New Mooney Design with BRS Parachute?

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, MRussell said:

Your advocacy for more useful load is compelling (witness the success of the A36 and that the past two generations of SR22 have been legal 5-seaters after a 200-lb GW increase), I’m not sure how that valid point about payload cancels the market demand for BRS? 

From another angle, a lot of pilots advocate for TKS like it’s a potential lifesaver, but dismiss BRS in the same breath as if it’s not a potential lifesaver. That still confuses me. Passengers, on the other hand, while often not understanding the threat of icing, never fail to embrace the presence of BRS. 

The A36 gained a reputation as a load hauler with the initial models in the early 70s offering excellent payload (especially with the D’shannon tip tank GW increase). Reputation is a funny thing. Folks still look at them as load haulers but they got fat just like every other legacy design (182 is another example of perception vs reality). The new G36 is a 6 place aircraft with a listed UL of 1073lbs and that’s likely best case scenario unless it gets D’Shannon tip tanks. This has been the case since the 90s. If you see an A36 for sale that was manufactured in the last 30 years, you rarely see UL listed unless it’s been modified (thankfully many have) because many are in the <=1050lbs.   Not horrible but not great for a plane that in my limited experience uses ~15gph  to do 165kts. I’ve A36 time and they are sweet flying airplanes but their performance reputation is based in the past.

Its weird to me that when the 200hp mid bodies came out it gained a reputation for speed and economy but the fact that most of the early Fs could fly 500nm with reserves and ~800lbs in the cabin never gained a lot of traction.  A new Bo beats my old F on speed (+15kts) cabin cubes and ramp appeal. It’s bested in short field performance, load hauling, efficiency and range by my 52 year old 200hp  Mooney.

Even with unlimited funds I could not rationalize purchasing a G36 or newer A36. Especially when a 70s era TAT TN’d A36 with tip tanks will carry 400lbs more a much further distance and touch 200kts if you’re willing to use O2.

[exM20K]

11 hours ago, bradp said:

limiting potential marked to the ab initio training market dominated by piper and cirrus

...but mostly by Diamond :-)

 

Seriously, the M10 never had a chance of competing with the DA20; there was exactly nothing it could do better.

[SWL]

On 5/29/2019 at 6:02 PM, Bryan said:

Me too, a TBM, but the diff in cash is opposite. A new TBM is 4.2mm and the CJet is 2.4mm new. I guy in my home field had serial number 1 of the SF50, and just upgraded to the first serial number of the G2 jet. I will admit, I love the inside of the G2 SF50 but not ever sent in a new TBM powered up. Lottery plane is definitely the TBM.

Bryan, you are spot on with pricing, if comparing new to new.  I fly a 40 yr old mooney. If I were to (or could) trade up it would be for a similarly mature TBM.  Comparing TBM 700 to the oldest Cirrus (jet) RG is how I derived the price delta.   My grandfather used to say; "if wishes were horses, everyone would ride".

[carusoam]

I’m a bit fuzzy when it comes to comparing tank reseal with parachute OH...

A ‘94 O is 25years old...  Money spent on resealing the tanks... $0

Something changed in the history of tank sealing...

So if parachute OH costs 1.5amu per year, (annual reserve)

And Mooney annuals are around 2amu per year, (basic inspection not including repairs)

The SR22 is looking pretty expensive to own and maintain compared to a modern Mooney... 

Go Mooney!

-a-

[Shadrach]

On 5/29/2019 at 4:37 PM, zaitcev said:

In the abstract, I'd be all for it. An airframe parachute significantly increases the perceived safety of flying over forested areas

FIFY...  Flying over forested areas is relatively safe with or without a chute.  As of Dec 2018 there had been 98 CAPS pulls, of those, 84 were were survivable events (just one event had mixed results of a single fatality with others surviving).  That is 84 saves in ~20 years of airframe history.  Certainly some of those event would have been fatal in a non-caps airplane.  The trouble is in the analyzing which ones and how many. We don't know. Certainly some of them would have been survivable in Non-Caps airplanes.   Cirrus has made great strides in improving both rate and percentage of fatalities associated with the airframe. As far as I can tell, those strides have brought them much closer to similarly classed legacy aircraft.  Statistically I see no evidence to suggest a CAPS plane is safer (which is much better than where they were 10 yrs ago).  However, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that they are perceived as safer.

 

 

[mike_elliott]

18 hours ago, Shadrach said:

 

So far, no one has stated they would buy a new Mooney today if it had a BRS system. MR. Rogers, I guess that answers your question as to why Mooney hasnt spent a few million redesigning and recertifying the current plane to have one. A few people say they would like to see it, but none publically say they will buy one today if available. One can see it is hard to build a business case for the BRS from  this straw poll of the guys who are most likely to buy a new Mooney, the existing owners. 

Dr, Bob Edisses (a former hangar neighbor at KEYE) lost his life after he pulled his chute on his less than a week old Cirrus and it landed in a livestock pond. It was his 2nd Cirrus. Fortunately, his wife, son and son's GF survived. It was in a very rural area, but with the baggage, loading, etc I am not sure he could have safely landed in a corn field or horse pasture.

[smccray]

7 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

So far, no one has stated they would buy a new Mooney today if it had a BRS system. MR. Rogers, I guess that answers your question as to why Mooney hasnt spent a few million redesigning and recertifying the current plane to have one. A few people say they would like to see it, but none publically say they will buy one today if available. One can see it is hard to build a business case for the BRS from  this straw poll of the guys who are most likely to buy a new Mooney, the existing owners. 

 Dr, Bob Edisses (a former hangar neighbor at KEYE) lost his life after he pulled his chute on his less than a week old Cirrus and it landed in a livestock pond. It was his 2nd Cirrus. Fortunately, his wife, son and son's GF survived. It was in a very rural area, but with the baggage, loading, etc I am not sure he co

That's one possibility- that Mooney shouldn't invest in a BRS because the current owners won't buy a new plane.  Another possibility is that the Mooney offering in its entirety isn't compelling enough as a whole to entice the Mooney community to upgrade.

Ultimately your poll is looking at a bad sample.  The population you need to look at is new airplane buyers.  Me?  I briefly considered new but it was out of my budget.  However, I was a candidate for used aircraft.  That would indicate that my next upgrade (if I'm lucky enough to have the opportunity) would make me a candidate for a new plane.  I would typically be a used buyer to avoid both the first couple years of depreciation and to get occasional sale treatment, but if there were a compelling enough offering I would have to consider a new plane.  I do agree with you though- if current/prior owners of Mooney aircraft aren't considering new Mooney aircraft, Mooney has a problem.

If Pipistrel is able to get the Panthera certified (we'll see what happens) it's going after the same market as a Mooney Ovation.  We'll see what the numbers on that plane look like if/when it ever gets certified.

[Tommy]

20 hours ago, Shadrach said:

 That was a Lancair, it was 9 years ago, I believe the pilot tried to get the joggers attention but he had ear phones in.

Your cake walk comment is unrealistic. A non local Cirrus pilot who doesn’t know the area is going to pull the handle if he follows his training. Have you ever had an inflight emergency? Some are easier than others but none of them are cakewalks.

 

Ok I think at this point in time, we should just need to agree that Shadrach is the combined best Mooney and Cirrus pilot out there who will dead stick a glide post mid-air collision flying IMC night in the middle of Amazon rain forest.

To him,  every emergency can be managed successfully with no casulties on the ground using "luck, skill, and cool headedness..."

Edited May 31, 2019 by Tommy

[Tommy]

20 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

I have enjoyed reading the armchair CEO thoughts of this thread and would like to pose the following question:

 

How many of you would buy a new Ultra Acclaim or Ovation today if it had BRS and only added 35K to the current list price?

If the answer exceeds 30 "purchase orders", Ill go plead the case, no guarantees, just I will make a point of presenting the existing fleets' recommendation.

Now I know a lot of you will say you couldnt afford it, needs a GW increase, hate the new paint scheme, it only has 2 doors, etc, but lets keep it on topic of a BRS makes it now a viable to you purchase.

As a data point, 2 of the last 3 people I trained in the new Ultra's were in their early 30;s, not necessarily the old, 2 income no kids stereotype presented. All of the new Ultra owners were exposed to the Cirrus experience also. 

I think the question should be directed to people who is considering buying a new Cirrus and see if a BRS-equipped Mooney will entice them to switch over. We are not Mooneys targeted market.

Look, Mike, with all due respect, the numbers don't lie. The TTx demise is equally painful. Every one says it's the marketing, which I agree, every second Cirrus ad is the marketing of BRS.

Mooney has been pretty aggressive with ad campaign - on the second door and its speed record. Why didn't it sell?

Edited May 31, 2019 by Tommy

[Shadrach]

20 minutes ago, smccray said:

That's one possibility- that Mooney shouldn't invest in a BRS because the current owners won't buy a new plane.  Another possibility is that the Mooney offering in its entirety isn't compelling enough as a whole to entice the Mooney community to upgrade.

Ultimately your poll is looking at a bad sample.  The population you need to look at is new airplane buyers.  Me?  I briefly considered new but it was out of my budget.  However, I was a candidate for used aircraft.  That would indicate that my next upgrade (if I'm lucky enough to have the opportunity) would make me a candidate for a new plane.  I would typically be a used buyer to avoid both the first couple years of depreciation and to get occasional sale treatment, but if there were a compelling enough offering I would have to consider a new plane.  I do agree with you though- if current/prior owners of Mooney aircraft aren't considering new Mooney aircraft, Mooney has a problem.

If Pipistrel is able to get the Panthera certified (we'll see what happens) it's going after the same market as a Mooney Ovation.  We'll see what the numbers on that plane look like if/when it ever gets certified.

This is absolutely true.  The likely hood of me upgrading to another Mooney would require significantly more of what I already have.  At this time, my version of "significantly more" would mean turbine or twin or maybe aforementioned TATA36.  If Mooney could make the airframe able to take 800lbs of payload on a 600nm trip in ~3 hrs they'd have a much more competitive product. 600nm in 3hrs is currently doable but not with much in the way of payload.

[Tommy]

On 5/31/2019 at 12:23 AM, Andy95W said:

I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse.  If not, then re-read his post- he didn't say absorb as much impact, he said the Mooney gear wouldn't absorb as much energy.  In the Mooney gear, the energy is transmitted to the airframe.  In the spring steel gear, the gear itself absorbs the energy, so less is transferred to the airframe, which protects the occupants as they slam into the ground at 1700 fpm.  The specially designed seats absorb the rest of the impact forces to protect the passengers.

That's just playing with words. Do you have any reference or data? Cirrus vision jet with retractable gear has BRS. 

Edited May 31, 2019 by Tommy

[Tommy]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

  However, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that they are perceived as safer.

Without evidence, that perception can be right or wrong. But that perception is one of the biggest reasons people buy Cirrus. 

I have never met a Cirrus pilot that brags about the airframe, double door, avionics, fuel efficiency, or its interior because they know their Cirrus is not the best in any of these categories but many would not hestitate in telling their passengers that it has got a parachute. 

The whole discussion is not about whether it saves life or not (reality), it's about whether BRS can make Mooney competitive or not (perception). 

 

 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, Tommy said:

Ok I think at this point in time, we should just need to agree that Shadrach is the combined best Mooney and Cirrus pilot out there who will dead stick a glide post mid-air collision flying IMC night in the middle of Amazon rain forest.

For you every emergency can be managed successfully with no casulties on the ground using "luck, skill, and cool headedness..."

Yes, indeed luck is the first and key ingredient. Without it you need a lot more of the second two both of which being finite are sometimes not enough.

You're building a straw man. I've never said suggested that I am anything like what you described.  I am suggesting that "pull early and pull often" is at some point going to cause ground fatalities. 3000lbs of uncontrolled airplane descending at 1700fpm will kill.  All airplanes cause ground fatalities.  Sometimes the pilot survives to endure the aftermath but more often than not the pilot does not make it.  The optics of a pilot "floating" down in his personal aircraft and landing on a pedestrian will be bad. Will they be worse that a C414 coming out of an overcast in pieces and blowing up a house? I don't know.

I'd be happy to have a chute, but crunching the numbers shows that it makes little difference in the odds that I die in an airplane.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Shadrach

[Guest]

I’ve got a number of customers who have gone from Cirrus to a Piper Mirage, then to a TBM.  Not having CAPS system doesn’t seem to be topping the transition to different airframes.

Generally speaking a turbocharged SR22 costs more to maintain than an Acclaim.

Clarence 

[Guest]

Deleted duplicate post.

Clarence

[johncuyle]

7 hours ago, MRussell said:

Your advocacy for more useful load is compelling (witness the success of the A36 and that the past two generations of SR22 have been legal 5-seaters after a 200-lb GW increase), I’m not sure how that valid point about payload cancels the market demand for BRS? 

From another angle, a lot of pilots advocate for TKS like it’s a potential lifesaver, but dismiss BRS in the same breath as if it’s not a potential lifesaver. That still confuses me. Passengers, on the other hand, while often not understanding the threat of icing, never fail to embrace the presence of BRS. 

Useful load is the problem.  BRS is heavy.  Making the problem worse by adding BRS is counterproductive.

I suppose FIKI TKS is a lifesaver, but I don't really think of it that way.  There are about six months a year where somewhere between the ground and the flight levels there's a layer of clouds a couple thousand feet thick with temperatures conducive to icing, often starting at about 1500ft AGL.  No TKS means you're not flying much at all those months, and if you are it's only a day trip because you can't be sure you'll be able to get back safely tomorrow.  TKS means you can climb through it and VFR on top to wherever and almost certainly fly home the day after tomorrow.  BRS isn't good for much of anything when your plane is stuck in the hangar due to weather. 

Meanwhile, my girlfriend (a non-pilot who is enthusiastic about flying) sat in a Cirrus at a tradeshow a few months ago.  She's aware it has a parachute but that wasn't enough to overcome her dislike of how high she had to climb to get in or the general layout of the thing.  I was surprised she didn't strongly prefer the side stick being out of the way to having the yoke in front of her.  I figured that'd be a big deal for her since she sits way back in the Mooney.  The sidestick is a dealkiller for me, though.  Bad design.  I can't turn left in a Cirrus because an old injury limits my range of motion in such a way that I can't twist it left.  Not a problem with a real stick or yoke.

[steingar]

Kind of a hard thing to get your head around.  I agree that not all BRS "saves" are really that.  Many of them could have been survivable, especially with cool and competent airmanship.  That said, how many?  What fraction of those saves would not have been survivable without the BRS?  I can't really say, nor do I think anyone else can.  I am as convinced that some wouldn't survivable as that some would be, I just don't know the numbers.  So what is the actual probability that you'll need that chute?  Dunno.  On the other hand, if you can actually afford a new Cirrus you can afford the chute repack, and it certain does give some piece of mind.

I'm not a Cirrus customer and never will be.  I can't even afford the chute repack, not the mention the rest of the airframe.  I'll take the steel roll cage of my Mooney and my own skills any day of the week.  The Cirrus guys can have their chute.  I know a guy who had one of those things installed in his Skyhawk.  At least he doesn't have to worry about slowing down for chute deployment.

Edited May 31, 2019 by steingar

[johncuyle]

 

3 hours ago, Tommy said:

I think the question should be directed to people who is considering buying a new Cirrus and see if a BRS-equipped Mooney will entice them to switch over. We are not Mooneys targeted market.

Look, Mike, with all due respect, the numbers don't lie. The TTx demise is equally painful. Every one says it's the marketing, which I agree, every second Cirrus ad is the marketing of BRS.

Mooney has been pretty aggressive with ad campaign - on the second door and its speed record. Why didn't it sell?

From the respective manufacturer websites:

Mooney:  Typical Useful Load  975 lbs

Cirrus: Useful Load 1331 lbs

"Honey, I'm spending a million dollars on a new plane but you and Jr can't ride in it because I need the load for fuel" isn't a conversation that's going to go well.

[Hank]

I am not a potential customer for a  new plane of any brand due to astronomical price levels.

But as an 800+ hour Instrument pilot, I would find the Blue Button "wings level" more useful and assuring than I do the Red Handle. That it comes without an annual maintenance budget equal to the annual inspection for the rest of the plane is a bonus!

Maybe one of the new, affordable autopilots will finally get STCed for us Vintage owners and I can get one . . . . .

[bonal]

I think UL is a bigger issue than no BRS as a selling point that near 400 pounds is significant when it comes to passengers fuel and stuff. I'm sure there are new pilots / owners that might think the safety factor is important possibly because they don't feel as confident about dead stick landings as the seasoned pilots might. As for me and in answer to Mikes question if I had to choose and if I had the financial ability I would choose the Mooney based on performance and pure esthetics. And it seems that based on all the comments comparing how they fly I get the feeling the Cirrus is not as tight. What I love about my old Mooney is when it's in the air it responds like a new Porsche left right up down just think it and it does it. I can only imagine how sweet the new ones feel. 

[Shadrach]

14 minutes ago, johncuyle said:

 

From the respective manufacturer websites:

Mooney:  Typical Useful Load  975 lbs

Cirrus: Useful Load 1331 lbs

"Honey, I'm spending a million dollars on a new plane but you and Jr can't ride in it because I need the load for fuel" isn't a conversation that's going to go well.

Not true!  If you're not too large, you can carry a thin wife, an infant and a diaper bag plus full standard tanks.  Maybe Mooney could offer discounts on shipping luggage...

If however you slow an Acclaim down to say 170kts in the teens you can take 700lbs of payload 500nm  with reserves.

[Shadrach]

2 minutes ago, Hank said:

I am not a potential customer for a  new plane of any brand due to astronomical price levels.

But as an 800+ hour Instrument pilot, I would find the Blue Button "wings level" more useful and assuring than I do the Red Handle. That it comes without an annual maintenance budget equal to the annual inspection for the rest of the plane is a bonus!

Maybe one of the new, affordable autopilots will finally get STCed for us Vintage owners and I can get one . . . . .

We had a guy do hit the blue button and pull the chute at the same time on an IMC departure because of a door pop.  It's an interesting story.  It reads like he panicked, had an out and took it.  He's still here today.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2009/march/26/aviate-aviate-aviate

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=58965

[Bob_Belville]

5 hours ago, Hank said:

 

Maybe one of the new, affordable autopilots will finally get STCed for us Vintage owners and I can get one . . . . .

I am scheduled to have an STEC 3100 installed a few months from now... Affordable? Well cheaper than a BRS...

[johncuyle]

5 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Not true!  If you're not too large, you can carry a thin wife, an infant and a diaper bag plus full standard tanks.  Maybe Mooney could offer discounts on shipping luggage...

If however you slow an Acclaim down to say 170kts in the teens you can take 700lbs of payload 500nm  with reserves.

But then you'd have to leave your golf clubs and bowling ball at home.  Priorities, man.

If you're willing to slow down to 170 knots and fly in the teens, you don't need a  TSIO-550.  A TSIO-360 will do fine, and it's 150 pounds lighter.  Maybe Mooney should be building long body Encores...

[Guest]

6 hours ago, johncuyle said:

Useful load is the problem.  BRS is heavy.  Making the problem worse by adding BRS is counterproductive.

I suppose FIKI TKS is a lifesaver, but I don't really think of it that way.  There are about six months a year where somewhere between the ground and the flight levels there's a layer of clouds a couple thousand feet thick with temperatures conducive to icing, often starting at about 1500ft AGL.  No TKS means you're not flying much at all those months, and if you are it's only a day trip because you can't be sure you'll be able to get back safely tomorrow.  TKS means you can climb through it and VFR on top to wherever and almost certainly fly home the day after tomorrow.  BRS isn't good for much of anything when your plane is stuck in the hangar due to weather. 

Meanwhile, my girlfriend (a non-pilot who is enthusiastic about flying) sat in a Cirrus at a tradeshow a few months ago.  She's aware it has a parachute but that wasn't enough to overcome her dislike of how high she had to climb to get in or the general layout of the thing.  I was surprised she didn't strongly prefer the side stick being out of the way to having the yoke in front of her.  I figured that'd be a big deal for her since she sits way back in the Mooney.  The sidestick is a dealkiller for me, though.  Bad design.  I can't turn left in a Cirrus because an old injury limits my range of motion in such a way that I can't twist it left.  Not a problem with a real stick or yoke.

The “Non real side stick” doesn’t seem to be slowing down sales at all.  In 25 years Cirrus will have surpassed Mooneys numbers for 75 years and done it without the building hey day of the 60’s .  

They clearly have a product and a plan that all of the other manufacturers are missing.

Clarence