Judging interest in developing a BRS system for the Mooney fleet

[aviatoreb]

  On 12/11/2015 at 10:32 PM, carusoam said:

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.

-a-

Expand  

Hi -A-  Actually I used to write to the airbag people regularly begging them to STC for me an airbag seatbelt.  amsafe - you would think it would be easier to extend the current STC for long bodies to mid bodies.  Never could get them to - their cost analysis was not favorable to their business model.  I would get that also.

As for statistics - you can't do statistics without data.  How easy is that?  I am pretty good at statistics and this is an immutable fact I know.  That said, its a rule of thumb I am following about avoiding night - I want an out, and at night over empty dark terrain, without even the option of landing in a field, I don't like the odds.

If Tom by the way is a BRS representative, then welcome to him - I want the chute and I don't care if he is a troll.

[Guest Mike261]

  On 12/12/2015 at 12:49 AM, aviatoreb said:

Hi -A-  Actually I used to write to the airbag people regularly begging them to STC for me an airbag seatbelt.  amsafe - you would think it would be easier to extend the current STC for long bodies to mid bodies.  Never could get them to - their cost analysis was not favorable to their business model.  I would get that also.

As for statistics - you can't do statistics without data.  How easy is that?  I am pretty good at statistics and this is an immutable fact I know.  That said, its a rule of thumb I am following about avoiding night - I want an out, and at night over empty dark terrain, without even the option of landing in a field, I don't like the odds.

If Tom by the way is a BRS representative, then welcome to him - I want the chute and I don't care if he is a troll.

Expand  

i didn't list the night flying angle, but there are many scenarios...blown engine oil on windshield the list goes on. i'm have the mindset that as soon as the $hit hits the fan the insurance company is the proud new owner of a 1998 j.

at my home drome a loss of power on take off is a scary proposition...i'm going in a river.

i have to post a disclaimer tho...i had an engine failure on takeoff many years ago at 500-600 AGL in a beech sierra and made it back to the airport. back then i was a current CFI flying all day every day. Present day skills aren't that sharp. gimme chute

 

[Hank]

Not sure pulling at 600' agl is high enough for the BRS to be effective.

[Guest Mike261]

it has been proven effective at 260 feet agl

mike

[carusoam]

I assume you mean it worked once at 260' for a Cirrus with a particular loading, Mike?

It would need to be proven in the Mooney set-up using Mooney gross weights and speeds. And/Or add in the cost/weight of seats and landing gear adjustments.

 Hence, the high cost of testing.

I welcome the idea of improved safety.  And have been proven willing to pay for a much safer bird the second time around...

It is going to take facts and hard data to get the whole way there.  Unless we can just add the chute and be done with it.  Could it be that easy?  Half a solution is not going to be enough.

It is great that Tom 'stood up' to start this conversation.  I was hoping he was a product engineer at BRS that has designed a chute that can handle a 3400 pound object falling from the sky that was last moving 185knots for somebody.

I get an empty feeling when we look bad for doing something that we believe in and have put so much effort into doing it as safely as we do.

Anyone want to talk this over at lunch tomorrow?  47N around noon. I'll be there.

Was the $25k a real price for what it would cost for a Mooney for realistic outcomes?

It comes across like wishful thinking.  In that case, I wish we had one that worked properly, for $25k.  I wish the guys at BT could have one for the same price.

Hitting the ground too fast, is well, too fast...

My apologies if this comes across too aggressively,

-a-

 

[aviatoreb]

  On 12/12/2015 at 3:26 AM, carusoam said:

It is great that Tom 'stood up' to start this conversation.  I was hoping he was a product engineer at BRS that has designed a chute that can handle a 3400 pound object falling from the sky that was last moving 185knots for somebody.

 

Expand  

They put it in the Lancair evolution - 320kts.

http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/turboprops/lancairs-evolution-gets-brs-parachute

[carusoam]

$60k adder.  No mention of seats and landing gear details...

Evolution Speed: 300ktas more than M20

Evolution Weight: 4550# more than M20

The chute price is similar to an Ovations engine and prop OH.  To add some perspective.

Best regards,

-a-

 

[Guest Mike261]

  On 12/12/2015 at 3:26 AM, carusoam said:

I assume you mean it worked once at 260' for a Cirrus with a particular loading, Mike?

It would need to be proven in the Mooney set-up using Mooney gross weights and speeds. And/Or add in the cost/weight of seats and landing gear adjustments.

 Hence, the high cost of testing.

I welcome the idea of improved safety.  And have been proven willing to pay for a much safer bird the second time around...

It is going to take facts and hard data to get the whole way there.  Unless we can just add the chute and be done with it.  Could it be that easy?  Half a solution is not going to be enough.

It is great that Tom 'stood up' to start this conversation.  I was hoping he was a product engineer at BRS that has designed a chute that can handle a 3400 pound object falling from the sky that was last moving 185knots for somebody.

I get an empty feeling when we look bad for doing something that we believe in and have put so much effort into doing it as safely as we do.

Anyone want to talk this over at lunch tomorrow?  47N around noon. I'll be there.

Was the $25k a real price for what it would cost for a Mooney for realistic outcomes?

It comes across like wishful thinking.  In that case, I wish we had one that worked properly, for $25k.  I wish the guys at BT could have one for the same price.

Hitting the ground too fast, is well, too fast...

My apologies if this comes across too aggressively,

-a-

 

Expand  

not sure what the aircraft was, but do recall that getting the canopy to unfurl was more a function of airspeed than altitude. i will find link and post.

mike

 

[Guest Mike261]

couldn't link to page...but its at brsaerospace.com

snip below

Q.  What happens after I pull the handle?
A.  In the first 0.1 second, the rocket accelerates to 150 feet per second (over 100 mph). In less than one second, the rocket will extract the parachute and will stretch tight its lines and the airframe harness attachments. Very shortly afterward -- depending on the forward speed of the aircraft -- the canopy will become fully inflated and will decelerate the aircraft. The aircraft stabilizes under the canopy quite quickly.
    
Q.  Can I cut away the canopy once its deployed?
A.  No—once you're under the canopy, you're along for the ride.
    
Q.  Can the parachute be detonated on a hard landing?
A.  No—short of pulling the handle, the rocket cannot ignite. You can't fire it by hitting it, dropping it, heating it (within reason) or any other action. Only pulling the handle will fire it. The unit cannot "just go off." It is dormant until the pilot exerts a deliberate two-step action.
    
Q.  How low can the parachute work?
A.  The altitude required is a function of speed more than height. FAA certified tests have shown that full parachute inflation could occur as low as 260-290 feet above the ground.
    
Q.  How much damage will occur to the aircraft?
A.  As in any off-airport landing, the damage can vary with the actual terrain but using the BRS should be limited to emergencies where the cost of the aircraft is not the main concern. The damage in most cases is to the airframe gear, seats and frame. The deployments to date have resulted in aircraft that can and have been repaired.
    
Q.  Will I be injured on touchdown?
A.  Through spring 2005, 177 lives were spared by real-time use of an installed BRS unit and zero life-threatening injuries were recorded.

The Cessna 150,172,182, Symphony 160 and Cirrus SR20, SR22 SRV and SRG-2 systems successfully met all FAA criteria for occupant protection (according to FAA's “Injury Criteria for Human Exposure to Impact”).
    
Q.  How does the aircraft descend after the parachute is activated? What attitude?
A.  When the rocket is first activated, the system is designed to sharply pitch up the aircraft. Doing so uses the aircraft’s wings and fuselage to aid in slowing the forward motion. It also reduces loads applied to both airframe and parachute canopy.

In a very short time, the aircraft will cease any swinging and stabilize under the now fully opened canopy at zero-forward airspeed.

Once stabilized, the aircraft will descend in a flight level attitude with the nose slightly lower than the tail. On reaching the ground, the nosewheel generally will touch down first.
    
Q.  What is the descent rate?
A.  Once under canopy and descending in a sta

[Nopo]

I would buy the BRS system now it it were available. As pointed out in previous posts, the utility of the plane would increase considerably. And much of the cost would be captured in resale value.

[Raptor05121]

Not even the least interested.

[Hank]

I already fly day and night VFR and day IMC. I got my PPL and Instrument ticket while living in the WV/OH border, so hills and trees are a natural part of flying. That's what altitude is for. So a chute could "increase utility" by tempting me to fly night IMC, since loss of control might not kill me. Not a flight regime I'm interested in exploring, not even with a twin or a turbine.

[ArtVandelay]

I don't understand the repack requirement. Is this because of the rocket or the chute? Can't they seal it in breakaway plastic to protect from environment?

There is a video of the chute deployment, it takes about 10 seconds for it to stabilize in the horizontal position.

[aviatoreb]

  On 12/12/2015 at 3:44 AM, carusoam said:

$60k adder.  No mention of seats and landing gear details...

Evolution Speed: 300ktas more than M20

Evolution Weight: 4550# more than M20

The chute price is similar to an Ovations engine and prop OH.  To add some perspective.

Best regards,

-a-

 

Expand  

...and that 60k would be more if it were a certified airplane.  But - I bet the faster heavier airplane require a dramatically more robust system.  Surely not proportional cost increase.

[peevee]

Would I want it? Yes. Would I pay 20k for it? No. 

[Aviator]

I would definitely give strong consideration to installing a BRS Parachuter's on my Ovation if available.  It probably will not be available in time as I will soon be selling the Ovation and moving to Cirrus.  Two reasons; increased utility at night and mainly as an alternative for my passengers should they need it. In addition to cost and useful load I am concerned with the impact on the skin of the aircraft from a drag and esthetics perspective.  But if it were available now ithe "chute" would get strong consideration

 

Jim

 

[Tom]

FWIW a once-per-10-year repack on the 182 currently goes for $5800 per the BRS website (no reason to think that the Mooney would be much different, see below).  Thus an extra $580 per year in maintenance reserves isn't much for the additional utility (I would argue).

FWIW the 172 chute retails for $13,900 while the 182 chute retails for $15,500 (not including installation).

I'd assume that a retrofit BRS system would sit in the baggage compartment on the pilot side with an exit fabricated essentially opposite the baggage door.

As has been stated before, the skin over the Mooney forward fuselage is to "keep the wind out" thus I'd assume it relatively easy to do the sheet metal work to install the straps and make it easier to access come inspection time (particularly compared to a composite fuselage like the Cirrus).

FWIW, I'm not affiliated with BRS.  I simply have a Mooney but bought a twin for the typical reasons articulated in this thread (I had no interest in a Cirrus but am now considering one).

The Mooney is now redundant to me but before selling it I reached out to BRS to see if they had anything in the works, and they don't.  If they did, I'd install a BRS and keep the Mooney.  The vast majority of my flying is out west where I assume that, best case scenario, putting the plane down on a road will likely result in a ding somewhere that will, in reality, total the plane.  I thus have no concern that floating under a chute into a ravine will make the plane non-repairable.

In summary, a Mooney BRS option would save me money given my interests, etc.  The poll here was to gauge interest to share with BRS +/- Mooney to see if this might stimulate things somehow.

 

[kortopates]

The repack fee quoted above is just the BRS re-pack fee for the unit. Thus it won't include removal and re-installation on the airframe which will add substantial cost. The Cirrus re-pack includes quite a bit of canopy work since it has a nice clean and essentially invisible install - i.e. very pleasing esthetically since it was designed that way. If you browse the C-182 installation instructions you can get a really good idea of where the problems will manifest right away. In the Cessna, the forward straps are conveniently routed from the chute out slots through the rear window and secured to the wing that carries the load of the airframe. I am skeptical that the top of the cockpit steel cage would be strong enough and would imagine a much more costly routing down the sidewalls to the wing spar. Regardless though the move invasive the routing of the harness needs to be to get to strong enough attach points the more expensive both the install and 10 yr re-pack become. Since our low wing Mooney was not originally designed for this like the Cirrus was, I can easily imagine cost being higher than the Cirrus. The high wing Cessna with a rear window has retrofit advantages that the low wing Mooney simply does not.

The big cost to get going initially might very well be the extremely expensive testing program since it can't help but severely damage airframes. 

[philiplane]

Current repack costs for a Cirrus are about $16K because of an upgrade & change to the rocket motor & firing mechanism. With that complete, a 2005 & newer Cirrus repack with new rocket every ten years is about $9K. 

But, you are all thinking about money versus value, twin versus single, added value to the airplane.... all the wrong things to question.

The real question when evaluating safety equipment costs is very simple....how such is your life worth? Spend as much or as little as you think it's worth. Because when you haven't taken advantage of every life saving measure, and you finally need it, you will be wishing you spent the money as you plummet to the dirt and your death.

[aviatoreb]

  On 12/12/2015 at 10:29 PM, Tom said:

The Mooney is now redundant to me but before selling it I reached out to BRS to see if they had anything in the works, and they don't.  If they did, I'd install a BRS and keep the Mooney.  The vast majority of my flying is out west where I assume that, best case scenario, putting the plane down on a road will likely result in a ding somewhere that will, in reality, total the plane.  I thus have no concern that floating under a chute into a ravine will make the plane non-repairable.

In summary, a Mooney BRS option would save me money given my interests, etc.  The poll here was to gauge interest to share with BRS +/- Mooney to see if this might stimulate things somehow.

 

Expand  

Did they indicate how many they would need to sell?  Clearly many/most here are not interested at all.  But there do seem to be many who are interested.  So depending on how many they need to sell - then maybe it could still be viable for them.

[DonMuncy]

  On 12/13/2015 at 1:12 AM, philiplane said:

The real question when evaluating safety equipment costs is very simple....how such is your life worth? Spend as much or as little as you think it's worth. Because when you haven't taken advantage of every life saving measure, and you finally need it, you will be wishing you spent the money as you plummet to the dirt and your death.

Expand  

Without trying to be too argumentative, I would suggest that any safety consideration must include the element of probability. There is always the possibility that an airplane might crash into your house, and therefore should every house be built to withstand a plane crash?  I believe there is also a cost benefit to be considered. If it only cost $10 to crash-proof your home, I would certainly recommend it.

If every safety precaution were to be taken, we would not fly at all. I would suggest that we ignore the one in a million shots and live with the consequences. However, it is up to each of us to be reasonably aware of the probabilities and take the precautions that seem appropriate. I would certainly never argue with someone's decision to buy a plane with a BRS. On the other hand, I would not criticize someone for not opting to spend $25,000 to equip their plane with one.

[ryoder]

I know a cfi who bought a Skycatcher and installed a BRS in it himself.  It's for sale now.  

[Ron Blum]

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.

[ArtVandelay]

  On 12/13/2015 at 3:44 AM, Ron Blum said:

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.

If it wasn't captured on video it never happened.

[Urs_Wildermuth]

Yes, I would get it if I could afford it. Which would put me into the "if the price is right" cathegory combined with the last cathegory.... But generally, there are several reasons why I'd strongly consider it:

1. Increased useability of the airplane. Night, over mountains, over cities, IFR to minimums, all of those can be fatal when the donkey quits and there is no shute available.
2. I would definitly get some positive feedback from passengers who simply feel safer that way. If that means I get to fly more on family trips, it would be worth the investment.
3. Possibly, a BRS equipped M20 would have a massive additional selling point, once the plane has to go.

Primarily, I'd strongly urge Mooney to include the BRS in the M10 first and foremost. It will be a make or break argument for many, as we have seen with BRS equipped makes. We have seen that the only make which has a BRS installed per default in the class of the M20 has and continues to outsell the whole competition by a huge margin. That honestly tells me that the BRS has a lot more speaking for it than against it.

In recent years, I have been doing a bit of advising to people buying their first planes. What has since evolved is that almost ALL of them will first and foremost look at a Cirrus, because they like the shute. They eventually settle for other makes including Mooneys because they can't afford the Cirrus, not because they think the shute is not necessary. That, IMHO is something any maker these days needs to carefully consider. The BRS has a huge psychological effect on people, particularly spouses or other probable semivolontary passengers who will have a massive influence in many cases if a plane is bought or not.

I see one problem however with the M20 and the BRS. The Cirrus and some of the others I understand count on the landing gear as a shock absorber for landing on land. I can imagine that the Cessna gear also is quite suitable for that. The short gear of the M20 is singularily unsuitable for that. So the question is, what else would be needed to make the M20 suitable for this kind of rescue device? It could be done with seat cushioning, with an airbag under the fusellage or possibly there are other solutions, but i would think that this is a show stopper for having the BRS in the M20.