New Mooney Design with BRS Parachute?

[MrRodgers]

Hi everyone.

I was speaking with a fellow pilot recently and he said that he saw that Mooney was in the planning stages of putting a three place version (Center Seat in Back) with a Ballistic parachute in it's design.  What I was told is that they plan to remove a fourth seat to accommodate the weight for the BRS. Has anyone else heard about this?  If so, I'd love to know what everyone thinks about that possibility.  

Would you like a chute on your Mooney?  Added safety is always a plus but the way some folks characterize the Cirrus crowd I am not sure how this would go over in our MS group.  Your thoughts?

[Bob_Belville]

I believe the news he reported seeing was issued April 1. 

[jrwilson]

Was he maybe talking about the M10 project?

[Shadrach]

4 minutes ago, MrRodgers said:

Hi everyone.

I was speaking with a fellow pilot recently and he said that he saw that Mooney was in the planning stages of putting a three place version (Center Seat in Back) with a Ballistic parachute in it's design.  What I was told is that they plan to remove a fourth seat to accommodate the weight for the BRS. Has anyone else heard about this?  If so, I'd love to know what everyone thinks about that possibility.  

Would you like a chute on your Mooney?  Added safety is always a plus but the way some folks characterize the Cirrus crowd I am not sure how this would go over in our MS group.  Your thoughts?

BRS would add less than 100lbs to the empty weight of the plane. Seems short sighted and unlikely that they decide to remove a seat for that reason.  That would be a no go for me.  I have more useful than most, but if I didn't, I would still like the option to take my wife and both kids along or my wife and another couple on a short flight for dinner.  This would be a truly lousy solution. Making an airplane with flexible loading options less flexible answers a question that almost no one is asking...  Even if it fits the unique needs of certain buyers, the resale market would be lousy.

[smccray]

No brainer to add the BRS as an option.  Parachutes sell airplanes.

The issue Mooney has isn't solely the BRS.  It's the useful load of the airplane.  Add 100 lbs, not big deal by itself.  Look at an airplane with less than 900 lbs of useful load competing in a market with an 800 lb gorilla in the market, Mooney is in a bad spot.  I loved my Mooney.  I love my Beech.  I wouldn't consider buying a new piston airplane right now other than a Cirrus.

If I were running Mooney, #1 objective is to increase the useful load to 1400+ lbs.  #2 is to add a parachute option.  Without #1, #2 doesn't do much.  There's only so much opportunity in selling "Fastest piston" where the block times in the real world aren't significantly different.  Replace steel with aluminum?  More use of composites?  There are trade offs here and I'm no where near smart enough to figure out how to do it, but it needs to be done for Mooney to thrive.

[Hank]

The first thing Mooney needs to do is drive down the labor costs in building their planes, by about 30% or more. Then increase useful load.

Parachutes do nothing for me. Taking out a seat would make a plane I'd never buy, even on the used market after significant depreciation. Pull the red handle and give up complete control of direction and descent rate? I'd feel safer with an ejection seat and small chute.

What sells Cirrus isn't the chute, it's a full-blown "lifestyle" marketing campaign aimed an aviation newbies, showcasing the automotive-style interior. The chute caters to the fears of their uniformed, aviation-uncaring passengers . . . . .

[TGreen]

I love my Mooney. But is there really a sound business case for Mooney, the company, to do anything other than shut down? They've been back in production for about 3 years and are averaging about one sale per month. The market for their existing products just is not there. The market for all high-performance singles is pretty small. If Mooney invested the resources to develop a new high-performance single just to get some of Cirrus' market share, would they ever recoup their investment?

[Shadrach]

28 minutes ago, smccray said:

No brainer to add the BRS as an option.  Parachutes sell airplanes.

The issue Mooney has isn't solely the BRS.  It's the useful load of the airplane.  Add 100 lbs, not big deal by itself.  Look at an airplane with less than 900 lbs of useful load competing in a market with an 800 lb gorilla in the market, Mooney is in a bad spot.  I loved my Mooney.  I love my Beech.  I wouldn't consider buying a new piston airplane right now other than a Cirrus.

If I were running Mooney, #1 objective is to increase the useful load to 1400+ lbs.  #2 is to add a parachute option.  Without #1, #2 doesn't do much.  There's only so much opportunity in selling "Fastest piston" where the block times in the real world aren't significantly different.  Replace steel with aluminum?  More use of composites?  There are trade offs here and I'm no where near smart enough to figure out how to do it, but it needs to be done for Mooney to thrive.

^^^^^This pretty much sums it up. I think there's room to disagree about book times for single pilot ops.  If you're using it as a personal airliner then fuel capacity, burn and range come into play.  I suspect an Acclaim pretty well smokes the SR22 on speed, range and economy.  It will go significantly further than a Cirrus while traveling faster on less fuel. Slow down to SR22 speeds and it likely goes much further.

[johncuyle]

57 minutes ago, TGreen said:

I love my Mooney. But is there really a sound business case for Mooney, the company, to do anything other than shut down? They've been back in production for about 3 years and are averaging about one sale per month. The market for their existing products just is not there. The market for all high-performance singles is pretty small. If Mooney invested the resources to develop a new high-performance single just to get some of Cirrus' market share, would they ever recoup their investment?

I'd expect there's a parts business for them that does alright.  New plane production, others have said it.  The labor required to produce a new Mooney is too high to sell them at a competitive enough price to make prospective Cirrus buyers take another look, and even if they did the useful load is likely to be a showstopper.  Useful load sells planes.  It's why sellers of older airframes which have put on some weight over the years and are down in the 800's don't advertise UL and sellers who have been keen to remove dead wiring, old layers of paint, and keep an eye on the weight of new avionics and gadgets that have pushed their UL up over 1000 put it in the ad twice, so that people don't miss it.  A 280hp Acclaim really ought to be able to move more people and things from place to place than a 220hp Encore.  Adding a parachute and ending up with a full fuel load that's only adequate for a single child is not an improvement.

[smccray]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

^^^^^This pretty much sums it up. I think there's room to disagree about book times for single pilot ops.  If you're using it as a personal airliner then fuel capacity, burn and range come into play.  I suspect an Acclaim pretty well smokes the SR22 on speed, range and economy.  It will go significantly further than a Cirrus while traveling faster on less fuel. Slow down to SR22 speeds and it likely goes much further.

We can argue about that :).  Acclaim probably has 15-20 knots on the SR22 Turbo.  The Acclaim is going to be in the 210 ktas range, SR22 in the 190 range.  That's a 6 minute difference for every 200 miles traveled.  On a long trip it could add up to make a big difference, but I doubt it's a real world factor.  I don't believe the economy of the flight is all that much of a factor- we're talking about half a million dollar machines.  Range could be a factor (I don't know enough here), but I suspect that's a fringe use case rather than a common use case.  There absolutely is a difference, but I suspect it's about measuring the size of the pilot's pitot tube more than the relative usefulness of single pilot operations.

[Bob_Belville]

Y'all need to use the MS search function. This is a thread repeated every year or so around here. All the sidewalk superintendent and armchair quarterback opines have been expressed here. More. Than. Once.

What I know is that I've been flying Mooneys for 50 years. They are fun to fly. They're strong. They're fast and economical. 

Having seen both more than once, I like it better when the factory is open than when it is closed.

If I was 36 (or 46 or 56) instead of 76 and my accountant told me I needed to spend the money I'd be calling Lee Drumheller and @mike_elliott and getting in the line which is several months out the last I heard.

But what do I know, I've never owned a Toyota.  

[Shadrach]

24 minutes ago, smccray said:

We can argue about that :).  Acclaim probably has 15-20 knots on the SR22 Turbo.  The Acclaim is going to be in the 210 ktas range, SR22 in the 190 range.  That's a 6 minute difference for every 200 miles traveled.  On a long trip it could add up to make a big difference, but I doubt it's a real world factor.  I don't believe the economy of the flight is all that much of a factor- we're talking about half a million dollar machines.  Range could be a factor (I don't know enough here), but I suspect that's a fringe use case rather than a common use case.  There absolutely is a difference, but I suspect it's about measuring the size of the pilot's pitot tube more than the relative usefulness of single pilot operations.

I think that you're short changing both birds on speed in the flight levels. That being said my comment on economy has nothing to do with saving money, it has to do with going further on the gas available.  Looking at the Avconsumer article, they claim the difference between the two at 65% is generally about 25kts and a little over 2gph both in the Acclaim's favor. The Acclaim has bigger standard tanks as well.  It's a specialized mission for sure but for single pilot cross continent work it has a significant advantage. Add long range tanks and the advantage grows.

Edited May 28, 2019 by Shadrach

[PT20J]

It takes more than removing a seat to install a parachute. The descent rate with the parachute is too great for a touch down that won't break your back without additional shock absorbers. In the Cirrus, the landing gear and seats are designed to crush and cushion the "landing."

Edited May 30, 2019 by PT20J

[Austintatious]

6 hours ago, Hank said:

The first thing Mooney needs to do is drive down the labor costs in building their planes, by about 30% or more. Then increase useful load.

Parachutes do nothing for me. Taking out a seat would make a plane I'd never buy, even on the used market after significant depreciation. Pull the red handle and give up complete control of direction and descent rate? I'd feel safer with an ejection seat and small chute.

What sells Cirrus isn't the chute, it's a full-blown "lifestyle" marketing campaign aimed an aviation newbies, showcasing the automotive-style interior. The chute caters to the fears of their uniformed, aviation-uncaring passengers . . . . .

I am still at a loss for how a new Mooney cost what it does.  Especially when so much of it is the same as years and years ago...  I just had a bunch of new wing skins  go on my K and they came right out of the factory as they are the same as the new ones.

So 80k for a brand new engine... Say 100k for the avionics (yea right)... how is there another 520 in an aluminum airframe ???

It ... just.... bafffles me.

 

[Hank]

8 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

I am still at a loss for how a new Mooney cost what it does.  Especially when so much of it is the same as years and years ago...  I just had a bunch of new wing skins  go on my K and they came right out of the factory as they are the same as the new ones.

So 80k for a brand new engine... Say 100k for the avionics (yea right)... how is there another 520 in an aluminum airframe ???

It ... just.... bafffles me.

 

Start with about 4000 hours labor . . . . . .

[Austintatious]

3 minutes ago, Hank said:

Start with about 4000 hours labor . . . . . .

what does labor cost?  $60.00 per hour?  That would be another 1/4 million.

I am genuinely curious. 

 

 

[MB65E]

200-300k in labor, 200-300k in lawyers...

raw materials aren’t the issue.

I’ll keep my old E. 

-Matt

[Austintatious]

Just now, MB65E said:

200-300k in labor, 200-300k in lawyers...

raw materials aren’t the issue.

I’ll keep my old E. 

-Matt

Sheesh... does it really cost 2-300k per plane in lawyer fees?  If so then the industry really needs some tort reform.

[jaylw314]

30 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

I am still at a loss for how a new Mooney cost what it does.  Especially when so much of it is the same as years and years ago...  I just had a bunch of new wing skins  go on my K and they came right out of the factory as they are the same as the new ones.

So 80k for a brand new engine... Say 100k for the avionics (yea right)... how is there another 520 in an aluminum airframe ???

It ... just.... bafffles me.

 

But the cost of your K was based on 15-40 years of depreciation and inflation.  With cars, we don't see too much in the way of inflation in the 5 year lifespan of a typical new car, but 15-40 years of inflation on top of depreciation can be eye-popping.

And then add in the fact that car production costs can decrease with time as manufacturers get better at making them or have better techniques.  I imagine Mooney is still mostly making them the same way they were 40 years ago

Edited May 28, 2019 by jaylw314

[KSMooniac]

Sheesh... does it really cost 2-300k per plane in lawyer fees?  If so then the industry really needs some tort reform.

Yes, and yes. Imagine the liability of 10,000+ airframes in the fleet (of course minus the ones that aren't active) and then amortize the liability insurance cost over the 1-2 dozen of new airplanes sold each year.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[steingar]

My Mooney has a steel roll cage. I don’t need a stinking parachute. I’ll bet the airplane will take care of me and mine so long as I don’t stall it on the way down.

I doubt this is in the works. The certification issues would be nuts.

[exM20K]

Yes, and yes. Imagine the liability of 10,000+ airframes in the fleet (of course minus the ones that aren't active) and then amortize the liability insurance cost over the 1-2 dozen of new airplanes sold each year.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 cut the liability tail at 18 years, so the bulk of the fleet is off the company’s liability. Additionally, the sale of the company to Mooney International if done as an asset sale may further trim the liability.

However, all the overhead does need to be covered by a few sales.

Open question whether or not Mooney van ramp up production right now with current workforce, vendor credit lines etc. I don’t know but suspect this to be the case.

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

Sheesh... does it really cost 2-300k per plane in lawyer fees?  If so then the industry really needs some tort reform.

That is after tort reform.  More engineers and fewer lawyers might help.

Clarence

[KSMooniac]

Any plane that has contact with the new factory will reset the liability clock...ie an MSC, parts purchase, etc. I believe the potential is factored into the liability premiums today, unfortunately.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[Hank]

48 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

what does labor cost?  $60.00 per hour?  That would be another 1/4 million.

I am genuinely curious. 

 

 

$60/hour is probably wages plus employer-paid taxes. Add benefits (health insurance, retirement, Workers Comp, etc.). 

So, 300 airframe, 100 engine, 150 panel, 100 materials is $650K. Doesn't leave much room for profit . . . . Twin turbo installation costs more.

But cut airframe labor in half and possibilities open up. Change to more affordable avionics (i.e., not all Garmin); someone else would give a great discount on 50-100 panels for the advertising and recognition.