Cargil48

I'd love to know the details...

One thing comes to my mind... I know it's "thin ice", but let's try it anyway... Is there any chance that Mooney had such bad results lately because their owners are from mainland China? And that in the US the anti-China talk is permanent?

Interessting, though, that the first Mooney doesn't seem to sit so low as one generally sees in most pics...

I think good pics say often more than one thousand words...

It's a crime that this truly American GA jewel will most likely not be produced anymore. Jaguar and Aston Martin plus Volvo are also in the hands of Far Eastern companies, and these ones knew very well - against all odds... - to "incarnate the spirit" of these brands and all of them - plus Land Rover! - are better than they ever have been. 'nuff said, it surely is a pitty.

Here's the real thing...

Correct. Same as I said before: high aspect ratio wings.

Correct. I know those huge span glider wings bend enormously so that it looks really frightening. But it's because of the high aspect ratio they have. The fuselage is a cage, no way of getting flexible,.It's like a stiff shoe box...

Yes, building planes with composite parts or even the complete plane is indeed easier to do and much less labour intensive. And the outcome is much stiffer than the metal bird. I've read in one account that one airplane (don't recall the name anymore) had such a stiff fuselage (made out of kevlar reinforced materials) that the complete interior had to be designed and built in such a way that there was a part of absorption of the shocks originated by turbulence bumps, otherwise everybody aboard would be thrown from one side to the other of the seat... The metal construction, I learned, does indeed absorb part of the bumps. It "works" so to speak while the composite materials transmit the shock waves 100% to all what is attached to it.

I listed already the changes I made to the original design. I did nothing, nothing at all to the basic design, just what I mentioned: making the l/g struts some 3" longer, placing the front wheel strut some 7 to 8" more forward and substituing the rivets by fast straps. Nothing more. PS: I still have the original drawing in my computer, but I don't know anymore where I downloaded it from... The official Mooney website has it but whitout landing gear down...

Nope, that's the paint on the original design. My changes were (or are): I heightened the landing gear up some 3" to give a better ground clearance since some critics say the Mooneys "sit too low" and therefore are "not appealing" to bystanders... And especially to allow a better handling on grass fields. Maybe that augmenting the ground clearance would diminsh a bit the ground effect on the flare, I thought... Then, I put the forward landing gear strut some 7 to 8" more forward to give the plane a better weight distribution on the ground. And, since the height of the airplane regarding the ground is now increased, I decreased the AoA to give the plane a more horizontal position. Since when accelerating on the start roll one gets anyway an "up moment" I guess one doesn't need a big AoA of the plane when on the ground. And - to go along with some other critics - it improves the visibility forward, when on the ground. Last (but not least) I substituted those 70+ rivets holding the front compartment doors in the engine bay with quick action metal straps to allow a (much) faster access to the engine compartment.

If you guys allow me dream of how the top of the line Mooney should look, here is an artist's conception of the new Acclaim Ultra. I changed slightly some aspects which can be seen visually, let's see who finds them out. I only say I did those changes based on some critics I've read of Mooney owners and changes which could have been done by the factory, if they'd the will to do so. Construction wise, I'd see the Acclaim Ultra as a pressurized plane fully made out of composite materials, with a full Garmin 1000 NXi suite with the 700 a/p, powered by an electronically controlled (FADEC) 300/310 hp engine, carrying 120 gallon of fuel (like the Piper 350) and with incorporated automated leading edge slats like the French built TB-20 Trinidad had them already 30 years ago... I know, this probably would need a new certification, wouldnt'it?

A very interesting article I picked up on another thread here, posted by a member of NJ, whom I thank for his sharing. I upload it here because of its interest and the numbers of comparing a Mooney to other common market (i.e. well known) competitors: http://mooneyland.com/why-mooney/ And especially explaining why Mooney has the myth attached of being "cramped" inside when it is not, at least width wise.

That exactly is my thought as well. Especially after reading long articles of how Gretchen Jahn and the production manager of the time were able to "streamline" the production at Kerrville in the beginning of this millenium.

Perhaps it's a question of centering a new thread about apparently the same subject but with the proper base question... As you see, the answers here are very interesting!

Very good points! First: Any owner/pilot must know what he is buying and the details about how to use it to get the performance the plane is able to give him. Second: I disagree on that "entry level" plane which the Mooney line apparently lacked. Why the need? One also doesn't buy a Mustang or a Corvette right after coming out of driving school! I'd go the "normal way of things" in GA: Get the PPL, build up some solid hours on rented "easy planes" (Piper mostly because the Mooneys are low wing) and after one dominates by heart things like cross wind landings and landings on shorter length runways then think of buying a Mooney. Because: Where is a Mooney different from other GA single engine low wing planes? In speed and the (apparent) difficulty in slowing down properly before on landing you arrive at the threshold and how to place the nose of your bird to touch down as it has to be? Otherwise, where is there a big difference in flying skills one needs when starting flying a Mooney? Conclusion: IMHO one needs to train how to fly a Mooney in a real Mooney M20, not on an easier to fly trainer. Am I correct? PS: I for myself regard the (failed) M10T as the correct step into modern days flying but NOT as a trainer, instead as a high performance composite built Mooney, just to follow the evolution of present times. And I don't know if I (should I have been "that millionaire getting Mooney up again") would make it with fixed gear. A Mooney is a retractable and any owner/pilot has to have this solidly burnt down in his brains... You also buy and drive a Porsche knowing it has a rear placed engine and rear wheel drive! And you know the consequences of this on a sinuous road when it's raining don't you?...

The Mooney Acclaim Ultra is as all know a big improvement in that direction. Its improved comfort and view is a one-piece composite shell, which allows an additional pilot-side door, larger windows and a wider door while keeping the weight the same. (from the company's statement). Plus that fantastic interior and the avionic package makes the Acclaim Ultra really the "latest 911 Porsche of the skies". But few wanted it... Maybe money is easily availble these times and owners of single engine GA planes prefer the turboprops.

Hi, all I'm a new member and registered mainly to make this question you can read on the title. I know, Mooney had had several very hard times, has been closed for up to two years (if I'm not mistaken) and found always the means to resurrect again. Not this time, I'm afraid. What went wrong in a company with such a strong brand and presence in the GA market? I'd say it's not hard to guess: the market changed. One part, those buying today new single piston airplanes, go for the new, modern looking, stylish models like the SR 22. They don't care if there is tradition behind the Cirrus brand, they look at the product, what they get for the money they spend and - probably for a lot of them - the safety the ballistic chute gives. Probably for the wife and mother of the kids seating in the back seats it has more importance than to the owner/pilot himself... Then, when even a 180hp Archer shows up with the ultra-appealing (and useful) Garmin G1000 NXi cockpit including an Aspen Standby EFD1000 and even a GFC 700 a/p as an option... which entry level Mooney has to offer similar features for those who buy such a "bread and butter" airplane? And at what price when the Archer costs $390k with all those features? The average aviation enthusiast wants to buy a safe, proven design placed at the upper end of single piston engined planes? He has the Cirrus SR22T. 310 hp on 94 octane fuel, the unique "Cirrus Perspective Plus" glass cockpit including EVS, ADS-B and 5 seats... Okay, the cruise speed is only sightly above 180 knots, but I'd say every Ferrari has more appeal and is faster than the newest street legal Porsche 911, and this one outsells the Italian brand by at least ten to one I dare say... It's a pity, but what did Mooney wrong? Or put in another way: Assume an American investor already owning several top notch airplanes (I'm thinking of Steve Allen) would buy out Mooney for a fraction all the stuff they now have inside the factory at Kerrville is really worth, what do you all out there think the "new Mooney" line should look like? Happy flights to all Mooneytarians! Charles G.

Short and right on target. Remains to be seen - by the Mooney community as well as potential new customers - which demands they made and were not fulfilled.