Jump to content

New Mooneys, any interest at all?


Recommended Posts

Just now, bluehighwayflyer said:

Fact is that I maintain my Mooney for a fraction of the cost that many others do thanks to many factors, not the least of which is my willingness to scrounge for spare parts.  I do prefer to buy new, however, whenever possible, even when that means new old stock when I can get something I know I will eventually need for pennies on the dollar.  Sometimes the economics of it all do necessitate searching out used options, though.  I certainly agree with you on that.

 

 

 

 

I agree 100%. I maintain a 24 year old Mooney for as inexpensively as anyone on here, without compromising safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2017 at 2:29 AM, Urs_Wildermuth said:

 

Another factor which has been addressed here is the "wife" factor of the parashute. I agree. Cirrus did the shute originally to overcome certification issues but I guess it took them a very short time to find that the shute will do for their sales pretty much what that old chewing gum commercial did for sugarless gums: "I love it because it's the only gum my mummy allows...." I reckon that was and is a huge pro Cirrus argument. Many people, particularly spouses, are very anxious passengers and the comfort of having that shute must be an overwhelming one to them, even though some pilots may sneer. Personally, I think the shute adds a significant safety factor particularly at night and in low IMC. Of course this has it's price in terms of maintenance as well as payload.

 

Just a quick correction. The chute wasn't added to pass certification. It was in the design from the very beginning. Cirrus argued successfully to skip spin certification because it had the chute. The airframe later was forced to be spin tested in Europe which it successfully passed. The chute will recover a spin (to prevent death) with less altitude loss than normal spin recovery techniques. If spun from higher altitudes normal spin recovery techniques can certainly be tried and should work too. Yes, wives like the chute... but so do I especially in the situations you mentioned. I will fly the Cirrus at night... something I stopped doing in the 172.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick correction. The chute wasn't added to pass certification. It was in the design from the very beginning. Cirrus argued successfully to skip spin certification because it had the chute. The airframe later was forced to be spin tested in Europe which it successfully passed. The chute will recover a spin (to prevent death) with less altitude loss than normal spin recovery techniques. If spun from higher altitudes normal spin recovery techniques can certainly be tried and should work too. Yes, wives like the chute... but so do I especially in the situations you mentioned. I will fly the Cirrus at night... something I stopped doing in the 172.

 

That's not quite correct. They knew that their cuffed wing which made it stall resistant also made it not pass spin testing. Took too many turns. Read the interview with the Cirrus engineer that's out there. It doesn't pass US spin tests.

 

http://www.kineticlearning.com/pilots_world/safety/06_05/article_06_03.html

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, gsengle said:

 

That's not quite correct. They knew that their cuffed wing which made it stall resistant also made it not pass spin testing. Took too many turns. Read the interview with the Cirrus engineer that's out there. It doesn't pass US spin tests.

 

http://www.kineticlearning.com/pilots_world/safety/06_05/article_06_03.html

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks I hadn't seen that article before. I didn't mean to imply that it would pass the US spin testing matrix. The testing in Europe was something like 60 spins demonstrated and all 60 were recovered. Point being that the airplane can be recovered in what I'd call "most" situations, but the chute will always do it faster and more reliably. Some think the chute was added later because the airplane couldn't pass spin tests. That's simply false.

I think new Mooney sales would be a lot better with a chute. Lots of people can afford a new Cirrus, Eclipse, M500, TBM, etc... I just wish I could too. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks I hadn't seen that article before. I didn't mean to imply that it would pass the US spin testing matrix. The testing in Europe was something like 60 spins demonstrated and all 60 were recovered. Point being that the airplane can be recovered in what I'd call "most" situations, but the chute will always do it faster and more reliably. Some think the chute was added later because the airplane couldn't pass spin tests. That's simply false.

I think new Mooney sales would be a lot better with a chute. Lots of people can afford a new Cirrus, Eclipse, M500, TBM, etc... I just wish I could too. :-)

 

The real problem may be stall spin accidents in the pattern where a wing design that might bite may have been a factor in accidents at altitudes where the chute can't help.

 

It's been widely speculated that the spring driven (rather than aerodynamic) trim system yields a lack of low speed control feel which has in turn led to low speed low altitude pattern accidents - again where the chute can't help...

 

This is my main dislike of flying a Cirrus is the trim system and control feel. I think the wing design was well intentioned, but apparently one that is hard to stall can also be hard to recover.

 

In fairness you won't recover a Mooney spun at pattern altitudes either...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So again - why is mooney so chute-phobic.  If people are buying planes with chutes because their wives or girlfriends will fly in the planes, why not offer one.  I'm not saying you have to have one - obviously you do not need one, but I bet every mooney sales rep would love to have a chute in their bag.  They could say - chose one of these options - TKS, AC, Chute or none of the above.  If you don't want one, don't order it.  

The technical reasons for and against it are really meaningless - its all about unit sales - might as well offer the option to gain some sales.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because once again the cost to recertify the wing to get both stronger gear and a certifiable single engine stall speed at a higher max gross is $$$$$$

 

Need higher max gross to accommodate chute.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

M20's are certified without a chute.  In my understanding, they don't need to be recertified to offer optional equipment.  A chute is just an option - like power windows - I get many don't want one, but as an option, it seems like a good thing.  Helps to keep mooney factory people employed....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

M20's are certified without a chute.  In my understanding, they don't need to be recertified to offer optional equipment.  A chute is just an option - like power windows - I get many don't want one, but as an option, it seems like a good thing.  Helps to keep mooney factory people employed....

 

No one will buy it if putting a chute equals a 4 seat airplane with 800lb useful load tho

 

I agree a chute option should be a priority but they are up against some design limits

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rpcc said:

M20's are certified without a chute.  In my understanding, they don't need to be recertified to offer optional equipment.  A chute is just an option - like power windows - I get many don't want one, but as an option, it seems like a good thing.  Helps to keep mooney factory people employed....

Hahah... if only it were that simple. The design, engineering, and certification challenges are numerous and not at all trivial. I'll bet my Mooney, that if there is ever a Mooney with a chute, it will be a clean sheet designed airplane. A chute can not and will never be added to an M20.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahah... if only it were that simple. The design, engineering, and certification challenges are numerous and not at all trivial. I'll bet my Mooney, that if there is ever a Mooney with a chute, it will be a clean sheet designed airplane. A chute can not and will never be added to an M20.

 

I know the weight challenge but otherwise I'm not sure why not. The cage you'd think would provide good attach points then down to spar, there is already extra tail ballast in the long bodies, and BRS has retrofit stcs for Cessnas too...

 

It would have to come from the factory though, the Mooney cb club would never buy enough to justify BRS doing the work...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gsxrpilot - with respect - if the m20r for example is certified without a chute, what is the problem with adding more safety as an option to the aircraft.  Maybe the chute has to be a bit larger to account for the small landing gear on the Mooney, but what else could be the issue?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rpcc

Take a look at how much detail the Cirrus uses to make the chute work.

You can read their website. They will tell you in several pages.

It isn't an easy button that makes it happen.

Then it has to pass the FAA tests and documentation. There is no easy button for this either.

Then somebody has to pay for the whole thing.

Then decide for yourself what it would take to successfully deploy a chute from an M20.

Are you familiar with how they handle the g-forces?

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, rpcc said:

Maybe the chute has to be a bit larger to account for the small landing gear on the Mooney, but what else could be the issue?  

  • Weight of the chute, straps and attach points will reduce useful load, in order to stay under the required 61 knot stall speed.
  • Unlike Cessnas, the wing spar that the chute must attach to is on the bottom, making access from a chute deployed above the plane difficult. Cirrus did this by burying the shrouds in the outside of the skin, which is part of why the repack costs so durn much.
  • There is precious little physical space inside the cabin to out the chute. 
  • If the fuselage / wing attach point to require modification  (i.e., strengthening to hold up to chute opening forces), that opens the door to structural recertification (much time, many tests and mucho dinero).
  • Then the whole chute thing must be tested and retested until it's right.
  • Cirrus uses their fixed landing gear as part of the shock absorber system when the plane "floats gently to the ground" at around 35-40 mph.
  • Mooney will probably require stronger seats, which will require stronger fuselage sections to support them (see above about $tructural modification$). I believe Cirrus uses seats tested to 26G, while my Vintage Mooney uses seats tested to 9G.
  • Etc. . . . . .
Edited by Hank
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@gsengle and @rpcc, I'm not saying it can't be done, or that I'm in anyway suggesting it shouldn't be done. I'm just saying that I don't believe (don't work for Mooney or the FAA or BRS, etc, etc.) it would be easy, simple, cost effective, to do and so therefore I don't believe it will ever be done.

I see two issues, and again, just my relatively uneducated opinion. One is the weight and second is the gear. The problem I see with the gear is not is it strong enough, but that it's too strong. The humans in the cockpit need to survive the straight drop onto the gear at approximately 27 or 28 feet per second. I believe the seating position and the springy gear in the Cessna and the Cirrus make that drop survivable for the human spine. I'm afraid the seating position, spar stiffness, and gear stiffness in the Mooney, would likely cause sever spinal injury, from such a drop.

It would be pretty easy to test. We just need one of you to donate your Mooney for the experiment. You don't even have to ride in it, we'll use a crash test dummy with lots of sensors attached. ;-)

Finally regarding FAA approval... those knuckleheads won't approve a simple airbag seatbelt for use in a vintage Mooney... so I'm not betting they'd easily allow the chute as a simple option because it's safer.

As someone else always says... not an aerospace engineer, not an A&P, didn't stay at a Holiday Inn, just a PP.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gsxrpilot said:

Oh, and one more note... with a retractable gear airplane, the drop/landing has to be survivable both with gear up as well as down. 

Unless the chute deployment process automatically drops the gear.

But what if the reason for the pull involves electrical failure? Or the gear just doesn't come down? No gear then, better test it both ways--twice the time, twice the costs, twice the FAA review time.

I only have a decade of experience dealing around the edges of FAA regulations as a hobby, many of which are not published but exist only in Chief Counsel Opinions not available to Joe Pilots like me. But I have over twice the experience dealing with the FDA and other governmental agencies, and it's no walk in the park. Often, as with airbag seat belts (approved in R, S and TN Mooneys but prohibited in all the rest), nothing is ever simple, easy or fast, no matter how obvious it looks.

Not a DAR or a DER or even an A&P, just an engineer, pilot and aircraft owner.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, the chute only gets pulled when things have gone to shit. And that has to include that along with the other shit, there is a gear issue. I'm sure if I've fired the chute at 4000 feet, I've got no time to crank the handle and go through the emergency gear extension process. 

I don't see a lot of examples of BRS chutes on retracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, the chute only gets pulled when things have gone to shit. And that has to include that along with the other shit, there is a gear issue. I'm sure if I've fired the chute at 4000 feet, I've got no time to crank the handle and go through the emergency gear extension process. 
I don't see a lot of examples of BRS chutes on retracts.


New Cirrus jet. Retract with chute.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gsengle said:

I doubt gear is a deal breaker. Might need new seats though...

 

You don't think it's a deal breaker, and I think it is... and with our combined expertise on the subject, either one of us could be right ;)

Or we both might have missed the boat all together. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, gsengle said:

 

The real problem may be stall spin accidents in the pattern where a wing design that might bite may have been a factor in accidents at altitudes where the chute can't help.

 

It's been widely speculated that the spring driven (rather than aerodynamic) trim system yields a lack of low speed control feel which has in turn led to low speed low altitude pattern accidents - again where the chute can't help...

 

This is my main dislike of flying a Cirrus is the trim system and control feel. I think the wing design was well intentioned, but apparently one that is hard to stall can also be hard to recover.

 

In fairness you won't recover a Mooney spun at pattern altitudes either...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I agree with the stall spin issues.  I've found the airplane to be pretty obvious when it's getting slow... but it does take a little longer to develop the feel.  I'm really not sure if  that's it though - slowly / gently entered stalls in the Cirrus should be very docile because of the wing design - an in my experience they've always been docile to the point where you ask "was that it". It seems to me these must be accelerated stalls, which is the same low altitude problem that's been killing pilots since the beginning. Seems no matter how hard you try, us pilots always outsmart the safety features.

 

Also - I agree - trimming a Cirrus sucks, and the feel is "limited" (but still there) it's something that I got used to after a little while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.