(in post 509) you mention that your M20K doesn’t burn avgas? or have I dimly mis-understood you? could you expand on that please- surely not mogas or UL91?
She uses AVGAS alright, I meant to say that fantasizing where to fly next doesn’t cost anything.
She uses AVGAS alright, I meant to say that fantasizing where to fly next doesn’t cost anything.
Yes at circa $15/USG around here that really is a fantasy!….at least our planes are about as efficient as a 1950s design can be! 
Getting back on topic may I provide the link to the Mooney announcement on AvWeb?
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2751-full.html?ET=avweb:e2751:221423a:&st=email#221554
I for one hope they can keep this iconic design up dated and in sustainable production.
They’re now talking of 70 employees…my goodness!
The new Acclaim Type S will have a TSIO-550-G turbonormalized engine and will include an upgraded Garmin G1000 integrated avionics suite.
Wow! Thrilling…
For anyone who is interested: The Mooney Ambassador’s movie “Boots on the Ground” has been released now and can be ordered via the Mooney Ambassador’s website.
It has been endorsed by Mooney on their blog and will premiere at the Mooney Homecoming next week.
My copy is on the way and I am looking forward to watching it.
The first Acclaim has come off the assembly line and taken to the skies today. In Command was Mooney chief test pilot Mike Miles.
N242MR (242 being the top speed and MR stands for “Mooney Rising”) will be auctioned off to rise money for a Mooney museum at Kerrville.
Aerodynamics at this end of the market have been well understood since WW2 and all the aircraft in this sector so the differences between the types are largely driven by marketing considerations and the effect these have on the performance of the aircraft.
The performance of the Cirrus has to be effected by the weight of the BRS system but as a marketing ploy it is a winner, the biggest down side for the operator however is the insurance cost that has resulted from a few questionable BRS deployments.
The Mooney gets its aerodynamic efficiency from its small size but this is a problem for the marketing people when you compare it to the Cirrus cabin.
Go slightly further down the market and you will find the Robin DR400 series, this is the very pinical of aerodynamic efficiency it can lift the same payload as a small Cirrus but do it out of a grass strip just over half the length and cruse only 5 KTS slower using 20 HP less and a fixed pitch prop. But from a marketing point of view it is a non starter when people look at the Cirrus, and it is made out of wood !!!!! Can that be safe ?
All these aircraft cost more or less the same to build, the Cirrus is the most costly to operate ( look at the ten year BRS repack cost) but it most closely meets the aspirations of the current buyers who want to go to a big airport and fly a very modern looking aircraft with the perceived added safety of the BRS. 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. The DR400 suffers the same fate in the market appeal, it is undoubtedly the cheapest to operate, you can use a small grass farm strip and the maintenance would come at half the price of the other two but it fails to have the wow factor of the Cirrus and that is what those about to part with upwards of £150k are after.
The performance of the Cirrus has to be effected by the weight of the BRS system
Weight has very little impact on cruise performance, with the amount of weight BRS adds you could even say no impact at all. It does reduce useful load and it also limits the load because it needs to be dimensioned to carry the whole airplane. It has taken Cirrus until G5 to get to a really good useful load figure. G5 is amazing.
Cirrus is the most costly to operate ( look at the ten year BRS repack cost)
I guess you prefer to die like a man. I would prefer to descent like a sissy and think BRS is one of the biggest innovations in GA aircraft development in the last decades. Cessna has probably realized that as well with their non-selling 400.
I am curious about that DR400 that only cruises 5kt slower than a Cirrus!
Some of the very good safety innovations are trickling through.
You can now get a BRS for the 172 and 182, and airbag safety belts are an STC for the Super Cub.
A G1000 172 with fuel injected Lycoming, air bags, 23G seats, and a BRS has to be one of the safest GA aircraft ever built – I expect useful load makes it only a three seater, but it probably was ever thus.
A G1000 172 with fuel injected Lycoming, air bags, 23G seats, and a BRS has to be one of the safest GA aircraft ever built
Yes, because fully empty it’s already over MTOM 8-)
Seriously, it does have all the safety buzzwords, but that does not necessarily mean it’s safer. It’s a dog to get off the ground, so on airfields with shorter runways where a pre-restart 172 is fine might see more takeoff performance related accidents – we will see.
