007helicopter

I do not know if these stats are correct or not? are you saying that Multi engine stats are better than single in piston aircraft? In all the single V twin arguements the media always claim that there is no safety arguement between piston singles and twins.

I would be interested to see the disection between aircraft which increases the rate to 1.86?

I also ask why the media always appear to quote the high rate of Cirrus accidents if they are wrong.

Infact Cirrus should be quoting these better than average figures to get reduced insurance on Cirrus over other singles not increased.

I am not damning Cirrus as I personally would love to own one of the new generation Cirrus with the wing changes.

That begs a question why make 50 plus mods on the new gen aircraft with extensive wing mods including dihedral and wing tip changes if the pre 2009 aircraft were so good?

Pace

"That begs a question why make 50 plus mods on the new gen aircraft with extensive wing mods including dihedral and wing tip changes if the pre 2009 aircraft were so good?"

Significant reduction in manufacturing cost and a healthy weight reduction (needed to be able to add future options).

P.S.When I fly the G3 wing I don't notice any significantly different handling over the 'old' wing.

Didn't the dihedral allow them to eliminate the aileron/rudder cross-connect bungees that have caused control jams?

I did read somewhere (magazine) that the added dihedral "enabled" the removal of the interconnnect but I guess they could have added dihedral with or without that change. The official reports I've read about the interconnect were about snagging/jamming due to mis-rigging found during 'full and free'checks. The reasons for the new wing were the manufacturing cost and weight reduction - recall the 'old' wing was for the SR20, and when the SR22 came along span was 'bolted' onto each tip. The new one-piece wing is fitted to both SR20 and SR22.

Couple of points about the factual figures quoted, they are from October 21st 2008 and I know there have been several unfortunate incidents since then. 2008 was statistically a good year for the fleet and I fear the 2009 figures when all done will be worse.

I am doing nothing other than being the messenger of these numbers which are put together by Rick Beech who is a copa member who has made it a personal voluntary mission to study every Cirrus accident in detail with a view to learning and advising other members as to the reasons of the accidnet for others to hopefully learn from and hopefully improve what was very bad stats for the early Cirrus fleet, and he is making a tangible difference.

I think the reason it makes the news is a combination of factors and it is true several high profile incidents, Cory Liddle, NYC being probably the most high profile add to the perception of it being people with perhaps more money than hours flying the Cirrus. Saying that the most recent fatality was a hugely experienced and respected instructor with 1000's of hours so it can go wrong for anyone. It is also fairly well documented that the vast majority of accidents are pilot error just the same as in many other types.

Scooter Boy you seem to have a very negative view of the Cirrus, is this based on any hours on type, would be interested to know?

007, my dim view is based on experience of flying and being a passenger in a number of cirri over the years. I know you own/fly a Cirrus as do many on this forum and that criticism of your aircraft is often taken more personally than criticism of your wife!

Before I bought my Mooney I had a test flight in the cirrus and did a comparison.
The cirrus made no sense at all, it was slower, thirstier, has a smaller range, was not available with approved deicing back then (I still have my doubts about effectiveness of deicing in an aircraft with fixed gear) and had less integrated avionics. There is no way I could have completed many of the flights I have been able to over the last few years in a Cirrus without lots of extra fuel stops. Could you make Greece in 6h @12gph LOP from the UK in a Cirrus? I don't think so!

Worse than that it was being pushed so hard in all the aviation mags as the holy grail for general aviation.

Nothing makes me recoil as much as when a poor second rate product is being over marketed as a first rate product.

Look at Loop's "race" to Cannes for example. They had a DA42, a cirrus and something else.
Q. Where was the Mooney?
A. not invited as it would have shown a clean pair of heels to everything else by an embarrasingly long margin, not to mention the fact that it would have used half the fuel.

My opinion is based on my own experience and is here simply to provide balance here to the frothy effervescent unbalanced reviews of the jellymould I frequently read.
Cirri are fat thirsty slow birds by comparison with any comparable Mooney - and don't get me started on the DA-42!

Don't believe what you read in the aviation press.

scooterboy I think your spectacles are so rose-tinted as to be virtually opaque! There's not much arguing with the stats as to the Mooney's speed, legs or thirstiness compared to the Cirrus, but there's a reason for that - cabin size and fixed gear.

I just don't believe you when you say that with 4 aboard someone of your size was fine. I'm 6 ft and reasonably broad shouldered and found that when sat in the Mooney I was rubbing shoulders with the other person in the front. With the front seat in the right position for me there was no way I could sit in the back seat without putting my legs across it. It felt small and claustrophobic.

As far as 'rattly plastic jellymould', my god, get into the 21st century! Composites are unarguably the way forward.

The Cirrus (and the DA42) are great planes for what they are designed for, you're just not really comparing like for like.

I ask myself why you would want to do that to yourself? Next time do stop for a good lunch half way old chap :)

There is no such thing as a perfect light aircraft - and if nothing else this thread proves it. There are things a Cirrus does well and there are things a 42 does better (like having an extra engine, if I had been in a Mooney last year instead of a 42 I would have been in a muddy field I suspect).

ILOC

I have to defend Scooter boy a little here := I have flown 2 mooneys for about a total of 300 hrs. I am 5 ft 11 ins. Side to side I agree they are friendly. They are a pain to get in and out of but once in they are quite comfortable.

The back seats are infact the best area, very comfortable with good views and reasonable leg room 4 up.

They are very strong aircraft. The old saying that you will never break the wings off a mooney. They are fast for their engine size and have good range and fuel economy.

They do look dated in comparison to the Cirrus and in no way approach the size or comfort of the Cirrus.

Off autopilot the Cirrus is much twitchier and I could see it could easely be hard work for a low time IR pilot flying SP.

Having flown both I would go for the new Cirrus with the updated deicing.
I heard that Mooney were looking at a baby turbine shame Cirrus dont do the same! Lastly I like the idea of the shute! comfort zone maybe? but at least it adds another option should all go wrong and must be a big comfort to the SP flying his family if he/she trains them up in its use should the unmentionable happen.

Pace

Scooter boy I have never heard the Cirrus being quoted as slow, fat or especially thirsty or not suitable for long missions. Now my wife that is another story.

This year we did Elba (Italy) in around 5 hours with a leisurely stop for lunch en route, we ran at about 13 gph us LOP, 65% power @ 155 knots, no complaints from me. Other Cirrus did it non stop which is more than my Girlfriend's bladder takes - Feel free to crtiicise my wife or my Cirrus as much as you wish though.

My longest trip this year was Miami to Duluth Minnesota (on the canadian border) in one day and 2 en route fuel stops, This was 10 hours flying and as I recall about 1800 miles. The only point being that I think that is plenty of distance and utility and the main factor I was not totally exhausted and felt absolutely fine, that many hours in my car would cripple me. Also I am 6' 4" and it has oodles of leg and width room

I am not trying to say my dads car is better than yours etc, and I have never flown a Mooney of any sort but understand they are perfectly good aircraft, my only point is that from what I have seen in my limited experience the Cirrus is a phenominal aircraft with superior performance, avionics, reliability and comfort than any other compareable GA 4 seater SEP in a similar category that I am aware of.

In terms of the original posters question about safety I think because of the missions the Cirrus tends to fly it is often exposed to higher risk situations like night, IFR, icing risk, over water and mountains compared to perhaps your average cessna which might typically be used for training and spends half its life in the circuit (no offense to cessna) This combined with the early years bad accident record does give an impression of a safety issue compounded by a lot of myth and BS. Also pilots not informed or knowledgeable about the BRS parrachute tend to take the piss or mock it as a gimmick with a macho I would allways rather control it into a forced landing and put it where I choose attitude. Again there is many situations BRS would be preferable to a forced landing.

It is a powerful and fast aircraft that needs appropriate training to operate safely but is certainly not beyond the scope of any reasonable average pilot to operate with a few hours extra training.

Scooter Boy, You are welcome to come to lunch at Rochester for a flight at my expense, bring your passport and the R44

Duncan

I am getting confused :ugh: who was on the aircraft the Girlfriend the wife or both? who pulled the BRS shute? ;)

Reading this bit the wife obviously had to go

Pace

OK, but the difference is I wasn't trying to bash the Mooney (OK maybe very slightly to make a point). But pointing out that scooterboy is not only being very biased but isn't comparing like for like.

I like the Mooney but I did find it pretty cramped (particularly compared to an SR22), but then I acknowledge that it's the price you pay for that sort of performance and it's not really aimed at taking 4 people around in comfort.

Equally well I think the DA42 is a revolutionary light twin and the surely the Cirrus's success speaks for itself. However they are all filling different niches and to bash the Cirrus for being 'fat and slow' when it is so much more comfortable and spacious isn't being fair.

Oh the plural of cirrus is cirrus :ok:

No its Cirrae or Cirruses :D

Pace

So when we look into the sky we dont see filaments of cirrus ???
sorry subtle change of" In the red corner Mooney Blue corner Cirrus" type argument

Well the thread didn't start out red on blue.

But after six-something hours airborne I guess I'd feel confident starting a pissing contest too! :)

Composite construction is the future of manufacturing a lot of things, aircraft included. It really is a great technique for manufacturing things where you want a good strength to weight ratio and to be able to have a great deal of control over the structure.

corrigenda
 

GDF, where did you school dear boy?;)

-us becomes -i most of the time (if the cirrus is to be considered a masculine object) in the plural

Composites are the future though - I have nothing against composites and have about 600h in a composite airframe.

I don't think fixed gear is the future though, if the cirrus looked more like a Lancair legacy I would be in love with it. In the meantime I remain the exception to the rule by disliking its shape and recoiling at the marketing used to push the product.

When flying the Mooney (not just sitting in it). The person flying will have their seat 6" or so forward of the front seat P2. This staggers your shoulders nicely so there is no shoulder rubbing.

Pace is right - the backseat is very spacious.

Complaining about cabin width in a Mooney is like complaining about visibility out of a lamborghini. You don't buy a Lambo for its parallel parking qualities just as you only buy a Mooney to go farther and faster using less fuel than anything else. I am sorry but I think they are pretty vital usps.

Also if you look at your flying, how much of it is done with 2 or 3 others in the aircraft.
In my case I have had 4 on board a few times, 3 on board frequently, 2 on board often, but most of my flying was solo.

....and another thing, don't give me that "I like to break the journey up and stop for lunch in Cannes" nonsense, Fuji. The only reason you do is because you have no other choice! I'd rather be eating a packed lunch up in the flight levels in a Mooney than waste time on the ground being tortured by the French/Italian aurthorities and paying through the nose for fuel :ok:.

For long trips I fill up with Jersy/Guernsey fuel, I have a Lord John (with Lady Jane adapter!) which drains the channel islands fluids mid flight, it beats having to land and clear customs, file another flight plan, refuel etc... I am infinitely happier staying in the airway sipping fuel LOP and getting better mpg in a straight line than many cars (with no euronav charges).

Nothing beats getting there in 1 hop. Less cost, less time, less risk.

Buy a Mooney and cross an entire continent in one hop - it has a greater range than many bizjets.

...and by the way, I'm sure your WAGs are all beautiful!

SB

I can guarantee you that is what I do and it has nothing to do with the aircraft. The 42 I fly has the supplementary tanks and I can also guarantee you if it is a p***ing contest I can go a lot further than you, but I dont.

As always horses for ..

For me I just get a bit bored with anything over three hours and I really enjoy stopping off somewhere - perhaps that is why my belly is too big and yours is small. :)

With regards the u/c I think it has been well published that Cirrus went this route to contain the insurance cost in the US. Whether we agree or not the insurance market is driven by risk and clearly the risk to the insurers of a retractable is higher because you can guarantee at some point it will get stuck or the pilot will forget to check for three greens. You only need to make that mistake once or for it to stick once and you have negated the fuel you may have saved a few hundred times over. Moreover some see the ballistic chute as an important advance in safety but the chute will not work well without the u/c absorbing some of the load. Sure you could run the u/c before or after pulling the chute but that introduces another element of risk.

Once again its a compromise. Mooney and Mooney pilots see it differently and good for them but like it or note to survive in this business you have to sell aircaft. That means you have to do a good job advertising your product, but you also have to make a product that has market appeal.

All the time Cirrus are still rolling aircraft off the production line and selling them and Mooney have stopped rolling anything off the production line I have to say in the real world Cirrus have it about right and Mooney have it horribly wrong - because as good as the aircraft might be if you are not building them, no one is going to know.

Each to their own. Personally I wouldn't do legs in excess of 3 hours by choice, as it is nice to stop for a pee and a stretch of the legs. But i fly for fun and not for business meetings etc.. If I did, I'd probably take BA. The longest leg I've done was about 5 hrs and that was in a King Air, the total day was 8am until 23:30 and after that I was hacked off with being in an aeroplane and just wanted a glass of wine and a sleep ;)

Cirrus have done a lot of things right - they make an attractive spacious aeroplane, it is reasonably fast, but also would appeal to non-aviation-women because there is no clambering over seats or joysticks ;). It has advanced avionics, and the parachute, it is roomy and spacious.

The Mooney appeals more due it's speed and from a pilot perspective this is very attractive to us.

Still, my favorite aeroplane that I have flown is still the DA42. No propellor in the field of vision, and despite being slower that the others, looks best ;)

"All the time Cirrus are still rolling aircraft off the production line and selling them and Mooney have stopped rolling anything off the production line I have to say in the real world Cirrus have it about right and Mooney have it horribly wrong - because as good as the aircraft might be if you are not building them, no one is going to know."

Amen to that - this is testament to the immense power of marketing.

In addition to Cirrus's marketing, I think that the "smart conservative pilot" population, which has been the Mooney mainstay for decades, is shrinking due to attrition due to old age...

I read some article in a US mag saying the Oshkosh visitor age profile is getting 1 year older every year, which bodes poorly for all the traditional 1950s riveted-metal merchandise. When you look at a Saratoga, covered in zillions of protruding rivets, makes you wonder whether anybody remotely style-conscious would ever buy such a thing. Evidently, not many do...

Very true, but it is a real shame that "US Marketing" has decided to con everybody with a fixed gear plane (when a retractable version would have gone 10-20kt faster; equivalent to a LOT of horsepower at the relevant speed) on the promise of cheaper insurance (false) and "much" lower maintenance costs (false, especially against the extra fuel burnt).

If Cirrus made a retractable, it would have been pretty amazing.

IO540

Are you sure this is just one of those myths?

I dont know a deal about the US insurance market and I agree here it would make any difference.

However Flying (a reputable mag. in my view) reported that it was difficult if not impossible for low hour pilots to get insurance on retractables in the US or at any rate only with a hefty policy loading. The wisdom of attracting high wealth low hour pilots into a Cirrus is perhaps questionable; that is one of the more dubious sides of marketing perhaps Scooter was referring to, but as they might say on the otherside of the Pond, hey if it sells aircraft.

After all as I indicated earlier it only takes one pilot to land gear up for whatever reason and that is probably a 50K payout at the bottom end and maybe a lot more - that takes some recovery in the premiums charged.

$50k, sure.

I recall reading a premium survey at the Socata user group site, and IIRC the TB owners were paying much lower premiums than Cirrus owners.

This could be due to the different pilot experience profile (only slightly odd characters buy TBs :) ) but the difference was pretty substantial.

OTOH I know someone with a DA42 whose premium is massive. Can't recall the figure but it was about $10k plus. I pay £2500 (CPL/IR 1000+hrs, sole pilot).

However it's not that hard to make sure a gear up landing is really unlikely. On the TB, the landing flap is interlocked to the gear status and the only way to fool it is to land without the landing flap (which some pilots do, thinking they are smart and the runway is long...). But you also need to defeat the throttle lever position v. gear status interlock, which is possible but only if landing into a fairly strong headwind. If one fitted a radar altimeter, the system would be "totally" foolproof but one wonders about the wisdom of providing the stereotype Cirrus customer with a radalt :) OTOH the Garmin 496-style GPS "500ft" audio warning would be 99% as good.

I am not saying I will never land gear up but if I do I need my head examined because I will have made 4 mistakes one after the other:

- forgot to drop the gear
- forgot the landing flap
- probably doing a very flat approach i.e. high power (which I never do)
- ignored the 500ft warning from the G496

and without the 'chute, the equivalent level of safety "get out", for the lack of spin certification, would not be valid. The fixed undercarriage is integral to the design for more reasons than just cheaper insurance and running costs.

Picasa Web Albums - pace

Just for Englishall I flight tested the New Diamond twin which was a lovely aircraft. Hope the engine holds up this time.

My film :D

Pace

Nice one Pace.
3 questions:

Was the engine shutdown intentional? :E

The engine looked a tad reluctant to restart, no?

How fast does it go in cruise with the bigger engine?

SB

Would I do that? pure accident :eek:

Was a worry for a second or two but could have landed back on one :E

I was impressed with the aircraft. The earlier one was much to slow and underpowered while this version has been transformed. Its still not mega quick but was indicating 140kts plus so should TAS out at 180 KTS high up.
Takeoff was much sharper too.

The main concern is how good is the new engine compared to all the problems with the old. If its stands a test of time and is reliable then it will be a really good twin.

Pace

The old DA42 did 140kt IAS at 11GPH total flow rate - same as the TB20 but on cheaper fuel. I know; I was in it.

I would expect the new one to have a higher max speed but the same fuel flow at around 140kt.

Sadly the new engine will not have a known history for a few years. Anybody buying one now has to be feeling very lucky, but Diamond need a whole lot of people to be feeling very lucky otherwise they may go bust. No wonder they certified the DA42 with avgas engines, for the US market.

For a few years I have been hoping for a SE turboprop, unpressurised and not much bigger than a TB20. The nearest that ever appeared was the Grob 140 but that must now be dead, and it was way overpriced at (according to Grob) 1.4M euros. They were pitching it at the military training market. The huge cost of the engines and their poor SFC must mean that nobody will use them unless they can the FL250+ TAS gain, which in turn means pressurisation, and you end up with a big plane, and need a bigger engine to pull it along :)

10540

Maybe you had the thing flat out to get 140 :( but at a fast cruise the aircraft is about 10kts faster IAS than its predessor

I too wish a small low cost turbine had been built rather than going the Diesel route.
I believe one was being developed for Mooney?

Pace

There you are a photo from a trip a little while back. 132KT indicated GS but note the head wind at 75% power.

http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/z...r/IMG_0041.jpg

Fuji

You had about 150 kts TAS with the headwind. Need to know your altitude with that TAS?

Pace

It just so happens I have the PDF taken at the same time.

http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/z...r/IMG_0042.jpg

That works out about right with the new aircraft 150 TAS at 6000 feet with prob around 160 TAS in the new version.

The Seneca V would be faster than both at around 170 at those levels.
Diamond never seem to make quick planes

Pace

Yes, indeed.

The Cirrus is of course appreciably quicker but no where near as smooth.

I would be very interested to try the Lycoming version of the 42.

My ideal aircraft (for touring at any rate)

A DA42 with the cabin of a Cirrus, the speed of a Mooney and the engine out performance of an Aztruk. (and a bit of TB20 thrown in for good measure)

Diesel engines would be great because of the widespread availability of Avtur but Lycomings will do. For a modern twin I would want a honest cruise of 180 KT, and I think the 42 needs a little better single engine performance (its fine in the cruise but underpowered on the climb out).

I reckon the Lycoming powered version from what I have heard comes very close. Whilst I liked the laid back seating in the 42 initially I am now not so sure. The Cirrus cabin is better as is the TB20.

'SE Turbo-prop'
 

I have been flying a O&N Aircraft conversion of the Cessna P210 for a couple of years in UK. They call it a Silver Eagle(On FAA register to enable owners to use FAA IR)
Continental 315hp piston engine replaced with RR/Allison 250-B17 of 450hp. Complete refurbish includes Chelton Synthetic Vision EFIS with TCAS, EGPWS, S-Tec 55 A/P and radar pod on wing. Full de-ice.(Latest conversions now Garmin 900 avionics fit)
200kts TAS at FL190, 24 gph,cabin at 8000ft.
A great all round aircraft which can use 600 mt grass strip with ease at mauw.
As usual with these SE turbo prop aircraft , only 2/3 pax with full fuel but 3 1/2 hours with 4 people.
Only problem you need $750/850 thou to buy a new conversion!
O&N have a Cessna 340 turbo prop conversion with same engine in Certification at the moment.

Thanks pace, I can't watch it here though due to "websense" ! I'll watch it when I get home.

My experience of the DA42 is TAS of 150-155kts at 78-80% at 5000 feet.

As you are on the N reg, when your engine is up for overhaul, why not pop into Texas Turbines and get one bunged in the TB20 ;)

There is no known TB turbine conversion - or indeed any other engine option.

However, if one did just that, the range would shrink to about 2/3 which would mean I would suddenly be doing a whole load of fuel stops, which I hate. The other day I flew to Valencia and back, landing with 39USG and 31USG respectively (full tank = 86.2). With a turbine knocking a 1/3 off, such a trip would be marginal, to say the least.

And the oxygen usage is huge at the high levels - a cannula simply won't work.

We really need a turbine which is a lot more efficient that the present ex-helicopter-market 450HP turbines. There is nothing even remotely on the horizon, AFAIK.

Turbine conversions are not the perfect cure. FAA certification requirements normally force Vne to be artificially low; generally AIUI at the bottom of the yellow arc. The Jetprop has a Vne of (IIRC) 160kt which is even lower than my TB20 (189kt) and it makes sense only at FL270 when you get ~ 260kt TAS. I know a US dealer selling this stuff and he tells stories of "lots of working rivets" and "Vmo warning CBs pulled" on most of the planes he works on, suggesting perhaps that a lot of people do make rather more use of the power than the airframe was built for. If I was buying a Jetprop I would do some due diligence on the airframe year (specific reinforcements in the tail area).

I think the issue is that Vne is related primarily to control surface flutter, which is related directly to TAS (the actual airflow velocity) whereas Vne is actually marked on the ASI in terms of IAS. If one takes the airframe to a much higher altitude than it was originally tested for, the Vne figure (expressed as IAS) has to be reduced, but nobody will have done the complete re-certification to determine the safe upper limit.