Which is plane is the best? By the way Cirrus claims to have had there turbo flying next to the 400 and the the 2 planes have flown the same speed but at the same fuel rate (17.5 gph)?
Anyother question? Which company will sell more?
I dont know who would buy the cirrus turbo. And you said same speed at SAME fuel rate. What if i ran a columbia higher, rich a peak. I dont see it a hip because even if does the same speed, people want to say they have the fastest plane.And plus the Acclaim is out!!
If I Remember the cirrus has a useful load of 982 pounds and less range then the sr22. Isnt that why you buy a turbo. Fast and fly far???
Cirrus doesnt have the fastest planes, the planes with the most range, or even the best built planes (i would have to give that to mooney) but they do have the most comfortable. Honestly the range isnt a big factor because i dont know how many pilots fly behind the range of 840 miles (range of the turbo). And plus, they most be doing something right cause they sell more planes then columbia and mooney. Come back in 3 years and Cirrus will have a better Turbo. The first isnt the best.
Lets stay on topic (whos the better one, who will sell more, not criticizing companies).
I pick the Acclaim. But really, they all for different types of flying. If you are flying by yourself, take the acclaim. But if you are carrying 4 people half way across the country the Cirrus works better. The columbia is kind of an inbetween plane but they DONT have good rear seat space (i know that from experience). And remember, in the end these planes will all get you to your destination with a +/- of 10-20 minutes. From what i have tracked on flightaware most guys never use their turbos to there advantage (above 14000 feet or flying long flights)
Sum up
Cirrus: comfort, okay speed (211), bad range (840-950)
Mooney: speed (236), best range of all of them (1615), small
Columbia: speed (235), okay range (1300)
P.S. i think oshkosh was a killer for Columbia with the Acclaim AND the Cirrus Turbo. Expect their sales to drop.
Was reading some of the opinions here, and not sure I agree, having flown all three. I have Columbia 400 as the clear winner, although it is also the most expensive.
All are fine machines, but let’s go from there. I flew the latest Garmin equipped Columbia model, with newer seats as well. It is definitely more comfortable than the Mooney, since the Cabin is quite significantly wider, and you sit more upright, rather than “very close to the floor” in the Mooney (ie. Vertical dimension is also more limiting in the mooney). Next, speed between Mooney and Columbia is within a whisker, so why not save on your insurance and maintenance by flying a fixed gear instead of retractable. No gear to forget to put down as well, which could save you a bundle one day. in more ways than one. Although tanks full range is further in the Mooney, Columbia’s range is excellent. To get that extra range in the Mooney will severely limit your cabin payload … likley pilot only
Mooney does have the proven known ice TKS, but Evade de-ice system on Columbia is almost half the weight, and never runs out of fluid. How well the electric system performs I would love to know, if anyone can say.
Cirrus is somewhere in the middle of these two. Fit and finish was not up to the Columbia, but then I have not seen the latest planes being produced. I recall closing the door was a hassle. Comfort was very good in Cirrus.
All have excellent flying characteristics, although Columbia sidestick interface was quite superior in my opinion than the Cirrus. Once you get used to this, it’s hard not to look at the conventional yoke in the Mooney as unnecessarily “in your way”, and perhaps a safety hazard in the event of a crash landing.
I thought rear seat room was better in Columiba, than in the Mooney. Cirrus was also very good.
Would welcome anyone else’s comments.
Yes, Cirrus is the sales leader, but why is that ?
- They got to market well before Columbia, so gained a lot of momentum and following
- The parachute sounds like a very nifty idea to new pilots (whether it offers a real safety advantage is another matter)
- The plane had a “high- tech” feel with glass cockpit, gull wing doors, and roominess. Mooney’s had none of that when Cirrus hit the market.
Whether they have the best product today is another matter.
I would like someone to tell me why they would prefer a Mooney Acclaim over a Columbia 400 ?? Only advantage I can think of is “known-ice” certification, versus inadvertant on the Columbia, although the performance of these systems is likely very close. On the other hand, Columbia has several advantages over Mooney.
ARe Mooney’s certified in “utility” category ?
1 Like
Aircraft Specification 2A3, which covers the Mooney 20 series of aircraft, shows the aircraft is categorized in the Normal Category.
sorry i was trying to quote cirrus000 on the the fact that cirrus sells more planes (i think they are a piece of junk).
Why imagine?
Columbia Aircraft is the certificated offshoot of the Lancair kitbuild aircraft product line. http://www.lancair.com The Lancair IV-P does well better than 260kts, more like 285kts. (at 24,000ft!)
The 2 seat Legacy is my favorite (however impractical), either retractable or fixed, a great looking plane.
I own a Mooney Ovation, and have flown the Cirrus.
Comfort is not the same for everyone. I am more comfortable in the Mooney because of my long legs. I cannot get comfortable in the Cirrus with someone behind me, and the seat lacks adjustability. I concede that more people find the opposite is true, at least until they take an hour long flight.
The newest Mooney seats are incredible. My older ones are still better than Cirrus.
Overall, the fit and finish on the Cirrus models I have seen are not that good, and they burn a lot more fuel for the same speed. The big seller here is the parachute, which will get people who don’t like “little planes” to agree to come with you. Also it is easy in and out. Lastly, it was designed to meet a desired market result that has more general appeal than the speed demon competition.
The Columbias are nice looking planes with good numbers and appear to be built by a good company. I like the side stick best of the three controls. They are comfortable inside as well, but I haven’t been up in one.
Cirrus will sell the most planes, and Columbia may lose next place to Mooney since the Acclaim should be much more popular than the Bravo. I see their mix getting much more turbo heavy.
If I could afford new, I would look at Columbia now that they have the G1000, but I would not buy a Cirrus for myself due to comfort. I would also like to see Diamond do a high performance plane. Cirrus needs to offer speed brakes or they are going to shock those turbo 550’s.
Welcome to the forums, Canadamooney, your thoughts are very interesting in all of your posts, and it’s a welcome sight to see!
Canada Mooney - where are you based ?? I am in Montreal.
Agree with you that’s it’s real close between the Ovation and Columbia. Each have their advantages. Someone told me that in spite of the fixed gear, Columbia’s would be more to insure, as they are rated like Cirrus, and the accident stats are worse for these planes than Mooney’s. It must be related to new pilots with deep pockets, who are attracted to the sexy new designs, and who then get into flight situations beyond their experience level.
Mooney’s financial condition is the weakest, which is a concern, but they have managed to hang on through some tough times.
Hi,
Mooney is no longer in any financial straights as far as I can tell, and as long as they keep selling over 50 a year all is well. That seems to be the magic number to me. They are owned by a public corporation.
Cirrus is now believed to be doing quite well because they are mostly selling well equipped SR22’s with lots of profit and have worked in efficiencies since a few years ago when they were rumored to be losing on every SR20 out the door. However, I think they really want to go public, and since they have not…?
Columbia is a black box to me financially, and I a don’t know what connection there is to Lancair anymore if any. I will say that Lancair must be rolling in dough with their prices and volumes. At any rate, they are making plenty of planes, and selling well. It’s strange, they have the best marketing, but the weakest distribution system by far.
PS if anyone told you they know why a plane is rated one way over another, they are likely guessing. If you would like to talk about Canada, reach me at my handle plus @yahoo.ca
I have flown all three aircraft being discussed. At the same HP production they all result in essentially the same TAS–give or take a knot. I’ve personally flown two of the three in formation to prove it. I also flew them in formation with my TN A-36 Bonanza which was exactly the same TAS at the same HP production–station-keeping in formation. There is a lot of apples and oranges comparison going on here. One must compare like conditions. The Cds of the four aircraft in question are essentially identical for the above to happen.
As for the comment about shock cooling, it’s a well debunked myth scientifically. Nonetheless, reference to shock cooling remains prevelant in hangar-flying sessions.
As for the TAT Cirrus turbo, it is a WELL tested design, has been around for a number of years and should prove VERY reliable. I have one. It is trouble free and dependable.
The Mooney is NOT going to be that fast if one flies it with any regard to engine longevity. It is posting those numbers at 50dF ROP–a VERY bad place to run an engine at high power. It will not be operated there successfully and Mooney knows it.
I take you have owned a TAT Bonanza for a few years, as the Cirrus is rather new. I can also assume you did not fly the Acclaim in formation. As for the Cirrus being well tested, there will be only one way for that to happen. See you in a few years?
I would love to see data on the myth of shock cooling. Could you point us in the right direction? It seems you are from the LOP school, but I was unaware that they had had thrown out shock cooling as well. I would love to save the fuel so I really want to know. The LOP thing has saved me a lot of fuel, and my engine seems to just love it.
Call it what you will, I have spoken with a number of Cirrus owners and instructors who tell stories of aircraft not making it even half way to TBO. The only consistent theory is poor descent planning and therefore shock cooling. It seems to be much more of a problem for them than it does for Mooney’s with the 550’s (though my evidence is purely anecdotal and not by any means scientific). Adding a turbo isn’t likely to make things any better as they will be flown higher, and at higher compressions.
Lastly, all aircraft comparisons are full of apples and oranges, but this group seems to be avoiding that problem better than any internet forum I have ever read. What bugged you?
**I take you have owned a TAT Bonanza for a few years, as the Cirrus is rather new. **
Yes, and I have a fair amount of time in the TN Cirrus through the certification flights and R&D. We have several hundred hours in it and tens of thousands with the turbo set-up. It’s not new in that respect.
**As for the Cirrus being well tested, there will be only one way for that to happen. See you in a few years? **
The TN system is not at all new. The IO-550N is not new either.
I would love to see data on the myth of shock cooling.
The bandwidth here is not adequate, but basicaly shock cooling has always been a myth. The original concern came from the Twin Cessnas which had cracked cylinders from flying at altitiude for a long time where the fuel in the tanks was super-cooled at altitude. They made rapid descents and shoved the mixture full rich as they entered the pattern. This blasted a lot of very cold fuel on the warm intake port walls and that is what caused the cracking. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with the rate of CHT change, it was the cold fuel hitting the hot metal when shoving the mixture full rich. Besides, how can you shock cool something that’s not hot to begin with. I keep my CHTS under 370dF and I run routinely at 85-90% power in cruise–LOP. I do slam dunks routinely and the CHT’s at landing will be 300 or so. I have routinely run the last four engines to TBO with NO cylinder changes or problems whatsoever. If shock cooling were real, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect at least one out of those 24 cylinders to have cracked? What about shock heating the cylinders on every takeoff? What about shock cooling them on shut-down? What about the WORST shock cooling of all–flying into cold rain? It’s all a myth.
**Could you point us in the right direction? It seems you are from the LOP school, but I was unaware that they had had thrown out shock cooling as well. **
I am of the “scientific engine management school.” I operate both ROP and LOP as is dictated by the mission requirements and flight regime. I make a serious attempt to ignore all old wives tales–and there are a lot of them.
**The LOP thing has saved me a lot of fuel, and my engine seems to just love it. **
The engines were designed to run LOP (at BSFC(min) of an average of 40dF LOP) and they clearly enjoy longevity success when operated as such.
**Call it what you will, I have spoken with a number of Cirrus owners and instructors who tell stories of aircraft not making it even half way to TBO. **
TCM has had a lot of trouble with QC concerning exhaust valve fit. That has nothing to do with whether or not it is turbo’d or how the mixture is managed. They fail ROP or LOP, run hard or at lower powers. It’s a manufacturing issue.
The only consistent theory is poor descent planning and therefore shock cooling. It seems to be much more of a problem for them than it does for Mooney’s with the 550’s (though my evidence is purely anecdotal and not by any means scientific).
Actually, that is incorrect. ALL TCM engines have been having this issue since February 1991.
** Adding a turbo isn’t likely to make things any better as they will be flown higher, and at higher compressions. **
??? There seems to be some confusion here. The factory turbos have LOWER compressions (generally 7.5:1). The TN versions have the same CR as the NA engines (8.5:1). The higher CR is more efficient.
Lastly, all aircraft comparisons are full of apples and oranges, but this group seems to be avoiding that problem better than any internet forum I have ever read. What bugged you?
I wasn’t bugged by anything other than the misinformation–which was rather significant. I have flown all four of these aircraft. At the same mixture setting, they are all about the same TAS–within a know or two. My poor old TN 1970 Bonanza will do more than 230 knots if I set it up like the Acclaim is being run. The engine will not last long run like that. Mooney has already changed the engine once. At the same mixture LOP, burning 17.5 gph, the Bo, TN Cirrus and C-400 are all the same speed. The Acclaim may be a knot or two faster, but the Acclaim does not yet have LOP numbers and I haven’t flown it in formation. They really don’t want to do that as it will make it clear what is advertising hype and what is reality.
All of my comments come from first-hand knowledge and experience with the airplanes.
When you put the set up into the new plane, doesn’t that make it different? I mean, there are differences. You mentioned exhaust, and that’s going to be different.
I will still wait for more real world data before recommending a Cirrus turbo without reservations. Test all you want, but pilots are going to fly a design the way they do, not the way you do in test flying. They then have the consequences, and they sell the planes to other pilots. I have nothing to go on but anecdote, but the TAT Bonanza owners seem to be happy. I have yet to meet Cirrus owner who has high TTAF and low repair bills.
Your shock cooling answer is a mystery to me. What you describe with the Cessnas is peculiar to that design? You are talking science and I am talking to people with holes in their wallets. What are they doing to create the need for top overhauls? My CHT’s reads 340 at 65% power LOP. How low do I let it go without worry on descent?
Lastly, I may not have been the first guy to come up with the term Vmarketing, but I am well aware of the games played with cruise numbers. I always thought it was the marketing department playing the games, but you are suggesting that they are using a “risky” set up to juice the numbers?
**When you put the set up into the new plane, doesn’t that make it different? **
That depends. In this case, very little is different. The combustion gasses have no idea which engine they are in, nor do the exhaust gasses know thru which exhaust they are passing. There is a lot of experience with this system. It is not a new-from-the-ground-up product by any means. It is an improved version.
**I will still wait for more real world data before recommending a Cirrus turbo without reservations. **
Fine. That’s your take and I have no problem with that being your answer, and I even understand why you would feel that way. I own a TAT turbo and have been closely associated with the Cirrus project and do not share those reservations.
**Test all you want, but pilots are going to fly a design the way they do, not the way you do in test flying. **
There is no insurance against stupid pilot tricks. The TN Cirrus will be LIMITED not to use mixtures resulting in FFs between full rich and 18 gph. That means full rich at takeoff and climb and ONLY LOP in cruise. Period. That will result in excellent longevity like we have experienced int he TN Bonanzas flown like that.
**I have yet to meet Cirrus owner who has high TTAF and low repair bills. **
My expereince is not the same. Many seem to have had very reasonable maintenance histories. Maybe it’s being in Canada that does it!
Your shock cooling answer is a mystery to me. What you describe with the Cessnas is peculiar to that design?
No it is not peculiar to the design, only the habit of shoving cold-soaked fuel onto hot metal. The twin Cessnas is where it first started. They were the first high-flying light twins.
** You are talking science and I am talking to people with holes in their wallets. **
Yes, but it is critically important to properly identify the reason for the hole in the wallet. It was NOT any quick change in CHT. It was the cold-soaked fuel. The observation of the problem wasn’t the error. It was the improper assignment of causality which resulted in the shock cooling OWT.
** My CHT’s reads 340 at 65% power LOP. How low do I let it go without worry on descent? **
Your CHTs are so cool that it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to shock cool them by reducing power to any level, including idle and descending rapidly. Just this morning, I left 11k feet at 85% power to reduce power to under 50% in three seconds or less and descended at 1000 fpm to land. That shock cooled nothing. This is a common practice for me from 17k as well. You can’t shock cool something that isn’t hot to begin with. Your CHTs are rather nicely on the cool end for cruise. Fergitaboutit. You can’t shock cool them. Period. You place much more thermal stress to them at takeoff. NOw, if you were taking the CHTs to red line and chopping the power, then, OK, maybe. What about jump pplanes which do that routinely? They tend to make TBO just fine and they practice what one would historically call shock cooling on every flight. It’s a myth.
I always thought it was the marketing department playing the games, but you are suggesting that they are using a “risky” set up to juice the numbers?
Mooney is setting the mixture at the worst possible setting for high power to get those numbers and ranges. The mixture they are using is where the CHTs run the highest (they’re routinely seeing CHTS above 420 in cruise) and with the highest possible ICPs (internal cylinder pressures) and the hottest possible exhaust valve temperatures. The enemies of metal are heat and pressure. They are maximizing both. I contend that that is a very ill-advised idea. You would NOT want to do that to your Acclaim. As a result, you will not see the speed and range numbers they are touting. If you do, you will put incredible stress on the engine and I would be very surprised to see it last you any longer than the first one lasted Monney.
Mooney Canada - Your e-mail address at yahoo was unclear. Can you give me that again so I can get in touch. Thanks.