I think Mooney is a gorgeous classic beauty, like a 275 GTB. A Columbia is like a modern composite exotic. I think planes you should be buying for looks even less so than a car.
To my recollection, yes. Where it matters, but not 100%. Edit: found a couple of photos that match my recollection of my 231, although these are earlier models. The leading 60-70% of the wing is flush riveted. I also recall flush riveting on the cowl and forward portion of the cabin. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
not for the costs and how much use. I only used about 100 hours a year. the family wasn’t into flying 600 miles for the weekend. I also wasn’t doing any fun flying, it was all destination. most enjoyment was flying into small or private airports for hunting, fishing, or just resort weekend like Cibolo Creek. If I return it will be a tailwheel.
How can Mooney have the two part Laminar flow wings? Cirrus didn’t even have it in the early models. Quick explanation for those that don’t know you utilize two wing designs in a single wing getting the best of both. Thick cord inboard and thinner outboard. Result is a fast plane with great slow speed characteristics too. l
Could you compare a Mooney Acclaim vs say a Bonanza ? Anything else in this category ? How about a Piper Arrow ? MDS
From photos that I have seen, they aren't flush riveted and wouldn't have to be, except for looks. Flush riveting is expensive and more labor intensive and, from what I remember from years past, it doesn't effect performance until you're over 300mph. On light structure you have to dimple the inner structure and dimple the skin to match. Then you drive the rivet. AND if you haven't got it right, you have to micro shave the rivet head to get it flush. It only profits faster airplanes but "it looks nice" on the slower vehicles. This is where the plastic structures come in with their smooth surfaces. Lower speed metal structures are prone to protruding universal head rivets, skin wrinkles, and either skin laps or butt joints. Better things are on the way and that's a good thing because we have run out of the younger people who know how to work with tools.
Here's a fun article with a lot of info relevant to this discussion: 2017 Single Engine Piston Buyer's Guide. https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/single-engine-piston-planes/#.WsTjpX9Jncs
I had another thread on this, but here were my quick comments. FLYING just sent me the 2018 Buyers Guide. I have been out of touch a few years, but the new market seems interesting especially with the lower demand for planes and the glut/crash of used aircraft. Bonanza - $815k for a 176 kt cruise, 74 gallon tank, and 600 lb. full fuel load? Why anyone would pick this over TTX or SR22T I don't know. I guess just legacy Bo fans. It was once one of the best single pistons out there until Columbia and Cirrus came along. Skyhawk - $370k for a new trainer? There are going to be less and less general aviation entrants. Flying is going to be all commercial before long. I see the TTX is still outclassing SR22T for same price 20 kt. higher cruise, 250 nm more range, and 250 lb more load full fuel (who cares about the 5th seat then?). Mooney Acclaim Ultra - who in the heck would want one of these over a TTx or Cirrus? $780k, RG, 450 lb full fuel load, and 830 nm range (1,200 TTx, 1,000 SR22T). Beechcraft and Piper still putting out million dollar twins. I guess there will always be a legacy market for these twins. I just don't get it as you don't gain any load and they are slower than TTx/SR22T. Turboprop market still looking very healthy, but at $4 million I still wonder the value proposition vs. light jets. King Air's for $8mm!?! I know it is a great plane and solid use case for it. Love they are still making the Avanti! What a great plane. I bet the waiting list is under 4 years by now though. Did the M2 replace the Mustang or they give up on Mustang and M2 is larger not single pilot anymore? Looks like great plane, just wish Cessna could have worked out a personal jet for under $3mm. Cirrus personal jet - looks like a huge hit and maybe perfect price point at $2.3mm. Ugly as ****, but I think a smart play in a tough market. It will be interesting to watch adoption over next 5 years and accident records. For $2mm why not just buy a used Mustang though? So many jets $30-70mm. At that price and upkeep I can't even imagine a billionaire owning them. That would be more eating away more of your billion a year than earning in investments. however, I guess it makes since for multi-billionaires and 100% business or at least high % business.
A couple of comments on your comments... Piper's twins are mostly sold to training programs. You have to get a multiengine rating (and ATP) somehow before getting into that airline cockpit, and that's how you do it. I'm sure they sell a few to individual buyers, but that's not who their market is. There are places in the world where you want a second engine, though, and I think that's their other market. I don't know who buys a new Baron these days, though. King Air-- if you want to carry 8-10 people into a small airport, it's by far the best option. In some cases the only option. And a lot of people need that capability. I'm pretty sure Cessna dropped the original Mustang and is just making the M2 now. M2 is definitely single pilot. They also dropped the CJ2, by the way.
The issue with the Bo's, and IIRC especially the 36's, is CG. Very easy to depart well within cg and halfway through the flight you are out. Much worse on the 36's vs Debonairs. The cg shift due to fuel burn on my old E model Mooney was negligible, not sure about the long body models.
On an A36TC the tip tank fuel is very near the aft cg limit. The main tanks are in the wing LE, which is the problem since as the fuel is used the cg will shift aft. So the tip tanks allow you to transfer wt fwd as the flight progresses. So on the face of it appears tip tanks can be useful in managing cg shift.
Seems like that delays the cg shift... but it will still happen. So, to avoid it, you need to carry around fuel that you won't (can't) use?
Appears so, or have anyone lean fwd. On the short body Mooney's you could change pitch fairly easily by leaning fwd and back.
Reminds me of flying an empty Salair DC-3 for the first time and had trouble keeping it trimmed in pitch. The nose went up two times every time I got it trimmed. My friend in the left seat asked if I had to use more trim the first time it went out and I told him yes but not so much the second time. " Well, the first time it was Jerry ( flight attendant) going back to the lav, the second time it was Tracy, she's smaller than Jerry."
My Pilatus has seats for 11. I leave 3 out usually to make it more "executive style" but sometimes I put them in when I need them. The cabin space of the Pilatus is the same cubic feet as the cabin of the KA350. Tradewinds runs only PC12's in and out of St. Barth. Full fuel, full PAX, 2000' runway. I had to do it when I did my training there. https://www.flytradewind.com
Cool article - as I said before, I'm not into aviation, but fun to learn. The Piper Saratoga ? Where does that fit in? It's been replaced / discontinued ? MDS
Be like a Bonanza, holds 6+ single engine piston. Really can't go full fuel 6 people, but you can haul more people or cargo than you can with most 4 seats. As bigger they run slower than the Cirrus, Mooney, and TTx.