Shadrach

Spatial disorientation is a given. The NTSB will likely be able to determine if the structural failure was related to flutter or over control. I think the reason so many are leaning towards over control is the short time from which the aircraft left cruise altitude to breaking up. He was cruising at 9500 when the gentle turn started. As it tightened, his descent rate went from a few 1000fpm to over 12,000fpm in less than 30 seconds. By 3000’ below cruise altitude the rate of descent was in excess of 40,000fpm (likely in pieces).

Have you looked at the flight data? He banks right, accelerates and descends rapidly in a tightening turn. Looks like spiral divergence to me. It’s my understanding that some V-tail failures appear to have been related to flutter but the vast majority are pilot induced, over control, scenarios where the “V” is bent flat causing the nose to pitch up abruptly, breaking the airframe. Most aircraft will easily tolerate excursions well over Vne provided the pilot doesn’t bend the plane by over controlling.

The insurance market has changed. Anybody doing what you did would be looking at at least $6000 to $10,000 their first year just to insure

Maybe I’m not seeing what I think I’m seeing, but it looks like there are exposed transducer wires within an inch or so of that exhaust tube?

Spruce wants $5.50 per foot. You can do better at Field Components they are cheaper and often ship same day. Currently $2.89 per foot

I agree, I’m not telling you not to be involved. I telling you that it would be beneficial to have someone who’s done a complete rigging involved. I didn’t say MSC…I didn’t even say credentialed. Just someone who knows the system. If there is no Mooney knowledge base where you are then rising to the occasion is the only choice you and your mechanic have. Keep us posted!

The "paper" changes to the limitations over the years are a bit odd. The E as introduced in 1964 with 150 Vno and 189 Vne. The F introduced in 1966 and G introduced in 1968 both came with a Vno of 175 and Vne of 200mph. I would like to know what was done to the J to increase Vne from 200mph to 225mph and Flap speed from 100mph to 127mph and gear extension from 120mph to 152mph and then finally 186mph... The numbers seem as though drawn from a hat rather than flight testing.

This is the type of maintenance that has the potential to get very expensive very quickly. Either in time spent learning on the job or a post mx gear collapse. While the knowledge based on this forum runs deep and flows freely, the fastest and likely least expensive route to a satisfactory resolution is through in-person analysis by someone with a detailed understanding of the system and experience with rigging. It’s entirely feasible that you and your mechanic will be able to solve this given enough time, the question is how much time? Something is either bent or way out of adjustment. Either way it seems likely from your post that everything needs to be evaluated, adjusted and re-rigged for correct travel and preload. A mooney experienced mechanic can likely completely adjust and re-rig the gear to spec in under five hours. Someone who’s learning on the job could chase their tail for quite some time.

It typically starts as a drip.

Factory install was with safety wire. I would put a layer of friction tape between the zip ties and the brake line.

That’s noticeably cleaner than my stock wing. No wonder you’re getting book numbers.

I was hopeful that George Braly would be able to bring the PRISM ignition system to market. It uses pressure transducers to measure internal cylinder pressure and adjusts ignition timing as needed. Unfortunately there’s been little movement toward certification over the last few years.

That was my first thought when I found out that David was bringing that A model home. I look forward to seeing just how fast the airframe will go on 150hp with a wing that’s aerodynamically optimized.

I am sure there was a delta in performance but the additional cost was likely significant. I believe Mooney Mart/Coy Jacob’s offered airfoil optimization. I recall reading an article he penned about how the mid chord area where the top skin is riveted to the spar has a lot of potential for improvement.

Agree. The constraints in manufacturing an aluminum wing make laminar flow impossible to achieve without wind tunnel testing each wing and using filler to custom optimize each airfoil. I’ve read that the early wooden airfoil birds would flirt with 140kts with just a 150hp O-320 pulling them along. Those wings were hand shaped and likely had much better boundary layer adhesion. A refined carbon wing would likely be even better and be cheaper to produce.

The focus on “Full fuel payload” is more a measure of versatility than capacity. I wish the aviation media would juxtapose “full fuel payload” with full cabin range. For instance, the “Full Fuel payload” of my bird is just 675lbs. The airplane will take that payload 800-1000nm nonstop depending on cruise altitude and power setting. Still air, “Full Cabin range” (4x170lbs and 120lbs baggage) with 45 min reserve is 500nm. Each metric is at the extreme end of the spectrum but together, they serve as a good basis for interpolating capabilities. I looked at a few M20TN Ultras on controller. The first two listed ULs of 870lbs and 857lbs. Using the average of 864 you get 244 lbs of full fuel payload with standard 100gal tanks or 144lbs of full fuel payload with the optional 120gal tanks. Fill the cabin with 4 x 170lbs and 120lbs of baggage does not yield enough fuel capacity to legally take off. Two 170lb people and 60lbs baggage gives you a 3hr airplane with reserves. Now, I realize that most buyers with the resources to buy an Ultra are unlikely to have a 170lbs spouse. A lightweight couple with minimal bags could do ~4hrs with 45min reserves, or throttle back cirrus speeds and do better. Mooney put a tremendous amount of effort into developing its primary airframe into the fastest, long rang, single person, four place airplane that money can buy. Who is the buyer? A person who mostly travels opinion I don’t alone and wants turboprop speeds for comparatively low fuel burn and maintenance? The point is, regardless of construction methods and materials or parachutes, Mooney has refined its airframe into a product that answers a question that only a handful of people are asking. It is faster and goes further than an SR22T but the delta in performance is not sufficient to overcome the lack of versatility.

They don’t really need a “whole new airplane”. The external dimensions and airfoils are time tested and could be rendered in modern materials with design improvements. Would it be a huge challenge? Absolutely. However, I remember how the conventional wisdom viewed the SR20 in the late 90s. No one that I knew was bullish on Cirrus’s survival much less their growth. You’d have been laughed out of the pilot’s lounge if you had suggested that they’d be a billion dollar company inside of 20 years.

You're preaching to the choir. Read my earlier post. It always been my contention that Mooney's evolved into a machine the appealed to a very small segment of the market at a price point that narrowed the appeal further. They hung their hat on being the fastest and and most efficient. Perhaps it was the lowest hanging fruit. I admire the aircraft a great deal but if I found myself in a situation where it made financial sense to buy a new aircraft in the 1mm range, there are others that would be on my short list.

They need to develop something better than that. The unintended consequence of daytime running lights is the lack of a visual cue that the headlights are not on. The number of morons I see driving around with no tail lights at night and in inclement weather is concerning.

No brand is the pinnacle of quality. System and materials change. Some things age better than others. Some model years age better than others. I think your Bonanza comparison is a bit ridiculous. I don't know what a new A36 sold fore in 1986, but I do know that in 1970 (first year) that a new, well equipped A36 would top 45K while the F model was just under 30K. I would expect a finer fit and finish with a price delta of >50%. Having several hours in a box stock 1971 A36, I can tell you that it is bit better but it's not that significant. Most of the things that you mention are pretty easily remedied by decent interior shop.

Apparently the discount it was not enough. I think factory viability was an issue for sure, but t might also have also had something to do with the typical SR22T having a chute and 200lbs of useful over a fully loaded M20TN.

As much as I like the colors, my favorite design feature is the “super hero mask”. Is that your design? It really works with the airframe’s lines and gives it a more modern appearance.

Yup. Cirrus delivered 612 piston recips in 2023. In 1967, Mooney delivered 751 aircraft. In 1967 my F cost ~ $200k in today’s money. They made 149 M20C’s, 62 M20E’s, 536 M20F’s and 4 M22 Mustangs. I was not around for that economy but it must have been very different from today.

Do tell? What areas is the build quality “mid”? What year is your Mooney? Given the tech at the time they were designed, I think they show remarkably well.

This was eye opening. I knew Cirrus was dominating the piston single market but had no idea their sales were nearing a billion annually. They are delivering piston recips at 1960s production levels every year.