New Mooney Design with BRS Parachute?

[Shadrach]

4 hours ago, Tommy said:

In Mooney's (new plane) targeted market (middle-aged wealthy individual with family), parachute (marketing) sells. Look at TTx vs Cirrus. Make it optional so for those who prefers bigger load can have the choice not to have it fitted (unlike Cirrus). Mooney's new order number is dismal and one thing that we can all agree on is that stupidity is doing the same thing repeatedly yet expecting a different outcome. What Mooney International is doing isn't working (pilot side door is the only thing that sprung to my mind) and they need to do something different. IMHO, investment in BRS is most likely going to have the biggest ROI (and a cabin revamp is second). 

Make it retro-fittable so the old Mooney can enjoy too (highly doubt this will happen).

BRS does give a better chance of survival in some scenarios (mid-air collision / break up, engine failure in IMC / Night / over hostile terrains) plus the resale value of the plane is likely to go up  if there is a retro-fit STC available (in aother decade, our Mooneys will be just a little bit cheaper than the exponentially depreciated Cirrus that has lower TTIF, great avioinics, and BRS) !

You cannot retro fit BRS to an airframe that was not designed for it. Can you name a BRS equipped aircraft that does not have spring steel gear?

[Tommy]

20 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

You cannot retro fit BRS to an airframe that was not designed for it. Can you name a BRS equipped aircraft that does not have spring steel gear?

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/october/04/brs-announces-cessna-parachute-installation-network

Didn't say anything about "spring steel gear"

[TCC]

In Mooney's (new plane) targeted market (middle-aged wealthy individual with family), parachute (marketing) sells. ...

Why should Mooney target that market? Cirrus targeted that market and basically built two products that were differentiated enough from the rest of the competition to support their value proposition and literally captured that market.

A market survey should identify where gaps exist; those gaps are where Mooney should focus their efforts; that begins with understanding profitability....can the product be positioned and profitable in the target market? If so, where do you expand next?

Factory refurb’ing/updating existing Js is labor intensive and not very scalable; out the door would probably be close to current Ultra prices.

The Mooneyshares product doesn’t appear to be boosting production, and neither does any of the Mooney Experience ™ offerings. That should tell you something about product/market fit.

[Shadrach]

9 minutes ago, Tommy said:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/october/04/brs-announces-cessna-parachute-installation-network

Didn't say anything about "spring steel gear"

They likely didn't feel the need since most understand that almost all Cessnas since the 1940s have been equipped with spring steel gear...

Edited May 30, 2019 by Shadrach

[Tommy]

 

1 minute ago, Shadrach said:

They likely didn't feel the need since most understand that almost all Cessnas are equipped with spring steel gear...

Why would spring steel gear matters in BRS? Aslo there are plenty of Cessna RGs - it didn't say RGs are excluded.

[Shadrach]

Just now, Tommy said:

 

Why would spring steel gear matters in BRS? Aslo there are plenty of Cessna RGs - it didn't say RGs are excluded.

RGs also have spring steel gear. All modern Cessna designs (post 1945) save for the twins and turbines (excluding Caravan which also has spring steel) have spring steel gear. It matters because it is the first this to absorb the energy when an airplane under canopy hits the ground at ~1700FPM.  It's a violent but survivable impact provided the gear and seats are designed to absorb the impact.

[Tommy]

5 minutes ago, TCC said:

Why should Mooney target that market? Cirrus targeted that market and basically built two products that were differentiated enough from the rest of the competition to support their value proposition and literally captured that market.

 

So what market do you think Mooney International should be targeting then? Training? Charter? Agricultural? Survey? Law enforcement? If Ultra and Ovation ae suited for other market segments why are they not selling? 

[Tommy]

Just now, Shadrach said:

RGs also have spring steel gear. All modern Cessna designs (post 1945) save for the twins and turbines (excluding Caravan which also has spring steel) have spring steel gear. It matters because it is the first this to absorb the energy when an airplane under canopy hits the ground at ~1700FPM.  It's a violent but survivable impact provided the gear and seats are designed to absorb the impact.

So you are saying that Mooney's gear does not absorb as much impact as Cessna's undercarriage? Hmmm.. interesting. Do you have the reference from BRS company to say that only spring steel gear can be fitted? 

[smccray]

55 minutes ago, TCC said:

Why should Mooney target that market? Cirrus targeted that market and basically built two products that were differentiated enough from the rest of the competition to support their value proposition and literally captured that market.

A market survey should identify where gaps exist; those gaps are where Mooney should focus their efforts; that begins with understanding profitability....can the product be positioned and profitable in the target market? If so, where do you expand next?

Factory refurb’ing/updating existing Js is labor intensive and not very scalable; out the door would probably be close to current Ultra prices.

The Mooneyshares product doesn’t appear to be boosting production, and neither does any of the Mooney Experience offerings. That should tell you something about product/market fit.

Exactly what market do you suggest Mooney go after?  From my perspective, the Mooney Ultras are traveling airplane.  The question, then, is what is the demographic of pilots who would buy traveling airplanes.

It's not that you can't use any plane for many different missions, but an Acclaim isn't a good choice for local sight seeing flights.

 

 

 

[TCC]

So what market do you think Mooney International should be targeting then? Training? Charter? Agricultural? Survey? Law enforcement?

 

 

Exactly what market do you suggest Mooney go after?  From my perspective, the Mooney Ultras are traveling airplane.  The question, then, is what is the demographic of pilots who would buy traveling airplanes. It's not that you can't use any plane for many different missions, but an Acclaim isn't a good choice for local sight seeing flights.

 

 

I don’t know; GA trends are moving toward business aviation and away from personal aviation. That generally means cabin class, crewed aircraft. I’d probably start looking at the people who are moving up to a owner operated SETP and work backwards from there to find the gaps, both in product and market.

 

 

... If Ultra and Ovation ae suited for other market segments why are they not selling? 

There’s an assumption there. It’s that Mooney’s current product and service offerings have a market to position in. In essence, is Mooney’s product a big square peg and the market a little round hole. I don’t know the answer to that, either. But production numbers indicate there’s a mismatch somewhere.

 

Unless Mooney’s goal is to barely survive in new production numbers while profiting in other areas, such as legacy fleet sustainment.

 

[Andy95W]

48 minutes ago, Tommy said:

So you are saying that Mooney's gear does not absorb as much impact as Cessna's undercarriage? Hmmm.. interesting. Do you have the reference from BRS company to say that only spring steel gear can be fitted? 

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.

[StevenL757]

On 5/28/2019 at 12:59 PM, Hank said:

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 . . . . .

Couldn't have said it better...

[Diesel 10]

1 hour ago, Tommy said:

 

Why would spring steel gear matters in BRS? Aslo there are plenty of Cessna RGs - it didn't say RGs are excluded.

At least at one time, the RG Cessna's were excluded even though BRS didn't make it clear in the marketing materials.  I asked a BRS person about this.  They explained that since they could not ensure that the gear was down prior to impact (under the chute), they could not meet the G limits.  If you have ever seen one of the videos of an aircraft hitting the ground when descending under a chute, it is eye opening.  I've heard people say that it is not something you are going to want to repeat. At least up until recently I think, fixed gear was a required part of the force absorption at impact.

The Cirrus Vision Jet has retractable gear and a parachute.  I assume (but am just guessing) that the systems can ensure that the gear is extended when the parachute is deployed.  I guess Mooney could do the same thing with a new design including the chute?

[smccray]

17 minutes ago, TCC said:

I don’t know; GA trends are moving toward business aviation and away from personal aviation. That generally means cabin class, crewed aircraft. I’d probably start looking at the people who are moving up to a owner operated SETP and work backwards from there to find the gaps, both in product and market.

 

 

There’s an assumption there. It’s that Mooney’s current product and service offerings have a market to position in. In essence, is Mooney’s product a big square peg and the market a little round hole. I do t know the answer to that, either. But production numbers indicate there’s a mismatch somewhere.

 

Unless Mooney’s goal is to barely survive in new production numbers while profiting in other areas, such as legacy fleet sustainment.

The move to business aviation means traveling aircraft.  Cabin class aircraft aren't in same class as Mooney aircraft- what you're looking for is what the business owner needs in a plane, or what the business owner purchased before he/she purchased a SETP, or moved up to a crewed airplane.  That info is out there... my answer would be SR22, Columbia 400, A36, or Mooney.  Aircraft with speed that can travel for business.

The ultras aren't a square peg in a round hole.  The Ultra is a fantastic airplane and it probably works for most GA missions without any problem as is.  The problem is the competitive position of the product against other planes addressing the same market.  Cessna shut down the TTX, so there's one competitor gone, but it doesn't really matter.  Rumors have been flying for years that Beechcraft is going to shut down the piston operations.  It doesn't matter; the Ultra isn't competitive against the SR22- that's not my opinion, that's what the market is telling me looking at sales volumes.  Mooney could be pursing a low volume high margin strategy so the volumes wouldn't tell the whole story, but the discussion about labor cost of the airframe seems to indicate that Mooney's production cost is higher than an SR22.

Mooney isn't a business, it's a product.  The company's current product was a step in the right direction back in the mid 00's when they did the development work to add a second door, but we've seen other upgrades in the competition since then.  The SR22 added useful load when they reengineered the fuselage.  Mooney needs to do the same thing, reducing the cost of production while increasing the useful load, while working with the FAA to avoid having to re-certify the airframe.  That seems like a heavy lift to me.  The M10 would have been an interesting new product, but that venture appears to have failed.  The real question, from my perspective, is how much cash does Mooney have to invest in an improved airframe?

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, Tommy said:

So what market do you think Mooney International should be targeting then? Training? Charter? Agricultural? Survey? Law enforcement? If Ultra and Ovation ae suited for other market segments why are they not selling? 

Mooney is answering a question that only a small portion of the market can afford to ask.  The make the DINK airplane (Double Income, No Kids).   The new birds need a useful load increase. Parachutes are a much bigger selling point to non pilot passengers and aspiring pilots. Not that experienced pilots don't appreciate them.  I just don't think it's as important to them.  I personally would fly any well maintained, airworthy aircraft for my mission.  If the chute helps me to feel comfortable doing something in a cirrus that I wouldn't do in a Mooney, I am probably pushing against margins that I shouldn't. If Mooney's latest line up had Cirrus useful load or better, their market would be larger.  In my opinion it is the biggest down side the current line up.  My 200HP F has 60lbs more useful than the the best Acclaim yet it burns 60-80% more fuel.  

[jaylw314]

6 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Mooney is answering a question that only a small portion of the market can afford to ask.  The make the DINK airplane (Double Income, No Kids).   The new birds need a useful load increase. Parachutes are a much bigger selling point to non pilot passengers and aspiring pilots. Not that experienced pilots don't appreciate them.  I just don't think it's as important to them.  I personally would fly any well maintained, airworthy aircraft for my mission.  If the chute helps me to feel comfortable doing something in a cirrus that I wouldn't do in a Mooney, I am probably pushing against margins that I shouldn't. If Mooney's latest line up had Cirrus useful load or better, their market would be larger.  In my opinion it is the biggest down side the current line up.  My 200HP F has 60lbs more useful than the the best Acclaim yet it burns 60-80% more fuel.  

IMO, one place where the BRS would be helpful across the board is flying out of dense, urban areas with an engine failure on takeoff.  I suspect your odds of making it down safely with an engine failure flying out of the Los Angeles metro area, for example, would be consistently higher than if you fly out of other places across the country.  I recall training out of Santa Monica thinking to myself "if I had to put down right now, where the hell could I do that??"

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, Tommy said:

So you are saying that Mooney's gear does not absorb as much impact as Cessna's undercarriage? Hmmm.. interesting. Do you have the reference from BRS company to say that only spring steel gear can be fitted? 

I am saying that Mooney gear as currently manufactured would transmit so much of the impact energy to the cabin that it would not be a viable, safe or certifiable solution.

[Hank]

50 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

IMO, one place where the BRS would be helpful across the board is flying out of dense, urban areas with an engine failure on takeoff.  I suspect your odds of making it down safely with an engine failure flying out of the Los Angeles metro area, for example, would be consistently higher than if you fly out of other places across the country.  I recall training out of Santa Monica thinking to myself "if I had to put down right now, where the hell could I do that??"

One MSer set his Mooney down on a city street in S. Cal., at night, with engine trouble. He and his passenger were walking around when the fire dept arrived minutes later. The plane sacrificed itself to save them. Mooneys are demonstrably safer than many other light singles due to the steel roll cage around the cabin.

[MRussell]

30 minutes ago, Hank said:

One MSer set his Mooney down on a city street in S. Cal., at night, with engine trouble. He and his passenger were walking around when the fire dept arrived minutes later. The plane sacrificed itself to save them. Mooneys are demonstrably safer than many other light singles due to the steel roll cage around the cabin.

Doesn’t work into the forest at the end of the runway. Having another option (at least from above 500’ AGL) does matter in the market. A lot. 

In my opinion, not only would the chute save Mooney occupant lives, it would save jobs in Texas, and likely the whole future of the brand. 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, jaylw314 said:

IMO, one place where the BRS would be helpful across the board is flying out of dense, urban areas with an engine failure on takeoff.  I suspect your odds of making it down safely with an engine failure flying out of the Los Angeles metro area, for example, would be consistently higher than if you fly out of other places across the country.  I recall training out of Santa Monica thinking to myself "if I had to put down right now, where the hell could I do that??"

I too see the appeal in the scenario you mention above. However 3000 pounds of airplane dropping at 1700 ft./min with no directional control presents its own set of problems. While it hasn’t happened yet, at some point a Cirrus is going to injure or kill some poor, unsuspecting soul on the ground. Can you imagine what would happen if a Cirrus under canopy popped out of an overcast into a packed set of bleacher seats at a high school football game. Anyone who’s ever been to a concert at Shoreline Ampitheatre has seen all the airplanes that fly Over ( many are Cirrus) departing  runway 13 at Palo Alto.  Can you imagine the damage a Cirrus would do coming down into the crowd at night during a concert.

@chrixxer‘s scenario involved luck, skill and cool headedness. He was lucky to find the patch of neighborhood that he did. He had the skill and presence of mind to deliver the plane to the accident site with minimal energy. 

[MRussell]

2 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

While it hasn’t happened yet, at some point a Cirrus is going to injure or kill some poor, unsuspecting soul on the ground.

 Can you imagine the damage a Cirrus would do coming down into the crowd at night during a concert.

This scenario, while entirely plausible, only serves as an immaterial distraction to this debate because it fails to distinguish a BRS-equipped plane from any other plane when it comes to risk of collateral damage on the ground once an off-field landing (or crash landing, or crash) becomes imminent. We all know that a fully fueled non-BRS plane coming down at 90mph into a densely populated area at night will make quite a scene and potential carnage. So I just can’t see this as a valid argument against dropping in fully fueled at 1700fpm straight down. And so far there have been no post-impact fires on Cirrus CAPS landing events. 

[jaylw314]

33 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I too see the appeal in the scenario you mention above. However 3000 pounds of airplane dropping at 1700 ft./min with no directional control presents its own set of problems. While it hasn’t happened yet, at some point a Cirrus is going to injure or kill some poor, unsuspecting soul on the ground. Can you imagine what would happen if a Cirrus under canopy popped out of an overcast into a packed set of bleacher seats at a high school football game. Anyone who’s ever been to a concert at Shoreline Ampitheatre has seen all the airplanes that fly Over ( many are Cirrus) departing  runway 13 at Palo Alto.  Can you imagine the damage a Cirrus would do coming down into the crowd at night during a concert.

@chrixxer‘s scenario involved luck, skill and cool headedness. He was lucky to find the patch of neighborhood that he did. He had the skill and presence of mind to deliver the plane to the accident site with minimal energy. 

I recall recently a plane making an engine-out landing on a beach.  He ended up striking and killing someone during the landing.  It's not as if you have a horn to let them know you're coming... 

Point being, you're going to have a chance of killing some poor, unsuspecting soul if you lose an engine in a dense area no matter what.  The cynic in me would point out that a plane crashing vertically under BRS has a much smaller footprint to kill someone on the ground than a plane landing/crashing horizontally.

I was thinking about the days with easterly winds in Los Angeles flying out of KSMO.  You take off to the east directly over west LA and Century City.  There is absolutely no place to set down unless you are high enough to reach the golf course across the 405.  You're going to end up trying to set it down on one of the streets and pray for the best.

Departing PAO from 13 is a cakewalk in comparison.  There's a golf course surrounding that amphitheater.  I'd just forgo using the BRS and making landing there.

 

Edited May 30, 2019 by jaylw314

[Shadrach]

19 minutes ago, MRussell said:

This scenario, while entirely plausible, only serves as an immaterial distraction to this debate because it fails to distinguish a BRS-equipped plane from any other plane when it comes to risk of collateral damage on the ground once an off-field landing (or crash landing, or crash) becomes imminent. We all know that a fully fueled non-BRS plane coming down at 90mph into a densely populated area at night will make quite a scene and potential carnage. So I just can’t see this as a valid argument against dropping in fully fueled at 1700fpm straight down. And so far there have been no post-impact fires on Cirrus CAPS landing events. 

 Just because you don’t see the distinction between an aircraft drifting in an uncontrolled 1700 ft./min descent and  an aircraft being flown to the sight of the crash doesn’t mean there isn’t one. You may not be familiar with Cirrus training. The MO is topull the handle if something goes wrong. And acquaintance of mine had an engine failure in an SR22T while in cruise. He opted to dead stick (successfully) into a large airport almost directly below him. The Cirrus rep congratulated him on his airmanship but chastised him for not following SOP.

[Shadrach]

48 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

I recall recently a plane making an engine-out landing on a beach.  He ended up striking and killing someone during the landing.  It's not as if you have a horn to let them know you're coming... 

Point being, you're going to have a chance of killing some poor, unsuspecting soul if you lose an engine in a dense area no matter what.  The cynic in me would point out that a plane crashing vertically under BRS has a much smaller footprint to kill someone on the ground than a plane landing/crashing horizontally.

I was thinking about the days with easterly winds in Los Angeles flying out of KSMO.  You take off to the east directly over west LA and Century City.  There is absolutely no place to set down unless you are high enough to reach the golf course across the 405.  You're going to end up trying to set it down on one of the streets and pray for the best.

Departing PAO from 13 is a cakewalk in comparison.  There's a golf course surrounding that amphitheater.  I'd just forgo using the BRS and making landing there.

 

 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.

 

Edited May 30, 2019 by Shadrach

[jaylw314]

4 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

 That was a Lancair, it was 9 years ago, and the jogger 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.

 

Ahem.  "...cakewalk in comparison".  I fully acknowledge no emergency is an absolute cakewalk.

And I always try to scope out the local area for obvious emergency landing areas when I'm taking off from an unfamiliar airport

Edited May 30, 2019 by jaylw314