Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Mooney makes a comeback

Weight is the enemy of aircraft performance so the weight of the BRS must have an effect on the performance, we once calculated that decision to make each cabin crew member of the airline I worked for carry their own copy of the SEP manual cost the airline over a year enough fuel to fly a B738 from EGKK to HESH !

Is BRS worth having ? I can see some value to it but the number of incidents that could not be avoided by good airmanship are statisticly very low, so the extra safety that the BRS adds has to be a personal decision based on the way you fly.

I am currently flying a small engined Cirrus and it is somewhat of a disappointment, the bigger six cylinder engine and VP prop add a lot of expense to the flying with very little extra performance, I’m sure the bigger engined Cirrus would show marked increase in performance by throwing AVGAS at the problem but that won’t get around my need to get in and out of small strips.

The conclusion that I draw is that in the places is really matters to me the Cirrus can’t do the job and were it can do the job better is does so at considerably more cost, if you have a different mission profile you will probably come out with a different conclusion.

From a pure flying point of view the DR400 is one of the nicest light aircraft I have ever flown and the sooner I get the woodworm knocked out of mine and the new avionics fitted the better, flying the plastic aircraft is OK but it’s not nearly as much fun.

A and C,

The problem Mooney have is that their aircraft fails to have enough appeal to the market despite it being IMO a much nicer aircraft to fly.

One of the problems I think Mooney has today is that they have no entry level model and have sacrificed a lot of efficiency for speed alone. The other problem is the absymal payload the Ovation and worse the Acclaim have with full tanks. Clearly, you don’t need full tanks every day, but in order to make ultra long trips these planes are developed for, they should need to rise payload to a level where at any day, 2 grown and normal adults and substantial baggage can be carried with full fuel. The M20C could, so could the 201. This two factors make them niche players today and the question is if the niche is big enough for them to sell sufficient airframes to actually make money.

The two best selling Mooneys of all time were the M20C and the M20J. Both were at the time and during their whole tenure neither the fastest nor the top of the line model, but both had a price/performance relation which no other plane could match (and mostly still can not). The current models are still record holders in range (Ovation) and speed (Acclaim) but have less appeal to the “family guys” who wish to simply keep an airplane which can fly economically and fast and with few maintenance cost.

I do hope they will eventually do something which rises eyebrows around a wider scale than “just” the Mooneyacs who are of course very happy to see them emerge from 5 years of not producing. I have indications in that direction, but they are too vague to share at this time.

Cirrus have delivered a very good product and marketed this product very successfully. They also have an entry model, which does not get sold a lot but still it is there. The parashute is for many people a vital safety feature these days and one has to clearly say that it does change the rules of single engine flying in IFR or night substantially, while most others either need retrofits or simply have to carry on taking calculated risks.

The Robin, well, personally I see it in a totally different market. It is a wooden airplane for starters, which means it needs to be hangared. It is substantially slower than both the current Mooneys and the Cirrus’s and as for seeing in it the pinnacle of aerodynamic efficiency, I simply don’t know. Of the Robin family, I liked the HR100 and the 3000 series for their enormeous range.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Some aren’t satisfied with a wood wing but need a fabric covered steel tube fuselage too, plus a loud slightly cramped cabin and no passive safety to go with their 300 HP If I ever decide (and have time) to focus on far away going places in my plane, a Viking will likely be my choice. Everything else is too pedestrian

Last Edited by Silvaire at 05 Jun 18:35

Weight is the enemy of aircraft performance

I wonder where you got that from. Cruise performance is virtually unaffected by weight.

I am currently flying a small engined Cirrus and it is somewhat of a disappointment, the bigger six cylinder engine and VP prop add a lot of expense to the flying with very little extra performance

Show me how to transfer 200HP to thrust without a VP prop… The SR20 is underpowered and is not really a great aircraft which you can see reflected in the sales figures. They barely sell any SR20s these days. “The Cirrus” clearly is the SR22.

I wonder where you got that from. Cruise performance is virtually unaffected by weight.

Might be useful to explain why this is the case in piston GA.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Weight is the greatest enemy of climb performance, which is big factor in safety. For some trips over mountains in some aircraft weight can be a bigger factor in point-to-point time than cruise speed.

A friend, professional light aircraft aeronautical engineer and aircraft designer built his Tailwind with a empty weight of 853 lbs. it now does 207 mph on 150 HP while carrying two people, a lot of fuel and bags. Also climbs at 2000 fpm. That’s performance in my book.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 05 Jun 19:10

You find the explanation in the leading publication on aircraft research

Achimha

If you have an airframe that is efficient enough to not need 200hp you don’t need a VP prop, no VP prop less weight, more payload.

Mooney Driver

I quite like the Mooney concept the construction is robust and avoids complicated and maintenance hungry systems, as a not to large person I find it a little cramped, for someone a little larger this is likely to be a real problem, this is the place that the cirrus will win. What the Mooney is not good at is the smaller grass airfields, the landing gear that is simple and a very good system on just can’t take grass runways that are not too smooth……. It usually ends in landing gear door damage.

The $10,000 question is are there enough people who want the Mooneys attributes to put up with the disadvantages, my guess is there are not enough people who want to spend that much time in an aircraft flying for what is a light aircraft ultra long flights to make the Mooney more than a minority interest.

As for the Hangarage issue I find that to keep maintenance costs down and to preserve the value of the aircraft Hangarage is cost neutral for metal aircraft vs leaving it outside. For wooden aircraft it is essential so the fact you have to keep a wooden aircraft inside is a non starter when considering long term cost of ownership.

The discussion on airframe qualities are IMHO useless… I’v flown TMG’s long distance the M20J long distance and now a V tail and was/am quite happy with each of them.A 300 HP motorglider with 30 finesse just doesn’t’ exist … a fast sleek aircraft with Tundra Tires neither..;-))
It’s not fair to compare the Mooney with a Cirrus…The people who can afford NEW aircraft anyway are looking at modern attributes safety features etc… and marketing stuff (which don’t always increase your operational capability)…Would I spent money (if I had sufficient QTY’s lying around for a SR22G5? I don’t think…but that’s a personal opinion as I am flying now an almost 50 year old piece of aluminum giving me great satisfaction and value for money..and to put some further fun into this thread look at this comparison video:



btw I miss the Mooney qualities on certain aspects (power efficiency) and not to forget certain ergonomics e.g. the LDG gear position switch which is PITA when having dual controls in an older Bo…

Let’s give Mooney a chance in the new century…

cheers!

EBST

Flew a’92 M20J round Chicago yesterday evening, technically early am Zulu.

I was impressed. Very well built, quite inside and quite nicely harmonised. Landings were fine if you are accurate on setting trim for 75 KIAS.

Also very good visibility in the front. Slowed to 110 KIAS she was sipping 6 1/2 gph. We were routed overhead Midway with the rush hour arrivals, which combined with the flight along the north shore and past downtown made for a lovely evening flight.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top