Urs_Wildermuth

Supporter
  • Content count

    148
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Urs_Wildermuth last won the day on November 20 2015

Urs_Wildermuth had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

70 Excellent

About Urs_Wildermuth

  • Rank
    Full Member
  • Birthday 12/27/1962

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.hbdwc.ch
  • Skype
    urswildermuth

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    LSZH
  • Interests
    Flying, travel, music,
  • Reg #
    HB-DWC
  • Model
    M20C, 1965
  1. Thanks guys! This is pretty much what I thought. The thought of hitting the downlock in an uncommanded release is outright scary, but I wonder how that happened. In the event I had, the lever never got higher than my tigh and the gear stayed there, right in transit about 50% between up and down. I immediately pulled the throttle back and kept the nose up to get the speed down and then initally put the gear all the way down and locked first, then, after a short assessment, put it back up again at about 80 mph. What I did notice however was a quite pronounced nose down pitch movement, the moment the gear released which the AP could not counter initially. Wondering how to include this in our abnormal checklist. Uncommanded gear extension - Speed ....................... reduce to below 120 mph - Gear ......................... down and lock - Situation .................. assess If no damage visible and airplane flies normally - Gear ......................... as required - Consider following abnormal Landing Gear Indication Procedure If abnormal behaviour encountered or damage evident - Landing gear............... keep down and locked Follow abnormal Landing Gear Indication Procedure
  2. Folks, a question for you. In recent days, we have had multiple cases where the landing gear of my M20C extended uncommanded, after the Johnson Bar escaped the uplock. This is not very funny when it happens, two cases were below 120mph and one at 140 mph. First of all, is there any maintenance action necessary if the gear has extended above 120mph? We did a visual inspection after landing and everything seemed ok. 2ndly: What can cause this? We never had this in 7 years of ownership and now 3 times in a row. The last time I was PIC and I did retract the gear again and it held, so maybe it was not completely in. Are there still sources to get a better uplock? Maybe ours is too worn? I always thought of the manual gear as being an assett, but right now I have my doubts.
  3. I never yet forgot to put it down but I had a gear warning in flare (just about at touch down) once which scared the bejazis out of me... Turns out that the Johnson wasn't properly locked but somehow managed to show green anyhow initially. During touch down it appears to have shaken loose sufficiently to trigger the red light and sound, but thankfully stayed in. I immediately grabbed the handle and pressed forward with all strenght I could muster and braked to a stop, then gave it another push up and the warning ceased and it clicked in place. Lesson learnt: really shake and yank that lever on final to make darn sure it is secure.
  4. Hmm. I must say I am quite surprised about this, particularly in the US. Apart, this is not my experience normally. Over here, there are whole magazines full of new cars, forums which discuss every new model enthusiastically and shows where millions of people flock to see the new offerings. Not many of them will ever buy one, but the interest is very much alive. Apart, i felt that particularly the M10 was something quite important for the Mooney brand too. Don't get me wrong, i will probably never buy new either, actually never have, I am 55 and into my 3rd car, all of which were 2nd hand. My plane is 4th hand as far as I can tell and I am darn glad I could afford it! But that does not mean the developments in new airplanes do not interest me, particularly if the brand which furnishes spare parts for my own plane depends on new sales. I always thought that there is a small but dedicated market for the expensive M20's we have currently but there would be a much larger market for something like the M10 or the often discussed entry level M20. That is why I was a bit surprised when after the first couple of posts, things became absolutely silent on the M10 and the interest in the fact that there was a significant development in the 20 also remained quite subdued. In the end, we all depend on Mooney to survive as a company and they can only do that by selling new planes. And all of our planes were once new too, without the sale of new planes, there is no base for 2nd hand ones in 10 years or so.
  5. I'll settle for a 170 kt Diesel. But you do get the drift... Mooney has to come back to what made it big: Efficient, economical and affordable airplanes which make the best use of available power and deliver the best knots per buck.
  6. If true, best news I've heard today. Re the used Cheyenne vs new Mooney comparison, well, that is worse than apples and oranges. Any idea how much a Cheyenne costs to keep? That 300k difference or what it was will be eaten up in no time at all. Anyhow, people who shop for planes like a Cheyenne are hardly the typical Mooney customers, are they. Other than that, the calc is easy enough. If there are new planes produced, if the make is alive, it will do all of us some good. If it goes down, we have a huge problem with the maintenance of the fleet. Apart, any newly sold Mooney will probably free up a previously owned one at prices where those who will never buy new will buy. Well, I hope the news re the M10 is true.
  7. Glad to see that the thread is lively and the issues are coming onto the table. Thanks for participating. I did maybe voice my original post in a bit of a provocative way but while those of you who pointed me to the relevant threads of course have a point, those threads did not explain why there was no mentionable interest from the outset. Actually, I was not very much referring to the cancellation when I said there was few interest, but it struck me that there was almost no discussion at the time when the M10 was announced (I realize there were some messages, but if I compare this to other product specific fora I read, it showed very few interest in the development) as well as when the Ultra specs came out too. My question why has been answered pretty much in the past 4 pages of messages. In short, the products offered by Mooney are way too expensive (which it has in common with most other companies as well) and even here, there is considerable doubt about the economical viability of such a new airplane. So in short, it is not only Mooney which have the problem that legal hassles (certification and product liability) has driven up prices for new airplanes to unreachable heights. However, some of the competitors are selling and have an avid followership who will buy the new products (which of course frees up used airplanes for those who can't afford a new one) and appear to be more solid in the market. The obvious question is, what can Mooney do to improve that. My personal theory is that Mooney lacks an entry level bare bone model which most competitors have, often not really with the intent of selling it but to simply show potential customers a base price which may be significantly lower than what the customer ends up buying. This is something every car company does but for the biggest luxury brands. Cirrus has the SR20. I don't have the numbers but I think it's sales figures compared to the SR22 are absymal. However: The client who thinks about buying will be attracted to start his thinking process towards a new Cirrus by looking at the relatively low price of an SR20, only to during the process switching to the SR22 he really wants. The question here would be, would he even talk to Cirrus if the base price of the lowest entry model was in the range of the top models. My personal opinion is, much less likely. Another factor which has been addressed here is the "wife" factor of the parashute. I agree. Cirrus did the shute originally to overcome certification issues but I guess it took them a very short time to find that the shute will do for their sales pretty much what that old chewing gum commercial did for sugarless gums: "I love it because it's the only gum my mummy allows...." I reckon that was and is a huge pro Cirrus argument. Many people, particularly spouses, are very anxious passengers and the comfort of having that shute must be an overwhelming one to them, even though some pilots may sneer. Personally, I think the shute adds a significant safety factor particularly at night and in low IMC. Of course this has it's price in terms of maintenance as well as payload. So where are we with Mooney in this regard? Mooney has no equivalent to the SR20 for starters but it has two top level models and that is it. The reaction in this forum here is more than clear, way too expensive to even think about. Mooney does not offer a shute system either, but is in good company there. And actually, Cessna sells a good number of C172's without them anyhow, I reckon the plane most hurt by the lack of a shute option for them is the Corvalis, which is the better plane than the Cirrus but has the same problem than our Mooneys... when a wife is confronted with the idea of a new plane, she will go "oh well, IF you have to have one take the one with the shute, never mind economy, speed or anything else.". I thought the M10 would solve the entry level issue quite well, while still offering a quite capable traveller with the M10J. I also thought that adding a shute system to the M10J would probably be feasible. Now that the M10 is dead in the water, we are basically back to square one. When I look at the M20, I am looking at those who sold best. By type, the best selling Mooney ever was the C model, followed by the J. Why? Because it brought the best bang for buck. In other words, it delivered the best performance (to this day) per horsepower and provided a stable and fast travel platform at an economical cost. The top models never sold that many, neither did the E outsell the C, nor did the models which followed the J/K series ever come close. With the move to big bore engines, Mooney moved away from it's core business of economical and efficient airplanes to luxury racers. A bit like if Toyota were to dump the mass product cars they sell for Lexus only. So what can Mooney do? In my opinion, Mooney needs an entry level offering more than ever, which has to be in the price range of maximum the SR20. To install shutes in the M20 cell is very difficult if not impossible, but they could set points which price and performance. For me, that kind of plane would have come fairly close to what the M10J would have been, but with the M20 cell. - A basic Mooney cell with a 180-200 hp engine, if at all possible a Diesel. There are NO fast Diesel planes around, a 170 kt Diesel (as the M10J was supposed to be) would definitly catch the attention of the market. I don't know if it would make economical sense to shorten the cell to J levels but if it could be done, it should. - Take the lessons learnt from the M10 and M20Ultra projects into the new entry level machine: More pre-fabricated parts, possibly more composite materials, less luxorious interior, possibly a bargain panel as well with Aspens instead of G1000 and possibly open avionic choice. - Introduce alternative avionic fits also for the top models. Not everyone likes the G1000 suite. This should be done with a minimum of development cost and work. Any newly developed plane should most definitly offer a shute as an option at least. Maybe this would bring back the interest in new airplanes also to those who live of the 2nd hand market. It has to be remembered that each of our planes had to be new at some stage and be sold to someone who found it attractive enough to buy. Without new sales, there are no new second hands either and the aging fleet we have will end up with more and more problems. So it can only be in our interest if the Company thrives and does not revert back to being a parts supplyer as it was for some years.
  8. Ever since Mooney started to produce planes again, I have been wondering why the new developments out of the factory have been almost ignored here on Mooneyspace as well as elsewhere. The M10 had almost no discussion whatsoever and the certification of the new M20 series has also largely been a non-event in this forum. I wonder why that is. is it the simple fact of life that there is no interest in new airplanes? Because they are too expensive? Because there is no "real" innovation? Or what else is the reason? To ask provocatively: Does it actually make sense for any of the legacy plane producers to produce new planes at all? Or would be be happy enough to see Mooney as a pure parts manufacturer to keep up the fleet we discuss here? Personally, I am deeply disappointed about the abandoned M10 series, which I felt would have been the entry model many have been asking for and also would have been a massive step in the direction of new technology. Yet, in this forum, there was one minor thread about it. Why was nobody interested in those planes? Personally, I like the idea of the Ovation and Acclaim Ultra with the pilot side door and upgraded avionics. Yet, the forum is quiet about it. Why? So why is the Mooney community so passive about these innovations? Why don't most of us care what happens in Kerrville and Chino?
  9. Well, then they better do it right next time.
  10. It doesn't have to! Even though they must have sold some as there is one prominently flying around Switzerland. See, that is what I'm trying to tell: The Eagle was the entrance model which got people into Mooney's shop. Once they were there, they opted for the higher models. But that does not make the Eagle a bad marketing idea. Why do you think Cirrus is hanging onto the SR20? They hardly sell any. Nor do they intend to I think. The price may even be set so they would loose money if they actually sell one for that price. But it gets the customers into their shop! Same thing everywhere. McDonalds for decades kept the normal burger at $1.- because of this, so people knew "I can have a burger for one dollar!" But how many bought it? It's the Big Mac or the Big Tasty and all the other stuff which makes them money. But they hang onto the entry model burger, for good reason.
  11. The bulk of the cost may not be the engine but 10k there, 10k there and soon you are talking serious money. What would need to be done is to take the "cheapest" plane they do now (which I suppose is the Ovation) and then see how you can save from there downwards. IO360/390 iso the current engine, how much? And not only the blank cost of engine, but also the rest around it. Avionics: With people liky Dynon and True Track coming up on the certified market these days, with the different options like Aspen, Avidyne e.t.c. what can you save by making a non-G1000 cockpit available? E.G an Aspen/Avidyne solution with an Aspen 1500 as standard, Dual IFD440 with Mode S and ADSB, Single JPI EDM900 engine instrument and either entry level Tru Track AP or basic S-Tec AP on the price sheet with options to go e.g. S-Tec 55x or DCF90? Materials: How much can you save by using less expensive materials on the interior? Where can you save on the building process? Where can you save weight to accomodate for the lesser power? Would it be economically feasible to shorten the long body or would it be cheaper to keep it? And then you can put an airplane onto your price sheet in the 300-400 k $ base price range, which looks very attractive to those looking at Ovations and SR22's and will get people to come into the sales shop and talk options. Like in Cirrus, most folks who walk in to get the "cheap" SR20, most will walk out with an Ovation or Acclaim, but it is to get them there first which counts. Another major challenge however will be that putting a shute in the M20 is next to impossible. So the Mooney would need to come back to it's original advantages: Speed for buck. The pity is that the Thielert/Continental Diesels are too weak to support the M20 airframe really, unless it could be massively made lighter. In Theory I could see an equivalent to the "C" Model with 155 hp, considering that the engine keeps it's power to much higher altitudes then the O360 does, it would actually have more power than an O360 at altitude but be short on the ground = bad runway performance. Still, if a model could be built which could in figures correspond to the C with empty weight to MTOW ratio, 50 USG Jet fuel and the CD155, it might prove a very attractive entry level model. Of course this would mean that the Mooney Cell would have to be reworked so it can actually do this, I don't know if the C and E cells could be that easily reproduced or if even the J cell could be lightened sufficiently that it would work.
  12. I am VERY happy with my Aspen 1000 Pro and would not really want to fly without it anymore. Never had any issue with it, never saw the dreaded X in 3 years now, it just works and is a great piece of kit. If you only fly VFR for the moment by all means get the VFR one, you can upgrade it to Pro later. I agree that AP's are a massive improvement (got myself an STEC55X together with the Aspen) and the developments regarding low cost ones like TruTrack are great. Especcially with an AP I would go for the Aspen as it can do stuff like GPSS navigation even to the most simple HDG only AP. That alone is a feature I would not want to miss anymore even though my AP does it natively. I have not looked intensively at the G5 but from what I see it is much less capable than the Aspen. Also, the Aspen is proven technology by now, whereas the G5 is new.
  13. The fact that the M10 was dropped is hugely disappointing. Not only was it the first real new airplane to come out of Mooney for decades, but it also was in a class of it's own where it had imho good chances of rolling up the trainer market. That and the fact that it had the Diesel. Most of us don't need 4 seats, they are fine with 2 plus one for the occasional trip. The J model of the M10 was quite attractive in the sense that it allowed 2-3 people (or 2+bags) to travel at M201 speeds but with half the fuel flow AND in areas with scarce avgas availability. It would have made an attractive traveller. Major mistake was not to include a shute as today, that is the make or break criteria for most of the decision makers, e.g. those who tell you wheter you can buy that new plane or not. Now, we are back to square one. Mooney has 2 very expensive top line models and no entry level model. While the Ultras are very nice planes (I love the 2nd door) they are out of range for a lot of people who maybe were hoping for the M10J to be the one new airplane they could afford. So what now? Without new airplanes to be sold Mooney will end up where it started out from with the Chinese adventure, probably producing 10-15 M20 per year and do parts business. The M10 was relatively far ahead, now to develop yet another plane with the money avilable is unrealistic imho. What is needed is that entry level model. Possibly with the same cell but slimmed down to less weight and a 200-210 hp 4 cylinder Avgas burner or a Diesel if a big enough one becomes available, no-frills interior and a standard avionic fit with maybe an Aspen or two and a off the shelf avionic rack (not the G1000 in any case) for maybe 400k would possibly be an attractive offering. Even better, bring back a shorter cell with it and possibly save enough weight to use the stronger diesel. That would make a very interesting airplane indeed.
  14. Hang on, you say it "was" a great concept"? So what is happening? has it been abandoned? I still think particularly the "J" model would have been a nice airplane particularly with the Diesel.
  15. Wonderful! That is really exceptional.