Antonio wrote:
run some numbers for benchmarking…
Now corrected in response to several forumites providing more useful data on Mooney production numbers (from the ASN-sourced count 3638 to the more realistic 11000), putting them back amongst the safety leaders. Still , if you are going to crash, you should do so in a Diamond. To stay on topic, as MCR4Ss go, there seems to be something that needs addressing (or perhaps has been addressed, flaps?) on the type.
For discussion other than MCR4S I just opened this thread for safety benchmarking by aircraft type (I was hearing @Peter in the background about forum tidiness…)
LeSving wrote:
Where can we find the kits? At their website there appears to be only factory builts ??
The site indeed doesn’t tell much, but I’m not sure you can order by the website. The best is to call them, I would say.
The improved flap mechanism on the “Evolution” (there is also a retrofit IIUC) is available on the kit. It is an answer to a problem and possibly the result of several of the accidents or near accidents.
The original flap mechanism has a brass screw siding inside another brass fitment. (I am afraid I can’t translate it “vis mere” mother screw does not seem to make sense to me). The flaps are electric. The POH/MM called for these to be checked as part of the pre flight, measured (originally 0.5mm now O.2mm or at least what I think I was told by a club nearby) every 100hr visit and changed every 300hours. I’m not sure that all this was in the original MM.
It would appear that many of the incidents were the result of owners not doing this.
IIUC clubs tend to do their own 50hr and have now added measuring that to their 50hr check as advised by OSAC?
What tended to happen if one failed is that one flap operated and the other didn’t which of caused a major roll effect. It was still possible to land the aircraft without damage but was not easy.
Digging down through the 21 accidents that, so far, is the only what might be considered design fault I have found.
One of the accidents could be considered technical as it was loss of power/engine failure after take off. The pilot decided to turn back to the runway and stalled. Surface temperature at the time was 49°.
I really can’t blame that one on MC’s design or the build.
greg_mp wrote:
They will continue to provide kits of course.
Where can we find the kits? At their website there appears to be only factory builts ??
Anyway, this one looks cool :
Talking about MCR4S, Eric Fumey (mcr.aero) said during Aero that they are targetting CS23 certification for the 915is version, for which they are trying to be certified. They will continue to provide kits of course.
Later version of MCR4S do have enhanced canopy (with a single point of locking, as required for CS23), new seats (100x more confortable than the plastic bucket ones), improved flaps mechanism…
They are also developping a drone based on the MCR4S, targetting fire detection. With fuel instead of paxes, they are able to fly it for 36 hours :P.
Were the causes of all those accidents technical?
I think you are missing the main point here which is something along the ratio of 10-20% of all units built of a particular model have been in a fatal accident, that is significant. Comparing it to Cirrus is irrelevant.
Yes I am hoping to get there if I can. Some friends are taking their Cri Cri and another his MCR01.
There’s a Colomban fly-in taking place, dates 9-12/05/2024, in France:
Rassemblement de printemps des avions Colomban à PONS
