplane and incredibly economical.  I'll always have a special place in my heart for the Mooney brand and my sweet 59Xray.  

Snce we're talking about 2nd planes, I already pointed out to my wife we have 2 planes this month.  2 hangars, 2 annuals.... I already floated the balloon that we need to keep the 2nd hangar and get a carbon cub to mess around with. She wasn't amused.  But I'll keep working on her. 

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, Andy95W said:

My second aircraft:

 

Love the gyrocopter.

I could see going with one of these happy ditties.  The ultimate in slow.

[FlyingDude]

If money weren't an issue, I'd get Malibu or some other turbo prop. With fiki. 

I've met some people who have traded their arrows and Cherokees with Skyhawks as they grew older and their knees wouldn't let them climb in or out of low wing planes.

[Will.iam]

If i got a second plane it would be a Lake amphib or that Icon A5. 

[Jerry 5TJ]

8 hours ago, philip_g said:

I'm not even that old but a cardinal sure sounds nice for ease of entry and exit 

I bought my first plane, an M20E, from two “old guys” who were having trouble getting in and out, and they planned to get a 177RG for those nice big doors. 
Now, 30+ years later, I can understand their point much better.  

[FlyingDude]

On 6/16/2021 at 11:39 PM, 1980Mooney said:

If money weren't an issue why stop there?....

I guess I wasn't programmed to believe that bigger/more expensive is always better...

I've sat in citation and Gulfstream cockpits and simulators. Even flown a citation on the right seat. Great machines... But nothing beats the thrill I had in the STOL Pilatus Porter landing on a tiny tiny strip...

[Jerry 5TJ]

9 minutes ago, FlyingDude said:

But nothing beats the thrill I had in the STOL Pilatus Porter landing on a tiny tiny strip...

A former Blackbird squadron commander said to me, “you’ve never been lost until you’ve been lost at Mach 3.”