PDA

View Full Version : Mooney article in this month's Flyer


scooter boy
28th Mar 2009, 22:49
So flyer took the incredible Mooney Acclaim-S for a 1hr40min test flight, criticised the hell out of its cabin width numerous times, never tested the factory's claimed 242kts max speed (they would have got a bit less than that in a TKS equiped airframe methinks) and compare the Mooney's well time proven FIKI certified deicing with the Cirrus version. (Actually the Mooney TKS works extremely well even in bad icing, I have first hand experience.)

A pretty lukewarm article really - the report seemed to simply be going through the motions of a perfunctory write up rather than extolling the virtues of a superlatively engineered aviation legend with unsurpassed range, speed and economy.

I think I'll be looking at a proper flight test in one of the US mags to gauge its true performance - this article was poor and did not test the aircraft in the profiles it is likely to be flown in by owners i:e long range, high altitude, 1 or 2 on board (on a business trip).

SB

Fuji Abound
28th Mar 2009, 23:31
I have not read the article but will do so.

The Mooney is a superb aircraft, albeit I think it occupies a niche market which has been eroded by the Cirrus. The Mooney is quicker and more economical, but the speed differential has been substantially eroded and may no longer be enough taken with the other drawbacks. In a similiar vien I doubt the saving in fuel is a signifcant factor if contemplating a capital investment on a new aircraft of that order.

The Cirrus cockpit is large and comfortable (I always say built for fat Americans, but not a comment I would want to make on here), the Cirrus version of the G1000 is way ahead of the avionics fit of the latest generation of Mooney's and the aircraft is likely to be less costly to maintain. Cirrus's recent FIKI approval is the icing on the cake.

These issues will continue to make the market a tough place for Mooney but horses for courses it is a superb aircraft even if I think Cirrus have the edge in terms of the overall package.

Contacttower
29th Mar 2009, 00:23
I often find the flight tests in the UK flying magazines rather dull, I don't know why but the US ones always seem a bit more comprehensive and interesting somehow.

sternone
29th Mar 2009, 06:46
If it comes to airplane tests there is only 1 place to look : Aviation consumer. They don't have any advertisers, so they have no reason why to put their number 1 advertiser (cirrus) above a lower paying advertiser (mooney)

You can compare a Mooney pilot with a Cirrus pilot but you can't put them into the same boat, it is impossible. We have all met both. People who own new Mooneys have selected a Mooney for their quality, handling and because it fits their mission profile. People who own new Cirrus has been talked into it most of the time and don't know that much about planes, have you seen the Cirrus POH ? If x happens, pull the chute, if y happens, pull the chute, if z happens, pull the chute. Yeah right.

I take subscriptions of Aviation Consumer, IFR refresher and ABS magazine. The rest can go straight to the waste basket, and that's how you should treat their articles too scooterboy.

scooter boy
29th Mar 2009, 08:18
Fuji, I forgot to mention resale values. The Mooney still holds its value reasonably well. As for the Cirrus - the value plummets like a non-BRS equipped stone. Too many used versions on the market, too many new model upgrades instantly devaluing the previous model.

Horses for courses you are right - Mooney vs Cirrus is like this is like comparing a champion thoroughbred to a seaside donkey.

As for "fat Americans" - our Flyer flight test team seemed to have that angle covered nicely.

SB

IO540
29th Mar 2009, 08:40
Used Cirrus values were bound to bomb because a) Cirrus was marketing them like cars so they were bound to shift a fair # of them to people who then "discovered" that the despatch rate of an SEP is not quite the same as the despatch rate of a car, and b) the regular technical upgrades made the "old" versions less desirable.

The advertising style was IMHO essential to break the "GA anorak" mould. The innovation was also something to be pleased about but ultimately it was going to catch up with them by saturating what is a pretty well limited market.

Fuji Abound
29th Mar 2009, 09:39
We all like certain aircraft which can result in a bias view.

I am not sure the evidence suggests Cirrus depreciate more quickly than a TB20 or a Mooney. For example, a quick search shows Trade-A-Plane has an almost new 2008 Mooney for $538K and the closest model 3 years later with 520 hours is $340K. A Cirrus of the same vintage and the same hours is $369K and a 2008 model is $450K which would suggest on a very limited sample the Cirrus has done better.

Trade-A-Plane's own stats would suggest there is little in it comparing like for like.

A manufacturers market will undoubtedly be effected by confidence. Diamond's customers have suffered a set back with the Theilert debacle and prices have suffered. Mooney have not helped themselves by stopping production - will they survive, probably, but who knows for sure. Cirrus have just about got themselves into the same environ as Cessna with sufficient weight of numbers to have a business just supporting the existing population - much as Diamond. Socata survive on the back of their turbine business and, probably, French subsidies.

The single most significant impact on values is a manufacturer going bust. Confidence evaporates as fast as the cost of parts rises.

All that said the market is not what it seems at the moment. No one is paying the head line price for anything and therefore it is very difficult to establish what is selling and for how much.

Oh, and Sternone, dont get yourself into a twist over the chute, it is a great marketing tool and sells aircraft. Better have sound marketing at the moment and sell aircraft than go down the chute.

Personally having flown them all the Mooney is a little cramped for me but I love its speed, the Cirrus is a very good aircraft much better now they have replaced the Avidyne with the G1000, the TB20 is a great aircraft if a little slow in this company and dated, and the Diamonds are too slow and the cockpit leaves you feeling like a F1 driver which might be OK if the performance even came close to a F1 car.

A Perspective system in a DA42 with the interior of a Cirrus with two PT6s or, at a push, two Lycos, or diesels if they get them working, and the wings of a Aztec and the quality of finish of a Mooney would just about be perfect.

scooter boy
29th Mar 2009, 10:00
I am not sure the evidence suggests Cirrus depreciate more quickly than a TB20 or a Mooney.

My opinion is based on direct conversation with a US based aircraft broker friend.
It is also rooted in reading articles on aircraft depreciation in the aviation press written by brokers and dealers of single piston aircraft.

Cirrus produce lots of glossy ads and before you know it every new PPL wants a plastic fixed-gear jelly mould to fly around in. Cirrus have a great marketing strategy and a huge marketing budget.
What a triumph of style over substance they are.

Equally Cirrus' giant advertising spend buys lots of column inches and loyalty from the aviation press in this country. I remember reading a gushy article on a cirrus with a slightly bigger engine and better go-faster stripes than the last one very recently. We are all victims of bias in the media.

For example, a quick search shows Trade-A-Plane has an almost new 2008 Mooney for $538K and the closest model 3 years later with 520 hours is $340K. A Cirrus of the same vintage and the same hours is $369K and a 2008 model is $450K which would suggest on a very limited sample the Cirrus has done better.
Trade-A-Plane's own stats would suggest there is little in it comparing like for like.

Fuji - You're the one not comparing like for like.

Oh, I just figured out what you meant, you obviously mean comparing a normally aspirated Mooney ovation2 with a turbocharged cirrus? The Mooney gives a similar cruise speed, and double the range but on a fraction of the fuel. Or is this not what you meant? Shhh! Best not tell the cirrus drivers out there.

A manufacturers market will undoubtedly be affected by confidence. Diamond's customers have suffered a set back with the Theilert debacle and prices have suffered. Mooney have not helped themselves by stopping production - will they survive, probably, but who knows for sure.

I agree entirely - Mooney have probably saved themselves by stopping production.

The single most significant impact on values is a manufacturing going bust. Confidence evaporates as fast as the cost of parts rises.

Mooney are still producing parts, servicing + repairing aircraft and covering existing aircraft warranties.
Their strategy is to hunker down and wait out the recession. They have not gone bust.

All that said the market is not what it seems at the moment. No one is paying the head line price for anything and therefore it is very difficult to establish what is selling and for how much.

Absolutely. Asking prices are fantasy at present. This is why the trade-a-plane statistics fall down. They are what people are asking for - not what they are getting. In a market flooded with cirruses prices have to be driven down. The aircraft is only worth what somebody is prepared to pay for it.

I will tell you what my ovation 2 sells for over the next couple of weeks if you are interested.

Fuji Abound
29th Mar 2009, 10:28
Scooter

I am not "having a go" at Mooney. I like the aircraft.

As to values I was comparing a Turbo Cirrus with a Turbo Cirrus but an Ovation 2GX M20R with a Ovation 3GX so in fact it is to the Mooney I am being generous because the Ovation is a later and "better" aircraft. The Ovation is quicker and more economical but its cabin is a much cosier place to spend time together - as I said horses for .. .. ...

Cirrus do produce a jelly mould aircraft and I suspect any volume manufacturer would do so today. The economies of scale are significant. Moreover, I suspect a jelly mould aircraft will prove safer in an accident given the reaction of the material to impact and the ability of the designers to readily match the material to their needs. F1 designers use composite for a reason - and you can bet the cost is not a factor.

IO540
29th Mar 2009, 11:35
As I think I've said before, values are holding up on good quality products which are still reasonably current.

That's why the most recent TB20s (2001/2002) still fetch good prices. And I am taking into account the fact that most sellers don't like to admit how much money they lost on something...

Recent Mooneys will also fetch good prices.

It is the 1980s production stuff which has bombed. For example you can buy a 1985 TB20 for about £40k. It's going to be a dog with loads of things that need doing but so long as it legally flies it's still a TB20... That same plane would have been £60-80k 2 years ago.

Cirrus values have dropped more because they have been continually changing their specs, so their "most recent" offering is actually really recent, and something say 5 years old is going to appear well out of date. I should think they Avidyne models have well bombed since the G1000 ones came out.

Socata and Mooney will always be around making the parts because of the fleet sizes (~2k for the Socata TB; no idea of the Rallye fleet size) and since the TC owner can generate the paperwork from fresh air, it's a massively lucrative business. A 3rd party parts maker would need to get an STC for most parts which would be silly. Look at Piper - they are selling very few planes these days, but have a huge worldwide parts operation. Only an idiot will run a business like that into the ground and leave it there, so the TC is lost.

the TB20 is a great aircraft if a little slow in this company and datedI think you will find the TB20 does the same speed, at a given flow rate, as an SR22 or a Cessna 400. Mine does 165kt IAS flat out but who wants to be burning 20GPH? The SR22 is ~10kt faster than the TB20 at say 75% power but you pay for it in fuel. Dated, yes, the latest avionics are the late-1990s stuff, but it's the least dated airframe of all the non-composite airframes in IFR GA.

A glass cockpit means you are over the barrel on any significant avionics work; OK if you have the facilities handy (and don't fly too far away) but a right pain otherwise. The one thing I have noticed recently is that the installation and maintenance manuals for these are very tightly held. Garmin have had their legal team hitting all websites which carried any of their maint/install manuals; too late as the manuals for most of the pre-glass avionics are all over the place (I have a huge collection myself but obviously not on an open website) but they have evidently been successful in keeping the G600/G1000 manuals out of circulation and restricted to the authorised dealers only, so even simple stuff needs to go to the pukka dealer. I would hate a deal like that. Honeywell are the same in theory but in practice they have not really bothered to keep the stuff tightly held, so most avionics shops (or freelancers) can work on the 1990s stuff and older. Autopilots are the exception as they need some weird adaptors / bus extenders (which the dealers have to buy for £xxxxx in order to qualify for the dealership) but otherwise setting them up is trivial enough.

With a 1990s outfit if an instrument goes you pop in an exchange unit and off you go. If however you are tied to a specially authorised dealer and (generally in light GA) you have to go to him, it's a whole day wasted each way.

The reality is that with most planes one gets little "issues" and the owner will eventually get fed up with what he sees as avoidable hassle, so I think glass cockpit planes (which are frankly not flyable with major cockpit defects except under VFR) will depreciate faster. I know of a number of people who would like to dump the stuff they recently bought, and some of the "stuff" I am talking about is well above the piston level. Technology is good and glass cockpits are the best way of presenting the information but not with the way the maintenance scene has been tied up. It's not so bad on jets because the maintenance people travel to the customer but in piston GA you have to make the trip every time.

bookworm
29th Mar 2009, 12:53
...extolling the virtues of a superlatively engineered aviation legend with unsurpassed range, speed and economy...

...the Cirrus version of the G1000 is way ahead of the avionics fit of the latest generation of Mooney's and the aircraft is likely to be less costly to maintain. Cirrus's recent FIKI approval is the icing on the cake.

I think you will find the TB20 does the same speed, at a given flow rate, as an SR22 or a Cessna 400...


I'm confused. Where's the Columbia 400 nut? ;)

IanSeager
29th Mar 2009, 17:00
So flyer took the incredible Mooney Acclaim-S for a 1hr40min test flight, criticised the hell out of its cabin width numerous times, never tested the factory's claimed 242kts max speed (they would have got a bit less than that in a TKS equiped airframe methinks) and compare the Mooney's well time proven FIKI certified deicing with the Cirrus version. (Actually the Mooney TKS works extremely well even in bad icing, I have first hand experience.)

More like 3 hours, it was there and back. I agree that it would have been nice to fly to Spain or similar, but that wasn't possible. No, I never tested the 242 kts. I doubt it would have got there with the TKS and who in their right mind would ever fly one like that? The cabin is cramped, and even on a 1hr 40 min flight both Graham Corbin and me were uncomfortable. I freely admit that neither of us are candidates for slimmer of the year. I only mentioned that the Cirrus was the only other (SEP) factory aircraft with factory fitted FIKI TKS.

A pretty lukewarm article really - the report seemed to simply be going through the motions of a perfunctory write up rather than extolling the virtues of a superlatively engineered aviation legend with unsurpassed range, speed and economy. I think I'll be looking at a proper flight test in one of the US mags to gauge its true performance - this article was poor and did not test the aircraft in the profiles it is likely to be flown in by owners i:e long range, high altitude, 1 or 2 on board (on a business trip).

My bold - why bother with a US mag, seems that you have made up your mind already.

If it comes to airplane tests there is only 1 place to look : Aviation consumer. They don't have any advertisers, so they have no reason why to put their number 1 advertiser (cirrus) above a lower paying advertiser (mooney)

I agree that Aviation Consumer is a very good magazine. I can also guarantee you that the size or value of an advertiser makes no difference to opinions/conclusions in the reviews.

I'm around on Monday and Tuesday this week, give me a call in the office if you want to discuss the Mooney and my views.

Ian

greeners
29th Mar 2009, 17:30
Fair response Ian, good stuff. BTW I presume that you are referring to Flyer as opposed to Aviation Consumer when you say "I can also guarantee you that the size or value of an advertiser makes no difference to opinions/conclusions in the reviews"?

I'd also like to officially confirm that you are a little way off being nominated for slimmer of the year - believe this was officially confirmed near Elgin ;)

Fuji Abound
29th Mar 2009, 18:23
I can also guarantee you that the size or value of an advertiser makes no difference to opinions/conclusions in the reviews.

It is good to know journalism hasn’t succumbed to commercial pressures – at least in aviation circles at any rate. Mac McClellan in Flying recently commented that despite Eclipse pulling all advertising he didnt change his view that the aircraft would not succeed.

The TB20 and Mooney occupy niche markets for a reason. If the aircraft ticked the majority of the boxes (and to be fair to the TB20 we must consider the GA environment at that time, which was quite different from five years ago, as will the market be quite different for the next five years) they would have sold in volume.

For good or for bad Diamond and Cirrus have sold their aircraft in volume – they have identified a product pilots or flying schools want and capitalised on the market in a way neither Mooney or Socata were able to. In short speed alone does not sell aircraft nor does FIKI and nor does speed and FIKI.

As to glass there is much merit in your views IO, however I suspect glass is her to stay. It is far easier to design an aircraft around glass and the manufacturing costs of an integrated panel are significantly less. I have also found very few pilots who do not prefer glass once they have given it a fair trial. However don’t be deceived into believing it is complicated. As you will well know IO Garmin’s incarnation is really little more than the traditional black boxes tied together via a CPU and an LCD. Swapping out the modules is easier than with a conventional panel so although the cost may be higher initially as volumes increase inevitably prices will fall.

IO540
29th Mar 2009, 20:03
As to glass there is much merit in your views IO, however I suspect glass is her to stay.Agreed :) ............. however my view on limited avionics maintenance options stands.

flybymike
29th Mar 2009, 23:09
The trouble with Mooneys is that if you put four people in them , you only have enough fuel for one circuit...

IO540
30th Mar 2009, 06:33
The trouble with Mooneys is that if you put four people in them , you only have enough fuel for one circuit...

That's true for most 4-seaters... unless you make the fuel tanks very small :)

bookworm
30th Mar 2009, 07:49
I'd also like to officially confirm that you are a little way off being nominated for slimmer of the year

ISTR reading an owner comment (in Aviation Consumer or something like that) from a lady owner who was quite generously proportioned herself. It was something like "I don't see what all the fuss about Mooney cabin size is about -- I just wrap it around me and go". :)

Fuji Abound
30th Mar 2009, 10:10
Did they invent the term "spam cam" with Mooney in mind?

Strange really, it clearly would suggests Americans were not always fat.

mad_jock
30th Mar 2009, 10:21
You only have to read the articles on Commercial pilot training to realise that the advertiser rules the written word when it comes to all these mags.

IanSeager
30th Mar 2009, 14:08
You only have to read the articles on Commercial pilot training to realise that the advertiser rules the written word when it comes to all these mags.

It doesn't work like that, honestly. If you are ever down this way come and spend a day or two in the office to see for yourself.

Ian

mad_jock
30th Mar 2009, 19:18
Well its very lazy reporting then because all you seem to do is print the latest (you name the integrated school) marketing ****e. With bollocks quotes from the heads of training about how the market is going to pick up soon.

How about an article on the highland flying school going bust and all the people that its effected with some hints on how to avoid getting shafted when a school goes bust. What happens to your training records, how to get you money back off credit card company's etc.

The administration meeting is on the 6th in Perth if you can be bothered, you should be able to get a fair few folk there who have lost alot.

Lets face it its the first big school 100 ppl students+ with about 400 trial flights on its books. And it won't be the last school to go tits up in the next year or two.

EchoMike
30th Mar 2009, 19:23
Remember that when the Mooney (and a LOT of other USA origin GA airplanes) was originally designed, in the mid 1950s, a "standard FAA person" weighed 170 lbs.

I'm 62, and I'm not a big guy, and I weigh 165/170 pounds.

People are simply larger nowadays.

We won't even talk about being overweight - which is a separate problem. Through the years, people have gotten larger because of better nutrition, better medical care and so on.

If you look at a suit of armor from some hundred years ago, compared to today, those people were LITTLE.

So Mooneys are "snug", OK, that's part of the price of speed. If we had a wide-body Mooney so our modern "wide-body passengers" had lots of elbow room, the airplane would likely be slower because of the increased frontal area.

If Mooney ever put their "Scorpion" one-off into production, it would be an absolute rocketship! (Military trainer design exercise, two seats, one in front, one in rear, center sticks instead of yokes. One built, I think they gave it to EAA. I'd buy one of those . . . )

dont overfil
30th Mar 2009, 19:30
I'm with you Ian. Once you've used a C182 for a while it spoils you for anything under $1000000 (with a reversable prop).
DO.

Kiltie
30th Mar 2009, 20:12
Flyer and Pilot in my experience give a rough overview of the type being flight "tested" for a much varied audience. When it comes to the researching of buying an aircraft / avionics / engine and making the important comparisons the subscription to Aviation Consumer is worth its weight in gold. This is mainly due to the sheer depth of information on each subject published; which I suppose would be difficult to justify for a mainstream UK recreational flying magazine to print.

gasax
30th Mar 2009, 21:03
Let me guess the aircraft in question just happens to be for sale.

And this is the whole problem that all UK magazines have. Thier economics mean they would never pay for a flight test, they would barely turn up without expenses. Given that flawed approach is it any wonder that so manyy of these orphan and generally unloved aircraft aircraft are such great machines? Oh and incidently they are for sale as well!!!!!

IanSeager
30th Mar 2009, 21:50
Let me guess the aircraft in question just happens to be for sale.

Erm yes, but it is a new aircraft. No magazine in the world goes out and buys new (or used) aircraft in order to write about them.

Ian

gasax
31st Mar 2009, 07:27
And virtully all the other aircraft you test are also co-incidently for sale. And it would just be bad manners to write that the aircraft is pants.......

vanHorck
31st Mar 2009, 07:57
I think it is great that Ian is willing to come here and discuss the mag as well as it's limitations. Chapeau!

IanSeager
31st Mar 2009, 08:18
And virtully all the other aircraft you test are also co-incidently for sale. And it would just be bad manners to write that the aircraft is pants.......

Some of them are for sale, but most are not. It would be bad manners, bad form and bad business to lie to the readers just to keep an aeroplane owner or advertiser happy. We attach great value to the relationship that we have with our readers.

Some examples
- One accessory manufacturer refused to advertise for ten years because of something we wrote in a review. We stood by our words.
- One manufacturer spent £20k on legal fees when they threatened to take us to court over a review of one of their products. We stood by our view and they (eventually) backed down.
- One UK business refuses to advertise because we refuse to sell them editorial alongside their advertising. Now they advertise in a magazine that sells them editorial.
- One importer recently offered a lot of advertising in return for guaranteed editorial and regular cover stories. We didn't pitch for the business.

Rgds

Ian

IO540
31st Mar 2009, 09:08
One general observation I'd make is that it's pretty rare to find a magazine which openly slags off a product or a service.

I've written quite a lot of stuff over the last few years and some of it has ended up in printed mags (none of the main UK flying mags BTW) but it always gets edited to take out anything which might upset anybody in any way whatsoever.

I suspect that a magazine, like any other business, can afford to adopt a position of utter integrity only if it has sufficient income from elsewhere. So, in my (electronics manufacturing) business I am happy to (very politely) tell any difficult customer to stick his business somewhere warm and dark, but that's only because I have ~ 100 others. Mind you, I still wouldn't do it to the 1 or 2 who make up 20% of my sales ;)

The other thing is that a magazine "reads better" if it is aspirational, upbeat and generally avoids negative comments. That is a great policy if you are producing a mag which is scanned by its buyer in 10 minutes and then either gets tossed in the bin or spends the next couple of years on a flying club cofee table, and this what happens to most mags these days.

Yet the real world isn't 100% upbeat - especially in aviation where "participant satisfaction" depends as much on doing things right, as it depends on avoiding the serious crap. Especially in ownership. The downside of the "upbeat only" approach is that it doesn't really educate readers on the whole required picture. It is only on websites that one can do "warts and all" writeups, and most pilots I personally know tend to agree that most of the practical stuff they learnt about flying came from the internet, not from printed pubs.

In the last few years there has been a sea change in buying habits and most purchasers hit Google when they are looking for something (even if they originally saw it in a mag) and this deprives advertisers of any data on which advertising medium is actually working for them. This is IMHO the main reason why we still have so many special-interest printed publications carrying adverts; if the advertisers were to ever find out what is working they would pull the plug on most printed ads tomorrow.

So I think the mags do have to be on the whole careful what they write, but the successful ones can afford to adopt positions of integrity on the odd topic here and there. One example of that is the U.S. "Flying" mag which was critical of the Eclipse project and reportedly was excluded from their pretty significant ad budget in revenge. I recall similar cases from my 1970s/1980s motorbike days; the "Bike" mag lost all of Honda's adverts for some years, in revenge for a scathing (if 100% accurate IMHO) writeup on some machine of theirs.

Fuji Abound
31st Mar 2009, 09:49
Since this thread has diversified into mags and their content and Ian has been good enough to comment I do wish the UK mags would publish a few articles of substance. I find all the UK mags focus on glossy pictures and “clever” text layout. I would imagine the total word count is very small. I admit to being a fan of Flying. I also accept Flying covers the biz jet market to some degree, although I am not sure a great deal more than the UK mags. However Flying is always a jolly good read. The articles are invariably interesting and informative with an appeal far beyond the average student pilot. I guess the absence of glossy material helps reduce the publishing costs and in consequence even by the time it reaches this side of the Pond it is nearly a quarter the cost of the UK mags.

Ian, in short I do not profess for one moment to know or understand your business, but unless it does not make commercial sense, please can we have a UK mag that is modelled on Flying – I reckon many more pilots would buy it.

IanSeager
31st Mar 2009, 10:34
Ian, in short I do not profess for one moment to know or understand your business, but unless it does not make commercial sense, please can we have a UK mag that is modelled on Flying – I reckon many more pilots would buy it.

Different model, different market. That said, Flying does columns very well, and I'm pleased to announce that we now have Peter Garrison (very well known Flying regular) joining Brian Lecomber, Irv Lee and Philip Whiteman. With occasional columns from John Farley, I think we have a pretty strong line up, but that won't stop the continual quest for improvement.

Ian

Fuji Abound
31st Mar 2009, 10:39
Ian - I think you do have a strong line up, give them their head a little more if you can, and we might get better technical content and in depth analysis - I am sure it makes sense.

IanSeager
31st Mar 2009, 10:49
Ian - I think you do have a strong line up, give them their head a little more if you can, and we might get better technical content and in depth analysis - I am sure it makes sense.

They aren't held back (although they do have a word count) - I can't imagine trying to tell any of them what not to write.

Ian

IO540
31st Mar 2009, 11:01
Different model, different market

Can you elaborate on that at all, Ian?

There have been many threads on here over the years, wondering why the UK mags are so different to the US ones.

IanSeager
31st Mar 2009, 11:16
Ian - I think you do have a strong line up, give them their head a little more if you can, and we might get better technical content and in depth analysis - I am sure it makes sense.

I could and will, but have a packet of owrk to do and am off to Aero 09 tomorrow, so will email when I get back.

Ian

S-Works
31st Mar 2009, 11:25
I personally think Ian does a pretty good job in printing balanced articles. Especially when you consider some of the drivel that gets printed elsewhere, peoples holiday write-ups etc. Don't even start me on the multi parters....

You can't keep all of the people happy all of the time and it will be inevitable that some people will not agree with what is written. I flown a few different Mooney's and to be frank dislike them. There is no doubt they are quick but they don't have the short field, weight lifting capacity etc of something like a 182. Even though I do not have the adonis profile of Mr Seager(I weight 190lbs), I still find them cramped and uncomfortable with another 'average' person in the RHS. As a long distance tourer with the wife and weekend bags they are OK. But I will take our Malibu over a Mooney anytime.

vanHorck
31st Mar 2009, 12:10
I agree Bose-X, although i d like a little less flashy lay-out giving way to a little more relavant text....

To me the difference with Flying is, it s less of a reading magazine which lasts me a month.... It s more something to pick up, flick through ad put away again, unfortunately

Fuji Abound
31st Mar 2009, 14:55
To me the difference with Flying is, it s less of a reading magazine which lasts me a month.... It s more something to pick up, flick through ad put away again, unfortunately


Can you elaborate?

leondelfierro
31st Mar 2009, 17:00
This is an interesting article, covers a lot of the aircraft...

The myth is that Mooneys are universally cramped and compact airplanes. The myth is just that—a myth. Width at the elbows in the front seat of the Acclaim Type S is a significant 43.5 inches. To put that in perspective, it’s 1.5 inches wider than a G36 Bonanza or G58 Baron’s cabin. True, seating is more laid-back in the Mooney than in other airplanes, so the vertical dimension is admittedly shorter, but legroom is excellent, and overall comfort is better than you might expect. Baggage goes behind the rear seats in a huge compartment limited to 120 pounds
Whoops...:E

Plane & Pilot Magazine - Mooney Acclaim Type S: Still The Fastest! | PlaneAndPilotMag.com (http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/pilot-reports/mooney/mooney-acclaim-type-s-still-the-fastest.html)

Fuji Abound
31st Mar 2009, 19:47
Just 6 full inches narrower than a Cirrus without account of the height and width then.

Have you tried getting into 32 inch jeans when you have a 38 waist? :D

Sorry, couldnt resist.

IO540
31st Mar 2009, 20:42
Thus far I have not come across a plane which redefines the laws of physics.

Most planes of a similar cockpit cross-section (say TB20, SR22, C400) do almost exactly the same IAS for the same fuel flow, lean of peak.

Obviously with a bigger motor up front you get more speed but with a higher fuel flow so that is irrelevant.

Mooneys are more efficient because of a smaller cockpit cross-section. Stand in front of one and it is readily visible.

A lot of people, myself included, would hope that flush rivets etc make a huge difference but (at 140-150kt IAS) they evidently don't.

Retractable gear does make a huge difference and the last 2 in my list get around that with an efficient hull shape so when they chuck away some 10-15kt in their fixed gear, the end result is still competitive.

Fuji Abound
31st Mar 2009, 21:17
Exactly, it is strange really that the very laws that enable us to fly and are pretty well understood some think we can defy when it comes to aircraft design - many have tried, almost none have suceeded.

IO540
31st Mar 2009, 21:42
Nobody will ever succeed in shifting the laws of physics.

What you can do is shift what is acceptable for certification. For example if you can convince the FAA etc that your cockpit is extra crashproof and get Vs lifted from 60kt to 65kt, you can make the wings less draggy.

Fuji Abound
31st Mar 2009, 22:32
Nobody will ever succeed in shifting the laws of physics.



That is true but we can and have changed our understanding of those laws, albeit the frequency with which we do so has fallen as we understand the laws involved and how they interact. For example, someone came up with the idea of vortex generators and they did make a significant difference albeit they did not change the law of physics but they did change our understanding of how those laws operate.

However, I suspect that we have already done a pretty good job of extracting most aerodynamic advantages from how we build light aircraft so that the performance enhancements to be had have become pretty small. That is why the only way Mooney can get that speed out of that HP is by making the cockpit erm cosy - which was your point a few posts back.

Of course Mooney owners like to claim otherwise, but then so do some pilots like to claim GPS works differently this side of the Pond to the other side of the Pond.

Take it all with a pinch of salt.

Wrong Stuff
1st Apr 2009, 08:17
One of the biggest factors affecting how cramped people find the Mooney cabin is how long in the leg they are. Al Mooney was reputed to be quite a tall chap and built an airplane to match.

I'm 6 feet tall with an inside leg of 32 inches, which seems to work well in the Mooney. That puts the ideal seat position on the third notch from the rearmost setting and leaves me a comfortable distance from the panel. It also leaves plenty of space for the rear passengers.

Obviously, people with shorter legs need the seat further forward to reach the pedals. Because of the low seating position, for every inch they're shorter in the leg they're an inch nearer the panel, yoke and coaming. The close proximity of everything in front of them, restricting their view, makes them feel the cabin is much more cramped.

You have to be the right shape for a Mooney. If you are tall enough the cabin size works well.

vanHorck
1st Apr 2009, 11:53
Hi Fuji,

Flying is in my perception a mag FULL of in depth articles, which lasts me a month, just like AOPA pilot does to a lesser extent.

I often buy Flyer, but it seems to have less in-depth articles and more very short articles, often accompanied by a photograph or substantial space for the title, leaving less room for written content.

Nothing scientific, just my feeling.
The Flyer ends up in the small bathroom for reading snippets, Flying ends up in the large bathroom for reading in the bath on a lazy Sunday morning....

They are both different types of magazines, but both allow me to dream away so from that point of view I like them both. Should I decide to subscribe, I'd think I'd prefer Flying though.

flybymike
1st Apr 2009, 12:26
For me, "Flying" has always had that magic readability content with great columnists esp Richard Collins ( now only an occasional contributor) One just needs to grit one's teeth getting through all the horrible Americanisms ( "gotten" "dove" ( dived) "license", "Color" etc) The nearest UK equivalent used to be "Pilot" in the good old James Gilbert days ( but then he used to work for "Flying" before founding "Pilot" ) The modern "Pilot" is a poor relation to the original.

Fuji Abound
1st Apr 2009, 13:28
Yes, that is exactly my assessment. I feel sure there is room for a UK Flying - but perhaps as Ian says a different place, a different market. Perhaps we should start an on line version for the UK - I suspect we would have some pretty good contributors from these forum.


I'm 6 feet tall with an inside leg of 32 inches, which seems to work well in the Mooney. That puts the ideal seat position on the third notch from the rearmost setting and leaves me a comfortable distance from the panel. It also leaves plenty of space for the rear passengers.



BTW I always wondered why pilots getting out of Mooneys were thin lanky healthy looking types - now I know. :) :)

My ski boots are moulded to my foot but moulding the aircraft to the pilot is a whole new concept - I just love it.

Thud105
3rd Apr 2009, 12:48
It is a very different market. How often does Mac fly a machine that costs less than $10,000,000? However, the real difference is that last year either Mac or Collins wrote that they drive an extra 30 minutes past an airport that doesn't have a control tower, and base their aircraft at a field that does have a Tower. For most UK and European readers, I would guess that the reverse is true.

IO540
3rd Apr 2009, 15:04
FWIW I have just read the Flyer mag Mooney review and apart from it lacking in the kind of detail which would interest somebody wanting to buy a plane, it seemed OK to me.

Lack of detail is the scourge of the UK flying mags. I can see why they do it - it's a thin line to tread between having satisfying their reader base (I guess many readers are pretty skint, and would hazard to guess that many don't even fly at all) and all the free and often highly detailed and technical content available for free online to anybody sufficiently motivated to use google.

englishal
3rd Apr 2009, 15:52
I read the article yesterday and thought it was a good, fair, review so I dunno why some people are getting worked up.

Looks nice and fun, but I wouldn't buy one for the money, that is for sure........

scooter boy
3rd Apr 2009, 18:31
11 best Moans in order of appearance:

narrower, smaller fuselage
smaller fuselage
fuselage has no tardis-like qualities
small on the outside and smaller inside
space in the back is reduced somewhat
front seat accomodation is snug
snug environment
Graham's shoulder was hurting
Oli was struggling with his legs
glad the flight was short
Oli is complaining

Ian, you managed to make a day trip to Toussus in the world's best performing single piston sound like torture!

Sure, by all means make a reference to the fact that the aircraft is far more efficient and faster than anything out there because of its reduced frontal surface area but to go on..and on.. and on...

Would you have complained so much if you had been reviewing a day trip to Paris by Ferrari?

I am 6ft tall and fit nicely into the Mooney.
I often have 2 or 3 other on board and have never had anybody struggling with their legs or have hurting shoulders.

More performance figures, less moaning please,

SB

Uncle_Jay
1st May 2009, 20:09
You are all missing the point. Mooneys HANDLE as in, sports car vs. Mini Van. They are tight and precise in all flight regimes (including stalls) and they are a Pilot's vs a Driver's airplane.

Close your eyes and crank a Cirrus around, cant tell it from any other airplane (side stick notwithstanding). A Mooney is like a small fighter.

PS Mooney has a factory option for placing the rudder pedals closer to the pilot

cockney steve
1st May 2009, 21:33
[QUOTE][Mooneys HANDLE as in, sports car vs. Mini Van. /QUOTE]


Bad choice! As someone who has been "drifted"over the Rochford bridge (Southend airport) in a Minivan (new, ~1962 ) I can assure you that the Minivan outhandled a Frogeye Sprite.

The driver had owned and raced a Lotus6 or7 under 1172 formula, then a Formula Junior Elva, as well as the Sprite and the van.

but I get what you are saying....perhaps a 100E thames van would have been a better analogy? (or the dreaded CA Bedford) :}

flybymike
1st May 2009, 23:21
My money is on an HA Viva van....