Judging interest in developing a BRS system for the Mooney fleet

[Piloto]

None of the airliners have a BRS and most people consider them safer than a Cirrus. And if the airliner was handling parachutes to every passenger would they think it is a safer airline or a risky plane.  As for airbags none of the racing cars have them. Instead the driver uses a 4 point seat belt and a helmet. And they walk out out of a crash at 200 mph were the car has tumble a couple of times. 

Like Piper (Saratoga), Cessna (210) and Beech (A36) did Mooney should consider a 6 passenger model. This would open the market for those in need of carrying more than 4 passengers. 

José

[Hank]

My wife encouraged me to buy my chuteless Mooney. She happily rides along VFR or IFR, if we're going somewhere; sometimes she'll go along flightseeing, but she's not really into practice flights or going up "just because."

if I mentioned wanting to buy a chute instead of a car, she'd send me to get my head examined. On the other hand, you are always free to spend your money the way you want, just as I do.

Personally, I think the "car like" interior and accoutrements of the Cirrus help sell it to people who are shopping in the 700K price range. To say nothing of two doors, just like their car. Gives them a more comfortable feeling sitting there looking at the big tv screens on the dash. There's even one of those on each side. "Perception is often more important than reality."

Sure would be nice if my Mooney qualified for airbag seatbelts, just like the new 700K Mooneys . . . They actually save lives. Cirrus counts every pull as lives saved, whether the pull was necessary or not, whether the plane could have landed or not. Oh, except for the one that hit power lines and burned. Or the one where the chute never opened, and the pilot landed with the drogue chute dragging along the runway behind him and the rocket still unfired. Or the plane with an engine fire that popped the chute and had a hot fire during the slow motion descent. Or . . .

[Tom]

"My best friend's cousins' sister's brother's roommate's sister was in a car wreck.  The driver wasn't wearing a seatbelt and was thrown from the wreckage and walked away.  The sister was pinned in the wreckage by her seatbelt and died.  I don't wear seatbelts because seatbelts can kill you!"

“Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.”
   -George Carlin

Some people just need to touch the paint.

 

 

[Jerry 5TJ]

On December 14, 2015 at 0:33 PM, mike_elliott said:

If someone would develop airbag harnesses for the vintage fleet at a reasonable price point, that would be one of the best upgrades one could do. I know of one life that very well could have been saved. Amsafe, got your ears on? Lets define reasonable at 1500.

My aviation partner and I put Amsafe belts in the two front seats of our P46T for about $5k each, installed.   There is also an annual test required that costs about $200.   We're happy with them, and hope we never use them as designed.

A target price of $1500 is probably a chimera. 

[mike_elliott]

1 hour ago, jerry-N5911Q said:

My aviation partner and I put Amsafe belts in the two front seats of our P46T for about $5k each, installed.   There is also an annual test required that costs about $200.   We're happy with them, and hope we never use them as designed.

A target price of $1500 is probably a chimera. 

Agreed but the question is why. Certainly not 10K worth of material, the FAA has promised ease and "fast tracking" of StC certifications for them to minimize expense there, volumes would certainly pick up from near zero to near 100 percent participation...I think the number has the litigation factor and the profit factor overweighted personally, but if they are happy with minimal sales at 10K, then that is AMsafe's call and the opportunity for competition. The 200 annual inspection test might be improved upon also. Whats the penalty if they don't work? Whats the possibility of them being disabled because of this test?

[carusoam]

Extra points scored for using 'chimera'!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(mythology)

Best regards,

-a-

[Jerry 5TJ]

53 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Agreed but the question is why. Certainly not 10K worth of material, the FAA has promised ease and "fast tracking" of StC certifications for them to minimize expense there, volumes would certainly pick up from near zero to near 100 percent participation...I think the number has the litigation factor and the profit factor overweighted personally, but if they are happy with minimal sales at 10K, then that is AMsafe's call and the opportunity for competition. The 200 annual inspection test might be improved upon also. Whats the penalty if they don't work? Whats the possibility of them being disabled because of this test?

Let's see:  Installation of 2 belt systems took over 20 shop hours as much of the interior had to come out. Call that $2000. Dealer material mark-up 20% or $1500, perhaps. So about $3.5k each for the manufacturer: Latches, seat belts, bag hardware, inflator, actuator, sensors, wiring and electronics.  Add STC, operating expenses, advertising, insurance. Maybe there's some money left for profit.

That's not a business plan I am likely to invest in now, let alone at a much lower sell price and when the customers are a bunch of Mooney CBs like us.  

You ask, "what's the penalty if they don't work?"  Your estate sues the manufacturer for a gazillion dollars. 

 

[mike_elliott]

5 minutes ago, jerry-N5911Q said:

Let's see:  Installation of 2 belt systems took over 20 shop hours as much of the interior had to come out. Call that $2000. Dealer material mark-up 20% or $1500, perhaps. So about $3.5k each for the manufacturer: Latches, seat belts, bag hardware, inflator, actuator, sensors, wiring and electronics.  Add STC, operating expenses, advertising, insurance. Maybe there's some money left for profit.

That's not a business plan I am likely to invest in now, let alone at a much lower sell price and when the customers are a bunch of Mooney CBs like us.  

You ask, "what's the penalty if they don't work?"  Your estate sues the manufacturer for a gazillion dollars. 

 

Perhaps your right, putting in airbag belts is financially unfeasible for most because the manufacture is afraid of the legal downside, and unwilling to experiment with sales volume greater than what they currently have.

[bonal]

Best solution for the CB members install shoulder harness take old headst components out of headset and install into snell approved full face helmet. Wear on takeoff remove when at altitude. If forced off field landing is eminent put helmet back on. No head trauma.

[Bennett]

While airplanes and cars are not the same situation, several years ago I slid on "black ice" and hit a moving snow plow head on. He was sliding as well, and we calculated the closing speed at about 70 MPH, not far removed from GA landing speeds. Totally destroyed the front end of my new Ford Escape, and damaged the snow plow. Anyway, the airbags went off, and neither I nor my passenger were injured. The young lady passenger's necklace was ripped from her neck by the sudden deceleration, and the seat belts held. So, I am a enthusiast for the idea of installing airbags in my aircraft, and frustrated by the fact that Js, Ks, and older are out of the existing STC.

[aviatoreb]

33 minutes ago, Bennett said:

 

While airplanes and cars are not the same situation, several years ago I slid on "black ice" and hit a moving snow plow head on. He was sliding as well, and we calculated the closing speed at about 70 MPH, not far removed from GA landing speeds. Totally destroyed the front end of my new Ford Escape, and damaged the snow plow. Anyway, the airbags went off, and neither I nor my passenger were injured. The young lady passenger's necklace was ripped from her neck by the sudden deceleration, and the seat belts held. So, I am a enthusiast for the idea of installing airbags in my aircraft, and frustrated by the fact that Js, Ks, and older are out of the existing STC.

Hitting a plow is no doubt like a brick wall, but....you were on ice, and so was he, so I wonder to what degree what actually happened was a glancing blow, like an elastic collision, and less energy was actually transferred as both vehicles were not planted feet firmly on the ground?...I bet the ice also helped save some of the damage even though the ice also caused the crash.  No doubt the airbags helped too dramatically.

[Bennett]

We both slid after the crash, and you are right, it would have been much worse on dry pavement, but then we wouldn't have crashed. This was a 9/10 head on, and we both torqued to a side, which helped. Yet, that huge steel snow plow on the front was heavily dented. I did have the Escape repaired, and the cost was well over $25,000. It was a newly leased vehicle, and if it was "totalled" I would have been thousands of dollars on the back side of the lease. The airbags smell horribly when they go off - almost enough to make you sick. And of course modern cars have crumple zones to absorb energy that we do not have in our aircraft. But, I would still buy airbags for the Mooney if I could.

[DaV8or]

I'm late to the thread and I didn't read all the pages. I'm sure it's all the usual blah, blah, blah about the merits and evils of BRS that you regularly find in Cirrus threads. Anyhow, I would love to have a BRS system in my Mooney, but I won't be buying one unless it comes way, way down in price. More realistically I would like to see the airbag seatbelt system in my Mooney. It too has to come down in price.

The bottom line is, I don't value my own life that much!!!  Seriously, when your engine quits over the mountains you will pray to god for all this and more, but on the ground in the armchair, It's all about dollars and cents and aircraft performance. I'm no different.

However, if I were buying a brand new Mooney at the prices they cost, I would absolutely expect it to have a BRS in this day and age. Unfortunately, as I have said before, the M20 has done it's duty. The 21st century demands a new airframe.

[Urs_Wildermuth]

On Montag, 14. Dezember 2015 at 7:01 AM, Ron Blum said:

Cirrus may have most of the sales ... at this time, but how many airplanes are we as an industry producing today?

Hi Ron, very nice to see you here.

Cirrus have the most sales mainly because of the shute. I think we can log that one as a fact. It's a bit like the old advert for sugarless chewinggum where the kid in the soapbox car which praises the said gum but eventually relents saying that it's the only one his dentist mother allows. In some other fora I post we have a very vocal Cirrus crowd and more than one has admitted to the fact that this is the only airplane the wife would step into because it has "the shute". And many who do own BRS equipped planes will say that they fly in conditions they would not consider in a SEP because of the shute. Maybe this has also lead so some accidents even, but I think we have to admit that Cirrus absolutely landed a very hard to dispute sales pitch with that shute and that this shute has actually saved quite a few lives since, also with other makes.

So I am afraid, I am with Hank here. Any manufacturer who wishes to sell significant numbers today (what ever that means in today's climate) will have to consider the shute at least as an option. You being involved with the M10, I think you've heard this argument before but I'm afraid it might really have an impact on your sales if no BRS is possible.

 

On Montag, 14. Dezember 2015 at 7:01 AM, Ron Blum said:

Why are people not buying airplanes?  That's the question that we need to answer.

The question needs to be modified: Why aren't people buying NEW airplanes. The trade in used planes is going pretty good still today, even though prices have fallen considerably. But that already answers part of your question regarding new airplane sales. From my perspective: Money. New plane prices are totally outside the scope a "normal" guy can afford. These days you  can buy quite nice homes in nice areas for $ 100-200k, so if a new 4 seater with mostly 1960ties technology costs more than 4-5 times that much, people will set their priorities. Also depreciation is horrendous, a new 800k airplane will loose 3/4 of it's value in the first 2-3 years. Looking at the Cirrus used market, people are now looking for G2 and G3 models at 200k, while a new one costs close to 800k. For me, the foremost reason why people fly 50 year old airframes happily and invest 2-3 times the hull value in instrument upgrades lies exactly therein: it is what they can afford and make their own. The number of folks who can buy a 100k used plane is a huge factor higher than those who will buy new despite knowing that they will loose massive money doing so.

Add to that while the economy is not doing so bad at all, psychologically speaking the world is in a depression at least since 2008. Prices of almost everything has fallen dramatically, again, look at the housing market. Today you can get a previously multi million dollar home for maybe 200-300k. I've seen such places in Florida and had to rub my eyes. (that trend is opposite in Europe, btw, at least where I live, properties have risen up to 300% since 2001, as space runs out to build new ones, also there the used market is way stronger than the new market). Generally, prices are falling, particularly in the entry segment for cars, houses and other goods. Only airplanes seem to have risen in price. That is a countermovement which is mainly due to high certification cost (which is why experimentals take off the way they do), high OEM equipment cost due to monopolies and high labour cost as opposed to mass products like cars. In small GA, with the class of airplane an Ovation, Acclaim, SR22, C400 e.t.c. are, in comparison to the auto market ALL our planes are in the class of Lamborghini or Ferrari: hand made, low volume, high price. Now imagine what the auto market would look like if that was the case  there. You'd see Cuban conditions everywhere which is a classic car nut's paradise but a salesman's nightmare.

 

I do have high hopes for the M10 for several reasons. If the price is right, I think the M10J can be a real alternative for the 1-2 person traveller and finally a replacement for the Vintage Mooneys and the 201, a true entry level travel machine. Secondly, the engine is a perfect choice, at least for Europe. Jet A1 is cheaper and much more available than Avgas in many places. And finally, the typical Mooney performance: 160kts with a Diesel is unheard of so far, so is 1000 NM range.

What I'd like to see is a even more "entry level" version of the M10 with conventional cockpit, possibly with a Aspen/GTN/Avidyne version with otherwise conventional instrumentation if that could lower the price towards the G1000 machine even more. I'd suggest the same for the Ovation and Acclaim btw, if it makes a noticable dent in the price. Even if most people WILL buy the G1000 eventually, it might look good to have something "cheaper" to draw people in. Cirrus does this with the SR20, which basically doesn't sell at all but still is the "cheaper" model to lure folks into the sales room. But if a Aspen/Avidyne or GTN equipped airframe could chip off 100k of the final sales price of a new plane, it might give you an edge over others.

And please do reconsider a BRS system for the M10. I think many would be willing to even forego the 3rd seat in the J, in the T there should be space enough as it is. Again, maybe not many folks will actually buy it but it might surprise you.

 

Sorry, it's been a longer post and gone beyond the subject of the thread, but I am really glad to see you here Ron.

And btw, if you really get the M10 in the air before the new year, it will make my year

 

Best regards

Urs Wildermuth

M20C, 1965, HB-DWC

 

[carusoam]

Nicely written opinion, Urs!

Best regards and good morning,

-a-

[Jim Peace]

On December 16, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Piloto said:

None of the airliners have a BRS and most people consider them safer than a Cirrus.

José

Really,,,,

You are going to compare an all weather twin to four engine jet operated under part 117/121 to a go cart with wings operated under part 90.5?

[Ron Blum]

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.      

[carusoam]

Ron, your entire history of PMs should be available to you by pushing the envelope button at the top right corner of your screen.

unless you have been inundated with PMs....

Best regards,

-a-

[bonal]

On December 16, 2015 at 8:30 AM, bonal said:

Best solution for the CB members install shoulder harness take old headst components out of headset and install into snell approved full face helmet. Wear on takeoff remove when at altitude. If forced off field landing is eminent put helmet back on. No head trauma.

I wasn't jocking on this one and as I was looking at the latest AOPA magazine there is an article on a new practical GA helmet but does not protect the face so it still would fail to protect from striking the panel. Anyway I completely agree that the cost is a big factor on the pilot population getting new pilots and owners but it's also cultural I keep seeing manufacturers spending there advertising budgets in aviation related publications and yes that makes sense cause that's where the pilots are but why not have a joint effort with all the manufacturers to do an add campaign outside of the choir. There are lots of people that could afford aviation but maybe just never considered it an option for themselves. As for Cirrus domination of the market well give it some time Mooney has been idle for a long time and are just getting things going again. And one other thing keep in mind that a BIG percentage of new aircraft cost goes towards paying the liability for the product. I got this directly from the president of Cirrus in person that 65% of that purchase price covers that liability cost. 

[Diesel 10]

I would be a customer if a BRS was available for my 1992 M20J.  I know a chute is not going to help in every situation but with the terrain I fly over in the west, there are many situations where I could imagine using the chute after an engine failure.  I've never owned (or even flown in) a Cirrus, but I've never understood the anti-BRS position.  I see it as a useful tool that might be the right answer in certain scenarios.  Then it up to each owner to decide if its worth the money.

One technical point that I'd be interested to hear about.  I spoke with the BRS folks about their currently available C182 STC.  It turns out that they do not make it available for 182RGs because the fixed gear is is part of the impact absorption system required to get FAA approval.  Since all our Mooneys are RGs, would this be a challenge in getting a Mooney BRS approved?

[1964-M20E]

On 12/20/2015 at 10:48 AM, bonal said:

And one other thing keep in mind that a BIG percentage of new aircraft cost goes towards paying the liability for the product. I got this directly from the president of Cirrus in person that 65% of that purchase price covers that liability cost. 

I like to be optimistic but If this is true it represents a sad state of affairs here.

A new 4 to 6 place Mooney, Cirrus, Cessna etc that now goes for $600k+/-  if it were 40 to 50% less that would make it affordable to a larger crowd more aircraft produced and sold and the flow of used machines down the line would be  greater as well.

[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.

[chrisk]

On 12/16/2015 at 10:22 PM, Piloto said:

None of the airliners have a BRS and most people consider them safer than a Cirrus. And if the airliner was handling parachutes to every passenger would they think it is a safer airline or a risky plane.  As for airbags none of the racing cars have them. Instead the driver uses a 4 point seat belt and a helmet. And they walk out out of a crash at 200 mph were the car has tumble a couple of times. 

Like Piper (Saratoga), Cessna (210) and Beech (A36) did Mooney should consider a 6 passenger model. This would open the market for those in need of carrying more than 4 passengers. 

José

But some of the airliners have air bags.  I was recently on an airbus in the exit row and discovered a seat belt airbag.  --It seems like a horrible idea to put an explosive device on a commercial plane, but hey I'm sure it is part of the type certificate.