What's the deal with Mooney at Airventure?

Checkout_my_Six said:
Ok....now I want a Panthera. :D

panthera1.jpg


5420905012001_5550550845001_5550551557001-vs.jpg

PANTHERA%203.JPG

Pipistrel-Panthera-Interior-0412a.jpg
Click to expand...

And supposedly 4 people for 1000 nautical miles at 200 KTS cruise at 10 gallons an hour.
 
Tantalum said:
RE: blue knob. In my limited time with a 182 I couldn't figure out what was so great about the prop control.

(ps - you still get a blue knob in the Cirrus, it's just integrated into the throttle)
View attachment 66062
Click to expand...
When I fly I’m always full throttle, it’s a normally aspirated engine above 5000’, why not. But I never cruise at max RPM, it sounds hard in the engine, where if I reduce RPMs to 2400-2600 it purrs like kitten. I guess this explains why Cirrus has a reputation of not making TBO without replacing cylinders.
 
teejayevans said:
When I fly I’m always full throttle, it’s a normally aspirated engine above 5000’, why not. But I never cruise at max RPM, it sounds hard in the engine, where if I reduce RPMs to 2400-2600 it purrs like kitten.
Click to expand...

If you look at how the linkage works in a Cirrus, the first bit of travel rearward of the “power lever” reduces RPM while maintaining full throttle.

So, you typically can choose FT @ 2700, 2,600 or 2,500 rpm. Somewhere below that is where the throttle starts to come back.

While this prevents going bigly “oversquare”, it still allows a lot of flexibility.

This video makes it clear - the good stuff begins about 2 minutes in...


Apologies if it’s already been linked.

As an aside, I don’t believe it’s been established that running an engine at a lower rpm necessarily improves longevity.
 
Last edited:
teejayevans said:
When I fly I’m always full throttle, it’s a normally aspirated engine above 5000’, why not. But I never cruise at max RPM, it sounds hard in the engine, where if I reduce RPMs to 2400-2600 it purrs like kitten. I guess this explains why Cirrus has a reputation of not making TBO without replacing cylinders.
Click to expand...

That’s just plane silly mate
 
teejayevans said:
When I fly I’m always full throttle, it’s a normally aspirated engine above 5000’, why not. But I never cruise at max RPM, it sounds hard in the engine, where if I reduce RPMs to 2400-2600 it purrs like kitten. I guess this explains why Cirrus has a reputation of not making TBO without replacing cylinders.
Click to expand...

Only the turbo versions have that issue; I know multiple naturally aspirated owners that have gone past TBO without problems or any "top". Same as on Bonanza, Mooney....

Tim
 
teejayevans said:
But I never cruise at max RPM, it sounds hard in the engine, where if I reduce RPMs to 2400-2600 it purrs like kitten. I guess this explains why Cirrus has a reputation of not making TBO without replacing cylinders.
Click to expand...
The Cirruses I have flown we run at 2,500 RPM in cruise, and that's how the linkage is set up for cruise. That's right in your sweet spot range. If people aren't making TBO it's not because of RPM, it's because they're running CHT's too hot or generally not managing their powerplant well
 
I love my Mooney! That said, if I had $900,000 laying around gathering dust, I wouldn’t buy a new one for many reasons.

I have heard more than once about the Mooney sales staff being pompous. Very offputting. So... wonder what would be better use of that stack of dust gathering cash?
 
MBDiagMan said:
I love my Mooney! That said, if I had $900,000 laying around gathering dust, I wouldn’t buy a new one for many reasons.

I have heard more than once about the Mooney sales staff being pompous. Very offputting. So... wonder what would be better use of that stack of dust gathering cash?
Click to expand...

I also love my, uh, plane. and although if I also had a cool mil laying around for a new plane purchase, it also would most likely not be a mooney. HOWEVER, it would NOT be because I heard one or two people online say they ran into a cranky sales guy at osh. for the person who mentioned the mooneyspace thread, there was like one or two people who said they had a bad experience, but everyone else all said they had a good one. either way, my decision will be based solely on my own experience and not from BS internet talk, which is usually BS. oh, I said that already. anyways, does anyone have a cool mil laying around so I can buy a new mooney?
 
Okay, if we are going to keep that pile of cash from gathering dust, I will spend about 25 or 30 percent on a nice used Ovation and equip it well. Then add a really nice L19 or Super Cub to the hanger and still have a problem watching some of that cash gathering dust. Won’t be putting any of it toward a Cirrus though, that’s for sure.
 
BrianNC said:
And supposedly 4 people for 1000 nautical miles at 200 KTS cruise at 10 gallons an hour.
Click to expand...
As far as I have seen, they have met the 4 passengers full fuel goal (using 175#). They have fallen a bit short on the cruise speed but are getting about 192 kts at fast cruise with an IO-540 (the mogas approved version which is why they swapped out the 390 because it was never going to get mogas) Stepping up to the 540 made them also miss the 10 GPH. The latest numbers are about 175 kts at 10 GPH.

But not bad overall. Plus, it has CAPS, is retract, and I believe they are aiming for a utility rating. Plus a price tag in the $550k ballpark.

I kinda want one.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
FastEddieB said:
If you look at how the linkage works in a Cirrus, the first bit of travel rearward of the “power lever” reduces RPM while maintaining full throttle.
.
Click to expand...

Bit of a nitpick, but that's not how the throttle quadrant linkage works, and the video itself shows this. You will maintain 2500 through the portion of throttle movement where the channel is angularly neutral. This corresponds to part throttle settings.

The wide open throttle setting happens only in one position: the throttle quadrant forward stop. In that setting the cam has pushed the prop to 2700. There would have to be a cam on the throttle cable as well, for the power lever to move back while the throttle remains at WOT. That is not the case for the throttle cable in the cirrus; It is linearly variable and physically affixed to the power lever.

IOW, it is impossible for the cirrus to run WOT position at anything other than 2700.
 
Pretty sure you’re wrong.

On my SR22 I watched as the power lever was moved off the full power position. At first, only the prop cable moves. After an inch or so, then the throttle cable then moves off its full throttle stop. In the plane you see it as a reduction in rpm with virtually no change in MP.

Unless I’m totally misremembering, of course!
 
Interestingly enough in the G5 SR22T I was flying 2,500 was where it always was.. which is different from the G3. I believe there are some differences in the cam setups between generations and T / TN / etc., models
 
I haven’t looked, but I would think for $900,000 I could buy a nice pressurized FIKI twin. Probably much less and put the savings in the bank to pay for fuel and overhauls.
 
Why do they need a sales staff? Does anyone still go to the car dealer and ask for what car they should buy?
 
Here's a test I did in my SR22 (NA)

8455260573_a1d26bbb0a.jpg


Note the 5 entries at 13.7 gph.

As I brought back the power lever, the rpm reduced while the mp remained constant. You'd think if the throttle plate was closing significantly, I would have seen a drop in mp.
 
@FastEddieB

That matches my experience in both the SR20 and SR22. I think from a mechanical perspective the cable is moving, but it is "geared" so low we do not see an effect in cruise (basically once we are above a certain altitude). I wonder if you did a full throttle ground run at sea level on a cold day what the result would be.

Tim
 
hindsight2020 said:
What is meijings interest in Mooney then? I would have guessed the same as cirrus capital ownership.
Click to expand...
I think the owners of Cirrus and Mooney are radically different. Cirrus are owned by an aviation arm of the Chinese government. They want airplanes, just in case. You know, if USAF uses Cirrus for training, surely there's some utility to the airplanes? Also, they like being the makers of the only single-engine jet in the world. Again, who knows, what if it makes it big? So it's all aviation for them. But Mooney's owners are incidentals. I think they don't care about aviation for a use other than prestige, or have it farmed to a 10th nephew.
 
GRG55 said:
I gotta admit I find it humorously ironic that some of the most expensive personal use piston airplanes in the world are being made by a unit of the Chinese government.
Click to expand...

那就對了。 飛機和汽車零件通常來自中國。 他們還賣給我們一些垃圾。 此外，美國向中國出售了許多好東西和垃圾。 哈哈

Translation is, essentially: "Crap flows both ways, haha!"
 
hindsight2020 said:
Bit of a nitpick, but that's not how the throttle quadrant linkage works, and the video itself shows this. You will maintain 2500 through the portion of throttle movement where the channel is angularly neutral. This corresponds to part throttle settings.

The wide open throttle setting happens only in one position: the throttle quadrant forward stop. In that setting the cam has pushed the prop to 2700. There would have to be a cam on the throttle cable as well, for the power lever to move back while the throttle remains at WOT. That is not the case for the throttle cable in the cirrus; It is linearly variable and physically affixed to the power lever.

IOW, it is impossible for the cirrus to run WOT position at anything other than 2700.
Click to expand...

Not true at all (and I feel like I'm repeating myself). You can absolutely set WOT and any RPM between 2500-2700 RPM on the NA and TN versions. The T version is RPM limited at 2500 RPM but again you can set any viable power combination that is in the POH with the single lever. Admittedly you can't do weird power settings like WOT and 1500 rpm but those are power regimes that are generally not good for the engine and not in the POH.
 
FloridaPilot said:
What would it be then?
Click to expand...

ok, I lied a little, it 'might' be a mooney. dunno, I'd have to test fly a new one to see. but with a cool mil I'd be test flying a whole lot to see what I liked best. could be cirrus, could be something else. I don't recall, can u get an M350 for a mil? that's in a price range I'm far from familiar with all the options out there.
 
Tantalum said:
Total single engine piston deliveries in 2017: 936
Cirrus SR22, 22T: 309
Cirrus SR20: 46
Piper (all of them): 155
Bonanza: 13
Skyhawk: 129
Skylane: 46
206: 40
TTx: 23
Mooney (all of them): 7

**I really don't think it's cost. It's an easy thing to say "ahh,$800K!!" but if it was purely cost driven Cirrus would be in line with these others... but they're not, they're not even in the same league. And given the average cost of housing in NY, MA, CA, etc., the cost of a new airplane is not at all out of line of what a typical house costs. People can afford these things, they just aren't interested.
Click to expand...

I disagree. While the above numbers are a compelling argument, I'm not sure they tell the whole story. For example, how many of the above sales represent a personal purchase vs. fleet purchase? Also you need to consider available used inventory. Cirrus has delivered over 6,000 aircraft, but in comparison, Cessna has produced over 75,000 C172, C182, C206 aircraft. You can buy a nice used Cessna at a substantial discount compared to new, but the same doesn't hold true for a Cirrus (at least from what I have seen). Even taking that into consideration, looking at the above numbers Cirrus had 38% of the market compared to Cessna's 23% so that's only 15% more market share, not what I would consider a league of their own.

I'm not denying there are a lot of well off folks, but how many of them are pilots? How many people have two homes or can afford a second home? I don't follow your affordability argument...
 
eman1200 said:
ok, I lied a little, it 'might' be a mooney. dunno, I'd have to test fly a new one to see. but with a cool mil I'd be test flying a whole lot to see what I liked best. could be cirrus, could be something else. I don't recall, can u get an M350 for a mil? that's in a price range I'm far from familiar with all the options out there.
Click to expand...

You can get plenty:

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...el=JETPROP&listing_id=2309438&s-type=aircraft

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...&model=31A&listing_id=2315385&s-type=aircraft
 
teejayevans said:
I want to control the airplane, which means controlling the engine (rpm, mixture...) and if I have a electrical problem, looking into footwell to check if a CB has tripped or trying find the one I want to pull sounds like a good way to lose control of the plane.
Click to expand...
Good lord. Kurt Tank put a (mechanical) computer into FW-190 in 1940 just so you didn't have to adjust the mixture. Why would anyone want a meaningless workload 70 years later?
 
Tantalum said:
They never should have cancelled the M10 that could have ushered in Mooney V2.0 and built a new step up program for them. And notice it is not RG ;)
Click to expand...
To be fair, M10J was supposed to be the retractable gear version and M10T had a fixed gear, because fleet operators have varying preferences. Still, the point is well taken. They are going to cry like little girls when Cirrus announces SR18 that they were testing recently.
 
eman1200 said:
anyways, does anyone have a cool mil laying around so I can buy a new mooney?
Click to expand...

The one guy I know that did have a cool mil (and a half) laying around, spent 300K on a run-out Lear 24, then 1.2 mil updating it with engine overhauls, hushkits, RVSM cert, new avionics, paint, and interior. He's much happier with it than the Eclipse he lost his deposit on.
 
zaitcev said:
Good lord. Kurt Tank put a (mechanical) computer into FW-190 in 1940 just so you didn't have to adjust the mixture. Why would anyone want a meaningless workload 70 years later?
Click to expand...

I assume it was based on altitude and lean the mixture based on a mechanical mechanism similar to the altitude steam gauge. When running on the rich side of peak you dont have to be that accurate.
I like to run LOP, but we don’t have O2 sensors, modern fuel injection systems, knock sensors, etc...to do real mixture leaning.
It’s really not that much of a workload.
 
idahoflier said:
For example, how many of the above sales represent a personal purchase vs. fleet purchase? Also you need to consider available used inventory.
Click to expand...
I doubt there are many Cirrus SR22 / 22T fleet sales.. if anything that will help Cessna and Piper's numbers, and make Cirrus look even better if we pull Cessna / Piper fleet sales out

idahoflier said:
I'm not denying there are a lot of well off folks, but how many of them are pilots? How many people have two homes or can afford a second home? I don't follow your affordability argument...
Click to expand...
I guess my point is.. without Cirrus you wouldn't really see the other makers pick up that slack. If they didn't exist I bet you would have seen 600 total sales not 936. Because, to your point.. outside of schools and fleets people would be buying used. Cirrus created its own market. They tapped into this "non existent" buyer pool where even the $250K Icons / LSAs, $400K Skyhawks, etc., could not sell. For reference, there are 9.4 million individuals in the US with a net worth between $1M and $5M, then an additional 1.4 million individuals with a net worth over $5M. There are 7,000 Cirrus out there. Sure, there are only 600,000 "active" pilots in the US.. but I talked to many people at the Cirrus tent at EAA who specifically earned their pilot license strictly to buy and fly a Cirrus. My own CSIP, most of his "students" are only flying Cirrus

idahoflier said:
Cirrus has delivered over 6,000 aircraft, but in comparison, Cessna has produced over 75,000 C172, C182, C206 aircraft. You can buy a nice used Cessna at a substantial discount compared to new
Click to expand...
I wish we had better sales data on used planes.. but the TTx was also "new" with very little real used market (like Cirrus) and yet they sold 23 while Cirrus sold 309 (the TTx is faster even, and with so many people hating the chute and the missing blue knob you would think TTx sales should have been even stronger.. but they're basically non existent because they weren't marketed). So even doing a more apples / apples comparison shows that Textron just really isn't doing any marketing effort for GA. You kind of made my point though.. if Cessna had done a better job of innovating they wouldn't have written themselves out. A g1 avidyne Cirrus is a LOT different from a g6 perspective. A 172N and a 172P might as well be the exact same plane. There is honestly no reason to buy a new Skyhawk or Skylane.. it's the same plane it was in 1950 with a G1000 shoehorned in. I was actually just looking at a nice Skylane in the LA area for sale for $55K.. would be cool to own, that's a bargain for a capable little plane

idahoflier said:
looking at the above numbers Cirrus had 38% of the market compared to Cessna's 23% so that's only 15% more market share
Click to expand...
sorry to nitpick, but that's 15 points, or more like 65% more. IE, to move from 23% (if we're only adding Skyhawk, Skylane, and 206) to 38% then Cessna would have to sell 65% more airplanes to match Cirrus (215 X 1.65 = 355) That's a league of their own.. and that's giving Cessna a lot of padding with fleet sales to big schools
 
teejayevans said:
If I have a electrical problem, looking into footwell to check if a CB has tripped or trying find the one I want to pull sounds like a good way to lose control of the plane.
Click to expand...

Prepare to have your mind blown!

Just the other day I was flying and the batteries on my ANR headset bit the dust. Despite the lack of an autopilot, I managed to reach into the back seat, find the battery bag, take some new ones out, take the old ones out of the headset, put the new ones in, powered the headset back up and stowed the dead batteries where they belong.

Not impressed yet? I've done that probably 20 times over the years! It's amazing I'm still alive taking these kinds of risks in non-emergency situations!
 
172andyou said:
Prepare to have your mind blown!

Just the other day I was flying and the batteries on my ANR headset bit the dust. Despite the lack of an autopilot, I managed to reach into the back seat, find the battery bag, take some new ones out, take the old ones out of the headset, put the new ones in, powered the headset back up and stowed the dead batteries where they belong.

Not impressed yet? I've done that probably 20 times over the years! It's amazing I'm still alive taking these kinds of risks in non-emergency situations!
Click to expand...

Were you in IMC?
 
eman1200 said:
I also love my, uh, plane. and although if I also had a cool mil laying around for a new plane purchase, it also would most likely not be a mooney. HOWEVER, it would NOT be because I heard one or two people online say they ran into a cranky sales guy at osh. for the person who mentioned the mooneyspace thread, there was like one or two people who said they had a bad experience, but everyone else all said they had a good one. either way, my decision will be based solely on my own experience and not from BS internet talk, which is usually BS. oh, I said that already. anyways, does anyone have a cool mil laying around so I can buy a new mooney?
Click to expand...
I keep mine in the attic so it is a hot mil. Sorry.
 
JK. Not what I meant. I wish we saw that innovation from more brands. Panthera has a cool product, hopefully see it come to fruition
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top