orangemtl

Well done, Craig, and my sincere thanks for creating this forum. More broadly, thank you to all of the participants on MooneySpace. I am a better informed pilot as a result, and look forward to more updates and more discussion every day. I hope one day to give more than I get: for now, it's largely a one-way exchange.

I dream of taking 730ML to Nova Scotia, then Greenland, then Scotland one day. Loaded to the gills w/safety equipment, ferry tanks and an experienced ferry pilot. Ask me in 10 years: I'll tell you how it went.

duplicate. Sorry.

Bought mine on Ebay. Seriously. They fit the Acclaim openings perfectly. Bought a Remove Before Flight cover for the pitot static, as well. If I knew how to download pictures from my phone, I would. Maybe i'll just take a photo w/my computer and post it.

Yeah; just whining, that's all. We should all have such big problems. Just trying to make the 8gph guys feel better, is all. Yes, I have run LOP from time to time, but I'm still working my way along; I can often manage fuel consumption closer to 17-18, so long as I'm not up there trying to break the sound barrier, with the manifold at 30. Planning to leave shortly for SD (KMYF) from KHII Lk Havasu in an hour or so for a Saturday conference. Anticipating 1:10 for 180NM, and home for dinner tomorrow after the mtg finishes at 3P. Things could be much worse. Enjoy the weekend.

'running 8.5gph in my J at cruise...' "Lucky b------ds", mused the Acclaim pilot, as he glumly poured $500, or 5 hours' worth of fuel into his aircraft....

Acclaim at 19gph, around 190 knots: I can go 4-5 hours, but generally won't go beyond 4 unless absolutely mandatory. Hence: about 800NM. Shorter than the Ovation with extended tanks, it would seem. Until they build auxiliary bladders for human beings, auxiliary tanks for the plane won't help me much....

...so, anyone want to talk about ailerons, or landing speeds or glass panels, or something? John Green and others make excellent points: but we have Human Events, and Hot Air, and Huffington Post for those discussions. I have very strong economic and political opinions: but on this site, I'm just a low time pilot with a pretty plane. We can poke fun at the Cirrus antics, and Bonanza poseurs or whatever, just like football rivalries, but: at the heart of it, I'll side with just about any aviator, and just about any airplane manufacturer versus their detractors. As Franklin famously said, If we don't hang together, we shall surely hang separately.

I'm still in the 'leave a note' camp. It's responsible, nonintrusive, and gets the point across. If Billy Bonanza arrives at the airport for his transcontinental flight with family in tow, only to find a 'check your prop' note: then, perhaps he should examine his aircraft more frequently, or more carefully before planning a flight. Perhaps I've become a nihilist; I have patients (improbably) cured of lung cancer, who go on to smoke thereafter because "well Doc, it's just hard to quit..." Some folks just don't respond to external cues like we think they should. Most of us would welcome such a phonecall. Some will not. The supply of thanklessness in our world is nearly infinite. Choose your Samaritan gestures judiciously.

The refurbishment angle would be most viable, of course for the company itself, i/o a standalone. They could no doubt warranty the aircraft (sort of like the Certified Preowned Program with BMW, or Lexus, or the like); the ability to reman the necessary parts would be an advantage as well. What could be better than to bring your tired C model to them, and walk out (some tens of thousands of $ later) with a rejuvenated, glass panel plane with a freshly overhauled engine, new wingtips, and fresh paint? Fascinating to know the the company is being shopped. I'd love to make a small fortune buying and running Mooney. I'd need to start with a large fortune first, however...

Great news. I may choose to replace my cargo hatch, following its 'excursion' into the airflow a few weeks back. Wrinkled, but functional.

In a word: been there, DOing that. Mooneys are a lot of airplane, and at least for longbodies, resent careless piloting. Which, in my opinion forces you to be an attentive and ultimately better pilot. Figure out how many hours of instruction that you need; then, add another 25%. Worth. It. Don't bother renting the Cessna for training, to spare the 'creampuff'. You're better off, I think forcing yourself to perform better as a pilot to preserve the aircraft, which in turn will contribute to preserving you as a breathing human being. Agree completely with the older, wiser comments in the thread. Never force that thing onto the runway: you'll only make it angry. Great choice of an aircraft. Welcome into the Circle of Trust!

I think I 'stepped on' carusoam's response while writing mine. Your thinking is exactly what was just going through my head. I'm going to check out the 'new old Mooney' site, if only for my entertainment. A company in Belgium was taking Jaguar XK 3.8's (1959-66, or so) and updating their A/C, engines, sound insulation and suspension, while leaving the appearance largely unchanged. They were apparently popular in a small niche---but I've not seen them still in business (I was thinking of getting one a few years back). A cautionary example, where a gret idea for a great product was slapped down by market realities.

Good point. There's no chance of selling such a plane at $400k. Is the enormous labor cost largely due to the custom nature of the airframe? I know the interiors were custom made; I walked through the upholstery dept and pretty much the entire place when I purchased 730ML. While interior costs are scarcely the major factor in the pricetag, it's a perfect example. I treasure knowing that every bit of my aircraft is truly custom: more so than any Ferrari in the past 35 years, for example. I have appreciation, however for the leather interior in my automobile as well. Was it made inhouse by Land Rover or farmed out? Don't know, nor care. Only farming out elements of production or subassemblies would address this issue, and that might not prove palatable to company or consumer. We'll probably never know.

KSMooniac, Your experience in the field cannot be trumped. Is it possible that production cost improvement, e.g. robotic welding as mentioned by Hank, and other similar efficiency measures would allow for a less costly alternative? One of the central costs in production is the amortization of fixed costs over the number of units produced. It's one reason why automobiles have so many engineering updates at relatively low cost, while lesser upgrades are so prohibitively pricey in aviation: a $5 million investment in an upgrade divided by 1 million Fords is minor; divided by 500 Cessnas, not so minor. This is largely a thought exercise for me, and I suspect for all of us. It is, however an interesting one. Could Mooney, for example produce a new 4cyl Mooney on the earlier airframe with modern avionics and some tweaking of the airframe (new style wingtips, electric flaps and gear) w/o crushing regulatory cost? Clearly, there are plenty of people willing to fly 1960's-70's airframes with a mishmash of upgrades. Not to belabor the LSA discussion, but similarly: if some pilots will drop $85,000 on a Cub lookalike or over $100k on an aluminum Luscombe, why not $200k for an up-to-date short fuselage Mooney, with a modern windshield and Aspen glass panel? Perhaps I am utterly unrealistic. I've been called worse. I wonder aloud exactly how 'modern' one could redesign, say a C or D model while staying within tolerable regulatory expense. Any of the C or D owner/tinkerers care to weigh in on the question?

Have there been documented airframe failures on high time GA aircraft in flight? Anything eventually wears out; the vast majority of GA accidents seem to be the typical fuel, gearup or pattern stall events, however. Just curious.

I suggest nails. They are indifferent to ambient air pressure.

I'd be extremely curious to know what Mooney's plans are. Or, if they currently have one. I am involved in a medical device startup. It never ceases to amaze me that what a smaller organization can do for, say $2 million takes a larger one $5-10 million. Much of that is because the smaller one CAN'T spend the bigger number because they haven't got it. The other part of this is, however that the larger ones don't pay a lot of attention to the 'smaller' details: e.g., production of a part lot for $250,000 from a familiar supplier, i/o a newer one that'll do it for $100,000. Many, many things can be done for less if you shop around: whether you're buying a necktie on Ebay, or designing an orthopedic instrument, or building a flying machine. In a perfect world, Mooney would be taken in by a group of solvent pilots/engineers, and revived with cost effective design of a saleable product. I've seen the "We just can't do it for less than $10 million" mentality more than once. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes, they just lack vision. Perhaps, come January 2013, the economic landscape will have changed in the US. I think there's some sort of election coming up in a year or so, last I heard...

All true. One counterpoint, however: while I plead ignorance as to the absolute volumes, there is a substantial and broad based LSA market out there: a type which did not exist as such, some 20 years ago. A different mission from fast, longrange Mooneys: but are they, really in many circumstances? If I'm going to fly, say 150 NM as opposed to a 250 mile circuitous drive, it's not really a big difference whether I'm flying at 130 vs 180 knots: I'm going to get there in something around an hour. Only, I can do so on 8-12 gallons in some aircraft, or 20 in mine. The more economical and 'efficient' solution is obvious----and it's not the Acclaim. My point? Mooney has made a series of aircraft that we love: but largely using, stretching, and tweaking a >50 year old design. Yes, they've done a great job with it: but there's a limit. The world has moved on from many aspects of this airframe. The new market is either smaller, lighter and more efficient LSA's that run from, say $75,000 to 160,000, versus powerful and electronically advanced machines like the modern Acclaim, G36, and Columbias: that cost a fortune and are accessible to only the smallest minority. Somewhere in there is the Cirrus, which: good, bad or in between, has sold an enormous number of aircraft in the past ten years, using modern technology. If Mooney is to (re) exist at all, they need to first identify what they can actually sell in this modern GA market. They're just not going to make it selling $1/2 million Acclaims. They're too expensive, and appeal to too rarified a customer base. Were I the King of Mooney, I'd want to design and sell the modern version of the 4 cylinder Mooney: lighter, more efficient, with AFFORDABLE glass panel technology and pretty good speed at efficient levels of fuel consumption. For that matter: why can't they put out a true LSA with those features, and then extend it to a more typical 'step-up' GA version to occupy that 4 cylinder Mooney niche? Given my vast fund of ignorance, I suspect that the LSA could be produced and sold profitably at, say $120,000, while the 4 cyl GA could come in for the low $200's. Not exactly 'a plane in every driveway', but it's a dramatic improvement from where they are now. After all, would you rather sell 500 planes/year at $200k and only make $25k on each one, or design a fantastic $649,000 aircraft that you can't sell in the modern market? Mooney has already done the latter. I'd sure like to see them try the former, and then rebuild the brand and company from there.

Quote: daveydog Michael, Im Serial Number 104. You make a valid point ... is rigging worth an extra few knots. The problem for me is ... I'm completely a speed junkie (not the chemical kind). I bought right into the Mooney Pitch ... "We like to Fly. Fast". I believe in ROP, I believe in the 310 hp upgrade (climb and shorter take-off), and if they start production again and come out with a Type SS, I'd probably develop buyers remorse within hours. It's completely irrational, illogical, and un-defendable, but speed is what its about for me. Turbines are above my pay grade and besides, how do you beat the efficiency of the Mooney. Acclaim, Encore, 252s, etc. They are all simply unbeatable birds. All that said, how much would rigging cost, would I get 3-4 more knots, and how can I find out the answer. Can someone send me the contact information for Webers. Thanks

DaV8or's point is well taken. My only rebuttal, and the only one that mattered to me was: Life is short. If I have the choice, I'd rather pour expensive fuel into a pretty aircraft than an ugly one. If you have the desire and the $ on hand, paint 'er up any color and style you choose, and enjoy it. If it's just a travel tool and nothing more, that's ok: who cares what it looks like. Me? After waiting >30 years, I wanted EXACTLY what I wanted. It's all a matter of personal priorities. I've said it before: the best Mooney in the world is the one you can afford and enjoy.

Quote: daveydog Really enjoyed reading on this post chain. I never had an airplane rigged and always wondered about it. I have an acclaim and would ask for opinions regarding the necessity of checking the rigging of a newer airplane. Did Mooney do that at the factory? Do they have a process to check it during the testing phase? Is there a good procedure to follow in flight that I can implement to check how straight my bird is flying? I would definitely take it to Weber or others if it's a good idea to do so. Final question... how many knots can one expect to gain in a best case scenario if an airplane is truly in need of rigging? Thanks for the help!

Quote: jshill I remember being weathered-im in Wyoming due to TS on one summer trip, and a Bravo owner was also there. He kept talking about how much he missed his 252. Not against a Bravo per-se, but sees like significant increase operating expense vs. encore. According to my wife, I'm wrong all the time, so again any advice welcome. Thanks for all the feedback. (3.5 hrs from Alamosa to MPLS makes my eyes water. Last time I wasa there the United flight to DIA scrubbed and I had to drive to Denver, then fly home. Took 2 days)

Beautiful plane, in a beautiful place. You are one lucky aviator.

Quote: KSMooniac There isn't one for Mooneys. Slapping a turboprop on non-pressurized singles doesn't make a lot of sense because you can't really go high enough without pressurization to make it payoff in terms of range and speed. On a long trip, a stock or turbo-normalized Bonanza can get there faster than the turboprop conversion unless they make an unnecessary fuel stop whereas the turboprop will have to stop. All that aside, the "cool factor" is strong! Mooney had a loose arrangement with Rolls Royce to develop a turboprop Mooney, but from what I understand the goal behind that was to primarily be an alternative fuel option for export Mooneys to areas where 100LL is scarce. It would have been optimized for cruise in the mid-teens and be slower than the Acclaim with higher fuel burn. The step-up from an Acclaim would be a Meridian (or Rocket-converted Malibu/Mirage) or a TBM. The PA46 can't carry much, but the TBM is a sweet, sweet machine with Mooney lineage, so you should aim for that.