[quote=“adam400”]
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)quote]
Cirrus/Columbia received their type certification on the same day at a ceremony at AOPA in Palm springs in 1998 (1999?). Before splitting up the company, Lancair had a lot of experience in the development of the IV and producing kits in pretty good volume. They had the head start over Cirrus and weren’t able to execute on this advantage. (I can understand the commercial reason to separate the company, but a shame there was no technology transfer to the certified side. A pressurized 400 would be ruling the market right now.)
On the parachute system, last I heard, Cirrus had over 10 inflight deployments which resulted in 20+ people being alive right now who wouldn’t otherwise be here. The technology has been proven and the market wants it. It is being offered on the upcoming DA-50 and Lancair’s new kit even has a prachute (not aware of anything for Columbia).[/quote]
Ask a Cirrus owner about maintenance and they will give you a load. Cirrus planes are cheaply made (they break). I dont think many pilots want their planes falling apart at 25000 feet. And when buying a turbo, 30 thousand dollars doesnt make a difference because the pilot usually wants a better plane and they are already are spending 500000+ dollars. Cirrus turbo will have a lot of problems early. Lets put it this way, they wont have the best selling turbo.
[quote]
You can find Cirrus planes with problems just like Columbia on the website of either owner’s association. The big question is how the company responds to issues. It sounds like Cirrus put the right people in place a couple years ago and that Columbia is still struggling.
…planes falling apart at FL25…this is a bit dramatic. None of the companies listed have had any structural issues.
Cirrus is cranking out the turbos much faster than anyone. I heard they have close to 300 turbos flying since they started cranking them out at the end of last year…and people love them. Columbia has been producing turbos a lot longer. When will they hit the 300 mark?
Early Cirrus had some pretty poor interiors but makes significant improvements every year. I’d still give the nod to Columbia, but Cirrus has closed the gap.
The rear seat room is definately much better in the Cirrus. I’m tall, so the front seat head room on the Cirrus is also a factor.
The “plastic” airframes built by Cirrus/Columbia/Diamond are actually significantly stronger than any spam can. The accidents you referenced are absolutely apples and oranges. Terrain, speed and G’s would all be very different.
Biggest differentiator between these planes is when they were designed. The new composite planes have to meet all new regulations for protecting the occupants during a crash. Mooney/Cessna/Piper have their old designs grandfathered in under the old certification rules. Couple things in new rules:
-3G roll-over protection required
-26g seats
Composite materials are affected by temperature and humidity. The design has to make allowances for worst cast temperature/humidity and then put an additional safety factor on top of that. The engineering behind the composites is well known now. Take a look at what Airbus and Boeing are doing on their new designs.
Take a look at the seats on these modern planes and compare them to your Mooney. They are from different generations.
This thread is missing that very objective and reliable marketing factor: looks.
I think Mooney’s look better, especially the long-body ones (Bravo/Eagle/Ovation/Acclaim). But I’m biased, being an M20J owner.
That said, if I could afford a Cirrus, I probably would have bought one for the wife-factor, although I would spend less time just looking at it and sighing.
The paint scheme featured in the latest Columbia print ads–with a forward-facing “U” pattern over the cowl that looks like some grotesquely misshapen clown mouth–is just butt ugly. The Columbia’s legs jut straight out and display no grace whatsoever.
I agree Mooney does do a good job on the styling. Colors/schemes are classy and should still look contempory in 10 years. The tail is just a styling signature.
As far as Columbia’s paint being “butt ugly”, overstates things a bit, but not by much. Early planes looked really nice, but I think someone is trying too hard now. I think Lance had some background as a graphics artist which is reflected in the overall aesthetics, but now that he is no longer involved, someone is making poor decisions.
The new Cirrus with the two color are a great example of less is more. Some of the stripes they were doing a few years ago were crazy-busy, but the new simple scheme is gorgeous.
Actually, the non-swept vertical stabilizer is a more aerodynamically efficient design that allowed Al Mooney to create a tail with a smaller surface area, which reduces drag, allowing the Mooney to be more efficient than any of its competitors of the era. (145kts on 180hp on 9gph for instance). If you compare the size of the tail on a Mooney with the tail on a Cessna or Piper of the same horsepower, you’ll see the difference.
