2002 Cirrus SR22 vs. 1996 Mooney Ovation

[Crispin]

Hi Eric,

I did a comparison back in 2005 when I bought my Mooney Ovation--I demoed both (and also a Columbia 350) and went with the Mooney. The Cirrus was very nice but not for me. Above 7.5K, the SR22 demonstrator seemed a bit anemic compared to the Mooney demonstrator. The Mooney had TKS, and trued at 185 kts at 14,500. The Cirrus SR22, 178 kts at 9,500 (the demo Cirrus had no TKS, no O2). I think the gear hanging down made it a bit draggy.

The Cirrus was easier to fly, and certainly easier to land for my lower-time partner.

I didn't find the Cirrus more comfortable than the Mooney, but I am lanky. The longer your legs, the happier in a Mooney. If you are wide thru the shoulders, or are tall with a long torso, you might not be as comfortable.

I wouldn't get a Mooney, though, if I were planning on taking four people and bags around on a regular basis. Children or not, they will grow, and they still have lots of junk they like to take with them. No idea if a Cirrus would be more comfortable in that scenario but if I were getting a "family" plane--I'd get a Bonanza. Seriously. And this is coming from a confirmed Mooniac.

An Ovation will easily true at 190 kts at 9,000 feet. Before TKS, mine ranged from 190 to 194 (190 filthy, with bird crap and bugs and 194 post-bath). The TKS shaved about 5-7 knots off. During this winter, I've been getting about 189 kts, and that's with TKS.

The older Ovations are slower depending on the prop. If you have the two blade, no problem. You'll get 190 (w/o TKS). If you have the 3 blade (non-scimitar) you won't.

Demo a bunch of different planes. It's really a personal decision. Enjoy whatever you get!

 

[Pa28-140]

Thanks for the information on the Mooney. The mission is 2 adults + 2 children with luggage, totalling 600 lbs for flights between 500 and 1000nm range. I'm assuming a stop is needed for 1000nm both for gas and for the kids.

How much of a performance decrease do you get with the TKS? I see that 75% cruise on an Ovation is quoted at around 190kts. This brings up 2 questions:

1) Does an Ovation actually cruise at 190kts?
2) How much slower is an Ovation with TKS?

I'll have to find someone in the region who wants some gas money to take a flight with in both an Ovation and an SR-22. Right now this is academic until the current plane sells.

Thanks,
Eric

Like a lot of the folks here, I'm pretty one dimensional. I don't have any Mooney time but have 300+ hours in SR22s. I can't do a comparison but I can offer that the Cirrus is an exceptionally comfortable platform and generally lives up to the company hype. The TKS and chute provide an extra margin of safety, in my opinion. The TKS buys you time to get out of an inadvertent icing situation and the chute buys you an extra margin for those unusual situations. Specifically, I'm talking about night engine out issues or engine out over hostile terrain. Another of my concerns is the midair where the tail or other control surfaces become unusable. You'll thank the chute all the way to the ground.

With regards to speeds and range, my experience has been TAS of 170 for the SR22 and 185 for the Turbo SR22. The lean assist on the Avidyne makes it easy to find the sweet spot for economy. I've flown with the G1000 as well as the Avidyne and my personal preference is the Avidyne. Maybe it is because I have more time with it than the G1000, but it is also because I don't like a lot of clutter on the displays. Again it's just my opinion, but I think the Avidyne is much more intuitive and user friendly. If you fly often with a G1000, I'm sure it becomes old hat too. I just didn't fly often enough to feel 100% comfortable. If you are taking family, I can't imagine any leg longer than 500 miles. No way my family could make it any longer without a potty break. (Me too).

I'm sure that either airplane will be a fun experience. Because I know and love it, I'm a Cirrus guy. By the way, I LOVE the side stick!!!!

 

[weilke]

I have owned a couple of Mooney's, the current one is a TLS. I have a TKS system. The TLS meets my flying mission fairly well. I generally can fly anytime I want without undue concern about the weather.

What kinds of profiles do you fly with the TLS ? (altitude, power, fuel-flow ).

A Bravo with long-range tanks and TKS is one of the aircraft I am looking at. My mission would include me and my briefcase only, no plans on hauling 4 adults with golf-bags (allthough I hear repeatedly that a C-model mooney will do that without a problem ).

 

[bbchien]

Eric, if you are concerned about FIKI and ice in the midwest, you need a turbocharger. You're looking at the wrong ships.

You cannot cruise in ice even with certified systems. Look at going to Columbus OH today, for example. You need to get on top,a nd all the really big particles are in teh top 1000 feet, where vertical lift runs out. You need to be able to cross that barrier QUICKLY, e.g at >100-1000 fpm. Remember FIKI is only good for light to moderate. You WILL accumulate in the tops even with certified TKS.

So my take is, fuggedabout the ice discussion, or set your sights on a pricier ship (a Trubo SR22)- or an older turbo centurion, FIKI retrofitted A36, or a Seneca II.

Fellow midwesterner.

 

[Ted]

So my take is, fuggedabout the ice discussion, or set your sights on a pricier ship (a Trubo SR22)- or an older turbo centurion, FIKI retrofitted A36, or a Seneca II.

Fellow midwesterner.

Aztec, 310, and Baron also aren't bad options (although with my Aztec/310 experience the Aztec is substantially better at handling ice than the 310).

 

[bbchien]

Aztec, 310, and Baron also aren't bad options (although with my Aztec/310 experience the Aztec is substantially better at handling ice than the 310).

Getting a near gross Baron up above the layer w/o the turbo version is a bit of a lumbering deal.....and since the FIKI versions are all after 1986, they are pricey still (even with the market the way it is). I would still not cruise in Ice, Ted.

You COULD get away with that strategy if you fly light and the top of the deck is at 10,000......but most of the time, you need 14K.

 

[Ted]

I wasn't advocating cruising in ice, but as you know better than I do your climb performance will suffer once start to accumulate. They made turbocharged variants of all three aircraft I mentioned, and I would take a turbocharged variant of any of those three over the Centurion, A36, or Seneca. The extra power is a good thing.

 

[dennyleeb]

I was wondering if anyone has done an in-depth comparison of the Cirrus SR22 vs. the Mooney Ovation (not the Ovation 2, costs too much unfortunately). It looks like the values of a '96 Mooney Ovation and an '02 SR22 are roughly the same.

Both planes appear to deliver similar performance (approx 180kt cruise) at around $170-180K.

The Cirrus appears to win on having more cabin space, easier baggage access, newer plane, and better panel (when the Avidyne works). The Mooney has a slight edge on speed, and more range, along with known icing as a possible option.

I'm wondering if anyone has any real world experience with the two planes on trips with 2 adults, 2 kids, and a moderate amount of luggage (650 to 700 lbs of people and luggage) on trips of 500 to 1000nm. I've got 300hrs complex so the insurance on the retract isn't an issue (actually from what I've seen the Cirrus might have higher rates)

Any perspective would be appreciated on interior space, reliability, insurance, how much weight the TKS takes up, etc...

Thanks,
Eric

Example aircraft:

http://www.controller.com/listings/...717.htm?guid=8705018669534BE699FA0480F69A2397

http://www.controller.com/listings/...166.htm?guid=8705018669534BE699FA0480F69A2397

The 2002 Cirrus will need a 15k chute repack in 1-2 yrs. If you add that on to the price you can buy a ovation 2 w/low hours and ndh. I can show you were. I am not selling it, but I was gonna buy it before I bought a 182.

Before I bought earlier this year I looked at the sr22, corvalis, oviation2, da40, and turbo182.
The mooney and 182 were my final two and I went with the 182 like I said. I would do it all over again and still come up with the same choice for me. I loved the mooney b/c of the speed but when you add full fuel the mooney like the cirrus is a 2 place plane. (a wife, 2 kids and luggage can be alot of weight) If you want to know more about the sr22 look at the ntsb accident reports over the last 5 yrs. It seems like 1 or 2 a week go down. Despite what everyone will say they were not all bad pilots!

 

[bbchien]

I wasn't advocating cruising in ice, but as you know better than I do your climb performance will suffer once start to accumulate. They made turbocharged variants of all three aircraft I mentioned, and I would take a turbocharged variant of any of those three over the Centurion, A36, or Seneca. The extra power is a good thing.

We're in agreement. But the opportunity to anything BUT cruise in the ice is quite limited unless you have POWER. Thus, if he's going to worry about ice, he needs to be thinking what he can get with FIKI and a turbocharger.

With no turbos and climbing out of 13.4 for 14 on top, he's got, what- 40% power? Not very comforting at that high AOA in among the big particles at the top of the layer. In a light propellor driven AC the ONLY place you want to be is ON TOP, or you'll be scud running.

I think the budget will force him into these three choices, if he's to have FIKI and High altitude climb power.....FIKI in a nonturbocharged bird is just wishful thinking...."I won't cruise in ice...."

 

[Ted]

We're in agreement. But the opportunity to anything BUT cruise in the ice is quite limited unless you have POWER. Thus, if he's going to worry about ice, he needs to be thinking what he can get with FIKI and a turbocharger.

The Colemill 310 does a pretty decent job, albeit naturally aspirated. The fact that you've got an extra 80 hp vs. stock (combined) is the major help. Even with 4 adults, full fuel, and summer temps, it was quite happy climbing up to 13k with good climb rates. Its previous owner had no issues getting up to 15k+ with it either.

With no turbos and climbing out of 13.4 for 14 on top, he's got, what- 40% power? Not very comforting at that high AOA in among the big particles at the top of the layer. In a light propellor driven AC the ONLY place you want to be is ON TOP, or you'll be scud running.

I think the budget will force him into these three choices, if he's to have FIKI and High altitude climb power.....FIKI in a nonturbocharged bird is just wishful thinking...."I won't cruise in ice...."

Looking at the prices of the turbo singles, I'd say that there's a good argument price wise for the turbo Aztec or 320/T310R. I yearn for a RAM T310R.

No question, I would be happier having turbos instead of naturally aspirated, for reasons in both winter and summer. But I've seemed to have made due quite happily with my capabililties, by understanding what they are and operating accordingly. I'd take the naturally aspirated twins I fly over a SR22 turbo with TKS any day.

 

[wabower]

From what I can tell, something bad happened between the design of the Aztruck and the turbo-truck. Those things are a PIA to keep.

The Colemill 310 does a pretty decent job, albeit naturally aspirated. The fact that you've got an extra 80 hp vs. stock (combined) is the major help. Even with 4 adults, full fuel, and summer temps, it was quite happy climbing up to 13k with good climb rates. Its previous owner had no issues getting up to 15k+ with it either.



Looking at the prices of the turbo singles, I'd say that there's a good argument price wise for the turbo Aztec or 320/T310R. I yearn for a RAM T310R.

No question, I would be happier having turbos instead of naturally aspirated, for reasons in both winter and summer. But I've seemed to have made due quite happily with my capabililties, by understanding what they are and operating accordingly. I'd take the naturally aspirated twins I fly over a SR22 turbo with TKS any day.

 

[Ted]

From what I can tell, something bad happened between the design of the Aztruck and the turbo-truck. Those things are a PIA to keep.

That may also be true. I wasn't aware of too many differences beyond the engines and associated required cowling mods, I'm sure you know more about the turbo models than I do.

I suppose the one thing I don't miss about having naturally aspirated engines are the bills. These things are expensive enough to keep running as-is.

 

[jesse]

I'd take the naturally aspirated twins I fly over a SR22 turbo with TKS any day.

So would I. I haven't heard much for good things from the SR22 turbo TKS operators.

 

[wabower]

That may also be true. I wasn't aware of too many differences beyond the engines and associated required cowling mods, I'm sure you know more about the turbo models than I do.

I suppose the one thing I don't miss about having naturally aspirated engines are the bills. These things are expensive enough to keep running as-is.

Other than the turbos, linkages, controllers, wastegates and other hardware, I'd say you've about got it covered.

 

[Ted]

So would I. I haven't heard much for good things from the SR22 turbo TKS operators.

Nor have I, other than my hangar-neighbor who loves his.

Which gets to my point. While the optimal solution to dealing with ice is no doubt is on top of it, the reality is that if you intend to fly on a lot of days when ice exists, that may not be practical, regardless of plane. Even if it is practical, you still have to climb and descend through. A plane that has good de-ice capabilities and good ice-carrying capabilities is helpful in these situations. Hence what I like about my brick-with-wings. When you start out with the aerodynamics of a brick, it's harder to screw up than, say, an Aerostar, with the aerodynamics of a samurai sword.

Other than the turbos, linkages, controllers, wastegates and other hardware, I'd say you've about got it covered.

Simple solution, then. I'll just grab Navajo engines and figure out a way to shoehorn them in and run them at 50% power. It'll be as reliable as a turbine Duke.

 

[wabower]

Is there an all-time best oxymoron award for GA? If so, the use of reliable and Duke in the same sentence should be a hands-down winner.

Simple solution, then. I'll just grab Navajo engines and figure out a way to shoehorn them in and run them at 50% power. It'll be as reliable as a turbine Duke.

 

[Ted]

Is there an all-time best oxymoron award for GA? If so, the use of reliable and Duke in the same sentence should be a hands-down winner.

But I think you'd look cool in one, Wayne.

 

[wabower]

That may have been the nicest thing anybody has ever said to me. Many descriptive terms have been bandied about, but cool hasn't been one of them; up to now, anyway.

PS: If I conclude that I might want to look a bit less cool while flying something less likely to eat me out of house and home, where should I start? Or if I want to look cool in the airplane I already own, do you have any suggestions? other than a head and body transplant?

But I think you'd look cool in one, Wayne.

 

[Ted]

That may have been the nicest thing anybody has ever said to me. Many descriptive terms have been bandied about, but cool hasn't been one of them; up to now, anyway.

What can I say, Wayne, I try to say nice things.

PS: If I conclude that I might want to look a bit less cool while flying something less likely to eat me out of house and home, where should I start? Or if I want to look cool in the airplane I already own, do you have any suggestions? other than a head and body transplant?

You could buy a LearBaron:

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7953387

If you want to look cool in the plane that you already own, perhaps a new watch? If John Travolta wears one, it would certainly make you look cool: