Cirrus vs Mooney

[Charles Talleyrand]

As I understand it, a Cirrus has a much more roomy cabin, 100 lbs higher useful load, no retractable landing gear to maintain, is 10
kts slower, and costs $100,000 less. Why would anyone buy a Mooney?

Heck, a new Cirrus costs less than a recently used Mooney. Who here would pick a two year old Mooney over a brand new Cirrus?

Mooney puts out a comparision worksheet at http://www.mooney.com/PDFS/ovationcomparison.pdf. I note they don't list cabin
dimentions.

-Curious

P.S. Sorry this sounds so much like a troll. But unless you hate fiberglass it seems an easy decision.

[Thomas Borchert]

Charles,

> Why would anyone buy a Mooney?
>

Pilot inertia. Strangely, new is bad in this community. If you compare
sales numbers, though, I would guess that Cirrus sells a lot more
airplanes than Mooney does, so maybe (next to) nobody does buy Mooneys.

Two things you forgot to mention:

- Cirrus is a much healthier company than Mooney.
- You might have to wait longer for the Cirrus.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Charles Talleyrand > wrote:
>As I understand it, a Cirrus has a much more roomy cabin, 100 lbs higher
>useful load, no retractable landing gear to maintain, is 10
>kts slower, and costs $100,000 less. Why would anyone buy a Mooney?

Have you looked at their sales numbers? They're only moving a handful
of planes. So few that you could grab the list and call everyone who
bought a new Mooney in the last year and ask them why during your lunch
hour.

Even going back 10+ years their volume has been very low with no Cirrus
(or at the time, even Cessna!) to compete with. Looking at a table of
Mooney sales by year a while ago made me wonder if we'll ever see a new
model of light single that sells 1000 airframes over its lifetime.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[gwengler]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...

> Pilot inertia. Strangely, new is bad in this community.

I don't recall anyone saying "new is bad" in this newsgroup or among
my pilot friends; however, some say "old is bad" which would be just
as unfounded. Just to make a point: The Cirrus is an excellent
airplane! It may not fit some pilots' requirements or typical mission
profiles. That doesn't make all other existing designs "bad".

Gerd
T182T C-FDOW

[Dan Luke]

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote:
>Why would anyone buy a Mooney?
>
> Heck, a new Cirrus costs less than a recently used Mooney.
> Who here would pick a two year old Mooney over a brand new Cirrus?

Not many would. Those who would may like the better speed and the
availability of TKS anti-icing gear. Some people don't like side sticks - I
don't.

Nevertheless, Cirrus must be hurting Mooney's sales severely. Anyone
interested in a pool on how long Mooney's gonna last?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Thomas Borchert]

Dan,

> Anyone
> interested in a pool on how long Mooney's gonna last?
>

I don't know if what they're in right now could be described as
lasting. Seems to me they're in and out of bankruptcy.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[James Blakely]

Doesn't Cirrus have at present a 5,000 hour airframe limit? Yeah, I know
that is supposed to change, but what if it doesn't?


"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> As I understand it, a Cirrus has a much more roomy cabin, 100 lbs higher
useful load, no retractable landing gear to maintain, is 10
> kts slower, and costs $100,000 less. Why would anyone buy a Mooney?
>
> Heck, a new Cirrus costs less than a recently used Mooney. Who here would
pick a two year old Mooney over a brand new Cirrus?
>
> Mooney puts out a comparision worksheet at
http://www.mooney.com/PDFS/ovationcomparison.pdf. I note they don't list
cabin
> dimentions.
>
> -Curious
>
> P.S. Sorry this sounds so much like a troll. But unless you hate
fiberglass it seems an easy decision.
>
>