Oshkosh observation

[Danb]

1 hour ago, exM20K said:

The Cirrus accident rate has gone from atrocious to better than average in recent years.  Why? Commitment to a training and safety culture by the owners' group.  That is not just encouraging people to pull the chute early and often - it also deals with LOC issues especially around the runway.  But the causal factor in the improvement in Cirrus safety has been training.

Consider the latest Nall report. As per usual, major cause of both fatal and non fatal mishaps is "PIlot-related."  That means lots of stuff, from preflight, to losing control on the takeoff, to running a tank dry, to flying into cumulo-granite, and many more.  The proportion is around 75% for both fatal and non-fatal incidents.  Clearly, if three quarters of incidents result from something a pilot did, then a focus on and commitment to training will yield profound, life-saving results.  The time series of Cirrus mishaps proves this.

I do not believe the statistics show Cirrus to be safer than Mooney because of the BRS.  It helps in some circumstances but not in all, and it is reasonable to believe that, just as multi-engine pilots typically accept more risk than single-engine pilots, the presence of a BRS may carry with it a moral hazard that worsens outcomes.

Again: I'm glad the Cirrus accident rate has come down significantly, and I believe that an objective observer would attribute that to a culture of safety, not a magic handle.

 

ps: speaking of training....anyone else here going to the MAPASF PPP in ACY?

-dan 

Dan I rarely miss the PPP unfortunately my next surgery is scheduled for 8-30, if it gets delayed I’ll be a late sign up. 

[M20F]

21 minutes ago, Tom said:

So you're taking the same approach as Mooney Intl

 

 

 

 

No he is taking the approach of making a statement in the course of a sensible discussion, being proven wrong by facts, and as opposed to accepting that he makes it into something else. I think the FOI calls this a macho attitude (this would in fact me being snarky).   

I do truly hope he does earn enough though to save Mooney.....

[kortopates]

5 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Very interesting discussion.  Are we missing one thing, though?  And I do mean this as a question and not a declarative statement.  Is Mooney International’s goal even to make a profit with M20 production, or is it to export Mooney’s intellectual property to China?   I know they say they have no intention of exporting M20 production there, but who else here remembers the pictures that Paul posted a few years ago of a huge, brand new looking hangar in the Hunan Province of China with Mooney’s name on it that looked like it could only be used as a production or assembly facility?  Is that facility now dormant?  Don’t get me wrong, if they can get the quality control where it needs to be, cheap labor is probably the solution to all of Mooney’s problems, so I’m not sure this would even be a bad thing. They bought the technology.  It is absolutely their’s to do with as they please.  The Chinese government works on five year plans, though, not quarterly earnings reports like we do here in the U.S.  Even without the cost of the M10, Mooney International is almost certainly hemorrhaging cash like crazy.  The Chinese government’s thirteenth five year plan is currently in effect.  It calls for a shift to higher value added manufacturing and technology transfers as the price of market access, which the purchase of Mooney by the Meijing Group certainly was consistent with.

Are we thinking like a bunch of nearsighted western M20 profiteers here but the real focus is elsewhere?  Does anyone even know what Mooney International’s goals/objectives are?  Was the M10 truly a bad design or was the U.S. portion of it’s development just completed and it’s IP has now been quietly exported to China for production?   Of course I don’t know and even if that is the case we M20 owners are certainly better off than we were a few years ago when Mooney was all but bankrupt, so I’m not proposing this as a negative.  Just another perspective to consider.  I always say if something doesn’t make sense it is usually because you don’t know all of the facts.  I have been a Mooney owner/enthusiast for almost 40 years.  The market is just not supporting the viability of the M20 design any more, and Lord knows I don’t see their path towards profitability ... yet the band plays on.

Jim

Yes, the Mooney "factory" in Shanjia, a suburb of Zhengzhou in the Henan province is still going strong. The "factory" though is to re-assemble plane's built and flight tested in the US and then disassembled for shipping via cargo ship container to China. After reassembly in China the plane has to go through a huge effort to be certified under a Chinese registration. While I was there, we only had one Acclaim with a Chinese registration that I had  a temporary Chinese license to fly. All the others still had US N numbers that I could fly without my Chinese license,  but since the Chinese Acclaim had AC we only flew that the summer I was there. But the 2 Mooney pilots I worked with are still going strong; continuing to train and market the Mooney brand in China. The M10 has to be a tremendous setback for Veronica (Meijing Group), since the big goal was to capitalize on GA training in China with a Mooney trainer. You must have all noticed that after Jerry Chen's replacement announced he was putting a hold on further M10 testing that he was gone very soon after. I wish I knew what Veronica had in mind with Mooney now, but I don't believe she ever thought she would re-coup her investment from US sales. She has always had her eyes on much bigger opportunities in the Chinese market. I believe she has only asked that Kerrvilles stay out of the red, but that's just my insight. But they have never thought they could do anything more in China than re-assemble current production. Their FAA equivalent bureaucracy towards certification in China is no less challenging than our FAA processes.  So frankly I only expect to see step-wise refinements to the Mooney design in the US until China can become profitable since its certainly still far from it.

But any success in China, should it come to fruition, is only a positive things for US production. Production of a Mooney trainer though would likely be split up across continents. But my hope is that when Veronica can start to make money on the Mooney brand in China, then we'll see Mooney actually explore new airframes beyond a trainer that they have had in their vision for some time. Unfortunately, that appears to be just as far off as it was when I was in China 3 years ago working with them.

Edited July 29, 2019 by kortopates

[MooneyMitch]

Thank you for the insight Paul. Very helpful.   And I believe we all want the brand to survive and flourish !

[DanM20C]

I know this is just anecdotal evidence of the strength of the steel cage paired with the one piece spar assembly.  But I'm a believer.

This was my good friend's E after he threw a propeller blade back in the early 70's.  By the time he pulled the power the engine already broke free from the mount.  The ridged lower cowl held the engine in and maintained W&B.  He and two other people walked away.  Notice both doors open.  Not the typical crushed beer can.

It was because of his recommendation and guidance that I bough a Mooney.  I'm glad I did. 

This was what I woke up to 2 years ago.  I impacted the ground at 120mph and+1000fpm,  I walked away (sort of)  There wasn't 4 square inches of Sheet metal that wasn't wrinkled, note both doors open. 

Mooney's are wonderful machines.  From the M20A's though the M20V's.  I know they have a place in market today and into the future.  Mooney has the product, the Management just have to figure out the importance of marketing it properly.  I would bet 50% of new Cirrus owners don't know what a Mooney is.  It's hard to compete if you are not getting in front of the prospective buyers.

Cheers,

Dan

[201er]

I don’t think it’s my job to tell Mooney what I want them to put into an airplane. It’s Mooney’s job and legacy to make an airplane nobody dreamed of yet and that once released, its the envy of the Mooney fleet.

Did Al Mooney ask the Mooney community if they would rather have an aluminum rather than wooden wing? 

Did Roy LoPresti need to poll the Mooney community to come up with 200+ mph on 200hp?

Did Bob Kromer ask permission from the Mooney community to turn the 231 into the 252?

What Mooney International really needs is to hire the talent that will get them back to what they are best known for, innovating remarkable aircraft that sell themselves.

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, M20F said:

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2018/08/n231ec-accident-occurred-august-11-2018.html?m=1

So now we can debate about how many examples (you asked for one) or how crumpled it is. The front half of the plane looks like the beer can I just crushed on my Neanderthal forehead. 

Got it.  So it didn’t work in this example of a nose dive so it’s useless.  And seat belts don’t work in nose dives either so they are also useless by your logic I suppose.

Edited July 29, 2019 by aviatoreb

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, M20F said:

we want to get into a debate now about how some perceived metal piping is going to save you?  

I spent a few years racing cars for fun, do you know what an actual roll cage that might save your life weighs?  More than you would want in your plane and when you hit the wall at 50+ it doesn’t really matter.  You of all people should understand the physics of crash impacts and their effect on organs.  

Got it.  Smash into the wall at 100 miles an hour and some “perceived metal” won’t save your soft internal organs and perceived metal is heavy.  And in fact perceived webbing seat belts and perceived air in plastic airbags must be worthless too since nothing can save a nascar driver t-bone a wall at 100mph or an airplane in a nose dive.  

Worthless says the guy who raced cars for fun.

... but yes I do know something about physics and I don’t find seat belts, airbags, metal tube cages, crumple zones  or even parachutes to be worthless since some times / knock on wood / not all incidents are nose dives.

[M016576]

I saw this video on Cirrus accident rates IRT the CaPS/BRS today- it’s an AVweb video.  Very interesting- thought it maybe applies here.

 

[M20F]

2 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Got it.  So it didn’t work in this example of a nose dive so it’s useless.  And seat belts don’t work in nose dives either so they are also useless by your logic I suppose.

The question posed was post one example of a crumpled plane, I did.  I certainly think a 3 point seat belt is an improvement over Al’s original offering. 

I do however think they anyone who believes a Mooney tubular frame provides any level of protection over that of a Piper, Cessna, etc. is wrong.  I certainly think the Mooney representative stating it was NASCAR design is crazy but hey if you want a Mooney rep to agree with you, it is on tape.  

Love Mooneys but I like to be objective and for sure a 3 point safety belt is a life saver.  Some low grade tubing that you can bend with your hand without a lot of effort, not so much. 

[M20F]

3 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

 And in fact perceived webbing seat belts and perceived air in plastic airbags must be worthless

... but yes I do know something about physics and I don’t find seat belts, airbags, , crumple zones  or even parachutes to be worthless since some times / knock on wood / not all incidents are nose dives.

Where did I say any of these things?  I  made a comment about a supposed roll cage. 

[M20F]

6 minutes ago, M016576 said:

I saw this video on Cirrus accident rates IRT the CaPS/BRS today- it’s an AVweb video.  Very interesting- thought it maybe applies here.

 

Thanks for sharing, I find his comment at 1:10 in relative. 

[aviatoreb]

28 minutes ago, M20F said:

Where did I say any of these things?  I  made a comment about a supposed roll cage. 

Your words were “worthless” and  “perceived metal pipe” and your example was a nose dive.  So I’m trying to understand your logic.  If something cant save you in a nose dive it’s worthless.

Knock on wood / but some crashes are survivable and every little margin helps.  For this reason  I had my standard 3 point seat belts replaced with the 3 point air bag seat belts last year.  

And yes in a crash where seat belts make a difference a Steal cage may be better than none.  I wear seatbelts but if I really thought steal tubes were worthless the same logic suggest to not bother with seatbelts.

The chromoly welded tubes remind me a lot of how old school bicycles are built btw.

you are correct - Al pre dated nascar and I presume the steel cage was just a design build and strengthening concept and crash worthy ness may have never crossed his mind. But worthless is just a silly bravado statement.  This is not nascar.  Are you a nascar driver?

 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by aviatoreb

[M20F]

1 minute ago, aviatoreb said:

So I’m trying to understand your logic.  If something cant save you in a nose dive it’s worthless.

You keep making straw men arguments.  A comfy pillow could save my life in a crash for sure.  I wouldn’t though harken that as a great safety feature.

There are certainly people who have died as a result of an airbag deployment that might have lived otherwise   This is a very small % of crash victims and while unfortunate does not invalidate the safety of airbags.  Similarly I would assume some small % benefited from the tubes on a Mooney.  Just as the few who die from airbags doesn’t invalidate them, a small % who might (and claim/feel is probably a better phrase) live due to the frame does not validate it   .

The Mooney tubular frame is a hold over from the fabric days,  nothing more.  It is not a clever design feature but urban legend has turned it into such.  How about I pay your A&P to remove an interior panel and then I grab that rigid cage and pull as hard as I can.  I will likewise pay you A&P to replace the panel.  You however will pay for the tube work.  I weigh 155lbs on a good day, we can live stream it.  Surely the cage will survive.  

[Hank]

8 minutes ago, M20F said:

The Mooney tubular frame is a hold over from the fabric days,  nothing more.  It is not a clever design feature but urban legend has turned it into such.  How about I pay your A&P to remove an interior panel and then I grab that rigid cage and pull as hard as I can.  I will likewise pay you A&P to replace the panel.  You however will pay for the tube work.  I weigh 155lbs on a good day, we can live stream it.  Surely the cage will survive.  

You do realize that the tubular frame only goes from the firewall to the back of the cabin? Fabric planeshavw really small metal frames all the way to the tail, often solid square tubing made from mild low-carbon steel. Mooney's structure is made from chrome-molybdenum steel (please google it for information, because you are obviously posting from emotion and feelings and not knowledge), and most fabric planes stringers would slip inside our tubing and rattle around.

Edited July 29, 2019 by Hank

[exM20K]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

Their FAA equivalent bureaucracy towards certification in China is no less challenging than our FAA processes.

Understatement of the year.  I've exported three aircraft to China, and they simply were not set up to receive piston GA aircraft.  The Acceptance Checklist CAAC sent me (when they resent it in english, the second time) was obviously oriented towards transport category planes. For example: check box for "#3 engine: no hydraulic leaks"  Pretty sure I can check that one on a DA20. No doubt they will get there, but my experience is that there is a culture of risk-aversion and no appetite for taking ownership of/solving bureaucratic jams. this was a couple years ago - maybe better now.

-dan 

 

[aviatoreb]

12 minutes ago, M20F said:

The Mooney tubular frame is a hold over from the fabric days,  nothing more. It is not a clever design feature but urban legend has turned it into such.  How about I pay your A&P to remove an interior panel and then I grab that rigid cage and pull as hard as I can.  I will likewise pay you A&P to replace the panel.  You however will pay for the tube work.  I weigh 155lbs on a good day, we can live stream it.  Surely the cage will survive.  

Correct.  The tubes are a hold over from fabric days. But that is in no way implying they are worthless in a crash.

your kind over to apply side load forces are very kind but irrelevant.

your confidence is high but your physics is poor.

case 1: the egg. 

case two - the ancient design of the metal spoke high tension bicycle wheel.  The spoked bicycle wheel is very strong to straight loads. But very week to a side load.  If you wish I can come over and pull apart your bicycle wheel spoke by spoke by hand  to prove to you how worthless your bicycle is. Oh you do realize that bicycle wheels are hold overs from wooden spoken oxen carts from ancient Romans. Worthless. 

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by aviatoreb

[aviatoreb]

6 minutes ago, Hank said:

You do realize that the tubular frame only goes from the firewall to the back of the cabin? Fabric planeshavw really small metal frames all the way to the tail, often solid square tubing made from mild low-carbon steel. Mooney's structure is made from chrome-molybdenum steel (please google it for information, because you are obviously posting from emotion and feelings and not knowledge), and most fabric planes stringers would slip inside our tubing and rattle around.

Right - chrome-moly is the same stuff as in high quality bike frames - I bet it is the same grade material but I wonder how the thickness and diameters differ? I bet the welding process is similar.

[M20F]

2 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

But that is in no way implying they are worthless in a crash.

No more or less worthless then ducking and covering during a nuclear attack.....

Be sure not to crash sideways.

 

[ThorFlight]

Interesting discussion thus far... couple of quick observations / questions.

1. Cirrus is very much focused on marketing their product as a "lifestyle" tool. This is very attractive for the up-and-comer type. It may not be as attractive to the analytical, engineering, pilot-purest type. Selling top speed is a narrow, abstract idea, that appeals to some, but clearly isn't drawing in folks who have other valid concerns. Airplanes are tools that allow people to accomplish things, things that are often impossible without the tool itself. Speed is one dimension of a tool's value, but often not the most important. I would suggest that speed in context with its result might be something to share.

2. Mooney, to my knowledge, does not sell direct to their customers, which puzzles me. I am too new to the business end of aircraft sales to understand if this is a common practice or not, but it may enable them to have a certain "arms-length" mentality regarding their customers.

In my business of software engineering for our product development teams want nothing more than direct, unmediated access to their existing and potential customer base in order to understand exactly what their problems are and what they want so they can figure out how to deliver something a customer is will to pay for. This is exactly what Bob Kromer did personally when he developed the venerated 252. You can hear him say it here himself: https://youtu.be/YZTlWHHRrJ0?t=266

The pilot-side door in the latest models was a positive step in the right direction, which I hope was inspired by good dialogue with their customer base. I'm looking forward to seeing more of this, and, as I have elected to earn more, hope to one day have the ear of their product folks myself!

Good discussion, all.
 

[aviatoreb]

10 minutes ago, M20F said:

No more or less worthless then ducking and covering during a nuclear attack.....

Be sure not to crash sideways.

 

 

just like a nose dive is not survivable no matter seat belt or not or what your airplane is made off... but some crashes are not nose dives and some are survivable and every little bit helps.

some nuclear hits might be not survivable depending on where you are... if it falls on your head - don’t bother ducking and covering / you are eviserated instantly. If you are 20 miles away. Duck and cover as soon as you see the flash shadow before the windows blow out and slice.  I’ll duck and cover. But that’s just me. Is this a subject you know something about?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/the-man-who-survived-two-atomic-bombs

or was that a straw man?

Edited July 29, 2019 by aviatoreb

[bradp]

I didn’t visit the Mooney tent at Oshkosh.  One of my camping neighbors went and felt totally ignored.  I believe the  comment was if you weren’t dressed like you wanted to buy a Cirrus, you were ignored by Mooney.  Wrong marketing approach whether factual or not perception and word of mouth go a long way.  

I am not in the new airplane strata by any stretch of the imagination, but I get occasional  invitations from the cirrus camp to their events / to schedule a demo flight, so view the new jet.  They are super smart and importantly proactive about marketing.  Mooney fails in this department again and again.  Cirrus knows it takes people like me to keep their new plane buyers moving up to newer models or in some cases to their jet   They understand market evolution and the concept of a Cirrus ecosystem.   Mooney has no clue because it doesn’t have the volume any longer to need to appreciate the used market in driving the new market.

For some perspective, I have the original invoice from the 1977 J I fly (for warranty purposes of course ;-)).  It cost about $270,000 in 2019 dollars.  It was the top of the line piston single of its time.  The modern Mooney goes faster, burns much more fuel and can carry less for about 3-4x the price tag  , but it’s still a single piston.   

It’s all about useful load useful load useful load. All the Cirrus accoutrements including BRS are allowable because useful load.  In fact if we had the useful load for it, BRS would be a no brainer in a hat shelf location on a composite shelled modern Mooney.  They can’t because the useful load stinks.  

From copa website: 

2013 NA SR22 FIKI, AC and BRS: 1200 lb useful load.  Cirrus figures how to maximize useful load over the years.  That’s how they get all the fun stuff.  

From flying magazine :

 

N197CV - the ovation ultra that was featured in flying and the caravan guys know very well doesn’t have TKS or AC, has 100 gal tanks and a UL of 980 lbs   Full fuel you’re getting 470 ish lbs of payload.  No AC TKS or BRS.  That is why mooney is losing.  Folks who want to use these for cross country flying would rather have the toys and go 175 over no toys and go 220.   I could fit my entire family plus bags and full fuel in a G5 with all the stuff they’d care about (AC, BRS) and stuff Is care about GFC 700 and TKS.   It’s a more practical traveling machine for more market than Mooney traveling with one pax and an overnight bag.  

Mooney should be using additive manufacturing to limit weight and maximize useful load with an emphasis on exotic materials when economically feasible.  That’s how cirrus got 200 lbs with a bigger chute for the G5; they spent a ton of RD on incremental improvement. Mooney added a door and didn’t do anything more.  

Another Mooney pipe dream - SETP market is hot.  They missed the boat on TBM. Resurrect that ugly duckling of a mustang, refine and modernize certain features (one piece windshield) and mate an Allison 250 to it.  You’d have perhaps a sub $1MM airframe that could compete with that market segment who can afford used Malibu’s and TBMs.  You’d sip fuel compared to the pT6 and maybe achieve a 1500 lb useful load at best 200 ktas.  They’d have to totally undercut the market but there is probably an undercut market at us that look at used bottom end setps / Mu2 / PA46s and say someday.  They had a relationship with RR - what ever happened to that? 

Now might be the time to push hard on alternatively fueled engines - the diesels are just about ready for prime time. 

Cut the weight Mooney - haven’t worked on that in 50 years it seems.

 

[M20F]

26 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

you are eviserated instantly.....or was that a straw man?

Not a straw man, that would be me pointing out that a nuclear bomb doesn’t disembowel one (eviscerated).  It would also be me personally attacking you and questioning your intellect, which while it seems your style it isn’t mine in a discussion. 

Certainly every little thing helps if that is where we are at.  Just as I don’t think a pillow is going to make the difference in life or death to any statistical significance, the frame to the Mooney isn’t going to save you any more then any other comparable aircraft.  Recent examples on this forum shows that  

The CAPS though certainly is a proven safety feature and it really puzzles me that people argue against it.   

Edited July 29, 2019 by M20F
Spelling

[aviatoreb]

38 minutes ago, M20F said:

Not a straw man, that would be me pointing out that a nuclear bomb doesn’t disembowel one (eviscerated).  It would also be me personally attacking you and questioning your intellect, which while it seems your style it isn’t mine in a discussion. 

The phrase Straw man was your words.  I just repeated it.  

I see you feel this whole thing has been attack but I see it as countering misinformation with information.  

Not so much on topic anymore / Disembowel is something else an awful thing with historical meaning at least back to the Middle Ages.  But eviserate is literal for nuclear war as people right near the blast experienced such intense heat and light that  all that was left of them was their shadow. 

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&ei=oVo-Xa-lCYXbtAbD1LHADw&q=carbon+shadow+nuclear&oq=&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-img.1.0.41i5i30j41l2.0.0..17846...0.0..0.0.0.......0...........3.732DjCr0fPU#imgrc=SkDqNATfaivPgM

and yet people further away may survive. Do duck and cover.  This is a topic with a deep rooted fear from childhood since I grew up right near Washington DC during the height of the Cold War - Reagan-Gorbachev . We talked in elementary school about how close we were to the White House - ground zero.  And duck and cover.

Edited July 29, 2019 by aviatoreb

[RogueOne]

On 7/27/2019 at 5:07 PM, Jerry 5TJ said:

I frequently remind myself what a privilege it is to fly my own plane about the country.  

We’re our own 0.1% of the population: Whether we fly a Mooney C model or Citation X it is a rare gift available to a very, very few.  

Technically the freedom to fly is available to the many.  The few choose to pay for and participate in this wonderful gift....