Urs_Wildermuth

I seem to see a lot of insurance issues recently in the US. What exactly is going on there? Looks to me as if insurance is becoming one big issue for GA in the US, where more and more folk hanging it up due to unreasonable pricing or not being able to get insurance at all? Don't the insurances want the business at all? Normally that is what is behind outpricing any serivce. Parker, I've given your name to a guy who bought a Swiss C182 or 210 (can't remember) and was on the way to ferry it to the US... in this context, a lot of thanks for what you are doing helping people who get in trouble because of this.

Agree with all said above but may offer some points worth considering. Continental Diesel CD170 instead of the Avgas burners: Take Jet Fuel wherever. I'd go for 64 USG as in the F/J. 1000 NM range today is pretty much standard for a plane designed for travel. Fixed gear can be done, that much is sure. Dynon Skyview panel with Avidyne 540/440 and DCF90 AP would do the trick, EDM for Engine instruments. As the entry level panel. Offer G1000 as option. Yes BUT! The SR20 is the entry level model which gets people to enter the shop. They then leave with an SR22, but that does not mean the SR20 is not important for their line up, they would have discarded it long time ago.. It's like those 99 cents offers at your local fast food. It gets people into the shop but hardly anyone will buy it but get the $5 family bucket instead. Or that $5000 new flashy car displayed at the car dealership... practically nobody will walk out without air condition and automatic transmission so they go for the $15k model instead but gee does this 5000 $ car look attractive from afar. That is why an entry level model is so important. They must be willing to build a few but primarily they bring the customers into your dealership.

Well, that is quite normal I'd say. Even up to the world of big passenger jets. The more weight you coax out of it, the less it will perform at MTOM. Somehow we are used to our planes performing by book which usually has only one weight in the performance tables. Clearly, if you wish to increase weight, it will need a new assessment of performance. Nor does it mean you can use the new MTOM up to 50°C in Dubai and expect to get the same performance. Try that in something like an A340 with max load and you are surely grateful for the curvature of the earth! Also you don't climb those to their max level straight away, you do step climbs. I guess some who may shed light in this are people who get 10% overweight permits for e.g. ferry flights. We all know that our Mooneys can do this, just read up on "honeymooney" or similar tales and that one is a stock E model with some speed mods and LOTS of fuel tanks. clearly, the initial climb will be marginal, but things will improve as you shed weight/fuel. My own experience with my lowly 180 hp C model is that it will reach 17000 ft at ISA+20 degrees after a LOOONG climb at MTOW. Also, it will perform much different at MTOW and 40°C outside than at ISA 15° even at sea level. But that is normal. Most probably the easiest way to get a weight increase would probably be to define a new MTOM and define the old MTOM as a Maximum Landing weight. Looking at structural limits, quite a few airplanes sport MLW in order to make take offs with higher weight possible. The load on the gear is quite normal during take off, but can be quite heavy on landing, particularly at high weights.

Congratulations! The logical step up from your Acclaim Ultra I suppose. And you still got the M in TBM

I sent my prop (Hartzell) to MT for overhaul and asked them at the time, if one of theirs was STC'd for the C model. It wasn't, only for the IO360 powered Mooneys.

I agree. If they include the C model, I would be one. But I think they were talking about the newer models first. Those are also the ones which really need them. I wonder what this thing about weight increases are. Basically, there is two ways of achieving the same goal. A) you increase the gross weight. There have been several ways to do that. Structural, adding fuel tanks (Piper Twin Commanche), paper exercise to reduce the reserves built into the original GW or possibly some minor modification such as a small power increase to the engine or something else. If I remember right, the M20J did get a GW increase somewhere during the production run, any idea how that was achieved? B ) you decrease the empty weight. Either by sorting out/removing unnecessary or redundant stuff or by replacing heavy materials on removable non structural items with lighter ones. It appears this is part of the plan for the Ovation/Acclaim series with the new cowl and possibly other weight reductions. Combine the two and you might end up with substantial figures.

If there were powerplants and batteries available to do the job, I'd agree with you. The current continental diesel range is available, but up to 155 hp only, however, it keeps that power thanks to it's turbo to quite high altitudes. There is however a variant which produces take off thrust of 170 hp, but it has not been certified, but as it the same engine with a different tuning, it should be feasible. Piper seems to want to install this in their Seminole so they are working on it. (CD170) Then there is a CD230, which would be ideal, delivering 230 hp. That one would be a 1:1 replacement for the whole J and K series, possibly even for the S. Diesels can in theory be retrofit, this has been done to the PA28 and C172 series. If an entry level model would be of the "back to the roots" type of project, I could imagine a massively lighter M20 series with a CD170 engine (the 155 with 170 hp take off thrust) as about a 150-160 kt airframe with 52 USG tanks and about 2600 lb MTOW and 550 lb full fuel payload. If the CD230 should be available it would be a great engine for even the current airframe but with higher MTOW of maybe 3200 lb and up to 180-200 kt. Obviously the same kind of thing could be working with the well known IO360/390 avgas engines, however there, I would strongly recommend to include a automotive fuel certification. With that, it would be very competitive in the EU market particularly. And I have a feeling automotive fuel STC's may yet become quite interesting in the US as well if the anti Avgas lobby gets their way. This could all base on the current M20 certificate. However, all this is science fiction at the moment, at first they need to get the factory running properly and I guess their ideas of offering a good parts supply and desirable upgrades may well be the way to this.

Exactly. They should look at what worked and what did not, combined with what the requirements of todays customers are. And I fully agree with you on your points here. Their most successful models were the C and F/J and IMHO because they deliever to this day a ratio of bang for buck which is unmatched. Correct. True, yet 20 years is a long time. To get Mooney to survive we are talking the next 2-3 years in which they need to get profitable. If I had to bet my money, I'd bet it on Jet fuel / Diesel rather than Avgas as in the Aviation world it has a much larger quantity of consumers in the form of the airlines and military. Therefore it will be around for the forseeable future. Failing that, automotive gasoline would be the alternative and actually is here in Europe, where so called Mogas has become huge in GA in recent years, primarily with the rise of Rotax but also as a retrofit STC for many conventional engines. And here I would see a chance yet again for Mooney, which is actually what the idea behind the M10 was. Both the Diesels and the automotive fuel powered conventional aeroengines are those of relatively low power, in the case of Diesel 150-180 hp and automotive fuels up to 250 hp roughly. Which is exactly the segment of the former C model up to the J. There is no well established Diesel to replace the high power engines used in the Ovation and Acclaim, nor in the SR22 series and the likes for that matter. But there are engines for a 180-200 hp model. Personally I do not think Mooney can come up with a clean sheet design any time soon, that is why I think their current approach upgrading and maintaining the fleet is a valid approach. They do have the M20 as a certified base and it can for the moment be the base to implement things which can bring them back to profit. And yes, a shute at least as an option will have to be part of that equation.

From the European vantage what would really be something people will look at would be an option to equip the 180-200 hp Mooneys with Diesel engines. And as an option getting them certified for automotive fuel, which is a huge thing in Europe. Seeing that planes with similar engines (O360/IO360) such as the PA28 and C172 models have gotten STC's for Continental Diesels, it should be feasible. Also, automotive fuel STC's should be possible in one way or the other certainly for the "C" (PA28's using O360 engines do have them) and possibly the E,F and J models as well. I would also see a role in Mooney taking over or securing STC's which go orphaned as their producers retire or go out of business. There are several STC's which are too important to be lost such as the 201 style cowls and windshields, long range tanks (some of which were even available as factory options) and so on. Mooney could also play a major role in getting additional STC's not done by some manufacturers for the lack of customer commitment as testbeds, such as the STEC 3100 or Avidyne DCF90 Autopilot upgrades which a lot of STEC 55x users crave but can't get. As for a model line I fully agree with previous posters who say the need an entry level model as well as possibly a even higher end than the Acclaim Ultra is now. For the entry level, we have to consider that those Mooneys who were most popular in the whole history are the C and F/J Model lines which both had the highest produced numbers. What made them unique? The C (and the E to a smaller extent) is one of the most efficient planes ever built with a LOT of bang for buck on a simply, bog standard O360 coaxing out 140 kts of that 180 hp engine. The J even more so, getting 160 kts out of a 200 hp IO360. The C and J also had better payload. The C and E in Europe have the advantage of being sub 1200 kg which means ELA1 maintenance requirements. I think in any case, to produce new airplanes, Mooney would need to massively change their manufacturing process to something where a lot more parts can be produced at much lower cost in a modular way and then combined to the final model they wish to deliver. The wing is more or less standard to all airplanes safe for fuel capacity. Fusellage may well need two sizes if an entry model is considered. The question will be, can more elements be reengineered to become composite materials to save weight and cost? What can be done to get the manufacturing price of a Mooney wing and fusellage down to a point where they can be sold for a price people will want to spend? The M10 project was promising but if I hear what problems they ran into is probably a dead horse. If it could be redone properly, I think it could be very successful, but basically they would have to start pretty much from scratch from what I heard. They did not stop it because it worked. So in the immediate future, that leaves us with the M20 cell which is also the only way to avoid a total new certification, something which has broken the back of almost any manufacturer in recent years. Looking at the current model line, there are options for an entry level model provided they can reduce manufacturing cost. The Ovation and Acclaim are way too heavy in their current state of furnishing and equipment to be powered by 200 hp let alone 180 or a Diesel. However, looking at the Ultra's cabin modification to two doors using lighter material as well as the idea they now have for producing light weight cowls, what options could be available to produce an entry level airplane along the lines of - possible Medium body combinded with the 2 Door shell and light weight cowl or, if sufficient weight reduction can be achieved, the long body. - Either Diesel or 200/210 hp injected engine with electronic ignition, possibly FADEC - Weight optimized cabin/cowl and structure, retaining the steel cage but easier and cheaper to produce skin and possibly wings. - 64 to 90 USG fuel capacity with a minimum of 500 lb payload with full fuel at 64 USG and 300 lb with long range tanks. - 160-170 KTAS @ 8 USG consumption or less with Jet A1/Diesel - Lower priced avionic set up such as the Dynon certified series/Aspen 2000 or similar with basic to intermediate AP options (Tru Track to Stec 3100) - Shute at least as an option. In the price range somewhere between a new PA28/C172 and an SR20. The Ovation and Acclaim Ultra series need payload increase badly, otherwise they are very attractive planes provided they can do something about the price and manufacturing cost. High end would have to go in the direction of turboprop/pressurized or similar. Looking at the competition, the one plane which sticks to the Mooney mantra of best bang for buck, the Jetprop conversion of the Piper Malibu sticks out, even tough also that one suffers from massive payload challenges. Mooney could come up with a 4-5 seater with pressurized cabin and a turbine or higher powered turbodiesel engine in the 250 kt range and certified to FL250 to 280 for a competitive price it would own that market pretty much. Or Mooney could consider going a different way and producing a Mooney style jet somewhere along the SF50 line but with more speed and better range. But I personally would shy away from development cost for something like that until the current line has been totally updated and is selling in number. Personally I think Mooney is now in position it's never been before and no other airplane company has ever been in, in so that it is owned by people who are directly involved with the brand as pilots, maintenance companies and other significant players. We all think we know what was wrong with Mooney in the last decades or so and have rapsed about it here often enough. Now it is the time where we shall see if a company run by an ownership thus conceived will indeed prevail. I certainly hope so. The approach they choose now, one step at the time and support for the fleet as a first goal and clear analysis of what is to come later, sounds a lot more level headed than other stuff i heard before.

I'd wagger quite a few of them are on Mooneyspace. This is great news and going to be very interesting indeed.

Very sad news. Difficult to imagine Mooneyspace without him. I am lost for words

I guess you will need to find a way to do an official measurement and hand the result to your caa. In Switzerland there are possibilities for this. Your maintenance organisation should know but certainly AOPA. I have the 2 blade prop.

I wonder if a complete tail swap would rectify most of the damage… Maybe @Alan Fox could have an idea where to source one. Looking at this it appears to me that the whole tail moving when trim is actuated had a big part in saving this one.

The only reason you would put an S-Tec AP into anything is the fact that there are no alternatives to retrofit at a proper price. I have the Stec 55x in my C model, because I wanted a proper pitch channel with Alt Hod, GS and VS (as I can't have LVL Change on any of those STC'd AP's I'd have to settle for that) as well as a flight director. The STEC 30 and 50 have altitude hold but neither GS nor VS. They are the minimum for IFR as far as I am concerned. As for quality however, the S-Tecs are not really the bees knees. Personally I am disappointed in the roll channel response of the S-Tec vs a King AP. Holding GPSS sort of works but holding a localizer in crosswind is totally unsatisfactory, nor do intercepts work properly. The FD does indicate all right, but the AP will sway left to right in the slightest of cross winds when trying to hold a track or loc that it is not really of much worth. In my experience with KFC 150 and 200 AP's, they are a different league. It's a big pitty that neither the DFC90 nor the digital Stec are STC'd for the Mooneys. I hear the DFC90 is really good and it also has level change, which in my book is what any AP should have.

I agree a good E is much better than a lower range J. Particularly if it's in good shape and possibly has got the J mods such as windscreen and cowling. As for an AP, I would honestly not want to fly any plane without one. My C model originally did not have one and it was the most expensive bit I ever did to upgrade it. It now has an STEC 55x which is not bad connected to an Aspen EFD1000 and a GNS430W. Flying it now is a totally different thing than what it was before. I took a long trip to Bulgaria in 2011 and handflying for 6 hours in 3 legs was fine but I was pretty darn tired afterwards. Flying some other 4 hour trips now are a piece of cake. The airplane will follow the route via GPSS steering and hold altitude or descend / climb at a fixed rate. This frees up a lot of needed capacity for other things. I'd look for a E model which has a 2 axis AP and a good avionic setup with WAAS GPS and Mode S already done. That way, you get to fly rather than wait for upgrades done. If you can find one which has the J mods (Windshield and Cowling) and if possible Monroy tanks, well, that is the airplane I'd be looking for if I was in the market.

Aviation safety net has some links on this accident... horrible. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/232931

I disagree with both these statements at least as far as I am concerned. I fly a Mooney (65 C model) because I had the money of either buying a PA28 or similar or this C model at the time and it didn't take me long to figure out that the Mooney is by far the best bang for buck there was to be had for the price of an otherwise 110 kt airplane. This C model runs 150 kts at 9 gph and will fly some 600 NM with the 52 USG it's got and carry 3 people with full tanks. The competition simply was not up to anything like that. I could not and never will be able to afford a Cirrus. Would I buy one if I could? Maybe but if so, then because and only because of the parashute and the fact that I have a wife and a 3 year old kid and I fly over very inhospitable terrain for emergency landings almost all the time. I would also consider flying night and low IFR with a shute which I would not do with a non parashute SEP. if i could afford a Cirrus, probably I would go Twin instead, either a Twin Commanche or a pressurized Cessna twin or similar is what I really would like to fly. And think about it: some of those can be found in the marketplace for a fraction of what either a new Cirrus or Ovation/Acclaim cost. Even turboprops like Cheyennes can be found for $200k leaving close to 600k to fly it before you get close to the purchase price of the new planes.... I know a guy who started looking into buying a Cirrus brand new, then a Vision Jet... then he ended up with a F44 equipped Citation 501 Eagle which he is totally happy with and so is his family. He paid 300k for that one, less than half of a new Acclaim or SR22, not to speak of a Vision Jet. That was 3 or 4 years ago and he still has not spent his original budget flying it. Well, it USED to sell the best SEP ever made. Only it did not sell enough and now the market has spoken. Mooney has gone the way quite a few good designs have gone and I am not optimistic it will ever come back. As for the transition, I am not so sure about that. The SR22 is quite a handful to fly particularly low speed and imho requires better flying skills than a Mooney does, however my experience does not stretch to Ovations or Acclaims, but certainly 201's or vintage Mooneys are no problem to transit to right after your PPL checkride. I've had several pilots do exactly that, it requires some 10 hours transition training but it works. I myself originally transitioned from a C150 to a Piper Seneca, which is a quite difficult airplane to fly particularly OEI. I would assume that with sufficient training you can do that with an Ovation too. I've only once flown a SR22 but I noticed that the flight control forces e.t.c. are quit different than on a Mooney and imho more diffcult to master. For me, there is NO reason that Cirrus won the market other than that parashute. None whatsoever. Neither efficiency, nor flight characteristics, nor speed. Yes, the cabin is also nice, but they did win for their excellent agressive marketing of that chute. Both the Columbia and the Ovation were much better airplanes, but Cirrus did their homework on marketing better than both of those. Face it: GA has an appalling reputation in terms of safety, deserved or non deserved is totally irrelevant. Every time one of our GA planes comes to grief, it is headline news. People are wary up to outright scared to fly with us. If they then have to, it better be that plane with the shute. IMHO, no plane without one will stand a fighting chance on the market place unless they come up with some very innovative concept which guarantees a similar outcome. And that I have yet to see.

Amidst all the Tesla discussion here, what is happening at the factory?

You have a PowerFlow installed? Then this would make sense. I have one and love it, here's why: That is a stock 1965 C model, no aerodynamic improvements but it has the PF exhaust since before I own it. Fuel flow there was about 9 gph, that is running it flat out. Normally, if you set your power per POH you can do one of several things: - Set up for the fuel flow in POH and note TAS. It will be slightly higher than the corresponding FF - Set up for TAS as per POH and note MP and FF you need to achieve it. Usually you will need about 1 inch MP less to achieve the same TAS at FF corresponding to TAS. As a sideline, I've had my C model fly at FL170 with OAT 0°C, which means ISA plus 20°C. that is a DA of 22000 ft. I don't think a regular C can do that.

https://www.24ur.com/novice/crna-kronika/manjsa-letalska-nesreca-na-portoroskem-letaliscu.html Another Gear up elsewhere. Portoroz Slovenia, and a rare M22 HB-DVY.

The other Swiss Mustang hat a mishap today. https://www.24ur.com/novice/crna-kronika/manjsa-letalska-nesreca-na-portoroskem-letaliscu.html Gear up landing at Portoroz. Hopefully it can be repaired.

I wonder if they really were that high. How did they measure altitude in those days? Was that accurate? Wikipedia sais, the altitudes were estimates. It also states that the crew passed out at 29000 ft estimated and the balloon ascended more, but it doesn't say how it got back down again. Lucky does not come close for a guy like that to live to the ripe age of 91... In later ascents, people like Auguste Piccard used a pressurized cabin. In any event, the input into Meteorology coming from these ascents were totally groundbreaking.

This is quite a significant event for the SF50. Hopefully they will find out fast what caused this and take corrective action if necessary. Seeing how Ethiopian almost lost a 787 to a ELT Battery run away, I think you may well have a good theory here. https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20130712-0&lang=en

Thanks for your help with the measurements. Will go down to the maintenance facility and take exact ones of my plane next week, when they reopen. Found that car covers are way too big, so that is not an option. Does anyone know of specific Mooney covers or other airplane seat covers on sale which might fit our tiny Mooney seats? I am also musing about upgrading the front seats to J type if that is allowed, most J type seats have headrests which mine lacks. Also most J seats I've seen are leather. So need to find out a) if that is legal to do and b) where I can source some nice J seats if it is.

Hello Peter, I heard from a M22 which needed transition training there from a friend of mine who is an FI. Congrats to your purchase and I do hope you get a lot of good flying time out of it. I was sorely tempted when the 2nd Swiss M22 came up for sale recently but it disappeared fast again. Or is this the one you bought out of WangenLachen? In any case, you own an important piece of aviation history and it is great that it will still be flying in Europe. I operate a M20C out of ZRH. Merry xmas and hope to one day be able to see this remarkable plane. Urs