Mooney 301 Video

[PaulB]

Ran across this on YouTube and thought I would share it.  Doesn't look like its been posted here before.  Looks like Roy LoPresti's son shared it.

 

[Cabanaboy]

They messed up on the tail, its backwards on the 301......

[jkhirsch]

I'll bring a up "stupid question" here. If someone could buy the rights to this design and produce airplanes with the specifications at the bottom of this page (http://www.mooneyevents.com/Mooney301.html) don't you think it would be the "iphone" of general aviation? There would be a strong argument for trying to make it a diesel engine, and I don't think anyone would argue against that, other than the possible additional cost.

 

Even still, the reported fuel burn of 20 gph (avgas) and a full fuel payload of 1000lbs with pressurization and 245kts cruise in the FL, plus a climb of 1400fpm. (or 20 minutes to FL250 ~1250fpm)

 

You are really talking about a white whale here in my opinion.

 

I would even argue that with modern technology that those specs could easily be met, possibly exceeded.

[aviatoreb]

I'll bring a up "stupid question" here. If someone could buy the rights to this design and produce airplanes with the specifications at the bottom of this page (http://www.mooneyevents.com/Mooney301.html) don't you think it would be the "iphone" of general aviation? There would be a strong argument for trying to make it a diesel engine, and I don't think anyone would argue against that, other than the possible additional cost.

 

Even still, the reported fuel burn of 20 gph (avgas) and a full fuel payload of 1000lbs with pressurization and 245kts cruise in the FL, plus a climb of 1400fpm. (or 20 minutes to FL250 ~1250fpm)

 

You are really talking about a white whale here in my opinion.

 

I would even argue that with modern technology that those specs could easily be met, possibly exceeded.

 

That diesel version would be a bit like the vapor-ware Diamond DA50

 

http://www.diamondaircraft.com/aircraft/da50/

 

One version of the concept sports a (yet to be built) 350hp diesel engine and goes (vapor ware remember) 225TAS - its a 5 seater and pressurized.

 

I think an airplane in that category, whether a diesel Mooney 301 or DA50, going 220-240TAS, pressurized and more than 4 seats would sell if it came in a good bit cheaper than a turbine version of the same.

[carusoam]

I believe somebody acquired the rights, put a turbine on it, then named it TBM...

Nice planes are heavy...

Heavy planes use increased levels of fuel...

Fuel costs money...

I agree with the iPhone analogy, it is very expensive for most.

But unlike the iPhone, the TBM requires skills to use it safely.

Best regards,

-a-

[jkhirsch]

Yeah cheers to the TBM, but I think that's a bit beyond the scope of price/cabin class of what the original 301 was designed to be.

 

I guess for somewhat of clarification, it seems to me that the exact specs delivered on that page are a bit of a white whale and/or a missing link in aviation.

[jetdriven]

the problem I see is a 360 HP piston engine for one.. Once you start talking about 350 HP Lycoming TIO-541-J2BD direct drive engines, they are expensive as all get out. The GTSIO-520 from a 421 is 375 HP but geared, another set of problems, and still, expensive.

[KSMooniac]

I think any plane in this class is always going to be limited by the availability/performance/cost of a powerplant that can do such an airframe justice.  The 301 (if it ever got certified), the Malibu, P210, etc. all would really shine with a "better" ~400 HP engine that has yet to be created with appropriate cost and fuel specifics to our end of the GA spectrum.  

 

The turboprops are certainly nice, but the fuel specifics suck compared to our piston planes and combined with the outright cost of the engine make the leap to a TBM or similar just too much for typical Mooney or Bonanza owners to justify in my opinion.

 

I wonder if instead of making an IO-720 with 8 cylinders, if Lycoming or Continental could've made a much bigger 6-cyl engine...nowadays it wouldn't get out of the conceptual phase since likely none of the parts would likely be common.

[carusoam]

What was the MGTW of the 301?

To match performance with the 201 (take-off and climb), the HP will need to be something like 400 hp or more?

Fully loaded, 360 hp would use a long rwy.

Making Brett's Presidente look pretty nice sporting the rugged IO550s.

Best regards,

-a-

[aviatoreb]

 

I wonder if instead of making an IO-720 with 8 cylinders, if Lycoming or Continental could've made a much bigger 6-cyl engine...nowadays it wouldn't get out of the conceptual phase since likely none of the parts would likely be common.

 

What about that IO720 8 cylinder?  What was wrong with it? Why isn't it more popular in airplanes?  I have heard of it in the PA24 Commanche 400...but has it appeared in any other airplanes?  Why not more? Why not the Mooney 301?

[aviatoreb]

Holy Moly!  A 260Knot Comanche!

 

http://www.comanchepilot.com/Tech_Articles/FLIGHT_OPS/A_300MPH_COMANCHE/a_300mph_comanche.html

[carusoam]

I'm waiting for Clarence on this one...

If you thought the long body has a long nose....?

Best regards,

-a-

[MB65E]

The Piston Malibu I've heard is more efficient than its Jet Prop version.  To re-tool to build this would cost more than the Piper.  I like the Piper, but I'm sure the 301 would have been better!!  The Jet Prop A36 never worked well because it had the wrong wing on it!

 

VW just announced its Diesel Hybrid last fall 256 MPG.  Better than electric, and better than a gas Hybrid.  Now if they could just wrap something other than a Golf around it...

 

-Matt

[aaronk25]

What about that IO720 8 cylinder? What was wrong with it? Why isn't it more popular in airplanes? I have heard of it in the PA24 Commanche 400...but has it appeared in any other airplanes? Why not more? Why not the Mooney 301?

Ha cause they couldn't make their 15" long camshaft last in there IO360, let alone one that's nearing 3ft of waiting to be pitted and failed cam lobes and lifters .

[Ned Gravel]

I don't think Clarence is going to be all that keen on going above 13,000', but I too am interested to see what he says when he reads this.  

 

Imagine guy who is a Mooney guru, owned two or three of them, tricked them all out to go faster, finally sells his last "family" one (he still has the Mite to work on), buys eight cylinders of speed to put the whole family in it and go faster, only to find out that there is more to do......

 

  Would that I were there to hear that..........

[1964-M20E]

Heck just get a merlin V-12 cut it in half and have all the HP you want or can handle in 6 cylinders.  

[Guest]

The IO 720 in my Comanche 400 has so far been trouble free. I have had all,of the cylinders off to replace the piston pin plugs which were shedding aluminum in the the oil. No corrosion detected on the 3 foot long camshaft.

As Ned pointed out I have owned several Mooney's before, but a growing family forced the need for a bigger plane. While I considered the long body Mooney line up, a $200,000 plus airplane was not in the cards.

The Comanche out shines any long body in many areas: it carries 130 gallons of fuel, a useful load of 1500 lbs, 780 fuel 720 people, its take off numbers are way shorter than any long body, it will climb at 2500 fpm at best angle, or a lazy 1500 at 130-140 kts. i fly it off grass and it can fly 1000 miles with that load and best of all can be bought for $100,000 or so.

The engine is expensive but not more than a good overhaul,of a Bravo or Aclaim engine. Depending on altitude fuel burn is in the order of 20gph, lean of peak 17 is possible at 180 kts. As another 400 owner said to me, out run a Baron on Seminole fuel burn.

Don't get me wrong I loved my Mooney and my yet own another, but for now this one is a blast.

Clarence