Mooney M20TN Acclaim vs Cirrus Vision SF50

[mrjones30]

For the record,

I know these are entirely different airplanes but I happened to see an advertisement for the Cirrus Sf50 with a hefty price tag of 2 Million dollars so I decided to look at the performance specs of the aircraft and here is what I found:

Cirrus Vision SF50

General characteristics

• 
  
• Crew: one (pilot)
  
• Capacity: six passengers
  
• Length: 30.9 ft (9.4 m)
  
• Wingspan: 38 ft 4 in (11.68 m)
  
• Height: 10.5 ft (3.2 m)
  
• Powerplant: 1 × Williams FJ33 , 1,900 lbf (8.5 kN) thrust
  

Performance

• 
  
• Cruise speed: 300 kn (345 mph; 556 km/h)
  
• Stall speed: 61 kn (70 mph; 113 km/h)
  
• Service ceiling: 28,000 ft (8,500 m)
  

With a 345 mph cruise speed I thought that was pretty impressive but I wasn't impressed with the range which is 1,000nm-1100nm.  For 2 Million or more I thought the range would be much higher so I decided to compare it with a Mooney M20TN Acclaim.  Here are the specs:

Mooney M20TN Acclaim

General characteristics

• 
  
• Crew: one pilot
  
• Capacity: 3 passengers
  
• Length: 26 ft 9 in (8.15 m)
  
• Wingspan: 36 ft 5 in (11.1 m)
  
• Height: 8 ft 4 in (2.5 m)
  
• Wing area: 175.7 sq ft (16.3 m²)
  
• Airfoil: NACA 63-215
  
• Empty weight: 2370 lb (1074 kg)
  
• Loaded weight: 3374 lb (1528 kg)
  
• Useful load: 1004 lb (454 kg)
  
• Max. takeoff weight: 3374 lb (1528 kg)
  
• Powerplant: 1 × Continental TSIO-550-G Turbo-normalized with twin turbo and dual intercoolers air-cooled, 6-cylinder, horizontally opposed piston engine, 280 hp (171 kW)
  

Performance

• 
  
• Maximum speed: 242 knots (278 mph, 448 km/h)
  
• Cruise speed: 237 knots (272 mph, 438 km/h)
  
• Range: 1445 nm (std tanks) (1662 mi, 2676 km)
  
• Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7625 m)
  
• Rate of climb: 1240 ft/min (378 m/min)
  
• Wing loading: 19.2 lb/ft² (96 kg/m²)
  
• Power/mass: 12.0 lb/hp (0.11 kW/kg)
  

I'm not going as fast as a Cirrus but the Mooney has comparable numbers with a 2 MILLION DOLLAR PLANE!

Pricing this Mooney out you can get one for 500k.  That is a 1.5m Dollar savings! I don't know about you but I would take the Mooney any day.  If I needed to bring other passengers I could have them fly private back and forth and still it would not come out to 1.5M!!

It goes to show you how incredible Mooney's are!

(Now back to my studying :-)

[Parker_Woodruff]

Yup.  Don't plan on being able to take 4 people that far in an M20TN.  You might get 1 or 2 pax that far on a good day.  Otherwise, you're too heavy.

That said, we don't know how far a Cirrus Jet will *really* be able to go with a full pax load...

The good news is the Acclaim is actually an available airplane at this point in time...

[KSMooniac]

Yeah, the SF50 is more of a novelty for the "I want a jet" crowd.  It is slower and carries less than a TBM over a shorter distance.  I'm surprised they're going to bring it to market... hopefully it doesn't crater the company in the process.  

The Adam A500 twin was a good idea, and it got certified.  There is/was nothing else anywhere close to that capability in production, yet they got jet fever and lost all of their money trying to turn it into a jet that didn't work, and the whole company is now gone.  If they didn't pour millions down that hole I suspect they would still be cranking out A500's today, which is a damn shame.

[mrjones30]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

Yup.  Don't plan on being able to take 4 people that far in an M20TN.  You might get 1 or 2 pax that far on a good day.  Otherwise, you're too heavy.

That said, we don't know how far a Cirrus Jet will *really* be able to go with a full pax load...

The good news is the Acclaim is actually an available airplane at this point in time...

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: mrjones30

 

 Parker,

 Good to hear from you, when you look at an airplanes stats "useful load" does that count full fuel or is the fuel already included?

Fuel is about as "Useful" as it gets :-)

[DaV8or]

Quote: KSMooniac

If they didn't pour millions down that hole I suspect they would still be cranking out A500's today, which is a damn shame.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Now let's say the M20TN weighs 2400 lbs empty. Max takeoff weight is 3368 lbs.

Now you load up 100 gallons of usable fuel (600 lbs of fuel).  So the airplane just went from 2400 lbs to 3000 lbs.

You can now carry only 368 lbs of people.  That works for me and one other person.  Unfortunatley, many M20TNs weight more than 2400lbs  and that's where this dismal useful load comes into play

[FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC]

Mr.Jones-

so if we look at the older turbo's like my K you will find that you could fill the tanks and then still fill the cabin with up to 500lbs of people and baggage and travel for 6 hours before having to land due to fuel reserves. As such, you will find the long bodies are not all that better (subjective term) then the older mid body Mooney's from an efficency perspective

[fantom]

Google is your Friend!

Someone thinks you're too lazy to use Google before asking a question, at least until you start looking at those KING lessons.

Sorry, but I couldn't help it.

[Hank]

Mr. Jones--

"Useful load" is how much of a load the airplane is capable of carrying around above its own weight.

"Empty weight" is how much the airplane weighs, in and of itself, in ready-to-operate condition. It includes engine oil, all installed equipment, seats and any fuel that cannot be sent to the engine. This is recorded on the Weight and Balance form.

"Load" includes people, baggage, cargo, flight bags, headsets, the buffet you ate for lunch, fuel, tools in the back, pillows and blankets for passenger comfort, your heavy winter coat, charts, approach plates, laptop computers and dont' forget yourself. This number adds up in a disappointing hurry.

Then there is the weight and balance computation for each flight, with the as-loaded airplane. Your CFI will introduce this concept soon. Like with a boat, left-right balance is important; so is front-rear balance [or to me, fore-and-aft]. As I learned when flying radio control models, nose heavy flies poorly, tail heavy flies once. [if the tail is heavy, that points the nose up and you stall but cannot drop the nose to un-stall . . . ]

Be aware that many pilots brag about the useful load [mine is 969 lbs., with 52-gallond tanks] but just like speed, the numbers are often exaggerated. Pilots aren't unique in this--ask someone how fast their sports car goes, or what kind of mileage their little car or pickup gets.

Unfortunately, turbines are fuel hogs down low, and most efforts to produce small, efficient jets end up like the Cirrus:  small in size, weight-limited and good for short and medium-length flights only, which are even shorter when considering IFR fuel reserves, headwinds, climbs to altitude, etc.

[mrjones30]

Quote: fantom

Google is your Friend!

Someone thinks you're too lazy to use Google before asking a question, at least until you start looking at those KING lessons.

Sorry, but I couldn't help it.

[KSMooniac]

Quote: DaV8or

I doubt it. The era of new piston twins is over. Turbines have arrived. The kind of buyer that used to buy big twins, now buys turbine and I think that's a step in the right direction. In addition, buyers are getting more educated about the perceived safety advantage of a piston twin and coming to see that it's just a perception and not much more.

Adams was just too late to the party. Instead of the jet idea, they should have made the A500 into a turbo prop pusher. Might have worked for them... or not. Hard to say.

[Piloto]

Useful Load: Total weight an aircraft can carry. It includes passebger, cargo and fuel

Payload: Total weight an aircraft can carry (passengers and cargo) minus fuel onboard

José 

[Seth]

I'd take a TMB 850, or maybe even a TBM 700 over the SF-50, but I admit the SF-50 does look neat.  Any further devlopment on the D-Jet?  I know Piper stopped development of the Altaire.

As long as I'm dreaming, frankly, I'd take a P-51 as well!

Maybe 7-10 years from now while still keeping the Mooney, as mentioend before on the boards, I'll get a group of pilots together to purchase a longer distance, greater occupancy, pressurized travel machine for longer flights that we can together own for cost purposes.  But for now, I've got my Mooney.

-Seth

[smccray]

The biggest thing the SF50 has going for it is the parachute.  To the non-pilot having a whole plane parachute is a significant comfort.  I'll go on record saying that I'd love to have a whole plane parachute- it would be a nice to have safety item, but clearly I don't consider it a necessity .

Take the parachute out of the mix and I don't see the value of the SF50.  I wouldn't say the M20TN as the competitor, but buy a Piper, TBM, Pilatus and you're probably better off.  However, If the flight characteristics are similar to the SR22, a high time SR22 pilot could be safer near the edge of the envelope stepping up to an SF50 than other of the options.  The SR22 is a great plane, but for the price I'd rather buy a G36.  We'll eventually see how the SF50 compares to its competitors.

I do think that Cirrus is doing great work bringing innovation to GA though Garmin/avionics.  The integration of the perspective system is impressive and the keyboard brings a usability that's a step above a standard G1000.  I think the hypoxia functionality in the autopilot is a welcome addition to GA.  However, not sure I'd get that excited about an integrated satellite phone.

[Seth]

Quote: smccray

I do think that Cirrus is doing great work bringing innovation to GA though Garmin/avionics.  The integration of the perspective system is impressive and the keyboard brings a usability that's a step above a standard G1000.  I think the hypoxia functionality in the autopilot is a welcome addition to GA.  However, not sure I'd get that excited about an integrated satellite phone.

[fantom]

Quote: mrjones30

 Gary,

I'm a Computer guy by trade and I look up things in Google everyday more than I can count.  Sometimes I throw out a question to get conversations going and I learn more from the posts then I can ever learn from "Googling it". I'm sure if someone didn't want to answer it they would just ignore the question. I also don't always trust google's sites and opinions either.

You are right, there is such a thing as dumb questions but there is also a thing as dumb answers too.

Just be nice!!

[John Pleisse]

I like the SF50...the D-Jet is gojng to be a good bet too. I was decending into my home base with one of the only SF50's in the world climbing out off my right wing. Pretty impressive.

[WardHolbrook]

For the "I want a jet" crowd, they'll buy the Cirrus Vision because, well it's a jet and nothing else will matter, because well it's a jet. For the pragmatic among us, they'll buy something different because they understand that once the novelty wears off, the Cirrus Vision is just an airplane - an airplane that requires a type-rating and all of the mandatory initial and annual training and checkride stuff that goes along with flying a jet. It MIGHT be worth it for 400+ knots, but it will become a royal pain in the keaster for something that only has Cirrus Vision performance. My guess is that that they'll sell some right off the bat, but then after a year or so, that Meridian, TBM or Pilatus will start looking mighty nice to the existing Vision owners. I know those SE turboprops will be much easier to live with.   

[Jerry 5TJ]

Quote: WardHolbrook

... they'll buy the Cirrus Vision because, well it's a jet and nothing else will matter, because well it's a jet...

[GeorgePerry]

It's all good, now go hit those King videos!

[mrjones30]

Quote: fantom

I'm talking lazy questions, not dumb ones. Hard to totally ignore them when I'm obsessive enough to skim over everything on MS.  While we have lots of wrong answers around here, we don't have any dumb ones. Please don't trust our answers anymore than you do Google's....they all need to be judged by a lifetime in aviation, and I'm not so sure there are any totally wrong ones.

Glad to know you're a computer guy (who can't figure out how to fill in a profile, or add his real name in the signature block ) because I was starting to worry you might be either a dentist, or a high school student.

An excellent publication I suggested to you a while ago is Flight Sense, which will anser a myriad of the questions you have, and will, ask. You can download it here: http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/media/faa-h-8083-19A.pdf

It's all good, now go hit those King videos!

[fantom]

Quote: mrjones30

Is this how you treat all of the newbies? Sheeesh! aren't you being a little harsh?....

If you still have an issue with me.....

 

[andysmith11]

fwiw, emply weight on my Acclaim is 2,504 lbs per Parker's comments.

Other factor in flight planning some flights is max landing weight is 3,200 lbs.