2019 Mooney down - DVT

[Tantalum]

A real airplane ?

Come on man, keep up.. Cirrus aren't real planes and their pilots aren't real pilots. The GFC700 and G1000 in the Cirrus can only be operated by fake pilots, yet the near identical system in every other plane needs a REAL MAN to fly it.

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.

I get it totally, I usually only leave with tabs, at 60 gallons gives me PLENTY of fuel for the local flights I do. I've (personally) only departed full once, and that was to go to KTEX from KMYF, and even then I landed with somewhere between 30-40 gallons, but given that I was headed to the mountains appreciated having plenty of fuel reserve

But, the point still stands.. for any given fuel load one will carry more than the other. It's not the only deciding factor, if it were we'd all be flying 210 and Cherokee Six, but it is none the less a factor
Mooney Acclaim Ultra empty weight: 2,393 .. based on https://www.mooney.com/aircraft
Mooney Acclaim Ultra max take off weight: 3,368
Useful load: 975.. that's 975 lbs to play with

Cirrus SR22T G6 empty weight: 2,351, based on https://cirrusaircraft.com/aircraft/sr22t/
Cirrus SR22T G6 max take off weight: 3,600
Useful load: 1,249... that's a solid 274 lbs extra to play with

Fuel load is important, but for any given fuel load you'll be able to carry more in one vs the other..

**Keep in mind, that for the right mission and budget the Mooney is the right choice, before I had access to a kick ass Cirrus I looked somewhat seriously at J model Mooney, fast, attractive looking, and for what you are getting remarkably low priced. Speed is king, and the allure of that fast cruise speed in a package built like a tank that could be had for under $150K was pretty high

 

[zaitcev]

The point made was rather stupid. Yeah, if you want to carry 100 gallons of gasoline, you can't fill the seats.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Steingar here, although my argument is a little different. Imagine 2 airplanes that are identical otherwise, but have different fuel capacity. For example, a standard Mooney M20E Super 21 and the same but with the 130 gallon tanks, the kind that people fly from Iceland to Canada non-stop, bypassing Greenland. The payload differential between the two is negligible. Isn't it obvious that the airplane with larger tanks is better in every regard? You can use it as if it were the airplane with the smaller tanks, all the time. But the capacity is there for you to use when needed. However, if we compare them by the parameter of "full-fuel payload", the airplane with larger tanks loses hands down. But it clearly is a better airplane. So, comparing "full-fuel payload" is a dumb, counterproductive idea.

When comparing the dissimilar airplanes, such as Cirrus SR22 and M20J, or SR22T and M20V, the "full-fuel" payload measure is equally stupid. If you have to have an objective measure, plot graphs of range-payload and then set the intersecting lines at the expected payloads for the assumed missions. That will easily tell a prospective buyer which one is better, but the "full-fuel" payload tells him nothing of any interest.

 

[steingar]

The other thing that factors into the mix is the age the fleet. You can pick up a Mooney for very little money only because many are quite old. You might say the maintenance eats up more, but you have to remember that the parachute on your much newer and far more expensive Cirrus will cost more per year than the maintenance on my 1962 M20 Ranger.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

The other thing that factors into the mix is the age the fleet. You can pick up a Mooney for very little money only because many are quite old. You might say the maintenance eats up more, but you have to remember that the parachute on your much newer and far more expensive Cirrus will cost more per year than the maintenance on my 1962 M20 Ranger.

Hmm... This SR22 is perfect for my mission and budget but I don't like the color of the seats so I'll just go buy this 62' M20C instead. Said no one ever. Comparing the maintenance costs of two planes that will likely never have the same buyer is meaningless.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

The Js may be the best for combo room/useful load. My 78 J has 1000lbs, but later Js got 160lb increase, so they should be in the 1150lbs category. With full tanks, that’s close to 800lbs for passengers and luggage.
Of course no AC, TKS, chute...


Tom

 

[steingar]

Hmm... This SR22 is perfect for my mission and budget but I don't like the color of the seats so I'll just go buy this 62' M20C instead. Said no one ever. Comparing the maintenance costs of two planes that will likely never have the same buyer is meaningless.

I will happily admit the SR22 is far faster than my Mooney, and probably about as efficient. But I couldn't afford an SR22 of any stripe, they are all outside my price range. I could easily get a '62 M20c for the money I had. It is equipped with a Johnson bar for the gear, and hydraulics for the flaps so maintenance isn't that big a deal. It goes fast with little gas, which is why I like it. And two fear cylinders to feed and maintain in the boot.

Cirrus is a very good airplane, and like I said, faster than mine. I just couldn't afford one. And I couldn't afford the maintenance because of the bloody parachute. My take on it. I have nothing whatsoever against the Cirrus, I just thought another poster brought up a nearly fallacious point. What I will happily admit is the modern Cirrus does have it over the Mooney in useful load. Can't deny that. But I promise what you'll spend to maintain the gear will be dwarfed by what you spend to repack the chute in a similar time frame. The modern Mooneys use the same gear as mine, they just have a motor to run it.

 

[Pilots Of America Management]

Thread has been locked. The discussion has drifted away from anything even remotely related to the crash.