My take on the 2017 Mooney Ovation Ultra

Even more fun having a calander life limited part on the airplane when:

A. Medical events prevent using it;
B. Aircraft down for maintence, sometimes extended periords due to bad vender support, etc;
C. Horrible weather.
 
tspear said:
Actually, the center yoke makes it worse. Your arm is unsupported, so as you hit turbulence there is a PIO caused by the delay in your arm/body bouncing around.
While a side yoke, or side stick where the arm is supported reduces PIO caused by the arm being free to bounce around like a shock absorb-er. Now to be fair, after a while in the bumps, my arm does get a bit sore from the pounding against the arm rest.

In your comparison of a SR20 vs the M20J you are comparing a plane where you sit on the floor versus one where you sit upright. And the vertical height matters in terms of drag. Let alone consider the interference of two doors versus one door, cabin width....
Click to expand...

The J has an armrest on the left side as well for support if you want to go one handed, I feel more comfortable with 2 hands on the yoke.
Yes, the J has a smaller cabin giving it an advantage there, but the Cirrus is a modern design and materials. The 2 doors on the new Mooney didn’t hurt their performance, pretty sure it doesn’t hurt Cirrus either.
In the end, you have to decide, is 9 knots worth having a retractable gear, thats 9 knots at less than 150, at 200+ like Acclaim and SR22 turbo it becomes 242 vs 219, or 23 knots difference, or about 10%.
 
olasek said:
To be precise he (aftCG) never used the word 'piston'. But he qualified his statement with 'in the US', so he implies there will be perhaps retractable singles coming .. say out of Europe? Where does he see this vibrant design/production of new GA airplanes coming from beyond the US is beyond me.

Agreed 100%. Retractable pistons lost their allure in view of recent aerodynamic/other advancements.
Click to expand...

Actually I did mean piston only. And US market because I'm not involved in the rest of the world's certification plans (but I'll point out that the retract Mooney M10 that is DOA was not ever coming here anyway).

This is one of those times I'll be happy to "walk that one back". For some time during the certification of the Lancair (now Cessna) and the Cirrus the issue was the vertical drop requirement in order to protect the spines of the occupants. That was only achievable by counting on the landing gear taking the majority of the abuse (there just isn't enough crumple room in the belly of a Mooney sized plane to decelerate a human slow enough to have met the standard).

Finding challenge to my statement I've gone digging and quickly came up with the new and improved 2016 FAA look at certification and it looks like as long as you arrive at a safe product it's all hugs and parade waves.

It was for that reason that it was declared at the time that anything going forward (with a new type certificate) would have to be fixed gear.
 
Here is a TRUE Cirrus price list I was given from an authorized sales director: I have one for a parachute replacement but prices vary so I didn't want to post it here but quite often it's higher than $10,000. More like 12K - 15K. I still don't get why Cirrus considers Air conditioning as an additional option.
 

Attachments

tspear said:
In your comparison of a SR20 vs the M20J you are comparing a plane where you sit on the floor versus one where you sit upright. And the vertical height matters in terms of drag. Let alone consider the interference of two doors versus one door, cabin width....
Click to expand...

Hmmm . . . Extra drag from the second door slows the plane down? Somebody tell Mooney quick, the new 2-door M20-U & V advertise the same speeds as the single-door Ovation & Acclaim. Of course, they use the same engines . . .
 
Last edited:
Hank S said:
Hmmm . . . Exfea drag from the second door slows the plane down? Somebidy tell Mooney quick, the new 2-door M20-U & V advertise the same speeds as the single-door Ovation & Acclaim. Of course, they use the same engines . . .
Click to expand...

Each door has handles, and door seals, junctions.... Each of which contribute to drag. The amount of drag maybe a lot, or insignificant. Depends on implementation.

Tim
 
olasek said:
Cirrus is 5.5" wider inside. Could not find cabin volume specs.
Click to expand...

I could be way wrong on this, but I believe the Ultra is a little wider than previous versions. Not sure how much wider, though.

"The Ovation Ultra joins the Acclaim Ultra in the revamped Mooney lineup, both of which incorporate the slightly wider composite cabin shells "
 
rbridges said:
I could be way wrong on this, but I believe the Ultra is a little wider than previous versions.
Click to expand...
But I did use the Acclaim Ultra to compare with the Cirrus interior width. It is 43.5” and 49” respectively.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
teejayevans said:
Both are 200 HP planes, both well under 200K obviously, the Cirrus has the advantage of being a newer design, but fixed gear of course:
At 8000’, 55% HP, 9.5gph
Cirrus does 136K, M20J does 145K.
Click to expand...
Honestly, comfort goes a very long way. The Mooney may be faster and have a cool sports car appeal to it, but most of the people buying planes these days, at least the ones I have met, are prioritizing modern comfort when buying an airplane and are weighing in the appeal based on their non-flying spouses and families. I have never personally met someone who preferred riding in a Piper, or Cessna, or something else next to a Cirrus.. other than maybe a Bonanza, but then we're getting into 6 place airplanes so it's not really a fair comparison

steingar said:
You can have your chute.
Click to expand...
Mooney builds a remarkably sturdy airplane, from the overall cabin to the wing structure. That brings a lot of peace of mind.. but ultimately I don't really understand why the parachute is such a trigger for so many people. I almost feel as though it's like criticizing a ship for having a lifeboat. When things go south having that as an extra option is a good thing.. there are plenty of accidents where people went VMC into IMC and lost control of the plane and died, or even simple engine out scenarios have ended in death. $2,500 per year sounds like a lot to pay for something you hopefully we'll never have to use, but if we're comparing $700,000 airplanes that's honestly nothing
 
teejayevans said:
List price is $67,000, that’s just engine...add electric fuel pump and other installation costs. The turbo version obviously more.
Somewhere someone said the AC was $35,000!?
A dual screen G500 is $25,000, the 3 screen G1000, with transponder, ADSB, audio.....got to be close to $100,000.
Click to expand...

OMG....people...Who said anything about air conditioning or a turbo? Who pays list for a motor? You pay list for a car?
Unreal these comparisons...
 
Tantalum said:
Honestly, comfort goes a very long way. The Mooney may be faster and have a cool sports car appeal to it, but most of the people buying planes these days, at least the ones I have met, are prioritizing modern comfort when buying an airplane and are weighing in the appeal based on their non-flying spouses and families. I have never personally met someone who preferred riding in a Piper, or Cessna, or something else next to a Cirrus.. other than maybe a Bonanza, but then we're getting into 6 place airplanes so it's not really a fair comparison


Mooney builds a remarkably sturdy airplane, from the overall cabin to the wing structure. That brings a lot of peace of mind.. but ultimately I don't really understand why the parachute is such a trigger for so many people. I almost feel as though it's like criticizing a ship for having a lifeboat. When things go south having that as an extra option is a good thing.. there are plenty of accidents where people went VMC into IMC and lost control of the plane and died, or even simple engine out scenarios have ended in death. $2,500 per year sounds like a lot to pay for something you hopefully we'll never have to use, but if we're comparing $700,000 airplanes that's honestly nothing
Click to expand...

Playing devils advocate a min here, (Don't get me wrong I love both air frames and I would buy either one) After hearing both sides of the equation some people that have issues with people pulling the chute, (Minus an engine failure on takeoff) is once you pull, you have ZERO control of the airplane at that point you are hoping you don't land on people or property. The pilot mantra that was installed in all of us is "FLY THE AIRPLANE" you no longer do that once the chute is pulled.
 
Yeah, sorry I’m not going to stop flying the aircraft unless I’m really convinced we’re all going to die if I don’t. I’d rather land in trees than parachute. I’d rather land in the crowded neighborhood than parachute. At least for the latter I have a chance to avoid folks on the ground, versus the parachute, which will come down wherever the winds and Murphy dictate.
 
FloridaPilot said:
Playing devils advocate a min here, (Don't get me wrong I love both air frames and I would buy either one) After hearing both sides of the equation some people that have issues with people pulling the chute, (Minus an engine failure on takeoff) is once you pull, you have ZERO control of the airplane at that point you are hoping you don't land on people or property. The pilot mantra that was installed in all of us is "FLY THE AIRPLANE" you no longer do that once the chute is pulled.
Click to expand...
The mantra fly the plane is because the fight, flight or freeze instinct prevents many people from thinking.
The chute is one more tool, and personally unless I am in 99.9% positive I am going to land ok. The chute it is.
The plane and chute make an amazing amount of wind noise. The result is someone always hears/sees the plane and screams and yells. Among all the chute pulls so far, how many people on the ground have been hurt? Compare that to how many on the ground have been hurt by crashing planes....
The real risk is if you pull the chute in the middle of nowhere with only one person on the ground, and he/she is in a deep sleep...

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
 
I fly a mooney without a chute, obviously. If it were an option that I'm sure is costly plus $15k every 10 years, I don't know if I'd get it. But Mooney and Cirrus aren't looking at people like me. They are looking at people that are plunking down 700k+ for planes. These people may not care so much about a $15k repack that hits them every ten years. I agree with the philosophy of flying the plane, but I'd feel better knowing I had a chute as a plan B. It would be a tough call for me between the Ultra and a new SR22.
 
steingar said:
I’d rather land in trees than parachute. I’d rather land in the crowded neighborhood than parachute. At least for the latter I have a chance to avoid folks on the ground, versus the parachute, which will come down wherever the winds and Murphy dictate.
Click to expand...

I think you are choosing to ignore a mountain of accident/chute data, solely to confirm your own personal biases.

That attitude can and has led to dead pilots with the chute handle still safely stowed. Which I find particularly tragic.

But That’s Just Me! (tm)
 
I agree,

If you have a chute then use it, nothing wrong with it if it's going to save your life one day. As long as you are within the parameters. IF I had my way I would want the roll cage AND the parachute. The more options the better.
 
FastEddieB said:
I think you are choosing to ignore a mountain of accident/chute data, solely to confirm your own personal biases.

That attitude can and has led to dead pilots with the chute handle still safely stowed. Which I find particularly tragic.

But That’s Just Me! (tm)
Click to expand...
That is just you. I cannot imagine a scenario not of my own making where I'd pull the dang thing. Moreover, we don't know how many of those "saves" would have turned out just fine if the pilots had acted like Airmen and flown the crate all the way to the crash.

By the way, my aircraft had arm rests, but they were utterly uncomfortable for my diminutive self and for Mrs. Steingar. Emphasis on the "had" boys.
 
FastEddieB said:
Then you have a profound lack of imagination.

But no point in arguing, so I’m done.
Click to expand...
Not a lack of imagination but humility or belief in human imperfections, especially under stress.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
 
tspear said:
Not a lack of imagination but humility or belief in human imperfections, especially under stress.
Click to expand...

Wow! That's not how I read it at all.

So your take is he does not want a chute because he's so humble and believing in human imperfections under stress that he thinks he could not manage to pull a chute no matter how dire the circumstances?

If that's the case, like Emily Litella famously said, "That's completely different. Never mind".

But the solution would seemingly be training, not dismissal.
 
Oh, just sounds like he's another of god's gifts to the cockpit.

It's like the jackasses that spread the nonsense about Cirrus' inability of spin recovery.... I doubt they are proficient with spins and if in one would fly it "all the way to the crash"
 
Speaking of Cirrus spins...has anyone ever spun a Cirrus and recovered? (I'm not saying this to start anything I just don't know) Did test pilots ever spin a Cirrus? is there any proof?
 
It isn’t that I think of myself as Odin’s gift to aviation. Under what scenario would I pull the red lever? Over hostile terrain? What kind? Water? Hereabouts the chute and crash are going to give you the same thing, a ditch into water to cold to be survivable. Over trees? I’d take the aircraft, I can at least control where it goes and try to stall it out just over the tree tops. Over a city? Boy will I take the airplane, at least I can point it away from folks on the ground.
I think the only scenario I can envision where I’d really want the chute is at night. But I don’t fly much at night, so it’s no big deal. Of course, I fly an aircraft with a steel roll cage surrounding the cockpit. I might feel differently we’re I in some brittle piece of fiberglass that shatters and burns in a crash.
 
FloridaPilot said:
Speaking of Cirrus spins...has anyone ever spun a Cirrus and recovered? (I'm not saying this to start anything I just don't know) Did test pilots ever spin a Cirrus? is there any proof?
Click to expand...
Yes, it was done for EASA certification.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
 
FastEddieB said:
Wow! That's not how I read it at all.

So your take is he does not want a chute because he's so humble and believing in human imperfections under stress that he thinks he could not manage to pull a chute no matter how dire the circumstances?

If that's the case, like Emily Litella famously said, "That's completely different. Never mind".

But the solution would seemingly be training, not dismissal.
Click to expand...
Sarcasm.... Was the intent

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
 
FloridaPilot said:
Speaking of Cirrus spins...has anyone ever spun a Cirrus and recovered? (I'm not saying this to start anything I just don't know) Did test pilots ever spin a Cirrus? is there any proof?
Click to expand...
Yes, Cirrus test pilot did recover from a spin, this is what my Cirrus instructor told me however officially the position of the factory is - you don’t try to recover - you pull CAPS, this is in POH.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
steingar said:
It isn’t that I think of myself as Odin’s gift to aviation. Under what scenario would I pull the red lever? Over hostile terrain? What kind? Water? Hereabouts the chute and crash are going to give you the same thing, a ditch into water to cold to be survivable. Over trees? I’d take the aircraft, I can at least control where it goes and try to stall it out just over the tree tops. Over a city? Boy will I take the airplane, at least I can point it away from folks on the ground.
I think the only scenario I can envision where I’d really want the chute is at night. But I don’t fly much at night, so it’s no big deal. Of course, I fly an aircraft with a steel roll cage surrounding the cockpit. I might feel differently we’re I in some brittle piece of fiberglass that shatters and burns in a crash.
Click to expand...
I fly a lot at night, over mountains and low IMC. Actually I prefer to fly at night
During the day, the vertical descent rate under a chute is slower than the forward descent rate under a glide.
So, unless you can guarantee a landing location which does not cause immediate stopage, the chute is safer. Further, the chute makes more noise than a glider, so those on the ground are more likely to hear the plane and get out of the way.
In addition the horizontal area of risk for people on the ground is significantly smaller under a chute, basically the square footage of the wingspan and fuselage, compared to the wingspan times hundreds of feet of toward slide.
This becomes critical over dense population areas where there may not be space on roads or other locations which can be cleared for a plane to land.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
 
steingar said:
Yeah, sorry I’m not going to stop flying the aircraft unless I’m really convinced we’re all going to die if I don’t. I’d rather land in trees than parachute. I’d rather land in the crowded neighborhood than parachute. At least for the latter I have a chance to avoid folks on the ground, versus the parachute, which will come down wherever the winds and Murphy dictate.
Click to expand...

Stein: I have a serious question. With the premise that I understand and accept that you truly are an exceptional pilot and under any and all circumstances you can handle the plane. That's awesome. Here's my question - you have a heart attack in flight and your wife, child, relative simply does not know how to fly - isn't the chute a good thing? Will they have the skill you have to make it ?
 
I would rather have a pilot relief tube than a parachute. You get to use it more often and makes your long trips more comfortable. I have one on my Mooney and love it.
 

Attachments

  • Relief Venturi in Mooney.jpg
    Relief Venturi in Mooney.jpg
    225.2 KB · Views: 30
steingar said:
Moreover, we don't know how many of those "saves" would have turned out just fine if the pilots had acted like Airmen and flown the crate all the way to the crash.
.
Click to expand...
And so what?? But at least they had this choice. Still like 80% of all GA accidents involve loss of control - these pilots had no chance to “act like airmen” and put the aircraft down in a place of their choice, very often they were coming down like missiles, sometimes even in pieces. So perhaps in your perfect world there would be all gallant airmen who never lose control of their machines but this isn’t the world we live in.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Piloto said:
I would rather have a pilot relief tube than a parachute. You get to use it more often and makes your long trips more comfortable. I have one on my Mooney and love it.
Click to expand...

I read about these on the Malibu POH. They were so adamant about the corrosive nature of urine that there was all kinds of cleaning that had to be done after using it, to the point that a port-a-Jon was much easier.
 
tspear said:
Yes, it was done for EASA certification.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

olasek said:
Yes, Cirrus test pilot did recover from a spin, this is what my Cirrus instructor told me however officially the position of the factory is - you don’t try to recover - you pull CAPS, this is in POH.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

FastEddieB said:
Yes. The Cirrus passed spin certification tests in Europe.

The company chose to forego such testing in the US, since they demonstrated the chute provided an Equivalent Level of Safety should a spin occur.
Click to expand...

Is the spin more difficult to recover from in a Cirrus compared to other airframes?

The reason why I ask is because I hear a lot about how Cirrus can't recover that is why a chute is needed but if test pilots can recover from it without pulling CAPS...then why not?
 
Piloto said:
I would rather have a pilot relief tube than a parachute. You get to use it more often and makes your long trips more comfortable. I have one on my Mooney and love it.
Click to expand...

Fake news, that's actually a chemtrail nozzle.

As for the chute, it's another tool in the toolbox. The more tools, the more options you have if something goes bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top