USFlyer wrote:
The plane has not changed all that much, just a carbon fiber cabin, empenage and wings are still metal and still the same dimensions
… which is what every sane engineer would do, given that the goal was a facelift and not the development of a complete new aircraft. If they would have touched the steel tubed frame, the metal wings or the back fuselage, they would have changed the structural concept of the aircraft and would have needed much more load calculation and certification compliance proof. (The wing design wouldn’t benefit from the possibilities of FRP anyway). A change in the steel cage is comparatively easy to calculate, composite structures not so much. Plus, the company just has to gain knowledge about composite aircraft manufacturing, and it is a very straightforward approach to gain knowledge on low stressed parts. (The M10 isn’t in production, yet, so they don’t have much expertise in production of composite planes, yet).
USFlyer wrote:
and retains the same engine, the 280 hp Continental TSIO-550-G
What would you suggest would be a better choice?
USFlyer wrote:
[…] and still has retractable gear (which cost more to insure).
Not in Europe, but that’s probably not an argument. However, the Mooney gear is quite simple (compared to the gear of a Twin Commander or an early 210…) and the easiest way to gain efficiency and clean the aircraft up aerodynamically. (29 Kts over the Cirrus with 35 less horse powers don’t come for free. You have to trade payload / complexity for efficiency. But I think Mooney did a great Job on this.)
USFlyer wrote:
[…], and uses Vernier instead of a throttle tree. Also has a manual prop control and standard G1000 panel (10 inch max).
I personally like the vernier controls and manual prop control and would prefer this over a single lever operation type with mechanical linkage. Even the single lever fadec systems could hugely benefit from more control possibilities from the pilot (i.e. best economy vs. best power, noise reducing ops, etc.)
Actually, I think the lack of many touch screen controls is a huge benefit.
If everyone would built Cirrusses, the airplane market would be boring, wouldn’t it?
Has anyone posted evidence that retractable gear costs more to insure in the USA?
I recall some informal surveys on US sites which suggested that there is no difference and that – as expected – premiums variations are determined far more by the pilot’s experience / accident record, etc and of course the overall accident / claim profile of the aircraft type.
Here in the UK – many threads on this here, including a report from me after phoning UK’s biggest insurer – there is no difference between say an SR22 and a TB20, if comparing same hull value etc etc.
So I think this is just another Marketing Dept myth, but clearly it sticks where it is of most benefit 
The Cirrus has a manual prop control too but clearly this is another myth which sticks where it is of most benefit
Incidentally what might be the historical reason for Mooney going for a Conti engine? Do they have a different aspect ratio to Lycos?
Peter wrote:
So I think this is just another Marketing Dept myth, but clearly it sticks where it is of most benefit
However you cannot land a FG-aircraft gear up – that is for sure
So IMHO it’s not all only about the insurance-conditions.
However you cannot land a FG-aircraft gear up – that is for sure
Yes that’s definitely true.
But it seems to be self evident that gear ups, at some 30k a claim, are not a big enough feature on the risk landscape for the insurers to worry about. I know we have done this one to death before, but if that old saying “there are two kinds of retract pilots: those who have landed gear up and those who will” was true, there would be a massive difference in premiums, because 30k is about 10-20 years’ premiums. But that isn’t the case. So the assertion that FG alone reduces premiums must be false.
Lycoming TIO-360 TBO 1200h.
Continental TSIO-360 GB 1500h / MB 1800h.
Mooney went for the longer lasting engine.
Hmmm… didn’t know that! I thought most “normal” Lycos were 2000hrs.
Well, most are…
I found this [ local copy ]which lists a TIO-360-A at 1200hrs, but lists the -C at 1800hrs. So that may not be the most obvious reason for the Lyco v. Conti choice.
What year did the C come out and what initial TBO? Maybe they wanted six small cylinders rather than four big ones.
USFlyer wrote:
The plane has not changed all that much, just a carbon fiber cabin, empenage and wings are still metal and still the same dimensions (very narrow and low head room)…
Uninfirmed baloney. Mooney is the aircraft of choice for many tall pilots precisely because it has such good headroom….(and suits long legs)….the cabin width exceeds that of model P an C….
Also Mooney have had FIKI certified TKS for the Ovation and Acclaim since their launch….no reason to think the V model wouldn’t also…
mh wrote:
the easiest way to gain efficiency and clean the aircraft up aerodynamically. (29 Kts over the Cirrus with 35 less horse powers don’t come for free. You have to trade payload / complexity for efficiency. But I think Mooney did a great Job on this.)
Not true.
My Lancair Columbia 300 has almost identical performance to the Ovations with the same engine & prop, actually the Columbia is abit faster, with the gear DOWN. Oh yeah , the Columbia has always had 2 doors , carbon fibre and a bigger cabin
