N33GG Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 I have said for years that MAC should re engineer the M20J to be a kit plane. Instead of all metal, it should be more composite construction for ease of construction. A follow on, or prelude should be a kit version of the two seat Mooney M20 T Predator again using more composite that metal. I also think an either composite, or metal, single seat and tandem seat, Rotax powered version of the M18 Mite would be popular. For years we have seen kit companies try to get into the certified market, but why can't a certified plane manufacturer get into the kit market? There seems to be more promise and sunshine in the kit business by the looks of it. As to the original question of this thread, no. Mooney should not bring back the M20J as a factory built certified airplane. It is in no way viable. They tried to bring it back in the past and it failed. No reason to think it would succeed this time. I like those ideas!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy95W Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 No doubt the M20J/201 is a great airplane, possibly the best all-around airplane that Mooney ever designed and built. But that isn't necessarily enough. The P51 Mustang was a great airplane, but I'm not anticipating North American restarting the production line. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Or put a deposit on this http://www.raptor-aircraft.com/ What the heck is that things? A Fiat Diesel engine?! Or alternatively an Audi Diesel engine. This thing can't be for real. But attractive. 3600nm range at 230GS "long range cruise" speed. That's coast to coast easy. Pressurized FL25, 62'' wide cabin, BRS. Vaporware if I ever saw one. I will look for the 1/4 scale model tomorrow. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 For years we have seen kit companies try to get into the certified market, but why can't a certified plane manufacturer get into the kit market? There seems to be more promise and sunshine in the kit business by the looks of it. There is the looming Part 23 re-write, one arm of which is to provide a more easy means to bring new certified planes to market. Regarding certified manufacturers producing kits. Look what Vans charges for a replacement seat vs what Mooney charges. It as though Mooney doesn't want to be bothered (bothered by a Mooney owner and likely Mooney enthusiast). It's sort of hard to feel bad for Mooney's business woes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTK Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 I have said for years that MAC should re engineer the M20J to be a kit plane. Instead of all metal, it should be more composite construction for ease of construction. A follow on, or prelude should be a kit version of the two seat Mooney M20 T Predator again using more composite that metal. I also think an either composite, or metal, single seat and tandem seat, Rotax powered version of the M18 Mite would be popular. For years we have seen kit companies try to get into the certified market, but why can't a certified plane manufacturer get into the kit market? There seems to be more promise and sunshine in the kit business by the looks of it. As to the original question of this thread, no. Mooney should not bring back the M20J as a factory built certified airplane. It is in no way viable. They tried to bring it back in the past and it failed. No reason to think it would succeed this time. I thought that looked familiar but couldn't quite remember. I had to go look. It reminds me of the Meyers 400. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaV8or Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 There is the looming Part 23 re-write, one arm of which is to provide a more easy means to bring new certified planes to market. Regarding certified manufacturers producing kits. Look what Vans charges for a replacement seat vs what Mooney charges. It as though Mooney doesn't want to be bothered (bothered by a Mooney owner and likely Mooney enthusiast). It's sort of hard to feel bad for Mooney's business woes. The Part 23 re-write might help a little, but I'm not holding my breath that it will actually happen. Either way, certified manufacturers like Mooney will always carry the burden of product liability that the kit manufacturers largely do not. That liability means huge insurance with enormous premiums. That cost is passed on to the consumer in the price of the plane and the replacement parts. To compare the cost of a Vans seat to a Mooney seat isn't even close to fair. In the experimental world, there are zero regulations on the design and construction of the seat. You can go to Lowes, buy an aluminum deck chair, cut the legs down, rivet it to the floor and you don't even have to keep the receipt. The Mooney seat by contrast there are regulations covering it. How it attaches to the airframe, how many Gs it can withstand, the seat belt attachment points, safe guards should the adjustments fail, the flammability of the coverings, etc, etc. Mooney must also maintain complete records on that seat that include, who made the aluminum it was made from what lot and it's certificates showing correct alloy and temper. They need to do the same with all the fasteners used in the seat assembly as well. They need to keep inspection records on all the welds and that they were heat treated to the correct temper. To have all these records make sense, they have to have serial numbers on all of it. Oh, and they have to keep all these records forever. Vans doesn't have to do squat. All of the high level of scrutiny, record keeping and liability add cost. Vans doesn't have these costs. Then there is the economy of scale to consider. Vans is cranking out new seat assemblies all the time for new kits. How many new seat assemblies does Mooney make per year? 10? 20? Maybe in their wildest dreams 100? Literally, if you go to MAC and order a seat assembly, that seat assembly is custom made for you. They don't just pull one off the shelf. There is about zero demand for a replacement seat assembly, so they do not stock them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisk Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 I have said for years that MAC should re engineer the M20J to be a kit plane. Instead of all metal, it should be more composite construction for ease of construction. A follow on, or prelude should be a kit version of the two seat Mooney M20 T Predator again using more composite that metal. I also think an either composite, or metal, single seat and tandem seat, Rotax powered version of the M18 Mite would be popular. For years we have seen kit companies try to get into the certified market, but why can't a certified plane manufacturer get into the kit market? There seems to be more promise and sunshine in the kit business by the looks of it. As to the original question of this thread, no. Mooney should not bring back the M20J as a factory built certified airplane. It is in no way viable. They tried to bring it back in the past and it failed. No reason to think it would succeed this time. I'd love to see Mooney license the short and mid body designs to a kit company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaV8or Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 I thought that looked familiar but couldn't quite remember. I had to go look. It reminds me of the Meyers 400. The Meyers aircraft are much like Mooneys. Very fast, robustly built, steel "roll cage", record breaking performance and lastly, not economically viable to produce. The 145 and 200 could never come close to competing in the marketplace. Performance and safety are one thing, but price is everything it seems. The 400 never made it out the gate. IIRC, there is only one in existence. Way ahead of it's time, but even if they were to reintroduce it today, it would fail compared to the TMB 900 and Piper Meridian. When people spend that much money, they expect the air stair cabin class experience, not climbing up on the wing and over the front seats experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSMooniac Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 I'd love to see Mooney license the short and mid body designs to a kit company. If it takes Mooney 8-10,000 man hours to build one of those in a factory, how long do you think it would take to build one at home? That is one of the main reasons a new Mooney is expensive today (along with the liability issue). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M20F Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 There is the looming Part 23 re-write, one arm of which is to provide a more easy means to bring new certified planes to market. Regarding certified manufacturers producing kits. Look what Vans charges for a replacement seat vs what Mooney charges. It as though Mooney doesn't want to be bothered (bothered by a Mooney owner and likely Mooney enthusiast). It's sort of hard to feel bad for Mooney's business woes. Somebody from the factory posted here or somewhere on the seat topic. Apparently there are a zillion parts in a seat and it takes a lot of man hours to put one together. I tried finding the thread but maybe somebody else will have better luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 [snip] To compare the cost of a Vans seat to a Mooney seat isn't even close to fair........[snips] Mooney must also maintain complete records [snip] Your points are understood and well taken. >>In response[deleted] Some form of 23 rework will occur, the question is how much and with what effects on these questions (i.e. bringing to market new planes, fixing old problems...). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaV8or Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 If it takes Mooney 8-10,000 man hours to build one of those in a factory, how long do you think it would take to build one at home? That is one of the main reasons a new Mooney is expensive today (along with the liability issue). This is why I said i my post that the M20s would have to be re-engineered to be a kit. Forget about the aluminum spar with a billion rivets in it. Forget about the welded steel cage. Convert the design either to all composite, or a combination of composite and aluminum. Use the same winning airfoils, fuselage shape, full trimming tail and landing gear design. To simply supply an M20 as it is made today as a kit is totally unworkable. I know Al Mooney would have used composites had they been viable in his day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_elliott Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 What the heck is that things? A Fiat Diesel engine?! Or alternatively an Audi Diesel engine. This thing can't be for real. But attractive. 3600nm range at 230GS "long range cruise" speed. That's coast to coast easy. Pressurized FL25, 62'' wide cabin, BRS. Vaporware if I ever saw one. I will look for the 1/4 scale model tomorrow. Let me know if they have the model there, Erik, Incidentally, Copilot bear is doing well and says Hello! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaV8or Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Your points are understood and well taken. >>In response, I'd point out that none of Mooney's design actions or record-keeping prevented the 3+?G pull-up I performed at cruise speed when my seatback slipped over the knurled knob. The trial lawyers and bureaucrats missed that one. And heaven help me if I try to slip one by the FSDO with a locally engineered seat workaround--it's as though the FSDO are annoyed with solutions as much as problems. <<-----------------Don't quote, I'll delete this in a couple days. Some form of 23 rework will occur, the question is how much and with what effects on these questions (i.e. bringing to market new planes, fixing old problems...). All the certifications and record keeping in the world won't make a part, or plane fail proof. It's simply an attempt to make parts more consistent and less failure prone. Unfortunately, trial lawyers and grieving widows seem to demand fail proof. It's true though that the mind numbing requirements for certification do thwart innovation and evolution of design. So in the case of your seat failure, there is no way Mooney is going to redesign the seat unless people die from it, or there are significant enough failures that the Feds issue an AD. They might however issue an SB on it. In the case of a similar failure in a Vans RV-10 seat, Vans can just issue version 1.2 on the seat in all the new kits and offer a retrofit for old kits. Easy peasy. I'm still very skeptical about any Part 23 re-write making much difference. There will still be lawsuits and the Feds do not historically like to give up power and control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisH Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Off topic a bit, but are there builders that will 'hold-your-hand' while you build an experimental? I like the idea of taking a vacation to the Mooney factory (or whatever) and working on my plane, but with the help of people that actually know what needs to be done. I'm far too ignorant to be able to build my own plane solo, or trust the finished project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtVandelay Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 e. I'm far too ignorant to be able to build my own plane solo, or trust the finished project. Which is why I would never buy an experimental. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTK Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Which is why I would never buy an experimental.I agree. I just want to do what I do best and let others do what they do best. I'll trust the pros to build them and I'll stick to flying them! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_elliott Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Which is why I would never buy an experimental. The nice thing about something mechanical is that it tends to show up as faulty very quickly if improperly designed or installed. In my race car days, races were won and lost in the shop, as I imagine they still are. Airplane construction is really no different. The fast build completion centers that a lot of the kit makers are leaning towards provide a standardization of construction and I would think best practices to help insure the quality and thus safety of the human element. Some of the RV's I have seen rival the craftsmanship of Indy cars, only to find they have been built by guys who build indy cars They make some of the certified planes look like a rather poorly thought out example using technology of yesteryear. Proven technology? For the most part, but We have proven we can wear out a cam in a Lycoming engine for sure, and we can make junk out of a pair of magnetos in 500 or so hours, along with vacuum pumps and a host of other somewhat critical certified parts. Flap motors that cost 2K used, no back clutch springs if available costing well north of 1K, Mixture cable at $500, E model induction boot at $400, shock donuts at 130 ea., there is some real insanity to the certified world pricing. But I digress, the real weak link in the accident chain is still the system we are most reluctant to look at...ourselves. Us doing what we do best sometimes isn't good enough. We are a complex component of a flight system that has a lot of potential of needing service regularly. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triple8s Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 As great of a plane as a 201 is as are most any of the Mooney models......with the exception of the customer who has 550,000 to 600,000 $ and wants to buy a metal airplane that cruises 155-160kt who would want to buy a new J when for a smidge more a new Ovation could be bought. An Ovation will burn a touch more fuel while cruising at j speeds but not that much more really. The 4 cyl Lyc may be a bit cheaper to operate but if flown regularly and operated at less than high power settings i would bet the TCM 550 would not be a huge difference in maintenance or fuel. If you want to speed up, its there, if you want to fly 150-160 the 550 will do it sipping fuel and not break a sweat. Now, if a person is a CB and would settle for a used airplane, a good used O can be had for somewhere in the 180-230 range. Want glass? A used glass O is easily found for less than a new J can be built for. So my question is who would buy a 500,000 J Mooney???? Why would anyone want a new J Mooney, a very late model J can be bought and rebuilt with new interior, engine, paint, and Garmin glass for less than a new J would sell for. The market just isnt there if it was Mooney would be making them right now. If I were gonna spend 500,000 on a plane it would be a used Acclaim and the old Ovation I fly is WAY more than I really need, just ask my wife! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Cessna sells new 172s for around 300k and somebody is buying them. People outside of aviation assume that repainting, redoing interior, and putting a new engine and prop on a plane would cost more than a new one. They would be wrong. The M10T is no J. Looks cool though. Well, it certainly would cost more than the plane is worth to do all those things to one. If aircraft were like an expensive Mercedes or BMW (notice I didn't say Jaguar) where some fool pays a LOT of money for them new and then 5 yrs later some sucker purchases the car for 1/3rd of sticker price it would be a different world but these planes are worth the same with a timed out engine, ratty tatty interior and faded paint as they are with all items being new. Makes no sense. Jaguar would be 0.10 on the dollar!!! Look at the classifieds. A J with 4K hours and and ET of 1,300 is the same price as a 1,900 hr plane with a 250 hour engine. Go figure. Now does it make sense to purchase a new plane? Does it make sense to purchase a plane at all? Some, correctly or incorrectly, believe that something that's 20, maybe 30 yrs old is to old to want to own? ( I just solo'd in a 1966 Cherokee which is older than I am and the day before that I solo'd in a new RV12 Glass panel and all) There is some validity to this as with any car there are corrosion concerns that come with age, there are electrical issues that can come with age, the RV12 I fly had a G3 panel go out the morning of my solo (so nothing is 100% guarantee),, there are sometimes safety concerns that are mentally eliminated with a new aircraft purchase (Cirrius) and I am sure there are 100's maybe 1,000's of more reasons people desire one over the other... I cannot see paying 500K for a plastic kite nor aluminum one for that matter.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deb Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Off topic a bit, but are there builders that will 'hold-your-hand' while you build an experimental? I like the idea of taking a vacation to the Mooney factory (or whatever) and working on my plane, but with the help of people that actually know what needs to be done. I'm far too ignorant to be able to build my own plane solo, or trust the finished project. Glasair has a "2 weeks to taxi program" for the Sportsman. Lancair has a 2 week factory program for the Evolution. Then you ship it to a proffessional builder and complete the work for your 51%. The builders have a program worked out with the FAA. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradp Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Yes Chris there are owner assist programs for most major kit manufacturers where you can go to the factory and participate in the build with experienced people looking after you. They are careful about doing "49%" of the work so the owner can be issued a repairmans certificate and the kit can still qualify as a home build instead of a factory build. Perhaps someone with direct experience can chime in ... BTW if I could build a carbon Fiber J kit airframe using a diesel power plant, cut the empty weight, increase useful load and keep all of the wonderful aerodynamic characteristics that we love Id be a very happy pilot. I'm imagining a true 4-place (not a 3 place trainer) doing 160 kts on 8 gal/hr of jet-a with a 1000 lb useful load. The modern materials and technology have the potential to improve the efficiency that sets the J apart and perhaps add a little something extra Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyntgr1 Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Sounds to me we should pitch the idea of a composite J model to these guys. http://www.saravin.com/Specifications.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisk Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 If it takes Mooney 8-10,000 man hours to build one of those in a factory, how long do you think it would take to build one at home? That is one of the main reasons a new Mooney is expensive today (along with the liability issue). Where do you get 8-10,000 man hours? I thought the number was closer to 1200 man hours for a 201. https://books.google.com/books?id=9Jcc8d-CDEcC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=man+hours+to+build+a+mooney&source=bl&ots=R9rQUdLVXI&sig=iINmj0f8rhUTKgbLLcP_GV0a08o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBGoVChMIjOia5ansxgIVFC2ICh0ucAk6#v=onepage&q=man%20hours%20to%20build%20a%20mooney&f=false Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSMooniac Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Not even the modern composite airplanes with dramatically fewer parts (especially rivets) are that low. Mooneys are very labor intensive. Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.