What should Mooney do?

[mooniac15u]

They use carbon fiber in F1 race car suspension. I'm sure it could handle pushrod tube loads.

Have you seen what happens to an F1 car's suspension when it bumps into just about anything?

I don't think I would bet my life on carbon pushrods to save a few pounds. Carbon fibre skins and other non-structural items like seats would probably work.

[larryb]

Have you seen what happens to an F1 car's suspension when it bumps into just about anything?

I don't think I would bet my life on carbon pushrods to save a few pounds. Carbon fibre skins and other non-structural items like seats would probably work.

Sure, but how is a pushrod tube going to see that kind of impact load? Even a steel tube loses a lot of strength when it gets even a small dent.

[mooniac15u]

Sure, but how is a pushrod tube going to see that kind of impact load? Even a steel tube loses a lot of strength when it gets even a small dent.

The difference is in the amount of force it takes to deform the steel. Carbon tubes tend to have thin walls and are relatively brittle. Any chafing or side loading could cause catastrophic failure.

Aluminum tubes would also provide good longitudinal strength. An empty aluminum beer can will support your full weight. Just watch what happens if you deform one of the sides by tapping it with your finger. I don't think We'll see a lot of people signing up for aluminum pushrods either.

[aviatoreb]

The difference is in the amount of force it takes to deform the steel. Carbon tubes tend to have thin walls and are relatively brittle. Any chafing or side loading could cause catastrophic failure.

Aluminum tubes would also provide good longitudinal strength. An empty aluminum beer can will support your full weight. Just watch what happens if you deform one of the sides by tapping it with your finger. I don't think We'll see a lot of people signing up for aluminum pushrods either.

 

Maybe solid (not tube) carbon fiber rods would be excellent for this purpose.

[DaV8or]

Just an observation from my experience. Before anyone gets too in love with a golden, magical wonder material, it is my experience from a practical engineering stand point, (I have no formal degree in engineering, or materials, but I was born into a family of engineers, DIYers and have been fabricating things since age 4) I have learned that every material known to man seems to have strengths and weaknesses. I know almost nothing about titanium because it is to exotic for me to ever work with it, but I would almost guarantee that it too has an Achilles's heal. I would really be curious about it's failure mode. The really, really nice thing about steel is, it can take a whole lot of punishment, flexing, bending and cycles before failing and when it does, it gives plenty of warning. I wonder about titanium?

 

I brought it up and I do like the idea of using titanium to rebuild the landing gear system, but the pessimist in me is just preparing everyone for the inevitable post by some engineer with a real knowledge of material sciences to tell us why it won't work. There always seems to be a gotcha.

[ArtVandelay]

I know almost nothing about titanium because it is to exotic for me to ever work with it, but I would almost guarantee that it too has an Achilles's heal. I would really be curious about it's failure mode. The really, really nice thing about steel is, it can take a whole lot of punishment, flexing, bending and cycles before failing and when it does, it gives plenty of warning. I wonder about titanium?

They make golf clubs ( wood heads ) out of the stuff, the face flexes when it strikes the golf ball, which gives extra distance. If it can stand up to that, it can handle flexing from landings.

[yvesg]

Just an observation from my experience. Before anyone gets too in love with a golden, magical wonder material, it is my experience from a practical engineering stand point, (I have no formal degree in engineering, or materials, but I was born into a family of engineers, DIYers and have been fabricating things since age 4) I have learned that every material known to man seems to have strengths and weaknesses. I know almost nothing about titanium because it is to exotic for me to ever work with it, but I would almost guarantee that it too has an Achilles's heal. I would really be curious about it's failure mode. The really, really nice thing about steel is, it can take a whole lot of punishment, flexing, bending and cycles before failing and when it does, it gives plenty of warning. I wonder about titanium?

I brought it up and I do like the idea of using titanium to rebuild the landing gear system, but the pessimist in me is just preparing everyone for the inevitable post by some engineer with a real knowledge of material sciences to tell us why it won't work. There always seems to be a gotcha.

From reading Ben Rich's book about the Skunk Works, the team that built the Blackbirds which are made out of Titanium, they had the following issues:

This material is so hard that they could not use regular drill bits... they would just break. They had to re-invent new ways to machine this stuff. They had to change their tools: Cadmium plated wrenches would not be compatible with this stuff and bolts would just fall off after a few flights. The largest producer of Titanium is Russia. They had quite a feat to get this from them during the cold war. There are actually different types ot Titanium alloys, some are more heat resistant than others etc.

My opinion is that this would just "sky rocket" the manufacturing price... for benefits that would be marginal at the speeds and temperatures our Mooneys operate.

Yves

[DaV8or]

From reading Ben Rich's book about the Skunk Works, the team that built the Blackbirds which are made out of Titanium, they had the following issues:

This material is so hard that they could not use regular drill bits... they would just break. They had to re-invent new ways to machine this stuff. They had to change their tools: Cadmium plated wrenches would not be compatible with this stuff and bolts would just fall off after a few flights. The largest producer of Titanium is Russia. They had quite a feat to get this from them during the cold war. There are actually different types ot Titanium alloys, some are more heat resistant than others etc.

My opinion is that this would just "sky rocket" the manufacturing price... for benefits that would be marginal at the speeds and temperatures our Mooneys operate.

Yves

 

There is hope for the future. Here is an article that explains pretty well how titanium may one day soon be nearly as cheap as aluminum.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21571847-exotic-useful-metals-such-tantalum-and-titanium-are-about-become-cheap

[1964-M20E]

The difference is in the amount of force it takes to deform the steel. Carbon tubes tend to have thin walls and are relatively brittle. Any chafing or side loading could cause catastrophic failure.

Aluminum tubes would also provide good longitudinal strength. An empty aluminum beer can will support your full weight. Just watch what happens if you deform one of the sides by tapping it with your finger. I don't think We'll see a lot of people signing up for aluminum pushrods either.

Well we do have aluminum push rods in the tail at least.  The diameter is large for strength and it is where you have plenty of space for the rod.  Also from the trim wheel to the jack screw in the tail is aluminum tubing.

[bonal]

Seems like more features better useful load and cost less are not compatible. How much does a second door A.C. a parachute and all the other options add in weight and cost. You could save some weight by using titanium but way more expensive than steel and aluminum. The only way that the auto industry can make a car that is so affordable is mass production airplanes are almost entirely made by hand and there just isn't the demand to develop a process for mass production lines that make airplanes. I would love it if I could afford a new aircraft but unless I win the Lotto that just ain't in the cards. I hope they find a market that can support the brand no matter where it is.

[aviatoreb]

My tks panels are titanium / amazing show of technology the laser drilled micro pores in hard ti.

[carusoam]

You guys are really thinking outside the box!

Art and Al probably had the same conversations...

Who would mix dissimilar metals like steal and aluminum. It would never last 50 days, never mind 50 years.

Automobiles would never use aluminum, certainly not ordinary ones... Anyone see a new Ford F150 yet?

Who would be able to buy a plug in electric car?

The VHS was revolutionary. The DVD, spectacular. Who would have expected wifi delivery to the big flat screen.

Who would have expected wifi in the cockpit feeding traffic and weather to a small portable FAA compliant iPad?

Even visionary Steve Jobs didn't see that coming!

Imagine Art, Al and a few hundred of his favorite customers/followers getting together to discuss these topics..

It would look a lot like this thread!

Keep it up! All ideas are welcome. Even if it's only half an idea... Somebody else will gladly finish it!

Modern group thinking.

Thanks for sharing,

-a-

[mooneygirl]

After spending the whole week in the Mooney International tent at OSH14 I have to say I am pretty impressed.  This comment might not be popular, but, our company has needed an infusion of capital for many many years.  There wasn't an American in sight that stepped up.  While there is still at least one American investor that I know of, the majority of the funds have come from a Chinese company that is female-owned.  One of the factors that impressed me was that the long-range plan for Mooney is 5-10 years.  IMO some Americans want return on investment in 5 minutes or 5 months.  I am impressed with the future plans [what I know of them].  I am impressed with the commitment to our legacy through the establishment of the Mooney Museum [and education center] in KERV.

As many of you know there are three Mooney locations at present:  Manufacturing headquarters in Kerrville, Engineering/Design/Global headquarters in Chino, CA and the new office in China.  It was fun to talk with the engineers from Chino.  Like the rest of the list, they are energized and excited about the possibilities.

Jack Wiegand, the young man who flew around the world in the Mooney flew in China in the past year.  He relates quite an experience with permits, restrictions and pollution.

I really don't care where the money came from.  And I really don't care where the aircraft end up.  When we started the filming of Boots on the Ground, there were 7 or 8 employees at Mooney making parts, answering phones, and keeping things going. Now there are over 100. 

If I am remembering correctly 10 airplanes were sold to China at OSH. Another 4 were sold in the US.  It was exciting to see Mooney back at OSH.  I, for one, think that manufacturing will be in Kerrville for many many years to come.  And who knows, those old photos/website about Mooney in China with the millionaire's club might come to fruition....

[bonal]

I agree on that point MG lots of aviation businesses are still alive due to foreign investment. In the last two years I have seen 3 Mooney's shipped to Australia and also a C182 as some one that will likely never afford a new aircraft I would much rather see new aircraft constructed for oversees sales than to have a limited resource like the used fleet being boxed up and shipped out leaving less aircraft available for people like me.

[DaV8or]

After spending the whole week in the Mooney International tent at OSH14 I have to say I am pretty impressed.  This comment might not be popular, but, our company has needed an infusion of capital for many many years.  There wasn't an American in sight that stepped up.  While there is still at least one American investor that I know of, the majority of the funds have come from a Chinese company that is female-owned.  One of the factors that impressed me was that the long-range plan for Mooney is 5-10 years.  IMO some Americans want return on investment in 5 minutes or 5 months.  I am impressed with the future plans [what I know of them].  I am impressed with the commitment to our legacy through the establishment of the Mooney Museum [and education center] in KERV.

As many of you know there are three Mooney locations at present:  Manufacturing headquarters in Kerrville, Engineering/Design/Global headquarters in Chino, CA and the new office in China.  It was fun to talk with the engineers from Chino.  Like the rest of the list, they are energized and excited about the possibilities.

Jack Wiegand, the young man who flew around the world in the Mooney flew in China in the past year.  He relates quite an experience with permits, restrictions and pollution.

I really don't care where the money came from.  And I really don't care where the aircraft end up.  When we started the filming of Boots on the Ground, there were 7 or 8 employees at Mooney making parts, answering phones, and keeping things going. Now there are over 100. 

If I am remembering correctly 10 airplanes were sold to China at OSH. Another 4 were sold in the US.  It was exciting to see Mooney back at OSH.  I, for one, think that manufacturing will be in Kerrville for many many years to come.  And who knows, those old photos/website about Mooney in China with the millionaire's club might come to fruition....

 

OK, but in your opinion, what should Mooney do?

[DaV8or]

I agree on that point MG lots of aviation businesses are still alive due to foreign investment. In the last two years I have seen 3 Mooney's shipped to Australia and also a C182 as some one that will likely never afford a new aircraft I would much rather see new aircraft constructed for oversees sales than to have a limited resource like the used fleet being boxed up and shipped out leaving less aircraft available for people like me.

 

You have nothing to worry about regarding available aircraft. There are more and more pilots retiring every year. There is a glut of available aircraft and that's why prices are historically very low. Now is an amazing buyer's market that I have never known since I've been flying. Our planes have survived as long as they have because it has always been worth the money to repair them and rebuild them, but not any more. Now often times when the motor runs out, she's done. Off to the scrap heap.

 

Eventually, through lack of manufacture, crashes, scrapping and export, the pool of available planes will more closely match the pool of available buyers and the prices will rise again. The question is, which is being scrapped faster, planes, or pilots?

[bonal]

It's neck and neck and if the young people would get their heads out of their stupid games and start to look to the sky again the pilot population may start to grow again but good affordable aircraft will be harder and harder to find.

[mooneygirl]

I personally think Mooney needs to develop a trainer for the market in Asia and develop some competition for Pilatus in the US. But that is my two cents.  I also think that we need to continue to understand, as owners that there can be a progression from vintage C or E to a K or on to an Ovation or Acclaim.  We can help our younger or newer Mooney family to break into the vintage Mooney and then move upward.

What I was trying to imply with my post is that there is a good solid long-term plan for Mooney. I am very optimistic.

[DaV8or]

I personally think Mooney needs to develop a trainer for the market in Asia and develop some competition for Pilatus in the US.

 

These are both good ideas. The ideal trainer has not yet been built IMO and if there really is a demand for trainers in China, then maybe it makes sense for Mooney to pour the money into a project like that as it would have to be an all new airplane. With certification, they could sell it everywhere eventually.

 

Unfortunately, in the area of the turbine single, there are some very fine examples available now with the best being the TBM-950 IMO. There is some strong competition in this area and more coming. It is a profitable market it seems, so worth pursuing, but I wonder what Mooney could offer that isn't already there? How would the new Mooney stand out in a field of strong performers?

[KSMooniac]

I would estimate the cost of a clean-sheet single-engine turboprop (SETP) program to be well north of $300 million these days... hard to imagine Mooney getting into that game.  There is strong demand for the product, though, since TBM and Pilatus (and even Piper) making a steady stream of them.  Demand would be even greater if there was a more "affordable" engine too.  The big question is whether or not there is room for another product, especially since the investment is so large.  The fact that Cessna and Beech haven't entered that market might answer that question, and the investment for them could potentially be much smaller by re-using an existing fuselage (ala Citation Mustang, or Beech Premier, or King Air 90/200, etc. or even the old Baron 58P) yet they haven't gone there.  I don't know whether they feel it would fracture the market too much for anyone to make money, or if they fear it might cannibalize sales of King Airs or Citations....or both.  Cessna killed the very capable Conquest line in the 80's so they could sell more profitable jets.

 

Mooney could use it as a step-up plane, but nothing being made today would be common so it would be a from-scratch development program.  Can they develop something better than a TBM 900 or Piper Meridian?  Or make it substantially cheaper?  What would the market bear at say $2MM for a 4-6 seat version?  If they spent $300 MM to get one developed and certified, we're talking 750+ units to recover the development cost which would likely take 15+ years at which point it might be obsolete.  Maybe they'd have a direct line to selling such a product in China if the airspace is opened up and then it becomes feasible due to much higher production rates?  I suspect their gov't would raise barriers to TBM and Piper sales if Mooney had a product.   

 

Back to materials... titanium could work for landing gear and such and save some weight, but I doubt it would save enough to justify the very high material and processing costs.  Our landing gear don't weigh much considering the punishing job they perform.  Fortunately we have no expensive/fancy castings, delicate oleo struts, etc.  Structural/Aerospace grade Ti is ~ 10x the cost of aluminum and much more than that compared to steel.  It certainly has it's place in the industry, but not in general aviation anytime soon I'm afraid.  

 

I wish I were more creative... I'm a structural analyst for my day job and am better at evaluating design choices vs. coming up with my own crazy ideas.     It still think the answer to radically lower cost will be the eventual maturation of composite fabrication...with drastic part count reduction, integrated structure, fewer structural joints, etc.  But we're not there yet, especially with the FAA forcing regs written for metal airplanes on to composite structures that behave much differently.

[scottfromiowa]

Sell the fastest single to rich Chinese buyers. That is the formula and that is what they plan to do. Works for me. Nice to have them building planes again, but I just don't get at all excited because I will never afford a new Mooney. There are many excellent Vintage fleet Mooney's for sale on any given day. Awesome, but it is because their owners are aging and dying and there are not young afluent buyers that wish to purchase them...so the price stagnates and declines. I feel the answer is more eexisting pilots are being scrapped than existing airframes...and prices will continue to languish. On top of that there are NOT a high number of new pilots for many reasons discused ad-nauseum on this and other sites.

I love Mooney. I love MY Mooney...I would love an MSE more, but not going to happen because my partner and I could not recoupe our investment from our existing bird. Only going to get worse, before it gets better...IF "it" gets better. For me it is all good. Mooney is making airplanes, again and I fly a vintage bird. May the Chinese buy all they crank out and then some. I don't see the U.S. buyer getting on board in large numbers for a metal plane without a chute.

[aviatoreb]

 

 

Back to materials... titanium could work for landing gear and such and save some weight, but I doubt it would save enough to justify the very high material and processing costs.  Our landing gear don't weigh much considering the punishing job they perform.  Fortunately we have no expensive/fancy castings, delicate oleo struts, etc.  Structural/Aerospace grade Ti is ~ 10x the cost of aluminum and much more than that compared to steel.  It certainly has it's place in the industry, but not in general aviation anytime soon I'm afraid.  

 

 

 

Is that right - too expensive?  Not for reasons of the material but because of the even greater cost of certification I would expect.  If I were to develop an STC for Ti landing gear then i expect that 80% of the cost to buy such a landing gear would be the certification hassle cost and 20% materials. SO then it wouldn't matter if it were Ti or Chromoly or AL since the 80% part would be the same.

 

As I said, I was able to have Ti bikes produces for $500 (no STC needed!) and they seem roughly as complicated and roughly as much material as a landing gear piece.

[carusoam]

Can we buy a nose wheel truss from Ti tubing? Just to see the weight difference and the ability to avoid errant lineman dents?

If it saved a few pounds way out front, it would help my W&B...

Best regards,

-a-

[KSMooniac]

Is that right - too expensive?  Not for reasons of the material but because of the even greater cost of certification I would expect.  If I were to develop an STC for Ti landing gear then i expect that 80% of the cost to buy such a landing gear would be the certification hassle cost and 20% materials. SO then it wouldn't matter if it were Ti or Chromoly or AL since the 80% part would be the same.

 

As I said, I was able to have Ti bikes produces for $500 (no STC needed!) and they seem roughly as complicated and roughly as much material as a landing gear piece.

 

Cert costs are a big part of it, but aerospace grade titanium is VASTLY more expensive than 4130 steel or aircraft aluminum.  It would show up on the bottom line.  it is also much more difficult to process, so the production costs are more than steel.  Do you know what grade of Ti is in your bike?  Did it come with any certifications, or was it welded by certified welders?  

 

And at the end of the day, I'm not sure Ti landing gear would be any lighter than steel.  I'd have to do a big analysis that I don't have time to do for fun.  Our landing gear take a lot of abuse...thousands of pounds of load, and if you picked up the components you might be surprised how light they are relative to the task they perform.  (They're far heavier than a bicycle frame, though.  

[KSMooniac]

Can we buy a nose wheel truss from Ti tubing? Just to see the weight difference and the ability to avoid errant lineman dents?

If it saved a few pounds way out front, it would help my W&B...

Best regards,

-a-

Ti nose truss tubes would dent just as much as steel ones in the hands of a bad line guy.  Better to just upgrade to the LASAR truss with the over travel stops installed so that this won't happen.