Statistics is still statistics. Cirrus has substantial differential training, the MCR probably has none. But as a homebuilt, it probably have more quirks and “funny” behavior that objectively should require more differential training than the Cirrus. A C-172 is what “everyone” has trained on from the start. In addition it is perhaps the safest aircraft possible when it comes to docile and predictive behavior. Why accidents still occur at the rate it does on the C172 is probably a more relevant question IMO.
Then there’s the hours flown on each type, and how it’s flown. A Cirrus is designed to go long and fast. Not much can happen flying on autopilot at 10k feet. An MCR has a bit different life I would think. If the hours flown were taken into account, the Cirrus and similar “cruisers” would probably appear to be even safer vs the MCR than the table above shows.
It would be more interesting to see what the causes for the accidents in the MCR were. I have never flown one of those, but I understand they are a bit special. Is that a cause of accidents?
There’s a Colomban fly-in taking place, dates 9-12/05/2024, in France:
Rassemblement de printemps des avions Colomban à PONS
Yes I am hoping to get there if I can. Some friends are taking their Cri Cri and another his MCR01.
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.
Were the causes of all those accidents technical?
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.
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 :
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.
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.
