Ron Blum

Diesel 10: Your point about RGs is very valid. The landing gear is very much a part of the deceleration calculations. Airplanes (and seats) are currently not designed for high vertical deceleration. The seats and/or structure would have to be redesigned for those loads (and get heavier). As a weight comparison, look at seats from older Cessnas to the new ones. The new ones are designed for a 26G "forward" crash ... and they are significantly heavier. So I don't get blasted again, yes, we can add a system to an airplane to make the gear come out automatically when a chute is pulled, BUT ... There's a nasty little regulation 23.1309 (system safety) that goes through all the probabilities of all the failure modes of everything on the airplane. Now we have to address an uncommanded chute deployment and an uncommanded gear extension ... at any time in the envelope. ... and that adds weight, too. Not saying that it can't be done. PS. Yes, product liability costs are very high. And. yes, we are in a sad state of affairs in the US on product liability. If we would compare it to automobiles, it would be like someone rebuilding a 1955 Chevy "Bel Aire" hot rod from the ground up (few to no parts that actually came from GM), and then getting in a fatal wreck. So the widow sues GM for $20M because the car didn't have shoulder harnesses, air bags and an automatic braking and steering system that should have seen the other automobile and light pole and reacted appropriately. In my opinion that wouldn't make it to court in that industry. In the aviation industry it does. Fly Safely.

Urs: I totally agree with you (and I replied to your PM, too ... not sure I can electronically find the PM again, but I'll try my best :o). Your post hits the nail squarely on the head. Yes, we have heard all of this many times before. We are listening; it's how we'll stay in business. We want to build what the market wants at a price that y'all can afford and one were we can afford to stay in business. Safety is first in our moniker of "Safety, Speed and Style", and we remind ourselves of that daily. In addition to looking at the possibility of a chute, we are also incorporating many other safety features into the new airplane. One such example is a simple, forgiving wing design that has features to make the airplane controllable throughout the entire operating range, especially on the low speed end of the envelope where the majority of accidents happen. We are trying very hard to "make your year"; it will make all of ours, too :o) We have a great team here in Chino, and I am very proud of each and everyone and what we as a team have accomplished so far ... t's just the beginning. Happy and safe holidays to everyone.

Thanks for the information.

teejay: You bring up a really good point. In the Cirrus, the gear is a vital part of the deceleration of the airplane (and the occupants) when the airplane hits the ground or water. I believe that they changed the hanging attitude of the airplane (more nose down now) because hitting flat on the water decelerates the airplane much, much more rapidly. Oh, and most Mooneys have retractable gear.

Yes, we have listened to pitches from BRS and other corporations in the whole-aircraft recovery chute business. From an Engineering view, the operating envelope of a whole-aircraft parachute is very, very different from short-body airplanes to the current production airplane. Speeds and weights are both dramatically different. It's not a one size fits all. The chute operating envelope on a Cirrus is not nearly the entire operating range of the airplane, both in speed (high and low) and altitude. Nor is that envelope where the airplane is usually operating. The costs to develop a system is very, very high, and there is a lot of risk, too. As a comparison, when we do a spin program on a new airplane, we develop a releasable chute to get the pointy end going forward again. Because of that, a typical spin program today is estimated between $1.5M and $2M. That chute installation then limits the airplane high speed envelope due to the fact that if the chute would inadvertently come out at high speed, it could possibly over G the occupants or take some of the airplane with it on the way off. Yes, there are sliding reefers (and other devices) that would allow a slower deployment of the chute, but that is more development. This also slows the deployment time down, which is not what you want in other situations. I wish there could be a simple, easy, inexpensive, does it all device that could eliminate all fatal airplane situations. Honestly, it's on my list to Santa this year, as it has been every year before, too. In the meantime, learn more about your airplane and your skills and limitations. Fly your baby more, and treat her well ... and she will treat you well in return.

Thanks all for your welcoming comments. We are trying to do everything we can to keep costs down ... and to be honest, I think that the FAA is actually trying to help with the new regulations. I sit on the ASTM Committee for F44, the rewrite of Part 23. Don't expect miracles, but any change in the right direction would be a miracle in itself. :o)

Now that's something that couldn't be said in a few decades.

Before the New Year.

Hank: I like your posts and Don's, too. I do not troll, and I try to be accessible for any and all questions ... although y'all put a lot of stuff up on this site :o) I am the chief engineer on the new M10. I will answer any questions that you want to ask at rblum@mooney.com or fly-in-home@att.net or (316) 295-7812 depending on your preference (and my availability). We, Mooney, would love to save every life that we can (it's hard to save lives when you're not making a profit at it, though). To say that we have not looked at a whole-aircraft parachute would be naïve (and erroneous). Just as you individually do, we too must make a business case that makes cents. The three pages of discussion above that I have read completely are no different than that which we hear at each and every event that we attend. Some pro; some con; all valid. Cirrus may have most of the sales ... at this time, but how many airplanes are we as an industry producing today? We made an order of magnitude more airplanes 30-40 years ago ... and I think that there are more people on Earth today than there was back then. Why are people not buying airplanes? That's the question that we need to answer. If there is an etiquette rule about me not being able to be a member on MooneySpace, please let me know, and I will dismiss myself. Honestly, I know that I definitely WON'T see all your posts (which I apologize for upfront). Each and everyone of you is a valued member of our family, and you opinion counts. THANKS TO ALL! -Ron

I am curious. Did all of the original Mooney's come with shoulder harnesses? If not, did someone provide an STC to incorporate shoulder harnesses in ALL Mooney airplanes? Shoulder harnesses save lives by reducing HIC (Head Impact Criteria). Also, is there an STC to install air bag harnesses in ALL Mooney airplanes? These also reduce the chance of head impact. Putting a price on life is neither possible or practical. Every life is priceless. SAFETY, Speed and Style. I am guessing that if someone (on MooneySpace) wants to pursue the business of installing a whole-airplane chute, that would be great!

I agree with the majority of items that have been posted, but what if ... 1. We spent the same money (both initial and repack) for more personal training and/or flying more? 2. Would anyone be interested if I would take the time to go through all the NTSB accident reports on production airplanes with chutes?

Here's a very good video of a very controlled, known 4 hours ahead of time, Cirrus chute deployment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBCUQlF3MMU - The chute took 25 seconds to put the airplane in the proper attitude (2:40:29 to 2:40:54) - The airplane hit the water going backwards. There was no control after the chute was deployed. Decent rate was in the range of 20-22 fps. - The airplane was dragged fairly rapidly in the water because the chute was still deployed and dragged the airplane along in the wind. - This pilot was prepared to bail out as he was ferrying the airplane to HI ... and ran out of gas due to an extended range fuel tank fuel valve malfunction. - A Cessna with 4 on board landed safely in the water very close to the same time and place (the same Coast Guard crew picked them up, too). Cessna was not on the news, nor were they accredited with 4 lives being saved.