Originally Posted by
Rod1
scooter boy
“Fixed gear hanging down into the slipstream (even the most aerodynamic gear fairings are still worse than doing what the birds do and tucking the gear away).”
Most of the modern studies would disagree. By the time you have added in the extra weight and the compromised wing design you break even on performance but lose out on useful load. You also have increased maintenance and insurance costs.
“Composite - I still don't trust it when there is any chance of lightning”
A modern carbon fiber aircraft designed for IFR is likely to survive a lightning strike much better than a 1950’s metal machine.
I find it hard to understand how you can compare a 1950;’d design with a modern aircraft, it is just a shame that it does not use a modern engine.
Rod1
Dear Rod,
I chose a Mooney over the Cirrus, lancair columbia and twinstar for many reasons - The best way of summing up my reasoning is "Product Integrity".
Product integrity IMHO is proven over time and the long body Mooney airframe has had a pretty long shakedown in my opinion. Accident statistics will confirm that when a Mooney crashes (usually) all of the bits are usually found in the same spot - meaning bits do not fall off (unlike cirrus where ailerons have left the airframe on 2 reported occasions in the short life of this airframe without it even having been subjected to a lightning strike).
Yes, the shape of the Mooney is not new but the aerodynamic principles hold true, as does the structural integrity of the very overengineered airframe - (I have visited the factory and seen the Mooney wing structure during assembly - it truly is something to behold. I have also flown with the Mooney chief test pilot and been demonstrated the aircraft and shown that it performs exactly as published in the book - 192KTAS in the cruise - how many other manufacturers can say the same (twinstar owners case in point in particular - you max out 40 ktas slower than you guys were led to believe!).
In addition to this a friend of mine is a retired Air France 747-400 training captain (now flying instructor).
He instructs on the cirrus SR-22 and tells me that it requires far more grunt (power and fuel) to cover the same distance as even a 1970s Mooney (like his own).
If you have any doubts about composite and lightning I would recommend reading the AAIB report into the glider which was struck a year or 2 ago. Remember the Top Gear test when Hamster Hammond was put in a golf and electrocuted? Metal shields the occupants from a perm (or worse).
Sorry, but IMHO age of design is unimportant - you really want to know it won't fall apart on you and that you are not just another "test pilot" for the manufacturer - my advive is give any new design 5-10 years to be shaken down. Look at the Mooney Acclaim (237KTAS) vs anything else (except the columbia which is almost as fast).
As for the undercarriage I just hate the way fixed gear looks - call it subjective but it is just plain ugly IMHO ruining the lines of what would otherwise be stunning looking aircraft (bit like a ferrari with stabilisers or towing a caravan) - sorry but I hate the look.
What I love though is the feeling of acceleration I get when my mooney gear doors completely seal in my gear and we get underway.
SB