What should Mooney do?

[cliffy]

The Twin Comanche makes those numbers now- 170 kts  holds 7000 or way better on one (I've held 9500 but not at gross) can carry 4 easily and it does it at 14 GPH in cruise all the time. The 160 Lycs are bullet proof,  16 and 17,000 ft are very usable altitudes even non turbo. 

The only reason they stopped making them was that the factory got flooded and they scrapped all the tooling and half made planes. 

Like I said, it's the best personal twin out there right now. 

[KSMooniac]

I think a turbo-normalized Twin Comanche would be the cat's meow for personal/family twins.  (except for the Comanche gear system)  It already rivals an Ovation in efficiency, but with more payload and (perceived) safety/redundancy.  

 

having said that, there is no market for a new version of something like that these days, unfortunately.  It is amazing how far the twin market has fallen in the last few years, although the TwinCo hasn't completely crashed like older 310s, Barons, etc.  I presume that is due to the much lower operating cost.

[aviatoreb]

The guy in the hangar next to me has a "Twinkie" as we call it.   I have even flown it and landed it.  It has a wing that reminds a lot more like a Mooney than it does the Piper Cherokee/Seneca wing that came later.  Its a much more solid airplane than those Cherokee/Seneca's that followed later too.

 

I don't think 170 on 14gph is realistic.  I think closer to 18gph is more realistic in that plane if I remember correctly to make 170.

 

I do worry that an IO320 twin isn't worth the trouble of going twin.  The most dangerous moment in a twin is during take-off.  A good and current pilot has to be fast to assess an engine out emergency if there is one, cage and feather appropriately and quickly and maintain proper speeds.  Then the idea is that the airplane can still climb on one engine.  Can a Twinkie really climb on one IO320?  Maybe - theoretical single engine climb rate is 260fpm if everything is done just right - but I would be really worried about flying that airplane at gross for just that reason.  I would argue that an underpowered twin with one engine out might be worse than a single engine airplane with an engine out.  As a two person airplane, the twinkie is marvelous, and twin engine redundancy and for good fuel burn too - and simple/inexpensive engines at OH time.

 

If I were going twin for me the point would be engines that can actually make flying on one engine worth the trouble and actually climb.  Since I'm not buying a twin anyway - I pick a Beech Baron - with some good ol' big bore contys that can still climb if one of them is out.

[cliffy]

Well I have flown the twinkie on one at a DA of 7000' and climbed out all though not too fast 150 FPM.  If you're not trained and current for an airplane don't fly it. One can always get the 200 HP conversion Twinkie but not at 14 GPH which I can and do get on every flight at 165 to 170 kts TAS. The Comanche gear is very good IF the 1000 hr AD has been done correctly. Not many are. All one has to do is look at the nose gear down lock sprigs to see how good the gear is. If they are original and rusty RUN AWAY from it. It hasn't been cared for properly.  

[DaV8or]

A quick scan of Controller.com shows that this wonder plane, the Twin Comanche, is selling for between $49,000 and $154,900, so basically around the same price as a used 201 J. So, should Mooney spend hundreds of millions of dollars designing and certifying a Twin Comanche replacement when you can buy a decent one for about $80,000 and then spend about $500,000 restoring it, improving it, modernizing it and enjoying it and come out ahead? People don't seem to be doing this.

 

I have to say that new piston twins are all but dead. Only the flight training academies seem to have interest in new piston twins. 

[MB65E]

For anyone, much less Mooney, to be competitive in the single engine turbine arena, the new design would have to as fast as the TBM, carry as much as the Pilatus (six full seats, fuel and baggage) and cost less than an Epic. That would be the only way for the plane to gain momentum.

DF

[MB65E]

I agree, but that's a 1.5- 2m dollar airplane!! I had a realization at Oshkosh this year. I think their competition could even be the Lancair Evolution. The marketing scheme Lancair has developed you can get a turbine 4 seat airplane for 1.0m. However, I've priced it out and your looking at 1.4m. I would much rather have the Evolution, but if your in the realm of "it's gotta be certified" then the new Mooney is the next closest fastest thing out there. All for about half the cost of a new Evolution. I'm so glad to here about the 14 orders at Oshkosh. Wonder what the sales were on other aircraft.

I talked with a relocation pilot last week after he saw our airplane. He delivered an airplane a weekend for Mooney back in 65-67. I dream what our 65E would have looked and smelled like back in 65.

-Matt

[ryoder]

Mooney should get on this forum and sponsor events to reengage with their customers and prospective customers. They should also find ways to make ownership cost less through certified used sales and sharing arrangements.

[carusoam]

They are here Ryoder, they are here...

-a-

[Guest]

 

Building airframe sections in China

At the moment the complete airframe is hand made right here in Kerrville, TX. USA by highly skilled craftsmen, and women. It is the only made from scratch hand made aircraft on the market. Quality such as what we have here at Mooney is not cheap. We only hire highly qualified people that take pride in their work, and that is why the new Mooney has the price it has.

The facility in China is to be used to build aircraft for far east sales, to reduce the cost of shipping.

[ryoder]

Maybe Mooney should work with flight schools and offer leaseback deals but they would probably have to bring back the fixed gear and prop trainer model. A local flight school just got a new 172 but it's owned by Cessna and leased to the school.

[1964-M20E]

At the moment the complete airframe is hand made right here in Kerrville, TX. USA by highly skilled craftsmen, and women. It is the only made from scratch hand made aircraft on the market. Quality such as what we have here at Mooney is not cheap. We only hire highly qualified people that take pride in their work, and that is why the new Mooney has the price it has.

The facility in China is to be used to build aircraft for far east sales, to reduce the cost of shipping.

Safetyguy

 

 

Thanks

 

I think everyone here appreciates the high quality standard Mooney embraces both for new airplanes and all the way back to the M20As.  The fact that we have planes that are 40+ years old flying is a testament to the design and quality of Mooney.  Everyone here I feel wants to see Mooney succeed in their latest endeavor. 

 

I think there are a lot of good ideas here and I’m sure many have already been discussed in the Mooney board room and engineering.  While the hand built quality of the aircraft is evident and an asset it is also your greatest liability when it comes to the cost of the aircraft and I’m sure the executives are exploring ways to automate portions of the manufacturing process.  I hope you are taking notes of all the ideas here.

 

However, one idea that was pitched is offering a J sized and powered airplane similar to the Mooney J model in a fast build kit form on the experimental market.  This business model would allow you to take advantage of economies of scale in your factory and cater to the customer who wants your current production model and to the customer who would like to have a nice 4 place retract single in the experimental class.

 

I wish Mooney well but to be honest I most likely will never be able to afford a new Mooney or Cessna for that matter with the new prices of $400k+. 

[Guest]

When I got here at Mooney in March 2014 this aircraft was sitting on a trailer disassembled. Now it is on jacks being refitted and being made ready for flight once more.

[Mcstealth]

I've got dibbs on it.

[fantom]

When I got here at Mooney in March 2014 this aircraft was sitting on a trailer disassembled. Now it is on jacks being refitted and being made ready for flight once more.

 

That lovely Predator was, at best, a last minute kluge for the Air Force fly-off, with reported flying characteristics that would challenge the best F-15 pilot. Mooney wanted 50 confirmed orders, before modifying the design for commercial sale back in the early 90's.

 

They never got the orders, and thankfully returned the initial deposits. I 'settled' on an MSE, after coming oh so close to owning a Siai Marchetti SF-260.

 

Be careful of what you wish for....

[DaV8or]

When I got here at Mooney in March 2014 this aircraft was sitting on a trailer disassembled. Now it is on jacks being refitted and being made ready for flight once more.

 

Nice! See my above post on what Mooney ought to do with the concept.

[Mcstealth]

Ok you engineer guys. What was it that TBM did to squeeze out more performance from the 850, to the 900? Flow dynamics or something like that? Pretend that Mooney performed this type of procedure. What would be the outcome? An O3 with 5% increase effiency? An Acclaim that's 10 % better at 16Fl? No measurable increase?

 

I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night

 

DF

[DaV8or]

Ok you engineer guys. What was it that TBM did to squeeze out more performance from the 850, to the 900? Flow dynamics or something like that? Pretend that Mooney performed this type of procedure. What would be the outcome? An O3 with 5% increase effiency? An Acclaim that's 10 % better at 16Fl? No measurable increase?

 

I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night

 

DF

 

I thought they just once again changed the motor for more HP, is that not true?

[Mcstealth]

No. Big engineer study that resulted in the performance gains. Called it flow dynamics or something like that. The horsepower and engine are the same.

[marky_24]

I thought that's how the Acclaim "s" came about. They worked with LoPresti to get 10 knots over the regular Acclaim.

[mike_elliott]

Dav8or, the TBM nicely fills this niche

[DaV8or]

Dav8or, the TBM nicely fills this niche

 

Sure, the TBM is a really nice plane. IMO, the best of both the Meridian and the Pilatus it competes with, but sadly, Mooney has nothing to do with it. So when the question of "What should Mooney do?" comes up, a natural place for them to expand into is the one area of new GA planes that actually is doing well, the turbine single. The question is, how can they do better than Pilatus, Socata, Piper and Epic?

 

I don't have an answer to that. Faster? Safer? Cheaper? Better short field? I don't know, but it's worth a study for the new Mooney.

[Super Dave]

We've all read that Mooneys have a cabin width as great or greater than a Bonanza or Skylane, but I don't think many people, having sat in all three, would guess this to be the case. My theory on the disparity between perception and the tape measure is the relatively LARGE space BETWEEN the seats in the Mooney. I'm 6' 3" and 235#, I have plenty of leg room and head room, but I have to admit that my left shoulder/elbow is sort of crowded against the left side of the cabin. At the same time, I'm nowhere near rubbing shoulders with another adult sharing the front seat with me. To sum it up; I think Mooney's seating position is to far outboard, leaving wasted space between seats.

 

So, my recommendation to Mooney is to reposition the trim wheel up to the pedestal and move each seat inboard a couple of inches, and maybe increase the seat width so that they are nearly touching.

[Stefanovm]

I am one of the less affluent Mooney flyers. I can barely afford to keep my 20E flying. I am torn between upgrading the avionics, very expensive, or finding one where someone else took the upgrade loss  Therefore, even though I voted, I could not afford most of the needed choices. If Mooney became real active in making an "affordable" airplane for a lot who can afford one, that performs well, it would keep the used market in which I must remain, active.

[cujet]

Watch the video for something really interesting. A DeltaHawk Diesel in a Cirrus, running at power towards the end of the video. Maybe Mooney should consider a 200HP+ DeltaHawk Diesel in a resurrected J model. It would look great, and be a very good high altitude performer at 7 gallons per hour. Overall trip efficiency is nearly 40% better than a gasoline engine at the same speeds and altitudes. This is due to the much lower fuel flow during taxi, takeoff, climb and cruise. 200HP=11gph. 

 

And, I love the look of the cowl !!

 

For those who don't know about the DeltaHawk Diesel, it's a 2 stroke, piston ported directly mechanically injected V-4 turbodiesel. This is important because the engine has 4 power events per revolution, typical 4 cyl engines only have 2 power events per revolution (whether gas or diesel) . Diesels are tough on props due to the violent nature of the combustion event. The DeltaHawk design reduces the "combustion event" related stress on the prop. SMA diesels (and others) must use MT wooden props (or similar) for fatigue reasons. It's also a direct drive engine, unlike the Austro/Thielert taxicab Mercedes diesel. The claim is rated power to 28,000 feet.