What should Mooney do?

[aviatoreb]

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.  

 

I know that if an identical tube of identical geometry is made in Ti vs steel that the Ti would be lighter.  But I know what you are saying is correct, that if a properly engineered geometry, wall thickness and so forth designed to bear a given engineered load is designed in whatever material required that the differences of materials are not as obvious.  The stronger steel may need less material than say the less dense Ti which may in the end require more material.

 

So I don't know either, but my guess only is that Ti would be way lighter.

 

The bike industry is constantly claiming that they use "aircraft grade" Ti, but whatever that means....  I doubt it is certified as aircraft grade since bicycles don't require certs, and that last bit of quality I bet indeed does cost more.  Except for that detail - and yes I know that is a massive "except" - that I was able to get a custom bicycle frame built for $500 from China that has lasted me almost 10 years, suggests that a similarly complex landing gear piece could be similarly priced - to construct - not to certify I well know - and also I have no idea the pedigree on the level of "aircraft grade Ti" they claim.

 

Bicycles often use two grades, one is the harder 6AL-4V (called 6-4) and the other is 3AL-2.5V which is a bit softer and more compliant.  They use the 6-4 for screws and bolts as well as the lug-work.  The 3AL-2.5 is used in the long spans of tubes since it is nice that it is not quite as stiff there since a bit of flex is nice at absorbing the bumpy road.

 

Here is a cool website I just stumbled across.

http://fireflybicycles.com/1112

http://www.sevencycles.com/buildingbike/techsupplement/ti.php

 

 

Here is a cool website I just saw.

[Mcstealth]

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

[KSMooniac]

I know that if an identical tube of identical geometry is made in Ti vs steel that the Ti would be lighter.  But I know what you are saying is correct, that if a properly engineered geometry, wall thickness and so forth designed to bear a given engineered load is designed in whatever material required that the differences of materials are not as obvious.  The stronger steel may need less material than say the less dense Ti which may in the end require more material.

 

So I don't know either, but my guess only is that Ti would be way lighter.

 

The bike industry is constantly claiming that they use "aircraft grade" Ti, but whatever that means....  I doubt it is certified as aircraft grade since bicycles don't require certs, and that last bit of quality I bet indeed does cost more.  Except for that detail - and yes I know that is a massive "except" - that I was able to get a custom bicycle frame built for $500 from China that has lasted me almost 10 years, suggests that a similarly complex landing gear piece could be similarly priced - to construct - not to certify I well know - and also I have no idea the pedigree on the level of "aircraft grade Ti" they claim.

 

Bicycles often use two grades, one is the harder 6AL-4V (called 6-4) and the other is 3AL-2.5V which is a bit softer and more compliant.  They use the 6-4 for screws and bolts as well as the lug-work.  The 3AL-2.5 is used in the long spans of tubes since it is nice that it is not quite as stiff there since a bit of flex is nice at absorbing the bumpy road.

 

Here is a cool website I just stumbled across.

http://fireflybicycles.com/1112

http://www.sevencycles.com/buildingbike/techsupplement/ti.php

 

 

Here is a cool website I just saw.

 

Yes, for equivalent geometry (diameter, wall thickness) Ti would be 56% lighter... very significant.  Whether it is worth 10x the cost is another question.    I'm not sure what steel is used in the landing gear or the fuselage... I would guess 4330 for the gear that can be 40% stronger than 6-4 Ti, cheaper, and much easier to cut and weld.  But, who knows.    To get a Ti version to equivalent strength, then the weight advantage drops significantly but the cost increase is still there.  There may be other stiffness requirements for the gear (and steel is 80% stiffer than Ti) that design parts of the gear system...I'm not sure. 

 

Ti bicycles are lighter than steel (generally speaking) because the steel cannot practically be made with thinner tubes otherwise that would dent (and collapse) too easily.  Ti in equivalent wall thickness is strong enough, and of course that is lighter.  Aluminum is much less strong, so the wall thickness needs to be increased, and thus the bending stiffness goes as a geometric function and the result is a stiffer/buzzier ride.  

 

And that concludes today's lesson on material selection for engineering applications.  

[carusoam]

Material science, aviation technology and market study!!!

You guys are good,

-a-

[Nepomucene]

If I read what you say, I see: more doors, a parachute, Ti landing gear, mogas, while using carbon & fiberglass to increase the max payload...

Looks like someone is doing that, but it is not Mooney.

What do you think of this?

Pipistrel Panthera

[ArtVandelay]

If I read what you say, I see: more doors, a parachute, Ti landing gear, mogas, while using carbon & fiberglass to increase the max payload...

Looks like someone is doing that, but it is not Mooney.

What do you think of this?

Pipistrel Panthera

IF they can build it for $500K with quality, Mooney is in trouble.

[KSMooniac]

Yes, that would appear to be a 21st century Mooney...  and they're doing a smart thing certifying it over there and getting FAA certification via bi-lateral agreement.

[yvesg]

If I read what you say, I see: more doors, a parachute, Ti landing gear, mogas, while using carbon & fiberglass to increase the max payload...

Looks like someone is doing that, but it is not Mooney.

What do you think of this?

Pipistrel Panthera

Guys, go try the interior view using your iPad... it uses the internal iPad sensors with a nice 360 degrees virtual feel.

Yves

[carusoam]

Interesting!

Go to the site

Click on Gallery

Drag your finger for full view

Spin in all directions for cool iPad tricks.

Unfortunately, when you turn to show your finance minister, it doesn't work the same...

She loses interest quickly...

Best regards,

-a-

[aviatoreb]

Yup - it is a thing of beauty / and Ti landing gear.

[carusoam]

Titanium, trailing link...

Just missing the favored TNIO550 option....

Best regards,

-a-

[aviatoreb]

Titanium, trailing link...

Just missing the favored TNIO550 option....

Best regards,

-a-

 

I think I read somewhere that this was the plane where the hybrid electric version promised eventually is cool.  Not only is it efficient - but it is both a gas motor and an electric motor driving the same shaft.  So that is twin redundancy in the same shaft.

[DaV8or]

I don't know if anybody watched this video, but if Mooney wants to compete in the M20J/201 category again, they have their work cut out for them. This plane is shaping up to be awesome!

 

http://youtu.be/9e31q09AksA

 

<edit> I would love to embed this video like some people do, but the tech to do so is so shitty I can't figure it out. I really hate all the internet forum hacks and secrets! Putting video in a post should be as easy as a photo without going to Wiki, Google, or asking somebody online how to do it!!!       

[ArtVandelay]

I've never been a fan of t-tail design, I wonder if that helps with spin recovery?

[1964-M20E]

It would nice if they offer it as a kit built in the experimental class.  

[Nepomucene]

It would nice if they offer it as a kit built in the experimental class.  

 

They will at the end of 2014, way before selling certified ones (2017)

Check here http://www.panthera-aircraft.com/news for the news of April 2014

[DaV8or]

It would nice if they offer it as a kit built in the experimental class.  

 

That kit would take forever and one day to build and probably be one of, if not the most expensive single engine piston kit out there. Without a big bore motor on front, I doubt there will be many takers. Lancair offers as an option the Legacy can be built with the IO-390 engine. Last I heard, the only one actually built with that engine was the factory demonstrator. If people need a four place kit, they'll likely go RV-10 because it's easier to build. If they want a fast four place, they will go Lancair Evolution.

 

Maybe they are planning a big engine for this plane with greater speed, I don't know, but the expense and time to build ratio to speed with the 390 is likely to make it not a very successful kit.

[smccray]

Recent news releases have said that they've swapped the IO390 for an IO540.  I'm sure their 200 ktas on 10 gph claim will go away soon too, but even if they're at 13-14 GPH it's one hell of a plane.  If it comes to fruition it will materially change the market for single engine piston aircraft.

 

I'm not sure a lancair evolution is a good comp.  Cost is substantially more.  If there were a good builder assist program where you could get the "plane" built in 4-6 weeks, get an AW certificate, then outsource the rest of the work on the interior and the panel the experimental would do great.  It won't keep up with a Lancair Legacy, but it's a 4 place airplane with a great useful load and a parachute.  It will sell along side the certified version of the plane with better avionics at a cheaper price.

[1964-M20E]

Recent news releases have said that they've swapped the IO390 for an IO540.  I'm sure their 200 ktas on 10 gph claim will go away soon too, but even if they're at 13-14 GPH it's one hell of a plane.  If it comes to fruition it will materially change the market for single engine piston aircraft.

 

I'm not sure a lancair evolution is a good comp.  Cost is substantially more.  If there were a good builder assist program where you could get the "plane" built in 4-6 weeks, get an AW certificate, then outsource the rest of the work on the interior and the panel the experimental would do great.  It won't keep up with a Lancair Legacy, but it's a 4 place airplane with a great useful load and a parachute.  It will sell along side the certified version of the plane with better avionics at a cheaper price.

From what I read they dropped the IO390 because LYC would not certify it for MOGAS.

 

In EXP it would be great then you could use the IO360 or 390 and have a nice face slick plane.

[golfpilot]

If they could put together a pressurized mooney that has the windows and looks of an acclaim and cost 750k, they would have a winner. If they could put the m22 together 50 years ago, they should be able to build an Acclaim looking version of it today. I can't tell you the amount of times I have seen only 1 or 2 people walk out of a Malibu or P210. Pressurized 4 Seaters are wanted!!!

 

I'd personally like to see Mooney come out with short bodies again. Price it somewhere between a 172 and 182 (400-450k) and they'd be selling them faster than they can make them. 

 

I'm by no means in the aircraft building business, but it would seem like you would want to sell your planes at the lowest price you can to get people in the door then sell them parts for the life of the airplane

[DaV8or]

 

I'd personally like to see Mooney come out with short bodies again. Price it somewhere between a 172 and 182 (400-450k) and they'd be selling them faster than they can make them. 

 

I thought about short bodies too. However, I was thinking more along the lines of the M20XT Predator. Two seats and fully aerobatic. Powered by either a IO-390, or maybe a IO-540.

 

[DaV8or]

If they could put the m22 together 50 years ago...

 

What about the M22 with a turbine motor on it? Does that make any sense? I suspect not, but food for thought.

[cliffy]

Mooney just might need a new marketing venue. They've been in the SE market forever, ventured a twin way back when but dropped it. Wouldn't be too hard to go to 2 motors like Piper did with the Twin Comanche. Two 160 hp Lycs with a good payload near or at the performance level of the TC and it would sell. You don't need bigger motors and heavier airplanes. The mission would be 80% 1 or 2 people and near a 1000 miles at 175-185 kts. Could use the same wing with mods, same long fuselage but maybe bigger tail for Vmc work. Might add turbos later. Still good for 17,000' without turbos. I predict it would sell big time.  

[DaV8or]

Mooney just might need a new marketing venue. They've been in the SE market forever, ventured a twin way back when but dropped it. Wouldn't be too hard to go to 2 motors like Piper did with the Twin Comanche. Two 160 hp Lycs with a good payload near or at the performance level of the TC and it would sell. You don't need bigger motors and heavier airplanes. The mission would be 80% 1 or 2 people and near a 1000 miles at 175-185 kts. Could use the same wing with mods, same long fuselage but maybe bigger tail for Vmc work. Might add turbos later. Still good for 17,000' without turbos. I predict it would sell big time.  

 

The twin Mooney had two 180 hp engines on it. It was a mediocre performer, but it was never a serious project. I guess it was a side project by a group of guys working for Mooney and they sort of built it after hours as a "What if...?" sort of project. I guess Mooney management must have been pretty unimpressed at the time.

 

As to now, the piston twin is all but dead it seems. On the used market they are giving them away for the price of the components. Of the twins available today, the only certified ones I can think of are the Diamond Twinstar, the Beechcraft Baron, the Piper Seminole and Seneca and the Tecnam P2006. The Beech and Piper products sell in the low single digits each year on a order to build basis. The others only slightly better.

 

Since Mooney would have to start from scratch, the money they spend on the program would be better spent on a segment of the market that is slightly vibrant, the pressurized turbine single IMO.

 

For those who haven't ever seen the one and only twin Mooney, here are the only pictures I have ever seen of it.

 

[golfpilot]

I really like the idea of twins, to a passenger they look and feel like a "Real" Airplane. I think the P2006 is genius, just over priced. If someone can make a twin that can carry 4 people on 14gph and 170knots, while being able to maintain altitude with one engine up to about 7k, I think you would have a winner. Using the Rotax engines is genius because they are cheaper and low fuel burn. I just don't like that it only goes 140. Thats 182 speed, too slow for a twin. Mooney, the king of slick, could be the one to put a 14gph 170 knot twin. 

It needs to have a competitive price too though. Like under 600. 

There is alot of innovation going on in the GA world right now, the competition should make such a plane a possibility.