Yep. Always helps to sell what the customers want to buy.

I don't know about others, but I don't doubt that having a parachute will appeal to a certain demographic.

Unfortunately, I think that demographic is not a great addition to GA*. But I want to see more reliance on proficiency and skill rather than a parachute. The vast majority of accidents has nothing to do with a type of mechanical failure that could be saved by a parachute (like a total engine failure). They're using the parachute to compensate for their lack of airmanship. No thanks.

I hope Mooney doesn't add a parachute. Make an airplane for those of us who want a fast and modern airplane, who like to be proficient pilots, and who don't fly VFR into IMC, fly into known icing due to get-thereitis, or stall/spin in the pattern.

* Of course there will be exceptions - people who want a parachute for reasons having nothing to do with proficiency.

For sure, Mooney suffers from the assumption that they're uncomfortably tight in the cabin. More room would be great. I think the pilot side door was a good add.

And useful load surely matters. But also consider that insurance will be cheaper for a fixed gear airplane.

There are many factors in play. Mooney probably needs to make incremental improvements first (landing gear) and sell a bunch of units, in order to fund R&D for something even better.

Al, I think you're vastly underestimating the concern buyers have over a failure that is not of their making.

Mike Patey can certainly handle stick and rudder challenges, but he's still adding a chute to Scrappy.

Actually, they’re using the parachute, because they’re following the required training provided by Cirrus, even to buyers of previously owned aircraft. Cirrus training has a strong proficiency and skill component.

BWTHDIK

A lack of proficiency haunts many, many pilots. Seems like there's a thread on here weekly where someone posts that they don't need to practice [insert maneuver/procedure] because they don't do them. I don't think it has anything to do with why pilots buy Cirruses or other planes with chutes, in the same way I don't think people started buying cars with airbags because they thought it allowed them to be less careful on the road.

The chutes are popular because they make accidents more survivable, and they make it easier to convince spouses that the plane is safe.

If Mooney manages to put trailing link gear and a chute on the 2 door model, I think they're back in the game.

And I think you're missing something. I would not be surprised if the selling point of the chute on a significant number of Cirrus's is not for the pilot but for the non-pilot passenger spouse.

And I think you're missing something. I would not be surprised if the selling point of the chute on a significant number of Cirrus's is not for the pilot but for the non-pilot passenger spouse.

I'm not sure I agree. I'm in the 250hrs+ per year camp. I fly all over the US and Latin America. I won't fly no more in a piston airplane without a chute. It makes no sense not to have a chute when there is already a manufacturer that has one that has certainly saved lives. Add airbags to that too.

There was an accident in a Comanche where the wife lost her life and he is critically injured, not because he could not fly, it's because finding a nice flat suitable place to land is simply a crap shoot. Maybe not having shoulder harnesses (we don't know that yet) was also a contributor.

Not having a chute on an airplane is simply idiocy. If Mooney does not fix that idiocy, they'll be a parts supplier for a dwindling supply of airplanes.

Gross weight addition is a nice to have, but unless it's with a chute in mind, they're fooling themselves.

We have the tools to save a fair number of accidents even if they are pilot error. Why not use them?

I love mooneys. I lust after a missile or rocket. I am, and most of you are, an irrelevant audience.

- The percentage of the flying public that thinks it's a fun idea to put a pressure mask on and fly 230 KTAS above FL 180 is miniscule.

- The percentage of the general public that thinks it's a fun idea, is nonexistant.

Cirrus gets the general public flying. Sidestick & seats = lexus cockpit. Parachute = young money willing to give flying a chance.

These people only care about useful load insofar as they can fill the seats with friends and fly their mission. They only care about gear insofar as they are confident landing the airplane safely.

Every new traveling airplane should be pressurized. Useful load should be a problem of the past - put a small turbine on the front. Parachute and autoland should be givens. So should a sidestick, new fliers don't care about springs dampening "feel." There's plenty of old airplanes to fly for those of us who enjoy it. This thread and the DA50 thread converge, here.

Useful load increase on a 70 yr old airframe? Trailing link gear? 20% discount to Cirrus? Light your money on fire.

Do you think 700k vs 1.1M makes a difference to the new airplane purchaser writ large? It does not. Perceived value for money does. These guys pay $575 hourly - plus an instruction feee - to learn on brand new SR22Ts (don't believe me? https://www.theflightacademy.com/).

Long story short: Mooney builds a retractable gear cirrus with FADEC piston (ovation), with an option to pressurize + turbo (acclaim), or they shouldn't bother building new airplanes anymore. Both of them should have a chute and autoland. If not? There's an existing fleet of 7,000 airframes to support, that's a mighty fine business too, and there's no shame in it.

-J

Mooney would have to re-design and re-certify the fuselage to pressurize it. Can't simply add a turbo, a controller and an outlet valve, and it's not built like a P210 fuselage either. Doors, windows, windshield, floor, bulkheads, etc have to be sealed and strengthened, it wasn't designed that way. It's got a chromemoly frame and a light skin.

Adding a chute would be a major re-design exercise as well.

Exactly. None of this can or should be done on an M20. Clean sheet or go home.

-J

Mooney 301. 35 years too late to the party though. That one plane could have been Mooneys lifeblood but another bankruptcy got in the way.

Absolutely. We should be encouraging more people to be pilots, not less. We're already a very small minority of the population.

The more my wife likes to fly in the small plane to more I get to fly. I'd paint the plane pink if that's what got her to fly more often. I fly a Cirrus, but I think she likes the side sticks as much as the chute. Gets the yoke out from in front of her. She liked the throw-over single yoke on the Baron too, for the same reason.

Fortunately for me she indulges my preference for going private versus commercial. The fact that we can bring paintings, tools, wine, bourbon, and more than what we could bring on a commercial flight really helps.

They built that one. They just decided to change everything about it and turn it into the TBM.