Jump to content

Mooney or Cirrus?


Mooney217RN

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Greg Ellis said:

And kudos for him for flying his plane and not becoming the passenger along for the ride.  A Chute pull totals the Cirrus I believe.  His plane, after repair of the engine, meant the plane lived to fly another day.  And he was uninjured.  I have heard that the landing under the chute is not an easy one and could be quite violent with possible injury.  He was able to walk away without a scratch.

Deploying the chute almost certainly totals the plane, the structure is designed to absorb the hard hit  (<1700 fpm).    https://cirrusaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CAPS_Guide.pdf

Interestingly, a spin or loss of control mandates a pull, in many other cases in which it has been pulled it is only recommended.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Face palm to the interpretations (with agenda) on this thread.

Just friggin’ answer if you would rather have a Mooney or a Cirrus.

Judus Preist.

Very true, just like most every other thread here of length it has gone its own direction about the value of chutes.

But seriously, there is no point in asking Mooney pilots which airframe they prefer; especially on Mooneyspace!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, RogueOne said:

Face palm to the interpretations (with agenda) on this thread.

Just friggin’ answer if you would rather have a Mooney or a Cirrus.

Judus Preist.

I chose and its neither of these two fine airplanes.  I can’t name it lest I get banished to the hinterland!!

Clarence 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, M20Doc said:

I chose and its neither of these two fine airplanes.  I can’t name it lest I get banished to the hinterland!!

Clarence 

Don't worry about that, Clarence. Even you can't afford the fuel to fly your beast that far . . . .  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, kortopates said:

Very similar to that is the Cirrus guy that had a engine out over the CO Rockies, somewhere between 12-14K in the winter time and had to make a snap decision of what to do. He rightfully (for him) chose not to pull and instead dead stick it on to the top of flat mesa above 9K (IIRC) because he thought if he did pull the winds would pull him away from the flat mesa and down the cliff into much less hospitable terrain. He landed with his wife on board on top and came pretty close to the edge in the snow with relatively minor damage.  I thought that pilot set the bar as a great example of what the ACS refers to as managing the startle response! I don't think the factory tried to chastise him for not pulling.

I will say that one benefit of pulling the CAPS when the engine fails is that the insurance company will be buying you a whole new aircraft... If you dead stick one in, they dont pay for anything!  Ingrates!

Edited by Austintatious
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

I will say that one benefit of pulling the CAPS when the engine fails is that the insurance company will be buying you a whole new aircraft... If you dead stick one in, they dont pay for anything!  Ingrates!

That'll get factory volume up! 

So are the (growing) numbers of replacement million-dollar Cirri driving up all of GA's insurance more than the occasional $50K Mooney gear up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hank said:

That'll get factory volume up! 

So are the (growing) numbers of replacement million-dollar Cirri driving up all of GA's insurance more than the occasional $50K Mooney gear up?

that, like many things is something we may never know. 

I happen to believe that there is likely a lot of insurance fraud in the aviation industry.  I have always wondered how many pilots and mechanics pull stunts to get damages covered.  I have a few anecdotes. 

I was in a fairly major accident flying a SE turbo prop.  The engine failed very shortly after takeoff which resulted in an off field landing.  I was flying the aircraft for hire part 91.  I found out in the aftermath that the owner had the aircraft for sale and was pretty upside down in it.  I also found out that the FAA was asking around trying to determine if I had been paid to crash the aircraft on purpose for the insurance money.  I'm sitting here like " my ca hones are way too small and there just aint enough money on the planet!"

The Mooney I just purchased... The seller was very proud of the engine. It technically had 500 hours, but had just come from Continental where it was completely disassembled,  had a new cam and crank and 2 new cylinders and the rest being re-worked.  I spoke with Cont and they gave me confidence that this is a great engine with effectively only 80 hours on it.  Well, the seller flat out told me that prior to this work, he didn't like how it was running... sooooo He paid a mechanic to put a bent prop on it and then filed an incident report and filed a claim to have insurance pay for the repair.  

Dont you ever wonder how so many pilots accidentally hit the prop on some obstruction on the airport?  How many aircraft have hit a concrete pole when pulling up to a fuel pump?  I mean sheesh if a pilot cant keep from doing that maybe they shouldn't be flying ( or driving for that matter!)  Maybe it is just their clever way of getting an engine tear down paid for.

 

I also wonder how often pilots fly while intoxicated.  I was instructing a guy at a 142 school in a turbo commander sim... His father was killed by a drunk pilot that took off in an aerostar behind the clients father who was in a slower airplane.  Ran right into the back of him.  Clients father crashed and died... aerostar pilot got it back on the ground and RAN OFF.  This guy told me that after that he really started to pay attention and told me I really should go to a bar near the airport sometime and just watch who comes through to drink.  Said it is rampant.  Terrifying!

 

How often do people fly VFR through the clouds?  Just TODAY waiting to takeoff in a G650 out of an uncontrolled field with 700 foot ceilings I watched a Citation get denied a clearance from center because another aircraft was on approach to the field.... he said " We will just depart VFR" and did so right through the clouds!

 

I could go on and on....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hank said:

That'll get factory volume up! 

So are the (growing) numbers of replacement million-dollar Cirri driving up all of GA's insurance more than the occasional $50K Mooney gear up?

“Occasional” prop strikes have been noted to happen multiple times per week and are not normally reported...except to the insurance company.  Many of these occur on older planes with low premiums which take a long time to recoup in premiums (many don’t I’m guessing). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MIm20c said:

“Occasional” prop strikes have been noted to happen multiple times per week and are not normally reported...except to the insurance company.  Many of these occur on older planes with low premiums which take a long time to recoup in premiums (many don’t I’m guessing). 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

The Mooney I just purchased... The seller was very proud of the engine. It technically had 500 hours, but had just come from Continental where it was completely disassembled,  had a new cam and crank and 2 new cylinders and the rest being re-worked.  I spoke with Cont and they gave me confidence that this is a great engine with effectively only 80 hours on it.  Well, the seller flat out told me that prior to this work, he didn't like how it was running... sooooo He paid a mechanic to put a bent prop on it and then filed an incident report and filed a claim to have insurance pay for the repair.  

Wow...just wow, I’m not sure I could shake his hand after the papers were signed after hearing that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MIm20c said:

Wow...just wow, I’m not sure I could shake his hand after the papers were signed after hearing that. 

I am only half convinced this is what really happened...  It is just as likely that he made a bad landing, whacked the prop and this story was his way of saving face. That is another interesting phenomenon I have noticed... people Making up BS when they screw up, only their lie makes them look worse than the truth. 

 

Be assured, I had the aircraft thoroughly gone through by a reputable shop prior to the purchase. 

Edited by Austintatious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CaptainOveur said:

Deploying the chute almost certainly totals the plane, the structure is designed to absorb the hard hit  (<1700 fpm).    https://cirrusaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CAPS_Guide.pdf

Interestingly, a spin or loss of control mandates a pull, in many other cases in which it has been pulled it is only recommended.  

‘How many times have I heard, on This very forum “when the engine quits, it belongs to the insurance company”....Do whatever it takes to land and walk away. The Citrus CAPS system is that, the plane belongs to the insurance company anyway. Let’s not get into a discussion about the balance between property damage and lives lost. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deploying the chute almost certainly totals the plane, the structure is designed to absorb the hard hit  (https://cirrusaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CAPS_Guide.pdf
Interestingly, a spin or loss of control mandates a pull, in many other cases in which it has been pulled it is only recommended.  
Generally speaking, yes. Definitely from an insurance perspective. There have bee about 20 Cirrus planes that have been brought back to service after a chute pull.



Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say that one benefit of pulling the CAPS when the engine fails is that the insurance company will be buying you a whole new aircraft... If you dead stick one in, they dont pay for anything!  Ingrates!
I have heard Cirrus owners say that. They don't want to dead stick it in as they'd be on the hook for a new engine. Pull the chute, then the insurance company sends them a check and they get to go plane shopping again.

From the insurance company's perspective that's fine. Its reducing their risk. Everyone has walked away from a chute pull inside the parameters. Not everyone walks away from a dead stick landing. And one can do more damage to things on the ground with a bad dead stick landing. So a chute pull limits their pay-out potential.



Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make it stop

 

please, for the love of God

 

Make it stop

 

(disclaimer/explanation for enginerds and folks with zero sense of humor. Referring to endless talk about chutes on a thread comparing Mooney to Cirrus. At some point (long ago) this became only about chutes, not about pros and cons impacting a purchase decision. Chute guys, go to a Cirrus site and talk about your chutes. The regurgitated nuance is never ending. Start an I love chutes topic. A topic about why do Mooney’s not have chutes?  How does a chute work?  What does a chute cost?  Then I know to steer clear)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/7/2019 at 6:15 PM, Tom said:

1.  The statement "a save is a save" is like saying "gee, your newborn child is cute" when in fact it looks like an alien mutant (as they all do as newborns).  We make such statements as a matter of expediency as stating to the contrary is just pointless.  If you think that anyone goes to bed at night genuinely believing that 100% of chute pulls are indicated/necessary...I have a bridge to sell you.  No one believes this, not even Cirrus people.

Perhaps you don’t believe that but many folks talk about a BRS activation as an event where the occupants would have otherwise perished.  It may be a “matter of expediency” but it muddies the water.  There is no question that BRS is a wonderful safety innovation.  There is no question that Cirrus makes an excellent airframe.  What’s of interest to me is the numbers and the behavior/circumstances behind them. I’m not here to condem owners, pilots or airframes.  I will however disagree vehemently with statements that are not backed up by the limited data we have available.   Leaving aside that we all agree that BRS is an excellent safety innovation, let’s look at Cirrus. Early on the aircraft had an abysmal accident record.  That has been successfully turned around with training. Training that according to multiple sources centered around “Pull often and Pull early”.  We don’t have any way of extrapolating what the Cirrus rate would be without BRS but we do know that the airframe lagged far behind its legacy competitors until pilots embraced “the pull”.  This tells us two things as far as I can tell. Firstly, that when BRS is used by pilots in trouble it can make a marked difference in safety outcomes. Secondly, If the Cirrus fleet were not equipped with BRS they very well might still have a lousy comparative safety record. My curiosity centers around why BRS, which we all agree is an innovative safety enhancement, has not caused Cirrus to outpace it’s competition by a significant margin. I’m not here to criticize, I am here to learn and gain insight from those closer to the Cirrus fleet and Cirrus operators.

2.  So Ross...if we ran an experiment where we took 100 different pilots in 100 same-type airframes....up to 11k feet over an airport at night and killed the engine...what percentage of the pilots do you fully believe will successfully touch down and stop on the runway?  What percent will undershoot?  Will run off the end?  What percent will end up completely off the airfield?
So run that experiment again, except do it during the daytime.  What are your results?  So run the two experiments again, except this time you get to train the pilots to your heart's content prior to the experiment.  What are your results?
I'm not asking you to publish your answers, but you ought to understand that the number is not 100% in any scenario and you ought to thus understand where the factory is coming from.

Using my exact scenario? >10,000’ agl  and 7,000’ of runway on a good VFR night I would hope that 100% of the candidates and aircraft could survive with minor or no injuries. With 7000’ I would hope that the majority could reuse their airplanes after the exercise. I don’t think I’m a particularly great pilot, but I am confident in my dead stick abilities because I have trained for it. During my last FR I was asked to hold over the Linden VOR (west of Wash DC) while performing slow slight at 5500’ I was then asked to do a full stall.  Just before the wing wing broke the instructor slaps my throttle hand and says “you’ve lost your engine”.  I took the plane all the way down to the threshold at Front Royal (3007’). While I had more energy than I wanted, I could have landed and stopped on the runway.  If I can train on and learn to do this, anyone with a license can and should.  Glider pilots have an excellent record with dead stick landings. The main reason why a GA aircraft with adequate altitude and energy would not be landed safely at an airport is pilot (and maybe ATC) training. High key/low key to landing is methodical procedure that everyone should practice and should be demonstrated during every flight review. It’s not an art, it’s a process.  Perhaps it should be part of Mooney’s safety culture since the legacy airframe will likely never get a BRS. There is no question that there are a number of scenarios at lower altitude over hotel terrain that a chute is the best most safe option.  A V-tail that launched out of NE Philadelphia just crashed into a PA neighborhood killing the pilot and two passengers.  There’s a good chance that those folks would still be alive had the plane had BRS.  This type of incident prevents a far more compelling case for BRS regardless of aircraft make than Cirrus managing cirrus managing to raise their safety record to a level slightly above no BRS equipped aircraft.  

I understand where the factory is coming from.  They have nothing to lose by encouragining chute pulls.  Saftey record goes up, airframe supply is diminished and the insurance costs will be spread across the GA pool with a focus on Cirrus but not so much as to deter ownership. Almost no cost to the company and many benefits.

3.  Not per se withstanding the above specific engine-out scenario.....the incessant harping on the "see...see...you don't need the chute in situation XYZ" really misses the end-result goal here...saving lives.  Such harping completely neglects statistics like.....your risk of dying landing off-airport is 3 times higher than on-airport.  Such harping neglects to respect that a fire erupting during your accident sequence makes you 20 times more likely to die.  These two factors alone should encourage the thinking man to in an engine-out to pull the chute unless landing on a runway or other certainly clear flat landing area is assured (or course after running checklists, etc). 

On the subject of the thread....Cirrus is a plane with a big engine and a small wing that needs a chute in an engine-out scenario as the touchdown speed is so high so as to put it in the grim part of the speed vs survivability at touchdown/impact curve.  Not as true with older/lighter/slower Mooneys.

There is no harping that you don’t need a chute, everyone knows that you don’t “need a chute”. I would also submit that everyone knows that a chute would be a significant safety enhancement to any airframe.  This is the Mooney forum. If the goal is saving lives in our community we should be talking about things the Mooney community can focus on to improve our safety record.  A chute is not in our future but it does not mean that we can’t improve.  Cirrus has made significant progress by encouraging operators to use the equivalent of the “start over button” on a video game…the insurance company will give your quarter back. Fair enough. There is no denying it has helped. However, as I said earlier, from a statistical standpoint it has not made the airframe significantly safer than its non BRS counterparts.  I don’t know the reason why, but I am curious.  Let's say that hypothetically the whole certified single engine fleet were equipped with BRS tomorrow, do you think Cirrus would continue to hold what is a very marginal statistical safety record? Why or why not?

Suggesting that there is some huge chasm between these airframes in landing capability is a stretch.  The SR22 has a Vso of 59kts compared to the M20Cs 54kts.  The book landing roll over a 50' obstacle for the C model is 1550' vs the SR22 at 2325' . The SR20 will be even closer but the gap is not that wide using SR22 numbers... Yes it's a bigger, heavier aircraft with more kinetic energy, but let's not make the differences out to be more than they are.

 

Answered above in blue italics

Edited by Shadrach
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Wayne Cease said:

I have heard Cirrus owners say that. They don't want to dead stick it in as they'd be on the hook for a new engine. Pull the chute, then the insurance company sends them a check and they get to go plane shopping again.

From the insurance company's perspective that's fine. Its reducing their risk. Everyone has walked away from a chute pull inside the parameters. Not everyone walks away from a dead stick landing. And one can do more damage to things on the ground with a bad dead stick landing. So a chute pull limits their pay-out potential.



Wayne
 

Man, I read that and I still doubt I would be willing to pull the chute.  Id rather have my fate in my own hands rather than hope it all works out OK under a chute, cost of the engine be damned.  It would have to be a situation in where I had absolutely no hope of a safe outcome.  But that is just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, BKlott said:

I would be curious to know how many of the folks who pulled the chute and survived that exciting experience continued flying or decided that they have had enough? I would just like to know.

And how many of their passengers who were along on that last ride ever got into another small plane . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

18 hours ago, BKlott said:

I would be curious to know how many of the folks who pulled the chute and survived that exciting experience continued flying or decided that they have had enough? I would just like to know.

 

3 hours ago, Hank said:

And how many of their passengers who were along on that last ride ever got into another small plane . . . .

I'm not sure why this is relevant.  I'm betting a dead stick landing whether on or off airport would leave an equal if not more bitter taste in the mouths of non-pilot passengers.

Edited by Shadrach
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.