Tommy

Yes it is a drop replacement on a J and it's good for both 14-28v. You might need to loosen up the FCU in order to get the old starter out. It takes about 5 hours to get it done. It sounds very different - and , in my opinion, more "modern" sound if there is such a thing - when you crank. Weigh much less. Works well.

Peter. Set aside the obvious fact that we still don't know the cause of the accident, even if you are right in saying this "dumbass" (quote unquote) is having a reckless joyride, your comparison with gun control advocacy is still not legitimate nor parallel. And gun control is not apolitical just because you say it isn't. It's not that we are being "sensitive" to gun issues, it is you that are being insensitive and offensive, by making an cheap irrelevant political point on a thread that talks about the death of a pilot - the cause of which is unknown - and breaking the forum rule all at the same time. If you want to cry about gun control, do it somewhere else please.

So the answer to OP's question: "is Mooney contemplating a BRS version" is to increase useful load.... Ok got it. Also do you work for Diamond's sales department? "If you absolutely, positively, must have the safest piston single on the market, you don't even bother to consider anything else, you just buy a DA40." Straight out of the glossy brochure! Big claim! Do you have numbers to back his up? Maybe you should take a look at this: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2017/aair/ao-2017-096/

I think I understood him perfectly well but thank you anyway.

This is where our opinions differ. I will never let that perennial old Uncle of whom we all dreaded walking right over everyone at the funeral making obscence political comments for the sake of civility and expediency let alone on a web forum talking to strangers!

"You are defending a fellow aviator who was using a tragic fatal incident - the exact cause of which is still unknown - to take a political swipe on gun control advocacy" There. Corrected for you. There was absolutely no need and no reason for Peter to do that. @aviatoreb you are right, this is not the time to get into any political debate but do we just ignore comments like Peter's or should we call them out?

There is literally no comparison here. One is a reckless joy ride - again, the exact cause is unknown - gone horribly wrong with no intention to kill. The other is a murderous rampage with full intention to kill. The outrage against the first can be defended not just statistically but also morally and ethically. The second can not. Anyway, if you failed to read the message behind Peter's direct allusion to guns - there is literally no reason to do that in the first place - let's not waste each other's time, please. Cheers.

I didn't say you've given me an authorisation or speaking on your behalf. And I certainly don't need your authorisation to speculate. That's how I interpreted based on what you've written. If you disagree, you are free to elaborate.

In Peter's view, criticisms / skepticisms of private pilots following stunts like this are no different from the equally negative sentiment against gun owners post mass shootings in that both are nothing but hot air hysteria. I am merely pointing out that these two vastly different categories of "incidents" share nothing in common therefore a public outrage against the former is indeed irrational and unjustified, the latter is not.

Ah, so quick to make a defense on gun rights every time someone did something stupid with something. So a guy's reckless joyride (again, exact cause is still unknown) - with no intetion to kill anyone - in a sophicated machine that takes years to master which ended in one casualty is somehow morally and legally equivalent to a disgruntled employee - with full intention to kill - using a weapon that he bought at Walmart for $500 to gun down 12 people in Virginia? People know the difference, Peter.

@mike_elliott Any chance of asking Mooney International if BRS is technically possible on the current airframes - at least, it's objective compard to the debate on whether it's commercially viable - for our Mooneys? If it can't be done, then I think we can bury this BRS on Mooney discussion once and for all.

People who are arguing about UL is missing the point. The proponent of BRS like myself isn't asking for compulsory fitting of BRS - Cirrus has to, for aerodynamic reasons that somehow all its ads failed to mention - we are asking BRS as an option. Unless you are saying every Mooney buyers / pilots have identical build, experience, risk profile, missions, and partner preferences, then options are a good thing. I think OP's question is whether an optionally BRS-equipped Mooney will be technically possible and commercial viable. Looking at Cirrus (Vision jet for technical possiblity and SR for commmercial success), I say yes to both counts. Let's spare each other of patronizing comment - pilots who want BRS are, somehow, inferior pilots that don't possess luck, skill, and cool-headedness - and of re-telling of fatal incidents to prove their point.

Ah. I get it now. Asking for evidence and reference to back up one's claim is intentionally obtuse. You claimed that Mooney's retract gear will not be absorbing enough of energy yet Cirrus Vision jet BRS exists. So who's right? You or Cirrus engineer? That's why I ask for evidence and numbers. You spoke like you have dropped enough Mooneys with a BRS to make that statement.

Without evidence, that perception can be right or wrong. But that perception is one of the biggest reasons people buy Cirrus. I have never met a Cirrus pilot that brags about the airframe, double door, avionics, fuel efficiency, or its interior because they know their Cirrus is not the best in any of these categories but many would not hestitate in telling their passengers that it has got a parachute. The whole discussion is not about whether it saves life or not (reality), it's about whether BRS can make Mooney competitive or not (perception).

That's just playing with words. Do you have any reference or data? Cirrus vision jet with retractable gear has BRS.

I think the question should be directed to people who is considering buying a new Cirrus and see if a BRS-equipped Mooney will entice them to switch over. We are not Mooneys targeted market. Look, Mike, with all due respect, the numbers don't lie. The TTx demise is equally painful. Every one says it's the marketing, which I agree, every second Cirrus ad is the marketing of BRS. Mooney has been pretty aggressive with ad campaign - on the second door and its speed record. Why didn't it sell?

Ok I think at this point in time, we should just need to agree that Shadrach is the combined best Mooney and Cirrus pilot out there who will dead stick a glide post mid-air collision flying IMC night in the middle of Amazon rain forest. To him, every emergency can be managed successfully with no casulties on the ground using "luck, skill, and cool headedness..."

So you are saying that Mooney's gear does not absorb as much impact as Cessna's undercarriage? Hmmm.. interesting. Do you have the reference from BRS company to say that only spring steel gear can be fitted?

So what market do you think Mooney International should be targeting then? Training? Charter? Agricultural? Survey? Law enforcement? If Ultra and Ovation ae suited for other market segments why are they not selling?

Why would spring steel gear matters in BRS? Aslo there are plenty of Cessna RGs - it didn't say RGs are excluded.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/october/04/brs-announces-cessna-parachute-installation-network Didn't say anything about "spring steel gear"

I have since changed my LOP procedure because these days I almost always fly at 7000 and above so red box is no longer relevant even at WOT / 2350. So I just slowly lean back without the big pull.

Whatevery you do, do not speak to a lawyer. You are more likely goign to loose even more money Read the fine print of the contract and you will see why. Maybe negotiate a deal / voucher for future installation - for eg. G5 + GFC500, that is, if you can still trust them to do the job.

In Mooney's (new plane) targeted market (middle-aged wealthy individual with family), parachute (marketing) sells. Look at TTx vs Cirrus. Make it optional so for those who prefers bigger load can have the choice not to have it fitted (unlike Cirrus). Mooney's new order number is dismal and one thing that we can all agree on is that stupidity is doing the same thing repeatedly yet expecting a different outcome. What Mooney International is doing isn't working (pilot side door is the only thing that sprung to my mind) and they need to do something different. IMHO, investment in BRS is most likely going to have the biggest ROI (and a cabin revamp is second). Make it retro-fittable so the old Mooney can enjoy too (highly doubt this will happen). BRS does give a better chance of survival in some scenarios (mid-air collision / break up, engine failure in IMC / Night / over hostile terrains) plus the resale value of the plane is likely to go up if there is a retro-fit STC available (in aother decade, our Mooneys will be just a little bit cheaper than the exponentially depreciated Cirrus that has lower TTIF, great avioinics, and BRS) !

Position where to hold? At the holding point? On the runway? It's confusing.