Cirrus without a chute...attractive plane?

Alexb2000 said:
I am a believer that any complexity in basic flight operations will always result in some issues even when the pilot understands the system involved.

We all love complex aircraft, but we also see experienced pilots that surely understand the need to put the gear handle down, land gear up.

In my case I almost killed myself flying a Bonanza with the tip tanks and four position valve. I was on an approach in turbulent dark night conditions, it is hard to see the valve, I was distracted by ATC several times during my checklist, and... I landed on what appeared to be an empty tip tank. I still beat myself up over that one and I definitely understood the fuel system.
Click to expand...

Very good points also, and no pilot is immune from human factors - even Henning. Some people have more inherent issues than others, usually distraction is involved, etc. There are certain flows and procedures you can use to help, and I try to incorporate as many of those into my flying as possible. The 530 is set with multiple reminders for various flight conditions, including "switch tanks." :)

That's also why we opted to put a 430W in to match the 530W rather than a 650. The 430/530 work the same, and the 650 has some significant differences. So, the 430W provides consistency.

But, you do see some people who are never fully comfortable with a particular fuel system. The Twin Cessnas are especially bad about this. That was more my point.
 
MachFly said:
I have nothing against their aircraft, but their marketing policy is immoral, their almost laying lying.

Look at this:
whycirrus.jpg

http://www.whycirrus.com/compare/pdf/cirrus-vs-diamond-da40-xls.pdf

Love how they say the baggage door is standard on the SR20 and not available on the Diamond, Diamond has a rear passenger door that's big enough for comfortable to cargo in the back!
Click to expand...

Agreed, big time. I saw their SR22 vs. Acclaim one yesterday and thought the same thing.

As for what they say about the DA40XLS:

* 75% power cruise of only 137?!? I can get that speed on less than 65% power in our DA40, and it's not even an XLS. 75% on an XLS should be at least 145 knots.
* Same with efficiency. The DA40 at 75% is still going to be getting 15+ nmpg.
* Range too - I can easily get 560nm at 75%, and that's with a full hour reserve. With legal VFR reserves, 630nm at 75%... And that's actually a conservative estimate.
* 10.7 gph at 75%? only if you're running best power mixture. LOP, 75% is 9.0 gph. And you'll still be doing better than the 137 knots they claim.
* I usually see 800 fpm or better climbs, and the 450 fpm they claim at 6,000 is laughable. If that was true, I'd never have been able to make it to 14,000 on my way home from KCAD last year - And when I did that, I just set the autopilot to 500 fpm. As I was arriving at 14,000 it was also just finally getting down to Vy.

Now, let's look at their comparison with the Acclaim:

attachment.php


Having not flown the Acclaim, I can't vouch for the performance numbers here, but given the hackjob they did on their other comparison, I don't trust 'em. But there's still plenty of problems:

* Standard fuel on the Acclaim is 100 gallons, not 130. That'd be the optional long range tanks. They did this to make the Mooney's useful load look way worse than it is.
* Ice protection: "Factory designed/installed" vs. "Installed aftermarket." These are both TKS systems, and you can get them installed by the factory on your Mooney too. This is bordering on flat-out lying.
* Baggage door: "Must lift and drop baggage" on the Mooney. Well, having experience with it, I can tell you the Mooney is MUCH easier to load than airplanes like the Cirrus that have a "standard" baggage door, unless you're only loading one bag. Same with the Diamond, for that matter - In both, the door is half on the side of the fuselage and half curving around to the top, which allows you to actually fill the baggage compartment, which is exceedingly difficult to do if you're loading it from the bottom! In addition, the Mooney/Diamond door allows you to remain standing when you load baggage rather than needing to squat or kneel or bend over.
* Power lever: Same comments as before.

Oh, and on the second page they say that "With Cirrus, you get... More robust/fault tolerant autopilot." I don't know how they can claim this, since BOTH of them are using the GFC700 autopilot! :dunno: I guess because the Mooney doesn't have the magic blue button, that Cirrus is "more robust/fault tolerant"?

In any case, they're really pushing the edges of the truth with regard to their comparisons. :nono:

Oh, and be sure to ask them why their turbo comes from Tornado Alley and not Continental... Betcha won't get a straight answer to that one either.
 

Attachments

  • Cirrus vs Mooney.png
    Cirrus vs Mooney.png
    123 KB · Views: 85
Before we cast aspersions against airplanes over marketing, I have yet to see one manufacturer that is less guilty of BS marketing than any other. Heck, look at some of Cessna's old marketing films from the 50s and 60s. Marketing departments do what marketing departments do universally, lie. Marketing departments are about keeping companies viable, Cirrus's does that quite well, way better than Mooney has ever managed.
 
Plus, Cirri are excellent capable travelling machines. I have flown a bunch of single and twin engined planes and nothing compares to the speed, handling, simplicity and utility of the cirrus. Maybe the C210, but its out of production. Now with the 200 pound gross increase there's not a single engine plane currently in production and with the same features as the cirrus that will compete. true story.
 
cirrusmx said:
Plus, Cirri are excellent capable travelling machines. I have flown a bunch of single and twin engined planes and nothing compares to the speed, handling, simplicity and utility of the cirrus.
Click to expand...

Cirri are wonderful airplanes, no doubt - But I've never heard anyone accuse 'em of having good handling before. :rofl:

It just bothers me that they go SO far out of their way to try to make their planes look good. If they're that good, you don't have to lie about 'em.
 
cirrusmx said:
Plus, Cirri are excellent capable travelling machines. I have flown a bunch of single and twin engined planes and nothing compares to the speed, handling, simplicity and utility of the cirrus. Maybe the C210, but its out of production. Now with the 200 pound gross increase there's not a single engine plane currently in production and with the same features as the cirrus that will compete. true story.
Click to expand...

My Mooney is 15 knots faster than an SR20 on less fuel. I have more useful load, a faster climb, and a crapload more range.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
Oh, and be sure to ask them why their turbo comes from Tornado Alley and not Continental... Betcha won't get a straight answer to that one either.
Click to expand...

Probably has to do with the Tornado Alley system providing better performance at a lower price than Continental. Continental isn't happy about that arrangement, and has been trying to displace our friends in Ada. No idea how successful they are.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Probably has to do with the Tornado Alley system providing better performance at a lower price than Continental. Continental isn't happy about that arrangement, and has been trying to displace our friends in Ada. No idea how successful they are.
Click to expand...

I would personally guess that the TAT is the better choice due to the higher volumetric efficiency of turbo normalizing the higher compression engine over turbo-supercharging the lower compression engine. There is also a detonation margin increase, altitude capability increase, and induction temp decrease advantage to the TAT system. Just because Continental refuses to keep up with best practices doesn't mean nobody else does. If they don't want to, they can lose business for it, that is capitalism at work.
 
DavidWhite said:
My Mooney is 15 knots faster than an SR20 on less fuel. I have more useful load, a faster climb, and a crapload more range.
Click to expand...

Bingo, where Cirrus should be marketing the 20/2 vs a mooney is cabin size, FG simplicity etc.

I'd rather ride the extra time in the back of the cirrus than the slightly shorter trip in the back of a mooney.

However Cirrus are just to fat to match the efficency of a mooney. Tit for tat, interior space or efficency. There are no perfect planes. :wink2:
 
Skylane81E said:
Bingo, where Cirrus should be marketing the 20/2 vs a mooney is cabin size, FG simplicity etc.

I'd rather ride the extra time in the back of the cirrus than the slightly shorter trip in the back of a mooney.

However Cirrus are just to fat to match the efficency of a mooney. Tit for tat, interior space or efficency. There are no perfect planes. :wink2:
Click to expand...

Fat isn't the issue, surface area is, the airframe of the Cirrus would be faster if they just didn't leave the gear hanging in the bloody wind.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Probably has to do with the Tornado Alley system providing better performance at a lower price than Continental.
Click to expand...

PM sent.

But I really find it funny that they give Mooney crap for having a 3rd-party FIKI system that's basically identical to the SR22 one (both TKS), and then emphasize that their turbo system is NOT from the engine manufacturer.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Cirri are wonderful airplanes, no doubt - But I've never heard anyone accuse 'em of having good handling before. :rofl:

It just bothers me that they go SO far out of their way to try to make their planes look good. If they're that good, you don't have to lie about 'em.
Click to expand...

Clearly you have never listened to a Cessna sales guy bash Cirrus. Distortions are one thing but the out and out lies drove me nuts. The Corvalis is an excellent plane with no need for lies to support it. One example was the salesman claiming a falling leaf descent was safer than Cirrus under CAPS. As a physicist I was tempted to explain kinetic energy to him but my son was there so I played nice.
 
Last edited:
cirrusmx said:
there's not a single engine plane currently in production and with the same features as the cirrus that will compete.
Click to expand...
Says the man whose user name is "cirrusmx."

Mx in my world being an abbreviation for maintenance.

:goofy:

:goofy:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Cirri are wonderful airplanes, no doubt - But I've never heard anyone accuse 'em of having good handling before. :rofl:
Click to expand...

I think the handling is pretty good, not the best, but good. The thing is that they handle very differently from most other aircraft, so when you get into a Cirrus from something else you say that the handling sucks. Once you get used to it it's pretty precise and light.

My problem with it's handling is that you don't feel the controls, feels like they made mechanical controls feel like FBW. However this may be because I don't have a lot of hours in it and simply didn't get used to it completely. I'm sure someone who flies it all the time will say that they feel the controls very well.
 
cirrusmx said:
Now with the 200 pound gross increase there's not a single engine plane currently in production and with the same features as the cirrus that will compete. true story.
Click to expand...

Is that SR22 or the SR20?

Because if it's the 20 unless they added another 100hp and a radiator I really don't see how it will be able to climb. I seen the SR20 climb at sea level at MGTW...I'll be kind, I'll say it was a slow climb.
 
MachFly said:
Is that SR22 or the SR20?

Because if it's the 20 unless they added another 100hp and a radiator I really don't see how it will be able to climb. I seen the SR20 climb at sea level at MGTW...I'll be kind, I'll say it was a slow climb.
Click to expand...

Only the SR22 picked up 200#.
 
DavidWhite said:
I was gonna say, it's nice, but it's not an RV10:rofl:
Click to expand...

If you had an RV-10, I could say anything :D. But you fly an orphaned airplane. That in itself is inferior. Different strokes for different folks, but I'm not buying a plane I have to shop at a junk yard for. As for those people that say Mooney will make a come back.... It has been in and out of business since the 1920's, obviously it is not the markets favorite.
 
jmp470 said:
If you had an RV-10, I could say anything :D. But you fly an orphaned airplane. That in itself is inferior. Different strokes for different folks, but I'm not buying a plane I have to shop at a junk yard for. As for those people that say Mooney will make a come back.... It has been in and out of business since the 1920's, obviously it is not the markets favorite.
Click to expand...

LOL, how many manufacturer specific parts you buying for an airplane? Once you price the new ones, you'll be shopping the junkyards regardless....:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Henning said:
LOL, how many manufacturer specific parts you buying for an airplane? Once you price the new ones, you'll be shopping the junkyards regardless....:rofl::rofl::rofl:
Click to expand...


I guess if that's all you can afford!!!! Some don't need to do that
 
bajadrifter said:
I guess I am too "old school" to ever get behind the idea of a parachute recovery system but at the same time I do appreciate Cirrus' other advances. In particular, I like its fixed landing gear yet fast speed.

Now that Mooney, Beechcraft an Commander have faded, the choices for SEL high performance aircraft are slim.

What is Cirrus produced a plane without the chute? I'll bet the useful load would increase a bunch. They could also lower the price.

The "no chute" option might improve Cirrus' image and its appeal to old farts like me...

What do folks think?
Click to expand...

Logical question.
The buy-off of the FAA through recertification would likely negate any additional sales profits expected. IF those costs were not a factor, and the BRS could just be an option, they might have some additional buyers because of that.
 
jmp470 said:
I guess if that's all you can afford!!!! Some don't need to do that
Click to expand...

True, some of us can make our parts from raw stock. You can buy your way through life or think your way through life, doesn't much matter which you do. Seriously though, very few parts you buy for a plane are manufacturer specific. Most stuff is engine, avionics or accessory which which are common to all manufacturers. The majority of airframe parts are built from raw stock. The rest of them are quite durable and there is no problem buying salvage, and typically by the time you need many of them, the plane is a total anyway.

I do appreciate you buying new though, someone has to so that the rest of us can buy used.:cheerswine:
 
Henning said:
True, some of us can make our parts from raw stock. You can buy your way through life or think your way through life, doesn't much matter which you do. Seriously though, very few parts you buy for a plane are manufacturer specific. Most stuff is engine, avionics or accessory which which are common to all manufacturers. The majority of airframe parts are built from raw stock. The rest of them are quite durable and there is no problem buying salvage, and typically by the time you need many of them, the plane is a total anyway.

I do appreciate you buying new though, someone has to so that the rest of us can buy used.:cheerswine:
Click to expand...

The best reason why new planes owners rock......
 
jmp470 said:
If you had an RV-10, I could say anything :D. But you fly an orphaned airplane. That in itself is inferior. Different strokes for different folks, but I'm not buying a plane I have to shop at a junk yard for.
Click to expand...

Mooney is not out of business - They're just not making new airplanes right now. They're still open and still selling parts, waiting until the economy (ie demand) improves before they build any more new airplanes.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Mooney is not out of business - They're just not making new airplanes right now. They're still open and still selling parts, waiting until the economy (ie demand) improves before they build any more new airplanes.
Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that.
"On 5 November 2008, the company announced it was halting all production and had laid off 229 of its 320 employees, due to an excess unsold inventory of aircraft as a result of the late-2000s recession. Virtually all the laid-off employees were on the production line. The company said all other operations would continue and all customer support and existing customer orders would be filled." Further cuts were made until early 2010, when the company said once again it would start selling aircraft (because it sold 25 aircraft from Dec 2008 - April [ish] 2010.)

On 19 November 2010, Mooney started a new round of lay-offs, intending to reduce company staff from 53 to less than ten employees by 1 January 2011. The remaining staff will be employed maintaining the company's physical facilities, its type and production certificates and providing parts and technical support to aircraft owners.

Shamelessly stolen from Wikipedia, I know it is not always correct, but close enough.

GAMA doesn't even list Mooney as a manufacture. Heck, Flight Design has sold more aircraft than Mooney lately! So, with everyone buying used mooney's and none being produced, just how do you suppose they will restart manufacturing? The Chinese have already bought Cirrus and European manufactures are producing their own new 4 seaters....

So who is going to save Mooney? Thoughts?
 
jmp470 said:
Shamelessly stolen from Wikipedia, I know it is not always correct, but close enough.
Click to expand...

I think they have more like 15 people right now. But so what? That's all it takes to do what they're doing.

GAMA doesn't even list Mooney as a manufacture.
Click to expand...

Maybe 'cuz, y'know, they're not right now? :dunno:

Heck, Flight Design has sold more aircraft than Mooney lately!
Click to expand...

Every manufacturer who's sold a new airplane in the last 3 years has sold more aircraft than Mooney lately. It's not hard to beat zero.

So, with everyone buying used mooney's and none being produced, just how do you suppose they will restart manufacturing? The Chinese have already bought Cirrus and European manufactures are producing their own new 4 seaters....

So who is going to save Mooney? Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Obama. :D

Mooney is the "little engine that could" when it comes to airplane manufacturers - They always keep coming back. With avgas prices going nowhere but up, demand for efficient designs will do the same. When there aren't enough used Mooneys to keep up with demand any more, there will be new Mooneys.
 
jmp470 said:
If you had an RV-10, I could say anything :D. But you fly an orphaned airplane. That in itself is inferior. Different strokes for different folks, but I'm not buying a plane I have to shop at a junk yard for. As for those people that say Mooney will make a come back.... It has been in and out of business since the 1920's, obviously it is not the markets favorite.
Click to expand...

I think the fact that you can buy a 10 year old SR20 for the same as I bought my 30 year old Mooney for speaks volumes.
 
Also if you really feel like it, since you are so close, I strongly recommend going to the Mooney factory in Kerrville and finding the biggest dude you possibly can, and say exactly what you posted here. Tell him that Mooney is inferior and point at your shiny Cirrus. Let us know how that works out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top