what if Mooney did this?

[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

[1964-M20E]

I think AOPA had an article on the 900 a while back or maybe it was the advertising brochure but I think they outlined some of the things they did to get the extra performance.

 

Yes Mooney could possibly slick up things some more.  Unfortunately those pesky control surfaces need space to move otherwise you could have a very clean wing and tail and if you had the wheels completely enclosed once retracted and the doors matched perfectly with not lip or gap.  Not to mention the engine needs air to be cooled and the pilot and passengers.

[Joe Zuffoletto]

The Acclaim Type S represents this kind of tweaking of the "regular" Acclaim. It got tighter-closing and flatter gear doors, a new prop, flap and elevator gaps were tightened, etc. I don't think the powerplant was changed at all. The result was a top speed increase of about 5 knots, I believe.

 

I'm no expert in this area but I don't know what more they can squeeze out of this airframe.

[aviatoreb]

The Acclaim Type S represents this kind of tweaking of the "regular" Acclaim. It got tighter-closing and flatter gear doors, a new prop, flap and elevator gaps were tightened, etc. I don't think the powerplant was changed at all. The result was a top speed increase of about 5 knots, I believe.

 

I'm no expert in this area but I don't know what more they can squeeze out of this airframe.

 

 

I bet there's another 5 knots. Heck if they could find 8 - then they could say 250kts.  Here are a few more things.

 

-There is that new 4 blade prop stc that clais a few knots extra: http://www.flight-resource.com/Datasheets/Mooney-M20R-S-TN-Datasheet.pdf

-Hide the vor antenna in the wing tips.

-real winglets

[Mcstealth]

The optimization of this latest TBM family member was achieved through major efforts in modeling, including the use of computational fluid dynamics – enabling detailed assessments of airflow around the aircraft that replaced traditional wind tunnel testing. As a result, the TBM 900’s performance and handling was determined with high precision.

Computational Fluid Dynamics. Okay. If they pulled out more of everything on a TBM, could it help M20's and could it help sell more Mooneys?

[KSMooniac]

The cost to optimize those last few percentage points is very high, unfortunately. CFD to that level, and/or wind tunnel testing is quite expensive, and there aren't enough Mooneys sold to recover those costs if I had to guess. I'd rather see a gross weight increase instead.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[mike_elliott]

Why did ferrari spend millions more for Michael Schumacher Than another driver? Simply put, .01 seconds for a couple million was cheap when you are at the edge of your design

[smccray]

I doubt there's a business case for increasing the speed.  I suspect Mooney won't sell a single additional airplane if the they can increase the speed of the Acclaim to 250 knots.

 

I suspect the TBM 900 business case is driven by inducing existing TBM owners to trade up from a 700 or an 850 to a 900 rather than purely on attracting new owners.  Similar situation with the Cirrus SR22 G5- not much of a reason to trade up from a 2010 G3 to a new SR22 if it's for FLIR cameras or sat phones.  Make a material change to the new plane then existing owners are more likely to trade up.  

 

If the Acclaim was a successful product as measured by sales volume (and only on sales volume), perhaps a little more top end speed would make a difference.  I agree with Scott-, my money would be on a gross weight increase having a greater impact rather than a faster plane.

[Guest]

How many Acclaims can truly file 240 KTAS? How many J's can file 170? Speed is not the short coming, payload is, full fuel and one person is a real issue for an Acclaim.

How is it that Cirrus has sold so many planes in a short time? What did they see than others missed?

Clarence

[Mcstealth]

Why did ferrari spend millions more for Michael Schumacher Than another driver? Simply put, .01 seconds for a couple million was cheap when you are at the edge of your design

I appreciate the analogy and understand it, but that is my ultimate question. Is Mooney at the edge of the design envelope? Can it get 40 more pounds of UL and still increase its efficiency, utility, and speed?

DF

[mike_elliott]

I appreciate the analogy and understand it, but that is my ultimate question. Is Mooney at the edge of the design envelope? Can it get 40 more pounds of UL and still increase its efficiency, utility, and speed?

DF

 I am sure they are at the point each knot is very expensive to get. 40 # of useful would mean carbon fiber everywhere = not cheap. If this was a goal, a better approach would be a clean sheet design. jmho

[Mcstealth]

To me, this seems like a logical step. Fully optimize what you have. Just as most all F1 teams are continually twerking, uh, tweaking the Aero throughout the course of a season, so should Mooney.

Real winglets. I mean really, I probably know three RV builders who could fabricate three different versions of winglets within a months time. How hard could that be for real engineers at Mooney to cobble something together?

I guess I will have to read up on Computational Fluid Dynamics and wind tunnels. If eight F1 teams use it, I'm sure Military contractors use it, different airplane manufactures use it, so I am obviously ignorant as to the significant expense it carries. Is it the man hours that is the prohibited part? Someone expensive needs to know what to do with the data in order for it to be useful?

Put the damn airframe on a diet. How hard could that be? As an ex-racer, I know the benefits of eliminating unsprung weight. Mooney owners are always wanting for ways to take weight off the nose or gain UL. Why can't the factory do it for them and make the plane lighter? With todays materials, why can't that happen?

Okay

Rant over.

David

[KSMooniac]

Winglets don't pay off much in our spectrum of the aero world... they start to make sense on the faster airframes like jets.  There may very well be some optimization potential with the wingtips, but I think the perfect aero solution would not look like a winglet.  It is one of the projects I'd love to tackle some day just for fun to see if I can create something that reduces drag for our planes.  There are some stories in the RV world of folks experimenting with different wing tips and IIRC the slab side like vintage Mooneys turns out to not be all that bad.

 

CFD programs are very expensive to purchase/license, and take some specialized expertise to run them.  A wing tip for example requires complex 3D simulations/solutions vs. a simple 2D airfoil section design.  CFD codes also take fairly significant computing power to run, although I bet the price of such hardware isn't astronomical today like it might have been 10 years ago.  I think another area of optimization potential is the cowl/baffling/engine space, which is very complex and probably impossible to model completely in CFD, at least with today's technology.  I know Mooney did some work there between the Acclaim and the Type S, but I'm not sure how much.  Cooling drag for air cooled engines is a huge component of the overall drag profile, and huge gains can be made there with a better design.

 

100% agree on the airframe diet!  The legendary wing that is stronger than 12 g's or whatever it is could stand to lose some weight.  I think 10 g's would be sufficient, and leave some leftover weight to carry more fat Americans.    Perhaps some other airframe weight could be squeezed out too.  They could switch to Bill Wheat's carbon fiber belly pan for example instead of the heavy fiberglass.  Maybe carbon fiber cowls (I assume the new ones are still fiberglass).  There is potential there.

[DaV8or]

I think spending any money to make the plane a little bit faster is a waste. Want to be able to go full fuel and carry more people? Make smaller gas tanks. Seriously, if owners and the media can't figure out that you just don't fill the tanks all the way, then make it easier for them. Maybe go back to the 64 gallons I have, then maybe people will stop bitching about how you can't fill the tanks and put a bunch of people in it.   Mooney was just trying to be nice and give the owner the option of single pilot ops (the way nearly everyone flies the majority of the time) long legs so that you could go further faster. Sadly I think it has back fired and now people just moan about how you can't fill the tanks and still carry the whole McCoy clan with you.

 

Speed mod program? Re-engineer to be lighter? Exotic materials? The plane is already over priced and adding in these new materials costs plus R&D and certification just raises the price even further. We have to face facts. The M20 airframe is done. It is a long and convoluted evolution from a largely wooden airplane designed in the early 1950s. The numerous engineers employed over the decades are to be congratulated on their ingenuity and skill to get the M20 to last this long, go this far and go this fast. 

 

A whole new airframe is needed to stay competitive. The only thing that might make sense to eek the M20 along long enough for the replacement to arrive would be to add a parachute, but that would cost a fortune too and eat into that seemingly precious useful load. Still, Cirrus's success shows chutes sell planes better than "Fastest Production Single" does.

 

Mooney needs a new plane very soon. A new plane designed on the strengths and principles of Al Mooney and the M20. The new generation designers and engineers have to ask themselves as they tackle this task, given today's design aids and knowledge and the new materials available, what would Al do?

[Rhumbline]

I think spending any money to make the plane a little bit faster is a waste. Want to be able to go full fuel and carry more people? Make smaller gas tanks. Seriously, if owners and the media can't figure out that you just don't fill the tanks all the way, then make it easier for them. Maybe go back to the 64 gallons I have, then maybe people will stop bitching about how you can't fill the tanks and put a bunch of people in it.   Mooney was just trying to be nice and give the owner the option of single pilot ops (the way nearly everyone flies the majority of the time) long legs so that you could go further faster. Sadly I think it has back fired and now people just moan about how you can't fill the tanks and still carry the whole McCoy clan with you.

 

Speed mod program? Re-engineer to be lighter? Exotic materials? The plane is already over priced and adding in these new materials costs plus R&D and certification just raises the price even further. We have to face facts. The M20 airframe is done. It is a long and convoluted evolution from a largely wooden airplane designed in the early 1950s. The numerous engineers employed over the decades are to be congratulated on their ingenuity and skill to get the M20 to last this long, go this far and go this fast. 

 

A whole new airframe is needed to stay competitive. The only thing that might make sense to eek the M20 along long enough for the replacement to arrive would be to add a parachute, but that would cost a fortune too and eat into that seemingly precious useful load. Still, Cirrus's success shows chutes sell planes better than "Fastest Production Single" does.

 

Mooney needs a new plane very soon. A new plane designed on the strengths and principles of Al Mooney and the M20. The new generation designers and engineers have to ask themselves as they tackle this task, given today's design aids and knowledge and the new materials available, what would Al do?

 

I agree with much of the above.  The suggestions in this and the parallel thread relating to materials, re-engineering, squeezing a bit more out of the design, etc may have merit.  I don't know.  What I do know is that however fast the thing moves, I still have to take a whiz every 2 to 3 hours if I'm amply hydrated and I'll collapse on the ramp if I can't limber up at comparable intervals.  There is no room or facility in these things for the "walk of shame" or the stretch that constitutional affords. 

 

In my most humble opinion, huge fuel tanks, magnificent range and big engines are for record challengers and swinging dicks.  I prefer the simple, efficient, economical and increasingly timeless airplane envisioned by the designer and promulgated again and again by concerns who see the value in the basic design.     

[Mcstealth]

 
In my most humble opinion, huge fuel tanks, magnificent range and big engines are for record challengers and swinging dicks.  I prefer the simple, efficient, economical and increasingly timeless airplane envisioned by the designer and promulgated again and again by concerns who see the value in the basic design.

[bonal]

I'M JUST HAPPY TO BE HERE

[DaV8or]

In my most humble opinion, huge fuel tanks, magnificent range and big engines are for record challengers and swinging dicks.  I prefer the simple, efficient, economical and increasingly timeless airplane envisioned by the designer and promulgated again and again by concerns who see the value in the basic design.     

 

As do most all of us here. Sadly, most all of us here will never buy a brand new airplane. The good news is, there is a good supply of solid used old Mooneys out there at attractive prices. The bad news is, there are loads of unwanted old Mooneys out there at attractive prices.

[aviatoreb]

Very interesting - Check this baby out:

 

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/TurboProp/2006/Beechcraft/Lightning/1761935.html

 

Its called the "Beechcraft Lightning"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Lightning

 

which was a Barron 58P (the pressurized twin) with Bonanza wings and a turbo prop engine on the nose instead of a pair of Continentals on the wings.  It was a project by Beech before the early 80s crash.  Too bad they had a winner concept there.

 

Looks like that thing on trade-a-plane is someone's experimental remock of the same concept.  Looks nice but only thing wrong is why the massive fuel burn?  45gph for 240TAS?  Seems like other little turbo props do 35gph?  Don't anything about that Walters Diemech turbine though.

[Cyril Gibb]

Winglets don't pay off much in our spectrum of the aero world... they start to make sense on the faster airframes like jets. 

 

Decades ago I had a 150 HP Cherokee Cruiser with the Hershey Bar wing.

I installed REALLY droopy wingtips... perhaps 18"-20" as I recall (with the unfortunate snowbank interference problems).

The performance difference was STARTLING.  The nose attitude at cruise was suprisingly lower... takeoff/landing distance much shorter... stall speed reduction of 4-5 knots.... with the fixed pitch prop, I'd get redline rpm about 1 gal less per hour than before the wingtips

So from personal experience, wingtips can make a difference.... a noticable and significant difference

[Mcstealth]

Just say NO, to snowbanks. NO NO NO

[DaV8or]

Just say NO, to snowbanks. NO NO NO

 

That's been my plane all along!