New MOONEY MODELS

[Jeff_S]

Don't get me wrong here, as I am all in favor of Mooney doing what it takes to succeed. There is probably a lot to like about this plane, and much will change in the three years it will take to move through certification (if it can hit the target launch date). But I am reminded of the attempt by Piper to roll out essentially another company's airframe in the LSA category and provide the same level of support and service for that which they provide to their standard metal offerings.  That didn't end too well.  Cessna also tried a new trainer in the Skycatcher and that didn't end well either.  But it's too early to be a naysayer, so for now I say "right on" and let's see what happens.

I just hope they don't blow through all their funding on the M10 series before they fix the lack of WAAS/ADS-B problem in my Ovation 3 that I just bought!

[KSMooniac]

Doing the 3 seat configuration seems weird to us in the owner-flown business/pleasure arena, but it might end up being a brilliant choice for the trainer market.  The big flight schools already train this way, and the biggest customers of big flight schools are the Chinese I believe.  If they can do this right, it will be a more efficient and durable trainer than a 172, with perhaps better performance suited for those on a career pilot track.  That might be the missing characteristic to make a successful trainer in the modern era.

 

I'll call it now, though... I see no way it will get certified and into serial production in 2017.  The FAA just won't work that quickly.

[Mooney in Oz]

Is there a link to pics of the M10J?

[Bob_Belville]

Is there a link to pics of the M10J?

http://www.mooney.com/who-we-are/media-gallery/

[N601RX]

Does anyone know what level of functionality this mock up has? Some of the pictures appear to be real, but other are computer renderings.

[John Pleisse]

Unimpressed.....trainer market........these planes need hours and real life abuse to be proven. A Mooney without the 64-412 airfoil? This will be the first Mooney (since the Mite and the twisted wing F/G) without the LF common wing. I am highly, highly skeptical. This is a hype mark-up to test the market. How's that Skycatcher working out? 

[WardHolbrook]

Unimpressed.....trainer market........these planes need hours and real life abuse to be proven. A Mooney without the 64-412 airfoil? This will be the first Mooney (since the Mite and the twisted wing F/G) without the LF common wing. I am highly, highly skeptical. This is a hype mark-up to test the market. How's that Skycatcher working out? 

What he said.

 

As I stated so eloquently in the other thread... "Yawn" 

[Marauder]

Unimpressed.....trainer market........these planes need hours and real life abuse to be proven. A Mooney without the 64-412 airfoil? This will be the first Mooney (since the Mite and the twisted wing F/G) without the LF common wing. I am highly, highly skeptical. This is a hype mark-up to test the market. How's that Skycatcher working out?

I suspect this is an all China play. Why announce it first in China? The Chinese are a very nationalistic country and I suspect this product is intended solely for the Chinese market.

Think about it, we ready for diesel here? Diesel is THE fuel in China. Every major company in the world is trying to capture the Chinese market. Why would this be any different?

[bonal]

Seems to me that most of the comments are kind of ho hum for this new craft. If the intended market is China and if certification is less strict then it seems like a smart move as it will likely be well received over there and if it keeps the doors open and the m20's coming out then all good. As for the plane itself I like it. Makes me think how much nicer a Cirrus would look if they mounted the tail on right.

[Andy95W]

What he said.

 

As I stated so eloquently in the other thread... "Yawn"

Ward,

Most of us here are trying to keep old, classic Mooneys in the air with continuing fears that the factory will not be around to provide support and parts.

They can glue together all the plastic airplanes they want, if it keeps the company viable, I'm all for it.

[WardHolbrook]

Ward,

Most of us here are trying to keep old, classic Mooneys in the air with continuing fears that the factory will not be around to provide support and parts.

They can glue together all the plastic airplanes they want, if it keeps the company viable, I'm all for it.

I agree 1001%. However, I believe that continued, long-term, factory support will be brought about by the continued development of the existing M20 design, not by totally unrelated new designs that will pull the support capabilities of the company in other directions. Unfortunately, it appears as though the Chinese may view the all metal M20 as moribund. We shall see. 

[DaV8or]

Does anyone know what level of functionality this mock up has? Some of the pictures appear to be real, but other are computer renderings.

 

It's a concept mock up. You sit in it, play with the controls and make airplane noises. Then you get out, review the card on a pedestal that has all the performance claims and write a check for a deposit. That's how real this is at this moment. Anybody wanna bet the "J" model gets dropped once they get to certification trials? Just a reminder, the Columbia 300 started life and was intended to be a retractable airplane, but the certification was too much for that company and they went fixed gear.

[DaV8or]

Unimpressed.....trainer market........these planes need hours and real life abuse to be proven. A Mooney without the 64-412 airfoil? This will be the first Mooney (since the Mite and the twisted wing F/G) without the LF common wing. I am highly, highly skeptical. This is a hype mark-up to test the market. How's that Skycatcher working out? 

 

Well, this wing may have the same airfoil, I can't tell for sure. However, it is being sold as a trainer and if I were designing a trainer, I'm not sure I would go for the classic Mooney wing either.

[DaV8or]

I agree 1001%. However, I believe that continued, long-term, factory support will be brought about by the continued development of the existing M20 design, not by totally unrelated new designs that will pull the support capabilities of the company in other directions. Unfortunately, it appears as though the Chinese may view the all metal M20 as moribund. We shall see. 

 

The M20 is done. It's too expensive to make and it's not competitive in the market place. New airplanes are needed. My only disappointment with this new design is it's apparent lack of all Mooney DNA. I could be wrong though. I really does have a "we have one too" feel to it, rather than bringing something new to the table. I would have thought a hybrid construction technique like the Liberty XL-2 has would be a good way to go, but no doubt this is the cheapest easiest route to production. Molded plastic. Like I said earlier, I put my money on the "J" model with retractable gear to evaporate.

[DaV8or]

Ward,

Most of us here are trying to keep old, classic Mooneys in the air with continuing fears that the factory will not be around to provide support and parts.

They can glue together all the plastic airplanes they want, if it keeps the company viable, I'm all for it.

 

I predict we will have good parts support for at least the next five years. By that time the success, or failure of both this new design and also the old Acclaims and Ovations in the market place again will be known. If Mooney looks to be a money pit, I bet we see the company up for sale, or bankrupt again. If this M10T is a success, I see the old Mooneys getting replaced quickly by the new plastic M30 soon after. Once they no longer make planes in Kerrville, no more parts support. So, five years short term if things go bad and maybe ten years long term if things go well.

 

I'm personally not worried about it. There are loads of cheap used parts and owners have flown obsolete airplanes for decades without any factory support.

[TabulaRasa]

Jeez, tough crowd!

 

I for one, am excited that Mooney is able to expand their product lineup beyond a single model line.  It will allow Mooney to diversify their revenue stream beyond a single product and the stronger Mooney is as a business, the better it will be for all Mooney owners/pilots.

 

It was a great tragedy that Mooney wasn't able to bring the '301 to full fruition before they ran out of money.  The turboprop single market has boomed since the 1980s and just imagine if it was Mooney producing and profiting from the TBM-700/850/900 instead of Daher-Socata.

 

There is plenty of JET-A infrastructure in the US to fuel these turbo diesel engines.

 

I think the reason why the Skycatcher failed was because it was hobbled in order to comply with LSA rules.  The engine isn't particularly economical, 120kt. is slow, it can't fold it's wings for storage like a Remos or CTLS, and the spartan interior combined with lack of payload gives it zero utility beyond basic Private training.  Mooney is smart to ignore the LSA rules.  3 seat utility, speed, FADEC engine with low SFC's, and the resulting economy of operation are all great things.  

 

Perhaps the M10's could also be sold as an Experimental quick build with factory help in Kerrville?  I would love to see a M10J with four seats.  I would also love to see a M20 with a weight saving composite fuselage with useful loads hundreds of pounds more than the existing Ovation/Acclaim...

[KSMooniac]

 

Perhaps the M10's could also be sold as an Experimental quick build with factory help in Kerrville?  I would love to see a M10J with four seats.  I would also love to see a M20 with a weight saving composite fuselage with useful loads hundreds of pounds more than the existing Ovation/Acclaim...

 

Thus far there is no such thing as a weight saving composite fuselage in the aviation world, sorry.  With the way the regulations are currently, they're going to be heavy.

[KSMooniac]

Anybody wanna bet the "J" model gets dropped once they get to certification trials? Just a reminder, the Columbia 300 started life and was intended to be a retractable airplane, but the certification was too much for that company and they went fixed gear.

 

This is not quite true... there was a plan to make an RG version of the Columbia and it was lofted in such a way to make it a simple change.  In fact, the fixed gear structural arrangement was adapted from the kit-built RG design and made without the mechanism.  It would be relatively simple to add the RG capability, but in reality it doesn't really buy much more speed over the well-faired gear and lighter weight.

There were also plans to offer a 200 hp variant with the Continental IO-360, but the 550 & FG version was chosen first for simplicity and to be different than the SR-20 that had a head start.  That proved to be the right choice because the 550-powered airplanes outsell the 360-powered airplanes something like 8:1 at Cirrus, just as they did at Mooney before the J was dropped in 1998.

[KSMooniac]

Unimpressed.....trainer market........these planes need hours and real life abuse to be proven. A Mooney without the 64-412 airfoil? This will be the first Mooney (since the Mite and the twisted wing F/G) without the LF common wing. I am highly, highly skeptical. This is a hype mark-up to test the market. How's that Skycatcher working out? 

 

There are far better airfoils available today than the 64-212, so I would be disappointed if that was still used.  A modern composite wing will be a LOT more efficient than the Mooney wing... the bigger question is will they make it as strong and as well-behaved at low speed.  

 

I think the M10T could succeed wildly where the Skycatcher could not.  Flight schools train with a student observer in the back these days.  The Chinese are the biggest customers of the biggest flight schools.  It makes a lot of sense to go that direction to get started.  The M10T could be a much better trainer than a 172 or PA28 for the career pilot track students, and at much lower operating cost (potentially).  I could see a progression to the M10J in the flight school track, and heaven forbid, maybe a twin someday?  (it might be hard to do better than the diesel DA42, though)

 

I'm still much more curious about their cert & production plan.  I think there is no way they can do it here by 2017, so perhaps it will be a 100% Chinese venture and they might not even bring the planes here?  I can't wait to watch it unfold.

[KSMooniac]

The M20 is done. It's too expensive to make and it's not competitive in the market place. New airplanes are needed. My only disappointment with this new design is it's apparent lack of all Mooney DNA. I could be wrong though. I really does have a "we have one too" feel to it, rather than bringing something new to the table. I would have thought a hybrid construction technique like the Liberty XL-2 has would be a good way to go, but no doubt this is the cheapest easiest route to production. Molded plastic. Like I said earlier, I put my money on the "J" model with retractable gear to evaporate.

 

I don't disagree with this opinion, except I can imagine the M10J being viable, both as a step-up in the flight school environment and as an attractive option in the owner-flown business and personal transportation arena.  It would need to be NOTICEABLY less expensive than an Ovation or Bonanza, though, for that to work outside of the flight school.  As much as I love having 4 seat flexibility, if this M10J has good cargo room with the 3rd seat removed it might work.  I don't like the tiny baggage door on the lower side of the fuselage, though.  If their performance claims come true it would be very welcome for owners like me... it would be even better than the legendary M20J.  

 

A revamped M20 using the existing steel cage with a composite shell attached is very intriguing to me.  It could be made more aerodynamic AND with more elbow/shoulder room, and perhaps a 2-door design with minor changes to the cage.  It would be heavier, though.  If something like this could be done with a gross weight increase and stronger gear we could have a much more viable M20 line going forward.

[TabulaRasa]

A revamped M20 using the existing steel cage with a composite shell attached is very intriguing to me.  It could be made more aerodynamic AND with more elbow/shoulder room, and perhaps a 2-door design with minor changes to the cage.  It would be heavier, though.

 

I was thinking a revamped M20 with NO steel cage, just a composite fuselage/empennage with the standard wings and pivoting tail bolted onto it.  Make the seats ones with the gooseneck style bottom designed to deform and crush under impact.  Maybe cover the control surfaces in fabric--carbon fiber fabric.  

[KSMooniac]

Composite control surfaces won't be lighter than aluminum.  

 

A structural composite fuselage opens a big can of worms, certification-wise.  Hence my thought about just bolting one to the existing cage to keep it simple.  Still a big task, though.

[John Pleisse]

Well, this wing may have the same airfoil, I can't tell for sure. However, it is being sold as a trainer and if I were designing a trainer, I'm not sure I would go for the classic Mooney wing either.

 

Dave...deck angle and tips make is look nothing like the Mooney wing. Has anyone used this LF airfoil on composites?

[KSMooniac]

Dave...deck angle and tips make is look nothing like the Mooney wing. Has anyone used this LF airfoil on composites?

 

John, the Cirrus and Columbia/Corvalis planes are using much more modern LF airfoils on their composite wings.  There are better options today than in the 50s, believe it or not.    Some of the low-speed behavior with these newer airfoils is awful, though, so the challenge is to wring out as much low-drag cruise performance while still having an acceptable stall speed and more importantly, acceptable/certifiable stall & spin behavior.  The newer planes have wing cuffs on the outboard edges for this reason b/c they couldn't certify without them.

[John Pleisse]

Aren't NACA ratings different at the root an tips, Scott?