Vision Jet under chute

[Shadrach]

Everyone said that adding a second door was impossible right up until the point that they added the second door.

[hais]

I'll give up 200lbs UL for a second door ... umhh, where was I? Ah yes, why did the cirrus crash?

[carusoam]

Hmmmmmmm….

Sounds like a cover story…

Mooney is doing the work to increase MGTW…

Known issue… the landing gear needs to be updated…. To handle the increased load….

Maybe… the chute is in the works… 

If we see big springy gear legs… that will be a tell….

PP postulations only, no insider knowledge of any parachute activity…

Best regards,

-a-

[A64Pilot]

10 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

I guess ignorance is bliss. When @Johnny mentioned the GW increase he didn’t mention ripping off the wings. Sounded like it was more of a landing gear change. Vortex generators (which I already have) have been used in other applications to increase gross weight as well.

Good thing the old Cessnas that were retrofitted with BRS didn’t realize that they had to be redesigned from the ground up. Otherwise it would never have worked.

As someone who actually stays within CG and weight limits, weighs passengers and weighs luggage it’s reassuring to hear they I don’t need to waste my time doing this anymore since apparently nobody cares. Or maybe my 30 years of flying just haven’t given me enough “experience” to be that complacent yet.

There is probably a little room for gross weight, apparently gear are the first link in the chain, but a parachute without a complete redesign of the structure would probably exceed that little bit left to 61 kts. much less the gear, but you want a parachute AND a useful load increase, because I think what your really wanting is more useful load, not just a gross weight increase. I never said the wings were breaking, but they are playing with that 61 kts at least.

Second a Cessna is two things very different, first it’s an externally braced high wing, and the second is that it wouldn’t likely be too hard to tie into where the main spar ties into the carry thru spar, you know where they put the lifting rings on a Cessna floatplane. Where do you tie to in a Mooney? BTW I’m guessing where they tie to in a Cessna, but I’d be surprised if that’s not where.

I’m happy you never exceed Gross Weight, many do and don’t now it, many do anyway, every Ag plane driver does, gross weight increases of 10% by the Ak FSDO are common, been done for years and haven’t caused any issues.

Finally if VG’s are as magic as many think, why don’t more manufacturers install them as standard equipment? Annie will make you a VERY good price as an OEM manufacturer, and they are easy to install. She did for me anyway. 

But unless you have experienced it, you wouldn’t believe the phenomenal expense and amount of time involved in such an undertaking. Your talking about hiring an Engineering team, probably $$$ spent on computers, then lots of design, static pulls, bunch of tooling to make the new parts, bunches of new drawings, then your close to building a prototype.

Really, honestly probably off starting with a new airframe. I’d guess it would only cost a couple Million to get into composite airframe construction, of course it had to be added to your capabilities list, a whole new QC manual etc.

A successful manufacturer takes profit from current sales to fund such development.

I have no idea how Cirrus’s founder raised the Capital necessary, it worked for him of course, he must be incredibly talented

[A64Pilot]

10 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Everyone sad  that adding a second door was impossible right up until that they added the second door.

Doors are by contrast, easy. Raymond Maule when he restarted production of the M4 removed the baggage door, which of course made the fuselage stronger, easy to prove by analysis, but the FAA still made him pull a fuselage.

He thought he could build an LSA with a Rotax, but in truth it wasn’t close weight wise. He could have gotten there with composites, but that was way far more than Maule could afford.

Its the 21st Century, we have rockets that land on barges, people have parachuted from Space, just about anything is possible.

All it takes is way more money than I can imagine.

By the way, how much useful did the door cost, I have no idea? If the answer is none, then they saved weight somewhere else.

[Shadrach]

4 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Doors are by contrast, easy. Raymond Maule when he restarted production of the M4 removed the baggage door, which of course made the fuselage stronger, easy to prove by analysis, but the FAA still made him pull a fuselage.

He thought he could build an LSA with a Rotax, but in truth it wasn’t close weight wise. He could have gotten there with composites, but that was way far more than Maule could afford.

Its the 21st Century, we have rockets that land on barges, people have parachuted from Space, just about anything is possible.

All it takes is way more money than I can imagine.

By the way, how much useful did the door cost, I have no idea? If the answer is none, then they saved weight somewhere else.

The weight difference was negligible which is likely why it was not easy nor cheap. Agree to disagree that adding large “holes”  to an airframe structure post design and certification is easy. It’s not just the regulatory hurdles, it’s the physical challenge of maintaining the integrity of the structure. Even Auto makers with big budget R&D end up adding 300-400lbs (8-10%) to a sedan/coupe chassis when designing the convertible version.  Removing holes by comparison is easy and is not really germane to the discussion.

Mooney didn’t just add a door, they also made both doors 4” wider than the previous design. It was not a “remove a few stringers, add a gusset here, a thicker tube there and Bob’s your uncle” situation. The cage structure was changed significantly.

[Shadrach]

9 hours ago, hais said:

I'll give up 200lbs UL for a second door ... umhh, where was I? Ah yes, why did the cirrus crash?

Reads like he entered a thunderstorm. I’ll reserve comment until there is more information but my suspicion is that poor judgment is at the root of this “save”

[A64Pilot]

21 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

The weight difference was negligible which is likely why it was not easy nor cheap. Agree to disagree that adding large “holes”  to an airframe structure post design and certification is easy. It’s not just the regulatory hurdles, it’s the physical challenge of maintaining the integrity of the structure. Even Auto makers with big budget R&D end up adding 300-400lbs (8-10%) to a chassis when designing the convertible version.  Removing holes by comparison is easy and is not really germane to the discussion.

Mooney didn’t just add a door, they also made both doors 4” wider than the previous design. It was not a “remove a few stringers, add a gusset here, a thicker tube there and Bob’s your uncle” situation. The cage structure was changed significantly.

I didn’t say it was easy, I’m saying it was easy compared to a chute and a useful load increase especially together.

Most convertible add weight simply because the car wasn’t designed as a convertible and what’s done is to literally chip off the top and start bolting on reinforcements in the attempt to regain structural rigidity, the Z28 I’m nearly certain was built as a hard too then the top was literally cut off.

Only modern mass produced car I’m aware of that was designed as a convertible is a Miata, that’s probably changed.

On edit, just like converting a car, it hard to make major modification to an airframe without adding significant weight is tough, often it amounts to a complete re-design.

I’d think Mooney might could build a better Cirrus than Cirrus, just may take several million dollars and several years.

[A64Pilot]

14 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Reads like he entered a thunderstorm. I’ll reserve comment until there is more information but my suspicion is that poor judgment is at the root of this “save”

I’m thinking the same, I had typed up a reply earlier that it’s not uncommon in the sailing world for usually a well heeled person to get scared and pop the EPIRB and be rescued by the USCG, and the boat survive just fine all by itself. And a boat not being helmed is far more likely to broach and roll.

Too early to tell, maybe the Williams failed from hail of who knows what?

I believe well heeled because they are more likely able to afford to abandon it, people who the boat is their home and it’s pretty much all they own aren’t as likely to abandon

[Shadrach]

4 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I didn’t say it was easy, I’m saying it was easy compared to a chute and a useful load increase especially together.

Most convertible add weight simply because the car wasn’t designed as a convertible and what’s done is to literally chip off the top and start bolting on reinforcements in the attempt to regain structural rigidity, the Z28 I’m nearly certain was built as a hard too then the top was literally cut off.

Only modern mass produced car I’m aware of that was designed as a convertible is a Miata, that’s probably changed.

There have been many many purpose built convertibles. The modern cars that come mind are the Porsche Boxster and Mercedes SL. I’ve  owned both so I am familiar with them. The Boxster was designed as an open car from the outset, the Cayman (coupe) came later. The weight difference is negligible (<20lbs) because adding a roof to a structurally sound open chassis requires no additional structure beyond the roof. Same was true of the Mercedes SL vs SLC (coupe) welding a roof on a roadster is the same as removing a door, the weight difference is simply a matter added materials, not reengineering the structure

[A64Pilot]

1 minute ago, Shadrach said:

There have been many many purpose built convertibles. The modern cars that come mind are the Porsche Boxster and Mercedes SL. I’ve  owned both so I am familiar with them. The Boxster was designed as an open car from the outset, the Cayman (coupe) came later. The weight difference is negligible (<20lbs) because adding a roof to a structurally sound open chassis requires no additional structure beyond the roof. Same was true of the Mercedes SL vs SLC (coupe) welding a roof on a roadster is the same as removing a door, the weight difference is simply a matter added materials, not reengineering the structure

I understand, I was going back to 1989 when the Miata was new, that’s why I said it’s probably changed by now. The Miata in a way was sort of revolutionary for its time.

Before it, I think the designed from scratch convertibles were the old English designs. But maybe back then the body didn’t contribute much to the structure.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

I’m thinking the same, I had typed up a reply earlier that it’s not uncommon in the sailing world for usually a well heeled person to get scared and pop the EPIRB and be rescued by the USCG, and the boat survive just fine all by itself. And a boat not being helmed is far more likely to broach and roll.

Too early to tell, maybe the Williams failed from hail of who knows what?

I believe well heeled because they are more likely able to afford to abandon it, people who the boat is their home and it’s pretty much all they own aren’t as likely to abandon

The question is how many “multi-million dollar, more money than judgement” hits can the insurance pool absorb.  We had a cirrus come down in a neighborhood not far from me about a decade ago because of a door pop while climbing out in IMC.  That was a million dollar claim because of panic and lack of proficiency. There is something to be said for building time and confidence in legacy airframes. If enough people continue hitting the “start over” button out of panic or press their luck because they can, none of us will have access to viable insurance premiums. I think Cirrus builds a fine aircraft. Anecdotally, they seem to attract more of the kind of pilots that don’t know their imitations.

[A64Pilot]

20 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

The question is how many “multi-million dollar, more money than judgement” hits can the insurance pool absorb.  We had a cirrus come down in a neighborhood not far from me about a decade ago because of a door pop while climbing out in IMC.  That was a million dollar claim because of panic and lack of proficiency. There is something to be said for building time and confidence in legacy airframes. If enough people continue hitting the “start over” button out of panic or press their luck because they can, none of us will have access to viable insurance premiums. I think Cirrus builds a fine aircraft. Anecdotally, hey seem to attract more of the kind of pilots that don’t know there imitations.

Back to the boat thing, to a great extent many companies dropped out, won’t write anymore, the few that are left it gets really expensive, so much so that those that don’t have to insure, often don’t.

While I can’t prove it, I suspect it’s most likely the rental new Cat fleets. They aren’t owned by the renting company, they are privately owned and leased to the rental company.

So when the major storm is coming, they are not evacuated but left at the dock to fend for themselves, unless the owner flies in and evacuates his boat, which is VERY rare. I’ve often heard “that’s what you buy insurence for”. So once the Storm is gone, they are bulldozed into a pile and insurence claims filed and a whole new group of owners show up to get their million dollar yachts paid for by others and the cycle begins again.

But it’s getting tougher and tougher to insure those boats, and as money is owed on them, they have to be insured. But as insurence is a pool of boats, airplanes etc. we all share in increased rates.

Remember the insurence company HAS to make money to continue to exist, they aren’t necessarily evil, it’s just economics, and now they have to make money in an inflationary period

[Shadrach]

29 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I understand, I was going back to 1989 when the Miata was new, that’s why I said it’s probably changed by now. The Miata in a way was sort of revolutionary for its time.

Before it, I think the designed from scratch convertibles were the old English designs. But maybe back then the body didn’t contribute much to the structure.

The SLs dat back to the 60s. Mine is an 88 but the first year for that chassis was 1972 (merc's longest production run for a chassis). You're right that the old British designs were most prevalent. Some never had hard top siblings. I suspect most were designed as open cars.  I am partial to the E type Jag which was clearly designed to be an open car, the fixed head coupes are more than 100lbs heavier than the roadsters.

[Shadrach]

27 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Back to the boat thing, to a great extent many companies dropped out, won’t write anymore, the few that are left it gets really expensive, so much so that those that don’t have to insure, often don’t.

While I can’t prove it, I suspect it’s most likely the rental new Cat fleets. They aren’t owned by the renting company, they are privately owned and leased to the rental company.

So when the major storm is coming, they are not evacuated but left at the dock to fend for themselves, unless the owner flies in and evacuates his boat, which is VERY rare. I’ve often heard “that’s what you buy insurence for”. So once the Storm is gone, they are bulldozed into a pile and insurence claims filed and a whole new group of owners show up to get their million dollar yachts paid for by others and the cycle begins again.

But it’s getting tougher and tougher to insure those boats, and as money is owed on them, they have to be insured. But as insurence is a pool of boats, airplanes etc. we all share in increased rates.

Remember the insurence company HAS to make money to continue to exist, they aren’t necessarily evil, it’s just economics, and now they have to make money in an inflationary period

I don't think they are evil in the least.  I just wish I didn't have to swim in the same pool with the more money than sense crowd. If you've been flying for 5 years and you want a million dollar single or a 3 million dollar, single pilot jet with a chute that you're trained to pull whenever you get a lump in your throat, by all means. I just wish there was a separate insurance pool for those folks. 

[A64Pilot]

Thread drift, but it’s likely these old designs didn’t use the body as much structure.

I have a 23 Model T and it could be had in a multitude of body styles, some even wooden. That may be an extreme example.

But with GM’s skateboard concept that many electric cars are emulating, we could return to a time where the same vehicle could have many different bodies?

The VW Beetle could have done it, the body was easily separated from the pan, that’s how it was so easy to make kit cars and dune buggies from them.

Hasn't got squat to do with Mooney’s or Cirrus though

[A64Pilot]

1 minute ago, Shadrach said:

I don't think they are evil in the least.  I just wish I didn't have to swim in the same pool with the more money than sense crowd. If you've been flying for 5 years and you want a million dollar single or a 3 million dollar, single pilot jet with a chute that you're trained to pull whenever you get a lump in your throat, by all means. I just wish there was a separate insurance pool for those folks. 

Back in the day, USAA was only available to Military Officers, who the founders determined that as a group were very low risk and as such you could get insured as long as you were a Military Officer at very low rates.

Now they got greedy I think and wanted a very big pool to get a very large amount of money, but the rates have increased so that it’s just pretty much another regular insurence company.

My guess is that the pool of low risk is so small as to not attract insurence companies, they want big pools and lots of premiums.

I bought my Mooney I think a little over a year ago, I’m a high time pilot but only had I think between 25 and 50 hours in a Mooney flown in 98 or 99. Insurence was higher than I expected but thought that it would come down assuming 100 hours or so of no claims.

But it went up?

[Shadrach]

31 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Back in the day, USAA was only available to Military Officers, who the founders determined that as a group were very low risk and as such you could get insured as long as you were a Military Officer at very low rates.

Now they got greedy I think and wanted a very big pool to get a very large amount of money, but the rates have increased so that it’s just pretty much another regular insurence company.

My guess is that the pool of low risk is so small as to not attract insurence companies, they want big pools and lots of premiums.

I bought my Mooney I think a little over a year ago, I’m a high time pilot but only had I think between 25 and 50 hours in a Mooney flown in 98 or 99. Insurence was higher than I expected but thought that it would come down assuming 100 hours or so of no claims.

But it went up?

Market is hard now. I transitioned into the Mooney in 2002. I was 27 years of age with 200tt in any number of fixed gear singles. 5 hrs of dual and 10hrs solo before passengers. $1100 for standard limits and 60k hull. It was cheaper than car insurance. I’m not a vet but have had USAA for decades by way of my father (Army).  USAA Premium increases are a recent thing (last 5 years it seems). Don’t know why. They do seem less concerned about member connections to military.

[carusoam]

Welcome to CorvetteSpace… 

Like a Mooney…

Lots of steel underneath…. And composites on top…. (U&V)

The 84 Corvette was designed as an open top car…

This required very wide box structure to get over to put your feet in the wells…. All of the C4s were either removable roof, or convertible….
 

How this applies to Mooneys…

The most modern Mooneys have a composite surface…. Mounted over the two steel hoops we all have…

Hiding straps and a chute in the composite structure would be interesting, but not impossible…

The chute goes in the back next to the AC…

Adding a third hoop is a bit more invasive… but would add a better place for load spreading…. For a nice upright posture under the canopy….

 

What does the Jet use for landing gear?

They store gear while in flight don’t they?

Best regards,

-a-

 

[hais]

1 hour ago, carusoam said:

They store gear while in flight don’t they?

Cut them a slack, they couldn't get that genius designer that did the SR22

[philiplane]

On 9/13/2022 at 9:57 AM, Shadrach said:

The question is how many “multi-million dollar, more money than judgement” hits can the insurance pool absorb.  We had a cirrus come down in a neighborhood not far from me about a decade ago because of a door pop while climbing out in IMC.  That was a million dollar claim because of panic and lack of proficiency. There is something to be said for building time and confidence in legacy airframes. If enough people continue hitting the “start over” button out of panic or press their luck because they can, none of us will have access to viable insurance premiums. I think Cirrus builds a fine aircraft. Anecdotally, they seem to attract more of the kind of pilots that don’t know their imitations.

a Cirrus SR20/SR22 chute pull might result in a $350 to $900K hull loss, if the plane is totaled. Many are not. 

A plane crash with fatalities or major injuries will be much more expensive. Any lawyer will tell you there is no one alive who is not worth at least a million dollars when dead.

[A64Pilot]

12 hours ago, philiplane said:

a Cirrus SR20/SR22 chute pull might result in a $350 to $900K hull loss, if the plane is totaled. Many are not. 

A plane crash with fatalities or major injuries will be much more expensive. Any lawyer will tell you there is no one alive who is not worth at least a million dollars when dead.

Sure, but how many of those chute pulls would have been crashes, with fatalities? How many would have been successful forced landings? Look at our own threads here and see how many successful forced landings there are, where if we had chutes, they would all have been “saves”

The worst crashes are from loss of control, I know this from studying Thrush Ag plane crashes, if it came from say engine failure where control was maintained you had an over 90% chance of walking away, but loss of control from say hitting a pole / wires or stall / spin or inadvertent IMC, the odds were much, much worse.

So to use the chute apparently you have to be in control, which means it doesn’t give protection from the most deadly crashes, only thing that does it seems is training.

I believe that being IMC proficient and receiving regular unusual attitude / upset training may add a higher level of safety, but of course as the outcome is a safe conclusion of the flight no news crews are involved and it doesn’t get near the attention of a chute deployment.

As a society we all want devices to protect us, like 9 airbags in our cars, anti lock brakes, tire pressure sensors etc. Where I think a little pre-drive inspection and some high performance driving classes may make you safer than anti-lock brakes and some of the other things. And high performance automobiles.

The primary reason cars have so many air bags is that it sells well. Most auto’s aren’t built to be safe except where mandated, but safety features are added to boost sales. Cirrus initially had to have the chute to pass Certification, but very quickly their marketing dept turned it into probably their best sales feature.

I mean you wouldn’t fly your family in an old fashioned airplane without a parachute would you? Or wouldn’t you feel safer if something happened to your Husband if you had a parachute that would save you all as opposed to not having one? Whole airplane parachutes are 100 years old, but very quickly went away.

[Shadrach]

12 hours ago, philiplane said:

a Cirrus SR20/SR22 chute pull might result in a $350 to $900K hull loss, if the plane is totaled. Many are not. 

A plane crash with fatalities or major injuries will be much more expensive. Any lawyer will tell you there is no one alive who is not worth at least a million dollars when dead.

Absolutely a lawyer would say that because for case that involves litigation that's likely true.  However, the survival of the occupants is not the main deciding factor.  Gruesome hypothetical of me and family auguring into a mountain. Likely not much left intact post crash...(unfortunately I've seen more fatal crash sites than I'd like). How is 4MM coming out of the aviation insurance pool and who is receiving it? 

[A64Pilot]

A question that needs answering is the frequency of GA accidents that the owner of the aircraft insurence pays for deaths of the accident victims? I’m thinking less than many think. Besides I’m not so sure how many deaths the chutes prevent, not heard of any successful chute deployments from spatial disorientation for example, usually ran out of gas or the engine quit, most I think are usually survivable without the chute.

It could be like anti-lock brakes which were touted as life saving devices for years, until the stats were looked at.

Now on a flight where the victims paid for a ticket I bet is a whole different thing, I think the lawsuits begin before the sun sets.

 

On edit, I’m not saying CAPS doesn’t increase safety, I’m sure it does, just I believe Cirrus’s marketing dept way over states it’s level of safety, but then whose marketing dept doesn’t overstate?

[Shadrach]

On 9/15/2022 at 9:04 AM, A64Pilot said:

Sure, but how many of those chute pulls would have been crashes, with fatalities? How many would have been successful forced landings? Look at our own threads here and see how many successful forced landings there are, where if we had chutes, they would all have been “saves”

The worst crashes are from loss of control, I know this from studying Thrush Ag plane crashes, if it came from say engine failure where control was maintained you had an over 90% chance of walking away, but loss of control from say hitting a pole / wires or stall / spin or inadvertent IMC, the odds were much, much worse.

So to use the chute apparently you have to be in control, which means it doesn’t give protection from the most deadly crashes, only thing that does it seems is training.

I believe that being IMC proficient and receiving regular unusual attitude / upset training may add a higher level of safety, but of course as the outcome is a safe conclusion of the flight no news crews are involved and it doesn’t get near the attention of a chute deployment.

As a society we all want devices to protect us, like 9 airbags in our cars, anti lock brakes, tire pressure sensors etc. Where I think a little pre-drive inspection and some high performance driving classes may make you safer than anti-lock brakes and some of the other things. And high performance automobiles.

The primary reason cars have so many air bags is that it sells well. Most auto’s aren’t built to be safe except where mandated, but safety features are added to boost sales. Cirrus initially had to have the chute to pass Certification, but very quickly their marketing dept turned it into probably their best sales feature.

I mean you wouldn’t fly your family in an old fashioned airplane without a parachute would you? Or wouldn’t you feel safer if something happened to your Husband if you had a parachute that would save you all as opposed to not having one? Whole airplane parachutes are 100 years old, but very quickly went away.

I have a friend that had a VFR, night time, engine failure in an SR22T at 11,500MSL. At the time of failure he was over an airport with a 5000+ runway. He made it in without problem but had to be towed in for mx.  The telling thing is that he was chastised for not deploying CAPS by many members of the Cirrus community as well as the factory rep that investigated the failure.  His take was that it was unreasonable to surrender control of the aircraft to Mother Nature in a situation where he had more than enough reserve energy to complete the flight to his "newly revised" destination. I agree that in the event of an emergency, saving the airplane is the lowest priority. However, it seems that the CSIP program has found that most Cirrus owners have better outcomes when they remove themselves from the equation and ride the chute.  That's a statistical calculation that is likely true, but that does not mean that there is not a more optimal balance. As I said, I think Cirrus builds a fine aircraft and they have created incremental sales in GA, a feat almost no other manufacturer has been able to accomplish.  With those incremental sales (consumers that would have not likely become pilots otherwise) comes a minority with personality traits/skill deficits that find them in situations they aren't up to managing. I am sure they are trying to train for that but the over arching message has been to just pull and ride it down. If that's one's mentality, it becomes easier to rationalize one's way into scenarios that might have otherwise been avoided.