Mooney Myths

[eldeano]

Quote: pjsny78

I think the new doctor killers are the cirrus’s. When I was shopping for one the insurance was 3x as much as I pay for my Mooney + they want you to take a cirrus transition class. That was another factor that turned me away from them but the biggest was the depreciation factor.  

[aviatoreb]

Quote: eldeano

AMEN:  They do not know airplanes, so they fall for the sex appeal!!!!!!   Marketing!!!!!  The well educated pilot that has owned other planes, and flown multiple types knows better.  I have flown DA 40 180s!! step above a 172, but not as rugged for training, all kinds of maintenance issues. Not a high performance airplane.  I would rather own a 172.  SR20s  Not bad for a low performance airplane but horrible at high altitude!  Not near the performance of a Mooney with the same HP.  SR22s, add HP to try and make up for poor airframe performance.  Crazy maintenance costs, insurance costs, and not great performance.  They are comfy and filled with gadgets, but at a cost with weight and performance.  Columbia's are sweet.  They have a very tight push pull rod system, that is solid.  A ttx corvalis would be awesome.  I delivered a Caravan to Cessna for a tks conversion. I asked about the fiki vs inadvertant ice system for the ttx and was told Cessna will never call it FIKI for liability reasons.  Cessna is currently being sued for icing issued in other airplanes, despite favorable NTSB reports.

 

Bottom line the current state of GA, you can get some pretty awesome used airplanes for the price of a new LSA.  Not to mention the price of a Cirrus sr-22 GT3.

[rbridges]

Didn't cirrus have some kind of lease/trade program going on for a while?  I thought this may have led to a lot of the sales and partially to the depreciation.

[flyboy0681]

Quote: aviatoreb

The fit and finish on early Cirrus was poor.  The alignment of things like door closure.....

[Becca]

Quote: pjsny78

I think the new doctor killers are the cirrus’s. When I was shopping for one the insurance was 3x as much as I pay for my Mooney + they want you to take a cirrus transition class. That was another factor that turned me away from them but the biggest was the depreciation factor.  

[201er]

Quote: aviatoreb

That is definitely the plane you buy, for the parachute, to convince your non pilot nervous friends to come with you.  Many times I have had friends as if my Diamond, and now my Mooney, has a parachute.  Cirrus has done a super ad campaign job getting the idea that they have a parachute out there.  I do believe that one decision has carried the whole company.

[Shadrach]

Quote: 201er

But isn't the survivability with the parachute still only like 50/50? Is there any control of the parachute or does it plop you wherever it takes you be it power lines, lake, or edge of a cliff?

[Cris]

Check out the latest AOPA magazine article on the Mooney M20 E It includes all of the "myths" in this thread. Ok who amongst us blabbed to AOPA 

[orangemtl]

Quote: 201er

But isn't the survivability with the parachute still only like 50/50? Is there any control of the parachute or does it plop you wherever it takes you be it power lines, lake, or edge of a cliff?

[aviatoreb]

Quote: orangemtl

But isn't the survivability with the parachute still only like 50/50? Is there any control of the parachute or does it plop you wherever it takes you be it power lines, lake, or edge of a cliff?

[Becca]

So, I actually think, having sit in a Mooney and Bonanza and a Cirrus and a Warrior that a Mooney is indeed a tight plane.  I understand volumetrically they are very similar, but the question is where the volume of your body is placed.  Me, personally, I have short legs (and require rudder pedal extensions), and have to pull the seat very close to the panel (not as close in my J as some of the older models, but still close).  Thus, I don't get to take advantage of all the "leg" volume that adds into that volumetric total.  Maybe I'd feel different about the space if I was 6' tall and long legged.  But to me, that's unusable volume.  Whereas, with our center panel of throttle/prop/mixture levers, the width is constrained, and I continue to have my head fairly close to the ceiling, since I am  short,  I have to raise my seat.  In other words, the volume is there, but its an ergonomic problem that makes it cramped, comparitively. 

Not to complain about my beloved Mooney, it is not unusably cramped and all small planes require you to get a little "close" to your friends/passengers/copilot, and the other advantages (speed, price, fuel efficiency) make the "cramped" worth it.

[flyboy0681]

The December issue of Aviation Consumer had an in-depth report about Cirrus' safety. Here are a few highlights:

Of 172 Cirrus accidents (SR20 & 22), 83 resulted in fatalities.

Two dozen of these accidents were the result of stalls/spins, even with the parachute readily available.

All told, the parachute had been deployed a total of 31 times, covering 57 occupants of which 39 were uninjured. Six resulted in fatalities and seven in serious injuries. Of the 31 deployments, 12 planes were repaired and returned to service.

Interestingly, a chart from the article shows that 56% of SR20 accidents resulted in fatalities vs Mooney's 29%. However, when looking at overall fatal accident rates, Mooney topped the list at 1.9 versus Cirrus' 1.8 and Cessna's .45. These numbers are from 1997 onward for Cirrus and Cessna, but the Mooney stats go back earlier in the 90's and covers the M, R & S series only.

[pjsny78]

Quote: Becca

So, I actually think, having sit in a Mooney and Bonanza and a Cirrus and a Warrior that a Mooney is indeed a tight plane.  I understand volumetrically they are very similar, but the question is where the volume of your body is placed.  Me, personally, I have short legs (and require rudder pedal extensions), and have to pull the seat very close to the panel (not as close in my J as some of the older models, but still close).  Thus, I don't get to take advantage of all the "leg" volume that adds into that volumetric total.  Maybe I'd feel different about the space if I was 6' tall and long legged.  But to me, that's unusable volume.  Whereas, with our center panel of throttle/prop/mixture levers, the width is constrained, and I continue to have my head fairly close to the ceiling, since I am  short,  I have to raise my seat.  In other words, the volume is there, but its an ergonomic problem that makes it cramped, comparitively. 

Not to complain about my beloved Mooney, it is not unusably cramped and all small planes require you to get a little "close" to your friends/passengers/copilot, and the other advantages (speed, price, fuel efficiency) make the "cramped" worth it.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: Becca

So, I actually think, having sit in a Mooney and Bonanza and a Cirrus and a Warrior that a Mooney is indeed a tight plane.  I understand volumetrically they are very similar, but the question is where the volume of your body is placed.  Me, personally, I have short legs (and require rudder pedal extensions), and have to pull the seat very close to the panel (not as close in my J as some of the older models, but still close).  Thus, I don't get to take advantage of all the "leg" volume that adds into that volumetric total.  Maybe I'd feel different about the space if I was 6' tall and long legged.  But to me, that's unusable volume.  Whereas, with our center panel of throttle/prop/mixture levers, the width is constrained, and I continue to have my head fairly close to the ceiling, since I am  short,  I have to raise my seat.  In other words, the volume is there, but its an ergonomic problem that makes it cramped, comparitively. 

Not to complain about my beloved Mooney, it is not unusably cramped and all small planes require you to get a little "close" to your friends/passengers/copilot, and the other advantages (speed, price, fuel efficiency) make the "cramped" worth it.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: flyboy0681

Interestingly, a chart from the article shows that 56% of SR20 accidents resulted in fatalities vs Mooney's 29%. However, when looking at overall fatal accident rates, Mooney topped the list at 1.9 versus Cirrus' 1.8 and Cessna's .45. These numbers are from 1997 onward for Cirrus and Cessna, but the Mooney stats go back earlier in the 90's and covers the M, R & S series only.

[Shadrach]

Quote: jetdriven

Annuals on a Cirrus are 10-15K easily.  Parachute repack every 10 years = 10K and a week of downtime.  Funny thing overheard at Oshkosh last year, "those cabin doors on Cirrus leak, and we always have to keep mesing with them.'

 

That parachute can only be gauranteed to arrest descent when deployed below 135 knots.

 

Then the Cirrus school and you can only recieve dual from an instructor who went to the Cirrus school too.

[thinwing]

the cramped feeling that many bonanza,cessna,piper pilots associated with Mooney interiors is all due to head room restriction,and some times it hurts!!...like last late december descending over big bear north of palm springs for Thermal a/p ,rather than fly further away down stream of some high peaks with 30 kt winds blowing across them ,I just continued direct ,ripping in at 220 kts gs...and you guessed it wham!!...head impacted ceiling "o" shaped airvent breaking zulu headset and leaving a neat o shaped scalp job!Copilot was not amused when I feigned unconciousness...I did check airframe for wrinkles on the ground at thermal...good thing it was in a Mooney...not sure if a Bonanza would have kept its tail!!.kpc

[flyboy0681]

Quote: Becca

So, I actually think, having sit in a Mooney and Bonanza and a Cirrus and a Warrior that a Mooney is indeed a tight plane.  I understand volumetrically they are very similar, but the question is where the volume of your body is placed.  Me, personally, I have short legs (and require rudder pedal extensions), and have to pull the seat very close to the panel (not as close in my J as some of the older models, but still close).  Thus, I don't get to take advantage of all the "leg" volume that adds into that volumetric total.  Maybe I'd feel different about the space if I was 6' tall and long legged.  But to me, that's unusable volume.  Whereas, with our center panel of throttle/prop/mixture levers, the width is constrained, and I continue to have my head fairly close to the ceiling, since I am  short,  I have to raise my seat.  In other words, the volume is there, but its an ergonomic problem that makes it cramped, comparitively. 

[1964-M20E]

Quote: Cris

Check out the latest AOPA magazine article on the Mooney M20 E It includes all of the "myths" in this thread. Ok who amongst us blabbed to AOPA