Judging interest in developing a BRS system for the Mooney fleet

[Tom]

Pretty much as the title states, I'm interested in a current snapshot of owner interest in developing a BRS system for the existing Mooney fleet. 

It sounds as though BRS has been trying to encourage Mooney to assist in developing a system at least for the existing fleet, but Mooney International Corporation has other priorities.  Depending on owner interest, with enough interest, a system might be able to be developed independently. 

Currently the BRS system for the 182 goes for something like 18-24AMU installed.

What's the interest currently?

[gsengle]

I suspect it would be a selling point on a new Mooney if the useful load can be kept up around 1000... I doubt many would retrofit at that price, but mostly due to the loss in useful load, many of our planes are used long range with full fuel already putting us at max gross. Finally I suspect more Mooney pilots are "old school" than other types, and are skeptical about the benefits. I mean this as a compliment.

All that said I'd love a BRS system if I needed to fly more low IFR and or at night. But probably wouldn't install it in my plane due to load considerations mostly...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1964-M20E]

Yes I'd like to have one but at  $25k for a $60k airplane not sure if the economics work out especially if you need to do the $10k repack every ten years that you hear abut on the SR22s.

 

If the economics worked so that installed cost would be less than 10AMU  and a 2AMU repack (I know pretty much impossible) along with lower insurance rates then it might be worthy of consideration.  Lower prices you would significantly increase your potential market.

[rbridges]

I think it's a great system, but I seriously doubt I would pony up 20K on my plane.  My useful load is already around 550 with full fuel.  

[Tom]

Nobody knows for sure, but adding a 25k parachute system to a $60K plane might make it a $85k+ plane, at least in the short-run.  I generally think that this could be true, at least in the second-hand market where the cost vs utility of the Mooney with a chute would compete heavily with used SR-20s and make a used DA-40 that much  more harder to swallow. 

On the other hand, newer pilots seem to be afraid of older airframes, though maybe the chute could make up for that?

I think BRS's base price for the retrofit 182 chute is something like 15k, with everything atop that being the install (around 30-50 hours in the 182). FWIW.

[Hank]

No way in hell . . .  Why put a horribly expensive chute, with a horribly expensive periodic repack, on what's already one step from a motor glider? Then there's the useful load penalty. And where would it go in a short body Mooney anyway? 

[kortopates]

I think it has good prospects in the longbody fleet were aircraft values are generally over $200K but surely not many prospects in the vintage and even J & K's - but the newer the more likely.

But in asking the question, I think its just as important to include the 10 year repack cost for continued airworthiness since its over $10K currently for the Cirrus fleet as John brings up above. Its certainly not going to happen appreciably less - since our potential retrofit numbers are even less than the Cirrus fleet.

[cliffy]

There is also the 22K repack every 10 years.2K budget every year just for repack

Friends just ordered one for their 10 yr old SR22  

Maybe the 22 in SR means 22K for repack :-)

[Mooneymite]

I'd prefer a set of gyrocopter blades.  Lighter and no re-pack!  

[steingar]

Don't need a thousand dollar-a-year repack fee thank you.

[Piloto]

How about personal parachutes for every passenger. Cheaper and no mods required. Seat parachutes replace existing seat cushions with the parachute pack. http://www.pilotshop.com/catalog/pspages/np3602b12.php?recfer=12860 So you are actually strapped to a chute when you put on the seat belts. A removable door hinge pin will remove the door to allow quick exit. 

José

[MB65E]

It's unfortante that it is so weight and cost prohibitive. I am surprised Mooney does not want to invest in the chute. I would rather have a parachute than an air conditioner. Those are both options on the new 182's. It's scary that mooney doesn't want to invest, I think they need to look at it just to stay competitive. Why not have the fastest piston driven airplane..."well it doesn't have a chute". Why not have both!!

I will never buy a New Cirrus, or be able to afford a new Mooney. However,  if I had the option to buy a new Cirrius or a new Mooney, the close to 1.0m investment better have a parachute!

I think the cost will come down eventually. Sorta like airbags in cars...

-Matt

[Tom]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

Why put a horribly expensive chute, with a horribly expensive periodic repack, on what's already one step from a motor glider? Then there's the useful load penalty. And where would it go in a short body Mooney anyway? 

1)  The chute would occupy approximately 1/2 the baggage area.
2)  For those comfortable flying gliders at night, over water, over mountains, and in clouds with low ceilings, a chute offers nothing.
3)  For those with a twin, or considering a twin to use in the circumstances described in #2, a single with a chute is a viable alternative.
4)  Again, for those with or considering a twin, the $2k/year premium for a chute reserve is less than the cost of the engine reserves for the second engine, is also less than the annual cost of feeding the second engine, and is possibly the same or less than the insurance premium of a high performance vintage single vs a twin.

 

[Bob]

For the last 6 months, while mi Mooney was down, I was flying a Cirrus.  I did not feel any safer!  When would it help?

During a inflight breakup.  In a Mooney, slim to none!

Mid air crash- Maybe!

Loss of control in IMC, etc- At this point the speed is way too high and wont end well with a chute.

Every 10 years $$$$-NO THANKS!

Remember, when you pull the chute, you no longer have control.  Winds into a building, home, Yikes...windmill, ouch!

NO THANKS for me!

 

[KSMooniac]

No interest from my perspective. Too heavy, too expensive. Useful load is precious.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rbuck]

Too heavy, too much money, and too much space in my short body taken up. 

[Hank]

On the other hand, if my Mooney was plastic that shredded during ground impact instead of having a strong steel roll cage around me with decorative aluminum sheet metal, I might have to think hard about spending the Big Buck$ for an airframe parachute. There's more than one side to the safety story.

[aviatoreb]

You guys do economics differently from me.  You compare 25k to 60k and say not worth the marginal cost.  There are at least five ways I can see to count the economics that one might pick.

1) Yes, if you have a 60k plane then 25k is a lot and probably not worth it on this point alone.

2) But at 60k you are flying an airplane that is an old airplane that actually would cost 400-500k if built new today, so 25k is a new BRS unit and is comaprable in price scale to that 500k.

3) For me, I avoid night flying - I would start flying night if I had brs so it is comparable in value to the cost of switching planes, perhaps to a twin or perhaps to a Cirrus - the first being a lot more expensive, the second I don't like much - I like my current airplane.  But I would get more utility out of it if I had a BRS - specifically night.  So for 25k as a stand alone cost concept that buys me the night.  Or 25k as a comparison to the cost of switching my airplane to at least something comparable then the cost to bring it up to a good standard of maintenance, etc....I figure I am in already to my plane in that sense for 175k, so 25k saves me a lot of trouble and money to switch to something else.

4) Another way to look at it - 25k isn't a cost for your airplane, its a cost for your self - how valuable are you as a person and your safety?  So 25k might raise your safety factor slightly (yes it can be argued that it would lower your safety factor as early Cirrus proved).  Anyway, for 25k could it save my bacon some day.  Notice this consideration is completely independent of the cost of the airframe.  It just look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you are worth 25k.

5) Will your wife more likely fly with you?  Will your wife's parents more likely fly with you?  Answer in my case to both is yes.  My wife flies with me rarely.  Her parents don't and put my wife to a lot of trouble to go to them.  Again this is a cost consideration independent of the airframe cost and simply says are you worth it.

Sounds like I should switch planes to a twin or a cirrus.  Again - I LIKE my Mooney.  But yes, if a BRS were available, then I would VERY seriously likely buy it ... even up to 25k.

[aviatoreb]

Oh yeah - any guess how heavy?

I bet it would be less expensive to repack than a cirrus since it would/could be built with an access plan in place- the cirrus is essentially buried under permanent fiber glass structure.

[M20F]

2 hours ago, cliffy said:

There is also the 22K repack every 10 years.2K budget every year just for repack

Friends just ordered one for their 10 yr old SR22  

Maybe the 22 in SR means 22K for repack :-)

 

2 hours ago, kortopates said:

I think it has good prospects in the longbody fleet were aircraft values are generally over $200K but surely not many prospects in the vintage and even J & K's - but the newer the more likely.

But in asking the question, I think its just as important to include the 10 year repack cost for continued airworthiness since its over $10K currently for the Cirrus fleet as John brings up above. Its certainly not going to happen appreciably less - since our potential retrofit numbers are even less than the Cirrus fleet.

$14K for a repack, a friend just did his three weeks ago.

I fall in the I would do it if the price was right category but that price would have to be awfully low in order to consider it (to the point where I am pretty certain I will never have to worry about considering putting one in).

[carusoam]

I'm assuming Tom is a parachute sales guy with lots of Cirrus experience.

I'm a statistics driven guy, not as good as our professor, but...

Cost both initial and each decade is quite large.

let's talk air bags.

many of our accidents have been at ground level. Where air bags work.

Few have been from above 2,000' where it would be most useful to have a parachute.

Tom correct me if you have the details.

Update your avatar or signature block if you have the Mooney experience or the BRS expertise.  Both are welcome.

Ignoring these details can be confused as trolling.

best regards,

-a-

[romair]

I would love to be able to have a parachute on my Mooney. Actually that is the main reason I decided to buy a twin and will be selling my Mooney soon. The anti-parachute position exhibited here was very prevalent on beechtalk about 1 year ago, and it seems to have significantly changed ever since the 15 or so fatal beech crashes this year.

Regarding losing control when the parachute is deployed that is total bogus. It's not like the moment your engine craps out the parachute automatically deploys. The pilot is still the one to make the decision whether or not to pull. If you think you can just glide to an airport, do so without pulling. Are you flying at night/ifr/over neighborhoods then pull the parachute. 100% of the parachute pulls that were done within the parameters (and even some outside the parameters) were survived.  That cannot be said about crash landings.

is there a weight penalty and a financial penalty? Absolutely. However, none of those will be on your mind the moment that big fan stops spinning...and there is a significant likelihood that the engine might quit sometime, despite us trying to reassure ourselves that it is a very small risk.

To answer to the OP, I believe one of the major issues is that there is no back window, and thus BRS cannot be installed on legacy aircraft such as Mooneys and Bonanzas. All that may have changed though...its been a while since I last looked into it.

[DonMuncy]

Wouldn't it be nice if someone had statistics on the numbers of incidents in which someone in trouble in a Mooney lived over it or died, vs the number of Cirrus drivers had the same type problems and lived over it or died.

When we get in trouble, we either find a way to get on the ground relatively safely or have some sort of crash. In the case of those crashes, some live over it and some don't. In a Cirrus in the same situation, the pilot has those two options and one more; the BRS. Some of them will find a way out of it, but most will pop the chute. Most of those will live over it, but a few won't. When all those scenarios are put together, I wonder what the numbers would show. It is easy for BRS proponents to say "look at all the deployments where lives were saved". But that doesn't account for the pilots who found a way out, or lived over some sort of crash.

I'm not saying that the parachutes don't save lives. But I wish we could know what the real numbers are.

[Guest Mike261]

If money was no object i would buy one at 25k

at the 14 k cessna install price I'm buying one instead of my planned gtn750, ill put that off.

a chute may give you an option you might not otherwise have. 

probably will never need it.

I've never needed a seat belt, but i don't shift out of park without it.

I've never needed an air bag, but i'm glad its there. 

Ive never needed a hard hat or safety harness, but wore them for many years anyway.

the BRS efficacy is proven now.

[aviatoreb]

Today I went to Burlington to fly with me CFI and we practice all sorts of standard maneuvers BFR style, incl all sorts of emergency landings.  But I made it clear before we set up the appt that I needed to be out of there by 330 to make it home before dark.  Not judging anyone, but for myself, I figure in a single engine, after dark, the options to land in a field become null esp in the boonies where I live.  Moonlit nights are different, esp in the winter when there is snow.

Tomorrow I will go to the NJ fly in, then I will try to get home before dark.  But my son at Cornell will have his last exam at 5pm.  I might stop in Ithaca for the night at the hotel, and then take him home the next morning.  Or maybe you New Jersey boys might talk me into staying in sunny NJ.  Or I might go home and go back Sunday morning. In any case I won't be taking my boy home on Sat night in the dark.

Both of these I would do differently if I had a BRS.  It would change how I use my single engine airplane.  I would buy it.

BTW - I am having worries that the BRS can be well fitted to the Mooney.  The Cirrus was designed with BRS in mind - the flexing landing gear is part of the system when you are dropped down flat - and we know our gear is very stiff.  But also the Cirrus has special seats to allow you to land flat and not break your back. The seats and the gear are part of the BRS system in the cirrus.  Is there alternative seats that are needed with a retrofit BRS?

In any case, clearly a lot of folks here don't want BRS no way no how.  Tom how many does BRS need to sell to make an STC worth the trouble.