Blue on Top

@aviatoreb This is just my opinion. Bonding dissimilar materials together that are this large is not a good idea. Bonding aluminum to aluminum is a good idea. Bonding CF to CF is okay, too. CF to CF is just heavy and tolerances are critical (bond line thickness like resin content is a large weight driver. CF parts vary in weight +/- 7%. On a plus note for composites is the more of the structure that is co-cured, the lighter is becomes. The drawback to that is one simple mistake causes a much higher dollar part to be scrapped ... ask Boeing about the $BB they spent developing the 787 processes. As others have mentioned the bottom line, the wood wing by rumor is 5-6 mph faster than the aluminum wing. This is most likely due to the plywood maintaining shape better than the thin aluminum. The wood wing was fabric covered.

@bonal OMG! Perfect lead in! The magic number with stall speed is actually 61 knots. The certification basis for all M20s is CAR 3 (various amendment levels, though), which states the airplane must stall at or below 61 knots in the landing configuration. But, if it goes above 61 knots, Mooney could go to a newer certification regulation (Part 23) which allows the stall speed to go above 61 knots. The drawback to this is the seats would then need to be brought up to the current 26G requirement … and that is a HUGE deal. Your flap idea is actually a good one. If done correctly, ALL structural loading and testing with flaps would need to be re-addressed. Your premise is not flawed at all. Gross weight is set by many variables: structures, aerodynamics, performance, etc.

@Nick Pilotte In a single word, "Yes." It can be done, though. The CTE (coefficient of thermal expansion) between the composite material and the metallic material has to be accounted for. Also, there will need to be some chicken fasteners installed to stop crack propagation when/if the bond line fails (yes, it's in the regulations). Another consideration is damage tolerance. The minimum layup for composites is typically 2-core-2, and aluminum is lighter than this … unless the skin is load carrying on the inboard portions of wing. Why 2-core-2? The core is to add stiffness, but … can one damage the inside without a noticeable mark on the outside? (hail, dropped tool, etc.)

@ArtVandelay Yes, the spar of a Cirrus is carbon fiber … the only part. Well, except the paint scheme. There would be several issues trying to put an aluminum spar into a composite skin and ribs. BTW: The flight controls and flaps are aluminum … for the reasons I have stated previously. Cirrus is heavy; and they know it. Chute sells … to that type of pilot.

Although I'm drooling over your Ti bicycles and watches, I still love my aluminum Specialized Secteur Elite. I'm just an old guy that's done a couple Half Ironmans.

@ArtVandelay As Abraham Lincoln once said, "Don't believe everything you read on the internet." Seriously, though, there may be some parts on an airplane that can be lighter in CF, but more likely they are easier to make in CF than aluminum (like the cowling) than to be lighter than aluminum. The vast majority of material failure modes on an airplane are in compression/buckling where CF is poor at best (it's all the resin/matrix/glue). Aluminum has known buckling loads and fatigue characteristics; CF does not. Please don't Google "CF fatigue". Composites have a fatigue life just like everything else. What they don't have is warning signs of fatigue failure. After it fails, the matrix dust blows away. CF is also poor with point loads, and a metallic (typically titanium, LOL) insert needs to be installed to transfer the loads through a larger surface area. I agree with you on potential areas to remove weight (the wing spar, too), but would the weight savings be worth the cost of certification?

@aviatoreb I like the way you're thinking, and you're correct! I know the certification processes well (and am on a couple of ASTM committees writing the new compliance to Part 23). What I am not sure about with Ti is heat transfer, temperature vs strength properties (which I believe are very good) and fatigue (which I think is not so good).

@M20Doc And, while your boys were still partying on Dec 24, 1944, my father took a swim in the Channel for them. Google "Leopoldville", one of the largest naval losses of WWII (853 people lost their lives).

1. Costs would be significantly higher (not plus $1M but go from 850K to $1M) because of the number of frames made (especially versus bicycles) all new machining tooling and "automated" welding? TT bikes are stiff to get every fiber of human horsepower to the road. Stiffness transfers power well. A good comparison would be to compare component to component price between the materials. My aluminum frame bike is 30% cost of the same frame in carbon. How does a titanium rear cassette set compare to a standard steel set? Yes, it might only be $200 more, but it's also 3 times more expensive ($100 steel versus $300 titanium). 1000s of each bike type are produced annually, too. 3. You have a very intelligent friend; keep him/her. Grumman airplanes were bonded together. We can bond today, but we'd also have to design in a few chicken fasteners here and there in case the bond sheared apart. Yes, composite airplanes have to do that, too.

A titanium frame structure would be lighter but would also be many times more expensive. The M20 would be in excess of $1M. Because of its properties (stiff and brittle … like carbon), crashworthiness would not be as good. Strong without an elastic energy absorption is bad. Carbon Fiber is NOT lighter than aluminum … especially where minimum thickness comes into play. CFRP material alone is heavier than 0.020 aluminum used on flight controls and some skins. Oh, then add the required copper mesh to take care of HIRF/Lightening … and add all the weight/complexity/part count of bonding straps … oh and add a second wire harness (doubling your current harnesses) everywhere because the carbon frame isn't quite conductive enough to carry the return current. Or, save weight and use an aluminum mesh (ha, ha, ha) … then add more weight back in with a non-structural fiberglass separation layer so the carbon doesn't corrode the aluminum. The 787 is carbon for one reason and one reason only: it doesn't corrode. It is NOT lighter than aluminum or have a better strength to weight ratio. BTW, the shell of the M20 is fiberglass. At least it was when my engineers first designed it. No comment if it is now carbon. BTW2, the shell is as heavy or heavier than the aluminum shell was … costs more … and takes more labor, too!

1. Yes, correct … especially for required FAA composite certification materials and processes. Composite processes already defined by the FAA (NIAR database) need to be duplicated by an OEM to prove they can meet the minimum requirements (lots and lots of samples) of that specification. New composite processes/materials must complete a 3X times sampling to prove strength, voids and repeatability. A new composite material or process costs in excess of $2M. Total aircraft costs were not looked at until 3 years into the program. 2. Yes; no comment. 3. I am not sure. I was not allow to even see the aircraft specification until late in the program. Ironically, the Chief Engineer is the one that should be signing his/her name to that document at the inception of the program as a commitment as to what can be done. When I was finally shown it and asked to rewrite it, another rock and hard place appeared. Write it to meet the POC (an airplane needing redesign) or write it to what can be done from past history … showing the POC didn't meet it's performance goals.

@MooneyMitch Mitch: The number of perspectives on this topic is greater than the number of people involved. I know that I will say too much, but these are only my thoughts … but VERY restricted and with no intended disrespect to anyone. The project was doomed even before I got there in early 2014. An outside engineering firm(s) was(were) selected, before I was hired, to complete the M20 shell and the M10 POC. The firm(s) was(were) selected because of a project that they had completed before that involved a few of Mooney's senior management. BUT, in the meantime this company went through a major breakup. Unfortunately, as a result, both companies lost the majority of their talents … although each were headed by a strong, singular talent. Some of the Chino engineers ended up doing the M20 shell CATIA work. As for the "first" M10 POC, the second part of the engineering firm, now very inexperienced, had signed up for an impossible schedule. When I arrived in March, there were few parts designed, no parts made and first flight was scheduled for August. My job was to look over the shoulder of this engineering firm to note what would be needed to be changed to certify the airplane.. Less than a week on the job, I knew that the schedule was beyond impossible … even for a small, very experienced group. Now, I'm immediately between a rock and a hard place. How does one tell his bosses (and friends of the engineering firm) that there is no way this engineering firm could possibly deliver on their promises? Late one evening, Jerry pulled me into his office. I thought it was my last day. Instead, it was a pep talk for me. He explained the great legacy of the M20, and I was to make the M10 the same. Three months after the scheduled first flight, the Chino engineering team did a great job and delivered the first mockup to China … and the engineering firm walked out on us … on our night of celebration. Fourteen months later, the Chino engineering team built a second mockup (for the US) and flew a totally new, re-designed, M10 POC for the first time. I thought a roaring success. To our investors, we were 18 months late. This is but the tip of the iceberg, but more than I should say. Do I think an all new M10 can be designed built and flown in less than a year? Heck yes! Kerrville can make ANYTHING in aluminum … sexy shapes and all . Simplicity and manufacturing HAS to be designed in from day one!

Okay, so I'll throw my 2 cents in … I was there. In this case, I would say that even hindsight is not 20/20. I believe that nobody inside or outside of Mooney knows the "whole picture" or "the rest of the story". Here's my thoughts, my story and I am sticking to it. The M20 is a good airplane, but it looks old … and I think it is purely shape. On several occasions, we would put the M10 and M20 beside each other and ask a potential customer which airplane was $500K and which was $800K? 100% of the time, the M10 was the $800K airplane. When we let them know the M20 carried 4 at 242 knots and the M10 carried 2/3 at 150 knots, the opinions were unchanged. The customer doesn't buy an airplane based on its construction material. Many people believe that the newer Citations (Citation CJ3 and on) are composite … they are not. The exception to this is trainers. Trainers must be aluminum due to very rough operating conditions and maintenance. (I've said this many, many times before) Aluminum airplanes are much lighter than composites ones (you can even ask Cirrus (engineers … they've had a weight reduction program going on for a decade+ ). As for the M10, the initial concept was (and still is) fantastic! After a rocky start, we designed, built and flew the POC (proof of concept) airplane in 14 months. It now has ~170 hours on it and is in Kerrville. Garmin suite, diesel engine and 100% carbon airplane didn't come anywhere close to the expected price point, weight or performance. We learned a lot on the POC aircraft. Do I believe that a ~$450K, 2/3-place traveling/training, all aluminum, non-diesel, nice but simple IFR/VFR panel and a 150-160 knot airplane sell? Heck yes! I see that every day on Facebook postings from people like all y'all. Simplicity and cost of manufacturing have to be ENGINEERED into the design from day one. Again, just my 2 cents.

@MooneyMitch Your D/C is gorgeous. Artcraft does a fantastic job, too!

So, accepting and getting over the fact (reality) that if one made an M20J today, it MIGHT cost 50-100K less than an "Ovation" if you watch what you're doing really, really closely. So ... Does anyone think that there is a market for a 400-500K airplane that has a smaller engine and less integrated avionics? BTW, new airplane sales have never been to the $100 hamburger person. Even the C180 is called a "Businessliner". They were purchased to save time, a quantity that none of us can make more of. Yes, there are some wealthy people that buy them for other than business purposes … but it is still to save time. If grandma, grandpa and the dog can visit different grandchildren and/or vacation every weekend, the costs are justified. @MooneyMitch Did you give up that gorgeous airplane for the Ovation? Beautiful paint scheme! I have that "Flight" magazine . The color picture is sooooo much nicer.

0. @wingwalker63 I am agreeing with you, but please consider apples to apples comparisons. 1. It would be great to produce M20s at 400-500K, but the airplanes are not C/D/E/F airplanes anymore (but maybe they should be). The new airplanes are longer, have much larger engines, better interiors, glass panels, dual nav/coms, ADS-B, etc. 2. You forgot to add your year or two of build time. Factory workers don't work for nothing. I totally agree with you on the intent. We need to quit making only Porsches and start designing/building Chevrolets. Although less expensive, there is more money in the everyday vehicle.

@chinoguym20 The manufacturing people in Kerrville were a very talented but more importantly very knowledgeable group, but most have been let go. I was honored to meet and impressed by all of them that I got a chance to get to know. I think the factory is supported with less than 20 people now (being generous). Regretfully, people age as time goes on (and Mooney goes in and out of production). I don't know how many would return if the factory started up again. There is no doubt in my mind that the ones that do return could and would teach the next generations how to build great airplanes. They were very open with me. With that said, I also know that some areas have been completely depleted just due to natural attrition and the layoffs. The M20 is simply a labor intensive design. It was designed when machining was expensive and labor was relatively inexpensive. Today those roles have been reversed with labor being expensive and machining being relatively inexpensive. As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, there are some processes/parts that could be done better and less expensively, but each would have to be looked at on a case by case basis and end to end. It is not a simple task as there are multiple sides to each coin … or die might be a better analogy. A new Mooney would need to be a much flatter organization with very experienced and knowledgeable management. Isn't that the case with all corporations today? In addition (yes there are some things that could be outsourced), Mooney has the capabilities to make ANYTHING out of aluminum sheet and steel tubing. They should not only be building airplanes, they should also be insourcing all the products that other, less competent companies can't produce. Cessna and Beech (now Textron Aviation) have been in business for ~90 years each because they can do it all … although that too is going away with new management/ownership. I wish Mooney all the best and will help anywhere I can.

@Fry Here is what Don Maxwell posted on Facebook (I added the red arrow): There are 3 common shapes of VOR/Localizer antennas: the blade (pictured), wires in a "V" shape (as you mentioned) and what people call "towel bar" antennas. The "towel bars" are roughly the same external/outside dimensions as the blades but look like a 1/2" rod bent in a rectangular, "U" shape …. like a towel bar for a wash cloth. Hope this helps! PS. Forgot to mention that the lowest drag of the 3 is the two wires in a "V". This is counter-intuitive as most people (including me … an aerodynamicist) would think that the blades are the lowest drag. The blades have more surface area (drag) and are more sensitive to local angle of attack. Bonus info

@MikeOH and all: All are now starting to understand the rest of the story. Every designed part (which excludes standard nuts, bolts, fasteners, etc.) has to be made to Type Design (or equivalent approved) and all processes by each approved manufacturer (yes, there is a process there, too) has to be approved, too. Bring in single sourcing (bad idea for an OEM, as they could be held hostage by an unhappy vendor, and it just gets worse. How does an OEM keep two vendors happy when each vendor is making 5-50 parts a year for 10 to 100 airplanes a year? As in reference to the Production Certificate (PC), if Mooney would move production to Longview, TX (no, not starting rumors) with the identical workers, identical tooling/fixturing and identical processes/procedures, they would still have to requalify for a new/amended PC because the PC is site specific. As a last comment (this time ), yes there are people on the internet that can fix Mooney.

@Fry The two pieces of "sheet metal" are the VOR/Localizer antennas. On some airplanes, they have an added/bonus benefit of slowing vertical airflow on the vertical stabilizer. This is not the case on Mooney aircraft, which do not have that vertically upward flow (because the vertical surface is forward swept). I think you might be referencing Don Maxwell's photo on Facebook this morning. The only dumb question is the one that is not asked. Hope this helps.

@Ibra On a good note, drag reduction works at all altitude and speeds. Adding power and weight not so much . Piper and Beech both had automatic gear and pilots/owners hated it.

Have you done this in aviation where mass production is not even a viable, realistic concept? Yes, there are many areas on Mooney aircraft where labor can be reduced (the spar being one of the biggest), but how do you recoup costs of a several million dollar redesign on the margins of production of 10 or even 100 airplanes a year? The break even time is longer than the longevity of the last 5 Mooney "Company" owners (maybe even combined). Btw, building a fiberglass, aerodynamic shell is not one of them. With you being an owner of one of the new airplanes, I totally respect where you are coming from and want to listen to all you have to say.

Interesting read. I hope the financial facts are more accurate than the airplane "facts". There are only 2 parts of a Cirrus that are "carbon": the main spar and one of the paint schemes. As for the M20 shell, it was originally fiberglass. This is the only way to get it nearly as light as the aluminum was. Carbon would need a lightening strike mesh for dissipation/transfer (and it makes it heavier). The article doesn't mention new owners. Hummmmmm.

1. Is one willing to live with longer gear legs, further from centerline (wider gear stance)? 2. Will the airplane tip over when entering? … especially on the 2-door model? Will rotation forces be too low? 3. LOL. Although the Mooney gear is a rigging nightmare, through the linkages, it eliminates all the up and down locks and a hydraulic system … though free-fall for emergency extension is not an option. IMHO, fixed gear is the right answer … sorry speed fanatics. We can get the speed other ways. I need to do the math, but 242 at altitude isn't very high in KIAS. Good to hear some new stuff on Mooney Space.

OMG!!! I am laughing so hard right now. Thanks for the invite @carusoam. @N201MKTurbo wins this battle. Sorry, @Hank, area information will not be in the TCDS. So here goes @Alex S. Area information is purely just a reference number and can be defined however the OEM wants to do it. Some will change it with wingtips and some will not. This is done so that competitors can't compare CLmax data . In addition, how the area covered by the fuselage is also up to the OEM - could be straight across, could be straight across at the forward end of the strake or could be continuing the line of the strake to the centerline of the fuselage. So, here's my suggestion. Measure an airplane, not including dihedral on the wing, and see how it compares to the POH value. The horizontal stabilizer and elevator should be easy. The vertical stabilizer is another guess, but again, it is just a number. On the vertical, it probably includes the leading edge continued down to the bottom of the fuselage, but I am not sure. That value might also be different throughout the years as the rudder length changed, too. Oh yeah, sweep. Yes, all the flying surfaces are definitely forward swept. Draw a ling between the quarter-chord of the root and tip airfoils. Leading edge sweep is irrelevant. Hummmmmmm. This might be a good topic for a "The Mooney Flyer" article