2019 Mooney down - DVT

Status
Not open for further replies.
N1120A said:
Oh yeah, I forgot that marketing is a factor in aircraft performance and quality...and also makes up for the poor quality pilots who dominate the Cirrus ranks too.
Click to expand...
Please support this claim of poor piloting dominating the Cirrus ranks. Sounds like stereotype hyperbole to me.
 
N1120A said:
I'd rather own a Mooney. They are better aircraft and their construction is such that survivability for pilots who have the good sense and skill to crash them in a roughly normal attitude is going to be no different than in a plane with a chute.
Click to expand...

I had no idea successfully crashing an aircraft required good sense and skill.

Proving that your blanket statement about survivebility is accurate requires significant engineering and math skills, along with conducting a finite element analysis of the variables and subparts involved.

I'm impressed you know how to do that.
 
Last edited:
N1120A said:
Oh yeah, I forgot that marketing is a factor in aircraft performance and quality...and also makes up for the poor quality pilots who dominate the Cirrus ranks too.
Click to expand...
Congrats. You’re officially on my ignore list. ****** ***
 
The problem with all planes is they carry fuel that ignites easily on impact. I wonder if planes with bladders can handle impacts better or do they rupture as well?
I’d bet if it wasn’t for the burns, this pilot would been home with his family the next day.


Tom
 
As far as the Meyers 200...My sarcasm was lost on this one...
 
Having a chute doesn't mean you're within the envelope to successfully deploy it. Near max gross on takeoff, I'd venture a guess you'd have to be fairly high to get a good chute and outcome.
 
Witmo said:
Having a chute doesn't mean you're within the envelope to successfully deploy it. Near max gross on takeoff, I'd venture a guess you'd have to be fairly high to get a good chute and outcome.
Click to expand...

Agreed , having a chute doesn’t guarantee anything but , still, it is better than not having a chute - that’s really all there is to it.
 
Witmo said:
Having a chute doesn't mean you're within the envelope to successfully deploy it. Near max gross on takeoff, I'd venture a guess you'd have to be fairly high to get a good chute and outcome.
Click to expand...

@gross SR22 G2(the book I have) climbs at 1300ft/min at sea level and standard temp. At 6000ft and +40C it's 900ft/min. You need to climb to 500ft for the chute envelope. So, depending on conditions you may need max of about 20-40 seconds before you are in the envelope.

Edit.. corrected seconds to minutes :)
 
Warmi said:
Must be some kind of best kept secret since they only managed to sell ,what ...2 planes last year ?
Click to expand...

One thing Mooney has never been good at is sales and marketing.

Well, OK, maybe not never - Back when the Acclaim first came out and they had a tent at Oshkosh for a couple of years, they rose to the level of mediocre at least.

On the other hand, Cirrus has probably the best marketing machine in the history of GA. Doesn't mean the planes are better, but a whole lot more people know about the details of Cirri than Mooneys.

MooneyDriver78 said:
The problem with all planes is they carry fuel that ignites easily on impact. I wonder if planes with bladders can handle impacts better or do they rupture as well?
Click to expand...

I'm sure they do, in certain cases - They'd be fairly easy to puncture in some circumstances, but considering to get to them something would likely have to go through the wing skin which makes up the entirety of the outside of a wet wing, I would say they have to be better than wet wings.

One of the best airplanes when it comes to post-crash fires is the Diamond DA40, which has aluminum fuel tanks that are protected by being mounted in between the DA40's dual main wing spars. There have been a couple of people who managed to burn them, but only in crash scenarios that were not otherwise survivable anyway.

I would guess that planes with bladders are likely next best, then metal wet wings...

But some of the worst were the Cirruses, before they started making them with metal fuel tanks in about 2014-2015. Before that, they were composite wet wings. Whereas metal bends in a crash, composites shatter, so they were dumping fuel during a crash, which would be ignited by the hot engine/exhaust in many cases. I watched a video of a Cirrus crash captured by a security camera right next to where it crashed. You see the plane appear in one frame, touch the ground in the next frame, a big splash as all the fuel gets released from the wing and goes everywhere in the third frame, and the plane is fully engulfed in the fourth frame.

You're not likely to survive a crash where the plane is fully engulfed less than 1/10 of a second after impact. :no: I'm glad Cirrus finally put metal tanks into their birds, but the majority of them still have the fire-prone composite wet wings. Caveat pilot.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
On the other hand, Cirrus has probably the best marketing machine in the history of GA.
Click to expand...

There's on old saying "If momma ain't happy ain't nobody happy." Cirrus figured out how to make momma happy. Make the interior resemble as much as possible the interior of a car and give it the safety of a parachute.

Martha: If you're buying a new plane, John, the only one I want is the one with the parachute.

John: Yes, dear.
 
I don’t think this as much making the interior resemble a car but more like not having it resemble a 1960s car ...

If you get into a Cirrus it looks and feels like something designed and produced in in the last 10-15 years vs a design that screams “I am a retro relic” - does it matter ? ...I guess it does given Cirrus dominance.
 
Warmi said:
I don’t think this as much making the interior resemble a car but more like not having it resemble a 1960s car ...

If you get into a Cirrus it looks and feels like something designed and produced in in the last 10-15 years vs a design that screams “I am a retro relic” - does it matter ? ...I guess it does given Cirrus dominance.
Click to expand...

It absolutely does matter.

I'm reminded of what Dave Higdon said: "You know what GA needs to be successful? Air conditioning and cup holders."
 
Warmi said:
Agreed , having a chute doesn’t guarantee anything but , still, it is better than not having a chute - that’s really all there is to it.
Click to expand...

Is it? Or is it better to have the significantly better glide ratio and stronger cage of a Mooney?

Warmi said:
I don’t think this as much making the interior resemble a car but more like not having it resemble a 1960s car ...

If you get into a Cirrus it looks and feels like something designed and produced in in the last 10-15 years vs a design that screams “I am a retro relic” - does it matter ? ...I guess it does given Cirrus dominance.
Click to expand...

Have you even seen a new Mooney interior?

flyingcheesehead said:
It absolutely does matter.

I'm reminded of what Dave Higdon said: "You know what GA needs to be successful? Air conditioning and cup holders."
Click to expand...

You can get those in a Mooney ;-)
 
Warmi said:
I don’t think this as much making the interior resemble a car but more like not having it resemble a 1960s car ...

If you get into a Cirrus it looks and feels like something designed and produced in in the last 10-15 years vs a design that screams “I am a retro relic” - does it matter ? ...I guess it does given Cirrus dominance.
Click to expand...

With the sidestick, the yoke is out of the way. It's roomy and comfortable. I can easily fit my my kids and dog in the backseat. Does the AC knob look like it's from a 94 Taurus? Sure, but who cares? (oh yeah the cirrus haters do). I've got AC, FIKI, tons of room, cabin comfort and useful load, and a chute.

Wouldn't fly my family in anything else, and there's nothing else I'd rather have.... except two turbines behind me.

Always cracks me up when folks rip on the Cirrus interior yet they're taxing with the one door open for airflow so they don't pass out from dehydration and heat exhaustion. Hate all ya want. I'm comfy and happy and safe.
 
3393RP said:
Years ago I was involved in a similar situation that did not end well.

I witnessed a PA-28 lose the engine on takeoff from the now just a memory Andreau Airpark in West Houston. The pilot tried to stretch his glide over a wide and deep flood control ditch to reach a large athletic field adjacent to a middle school. As I pulled to the side of the road next to the ditch, the plane impacted the embankment. He missed making the field by the smallest of margins.

I exited my car and ran as fast as I could to reach the aircraft, because I could see the beginnings of a post crash fire. I could see the pilot, he was unconcious.

The wing had been displaced by the impact, and was blocking the door. I tried with all my strength to get the door open, but I couldn't do it. The fire began engulfing the cabin, and I had to give up. I was overcome with tears of rage and sorrow. I was so close, but couldn't help him.

The autopsy indicated the pilot was alive after the crash, he had combustion products in his lungs. He had been knocked unconcious when he hit the panel; the plane wasn't fitted with shoulder harnesses.

I commend the guy that pulled the pilot out of the Mooney. There's no way to tell if the plane is going to blow up, and it's truly a situation where the rescuer could die trying to help. I hope the pilot recovers with no lasting damage to his health.
Click to expand...

Holly crap. That’s a tragic story and I can’t imagine what you went through. Your efforts were no less heroic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hey, what do you know, the 4,382,458th Cirrus argument. :rolleyes:
 
3393RP said:
Years ago I was involved in a similar situation that did not end well.

I witnessed a PA-28 lose the engine on takeoff from the now just a memory Andreau Airpark in West Houston. The pilot tried to stretch his glide over a wide and deep flood control ditch to reach a large athletic field adjacent to a middle school. As I pulled to the side of the road next to the ditch, the plane impacted the embankment. He missed making the field by the smallest of margins.

I exited my car and ran as fast as I could to reach the aircraft, because I could see the beginnings of a post crash fire. I could see the pilot, he was unconcious.

The wing had been displaced by the impact, and was blocking the door. I tried with all my strength to get the door open, but I couldn't do it. The fire began engulfing the cabin, and I had to give up. I was overcome with tears of rage and sorrow. I was so close, but couldn't help him.

The autopsy indicated the pilot was alive after the crash, he had combustion products in his lungs. He had been knocked unconcious when he hit the panel; the plane wasn't fitted with shoulder harnesses.

I commend the guy that pulled the pilot out of the Mooney. There's no way to tell if the plane is going to blow up, and it's truly a situation where the rescuer could die trying to help. I hope the pilot recovers with no lasting damage to his health.
Click to expand...
Nobody can blame you. You did the best you could. I can't blame you for wanting to live. I sure do.
 
Tantalum said:
Don't worry, someone started a thread specifically bating for it.
Click to expand...
Although one little actually interesting tidbit: Cirrus modeled the interior after the Bimmer 5-series.
 
Bill Jennings said:
There's on old saying "If momma ain't happy ain't nobody happy." Cirrus figured out how to make momma happy. Make the interior resemble as much as possible the interior of a car and give it the safety of a parachute.

Martha: If you're buying a new plane, John, the only one I want is the one with the parachute.

John: Yes, dear.
Click to expand...

In this light I think we can all agree that we should cut the Cirrus guys some slack. It’s clear they didn’t WANT to buy it. They had their eyes on that sweet Cub or Skyhawk, but the woman put her foot down. And now he’s part of the ranks of “those pilots”. They probably could use an emotional support group to help them through these tough times.
 
MetalCloud said:
Wouldn't fly my family in anything else, and there's nothing else I'd rather have.... except two turbines behind me.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, it is the ultimate all around single engine piston if you're looking to fly far places at a decent clip, in comfort, and safety

Facts are facts
-210 / 206 / Bo /182 = slower, some carry more, better short field and soft field performance.. fine. These are classic machines that paved the way and set benchmarks. Unlimited money I'd have a seriously boss 182 in my hanger with a full STOL kit

-Mooney Acclaim Ultra vs SR22T:
--little faster at full tilt, but when flown like that they have far less range than Cirrus, as typically flown they're doing 175 - 190 knots, actually slower than were the Cirrus hangs out at 75%-80% power in the mid teens

--two doors, but guess what, the cabin is 43.5 inches (older ones are 41), a solid 5.5-7.5 inches less than the Cirrus' 49 inch cabin. As any man will tell you, every inch counts

--cabin volume, Mooney 71 cubic feet,,and Cirrus at 137 cubic feet

--people rag on the Cirrus flap switch and G1000 magenta screens, guess what, Mooney Acclaim has same flap switch and just about every new plane has G1000, or better

--Acclaim takeoff/landing over 50': 2100/2650. Cirrus takeoff/landing over 50': 2080/2535

--full fuel payload Acclaim Ultra: 375 lbs

--full fuel payload SR22 g5 and up: 697 lbs (895 with 3hr 45 min fuel)


--AND, you get TKS with AC and a parachute.. I'm sorry the Mooney is faster and may work for some people's missions (flying is after all emotional and romantic), but objectively facts are facts.. outside of speed the Cirrus kicks the Acclaim Ultra's ass in just about every category

PS, figures above I pulled directly from either Flying Mag or the manufacturer's own sites, I encourage anyone to do their own research
 
Tantalum said:
--cabin volume, Mooney 71 cubic feet,,and Cirrus at 137 cubic feet
Click to expand...

How many times have you seen a Mooney owner post something along the lines of "It's a little tight getting into the back seat, but it has plenty of room"?

I wonder if any of them have actually sat in the back seat.

:D :D
 
Not sure where you got the Mooney volume, but my MID body is :
43.5x44.5x114, which works out to be about 127 cubic feet. The new Mooney is 4” wider according to the press. The cirrus is bigger, but not twice as big.



Tom
 
Tantalum said:
^seemed wrong to me too but that's what it said here: https://www.globalair.com/aircraft-for-sale/Specifications?specid=424

The rest came from Flying and manufacturer sites

Every plane has its mission, my friend loves his m20e and if you have <=$100K to spend and want a fast solid plane Mooney is your bird..
Click to expand...

Using they’re own cabin dimensions it’s 135 cubic ft. Just because it’s on the internet doesn’t make it true
Mooney uses a lot of metal (steel, aluminum) which makes it heavier than modern designs using carbon fiber, and their landing gear is not good for heavier loads, so their useful load is always going to be a problem.


Tom
 
Long body Mooney wider than mid bodies? Doesn't sound right, I thought ALL m20s in the TCDS are exactly the same cabin shell width.
 
Tantalum said:
Totally agree, it is the ultimate all around single engine piston if you're looking to fly far places at a decent clip, in comfort, and safety

Facts are facts
-210 / 206 / Bo /182 = slower, some carry more, better short field and soft field performance.. fine. These are classic machines that paved the way and set benchmarks. Unlimited money I'd have a seriously boss 182 in my hanger with a full STOL kit

-Mooney Acclaim Ultra vs SR22T:
--little faster at full tilt, but when flown like that they have far less range than Cirrus, as typically flown they're doing 175 - 190 knots, actually slower than were the Cirrus hangs out at 75%-80% power in the mid teens

--two doors, but guess what, the cabin is 43.5 inches (older ones are 41), a solid 5.5-7.5 inches less than the Cirrus' 49 inch cabin. As any man will tell you, every inch counts

--cabin volume, Mooney 71 cubic feet,,and Cirrus at 137 cubic feet

--people rag on the Cirrus flap switch and G1000 magenta screens, guess what, Mooney Acclaim has same flap switch and just about every new plane has G1000, or better

--Acclaim takeoff/landing over 50': 2100/2650. Cirrus takeoff/landing over 50': 2080/2535

--full fuel payload Acclaim Ultra: 375 lbs

--full fuel payload SR22 g5 and up: 697 lbs (895 with 3hr 45 min fuel)


--AND, you get TKS with AC and a parachute.. I'm sorry the Mooney is faster and may work for some people's missions (flying is after all emotional and romantic), but objectively facts are facts.. outside of speed the Cirrus kicks the Acclaim Ultra's ass in just about every category

PS, figures above I pulled directly from either Flying Mag or the manufacturer's own sites, I encourage anyone to do their own research
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the Mooney carries about 100 gallons of fuel. Throttle back to J speeds you get J fuel burn, about 9 an hour. Throttle up to 17gph and you're still flying 5 hours with a generous reserve, and at blistering fast speeds. Moneys are real airplanes, and in real airplanes sometimes you leave behind some gas to carry folks and luggage. Guys fly to Europe in them sans ferry tanks, they candy it easily.

All that said, I've sat in the new Mooney. It hasn't a millimeter more room in the cockpit than does my vintage model. Much bigger back seats, though I haven't seen that many piston singles with such capacious back seats.

And as far as the crash under discussion, the pilot was reputed to be top notch. A real tragedy to be certain.
 
Tantalum said:
Facts are facts

-Mooney Acclaim Ultra vs SR22T:
--little faster at full tilt, but when flown like that they have far less range than Cirrus, as typically flown they're doing 175 - 190 knots, actually slower than were the Cirrus hangs out at 75%-80% power in the mid teens
Click to expand...

Huh? My Ovation does 175 at 9000 without a turbo. And that's at 65%. I'd love to see an Acclaim vs. SR22T range test with both at the same speed, I bet the Acclaim would win by a long shot, even with standard (100 gal) tanks.

3393RP said:
How many times have you seen a Mooney owner post something along the lines of "It's a little tight getting into the back seat, but it has plenty of room"?

I wonder if any of them have actually sat in the back seat.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone want to sit in the back seat of an airplane? :dunno:
 
MetalCloud said:
I'm comfy and happy and safe.
Click to expand...

You may be saf_er, but you are NOT safe. Bare in mind, this modern miracle you fly around in can easily kill you and your family in the right conditions. Just because you bought a Cirrus does not mean you now have the same risk as flying on commercial airlines, or even your car. It just means you are now a little bit safer than the rest of us without parachutes.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Huh? My Ovation does 175 at 9000 without a turbo. And that's at 65%. I'd love to see an Acclaim vs. SR22T range test with both at the same speed, I bet the Acclaim would win by a long shot, even with standard (100 gal) tanks.
Click to expand...
Just going off what I saw on the manufactures range maps at different power settings and what I've read on mooneyspace

in general most people don't like to sit in a plane for longer than 4 hours anyway, and where most people operate their Mooney is generally similar speed as to what most people operate their Cirrus at. Somewhere in the 175-190 knot range..

We know the Mooney has some more efficient operating characteristics regarding speed and fuel burn, but that's not the sole metric that matters, it also comes at a 6 inch cabin width loss and truly pathetic useful load numbers.. it's basically a 1, maybe 2, person plane

and without the option to have both air conditioning and TKS you are going to be playing dodge-the-ice in the winter, or doing that thing people do and taxi around with both doors open any day it's over 70 out.. people justify it one way or the other but ultimately you are going to be limiting yourself either with weather or comfort
 
Tantalum said:
We know the Mooney has some more efficient operating characteristics regarding speed and fuel burn, but that's not the sole metric that matters, it also comes at a 6 inch cabin width loss and truly pathetic useful load numbers.. it's basically a 1, maybe 2, person plane
Click to expand...
Again, the Mooney is a real airplane where sometimes you leave behind some gas to fill the seats. There just aren't that many days when you need to fill the seats and fly for 5 hours. Indeed, most folks can't go much more than 2 or 3, so the range works just fine. I suppose if you spend your time flying trainers around farm fields you don't really cozy up to this rathe important fact. Most go fast airplanes trade fuel for stuff.
 
Warmi said:
A real airplane ?
Anything you own is real airplane ... at least to the owner.
Click to expand...
The point made was rather stupid. Yeah, if you want to carry 100 gallons of gasoline, you can't fill the seats. How many aircraft will fly with the seats and tanks full? Only one I can think of is a Skylane, and even then it better not be a hot day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top