1964-M20E Posted January 28, 2016 Report Posted January 28, 2016 Of course once you start down the slippery slope how beneficial is the turboprop if you are not pressurized? Also what is the true VNE for our air frames? on my F 200MPH, O3 ?? How much slowdown for turbulence? As for fuel burn turbines burn almost as much on the ground idling as they do in cruise. Do not forget the buy in cost for a turbine as well. The RR250 would be sweet light, 450SHP derated to 350 to 375SHP 120gallons of fuel a good solid 4.5 hours of duration at SWAG of 290KTS TAS 900NM range with 1 hour reserve. Of course this is all speculation and a little dreaming. Quote
carqwik Posted January 28, 2016 Report Posted January 28, 2016 Am I missing something here? Isn't the large certification process the M10? Clearly the goal of the company is fulfilling the needs/market for China... Given how much time the Archers/Arrows/Seminoles are getting at TransPac here at Deer Valley-Phoenix training Chinese students, no doubt there's a need for replacement trainers...and other than for the multi-, the Mooney M10 can serve as primary, instrument, and commercial ratings platforms. 2 Quote
carusoam Posted January 28, 2016 Report Posted January 28, 2016 Fuzzy memories... In 2008 Mooney was in development with the, then new, RR engine. It was publicly known and written about at the time. Interesting times... http://www.aviationpros.com/press_release/10403763/mooney-and-rolls-royce-sign-agreement-for-joint-engineering-project Fuel capacity for the O is 100gal, with optional 130 gal total. UL is just over 1000LBs. Oxygen systems become critical at altitudes above 20k'. Efficiency is terrible at lower altitudes. The mission of the plane seems to get narrower by adding a turbine. Best regards, -a- Quote
aviatoreb Posted January 28, 2016 Report Posted January 28, 2016 4 minutes ago, carusoam said: Fuzzy memories... In 2008 Mooney was in development with the, then new, RR engine. It was publicly known and written about at the time. Interesting times... http://www.aviationpros.com/press_release/10403763/mooney-and-rolls-royce-sign-agreement-for-joint-engineering-project Fuel capacity for the O is 100gal, with optional 130 gal total. UL is just over 1000LBs. Oxygen systems become critical at altitudes above 20k'. Efficiency is terrible at lower altitudes. The mission of the plane seems to get narrower by adding a turbine. Best regards, -a- That RR250 engine was originally designed for helicopters. It's ideal altitude is mid teens. It also burns happily from 21-30 so says the Extra 500 litt. So that is not pushing the physiology any more than a normal turbo Acclaim. As for fuel capacity - 130gal - that is for the O/Acclaim. As far as I understand, with more power you can lift more (450hp instead of 310hp) and with beefed up landing gear and possibly beefed up wing welds, you can land more. I would think it could be designed and certified with those necessary adjustments. BTW - yes I remember that 2008 concept. 1 Quote
DaV8or Posted January 28, 2016 Report Posted January 28, 2016 27 minutes ago, carqwik said: Am I missing something here? Isn't the large certification process the M10? Clearly the goal of the company is fulfilling the needs/market for China... Given how much time the Archers/Arrows/Seminoles are getting at TransPac here at Deer Valley-Phoenix training Chinese students, no doubt there's a need for replacement trainers...and other than for the multi-, the Mooney M10 can serve as primary, instrument, and commercial ratings platforms. I'm sure this is what they're working on. An FAA certified M10. Makes a lot more sense than a turbine M20. Want to go faster in an M20? How 'bout keeping it simple and go with the forgotten and overlooked Lycoming IO-720? 400hp IIRC. Quote
carusoam Posted January 28, 2016 Report Posted January 28, 2016 I was looking forward to buying a RR/O that was 15 years old. I'm still a little early with my CB Turbine plan.... My O2 system will have a back-up that runs continuously. Sort of a dual O2 system. 310hp is good. 450hp would be better. 450 at altitude would be best.... , -a- Quote
M20F Posted January 28, 2016 Report Posted January 28, 2016 I can't see how a turbine M20 would be marketable. Quote
ChrisH Posted January 28, 2016 Report Posted January 28, 2016 You have 1.3M you buy a pressurized lancair evolution or a turbine acclaim? I personally buy a pressurized piston twin and pocket 1M for maintenance and gas. Quote
aviatoreb Posted January 28, 2016 Report Posted January 28, 2016 I bet the M20TP (M20 turbo prop - come on guys - don't you like my name for it?) could be built I really think. I dont think it would go 290TAS. I think it would cruise 260TAS (making up numbers) and that is too fast for the current airframe. But I think the current airframe could be strengthened with some welded gussets, and perhaps a few strategically placed stronger tubes and spars - costing a bit more weight but not a lot. And it could be made to carry enough fuel with that strengthening and better landing gear. I head that rocket engineering's liquid cooled rocket (335-350hp depending on where you read) included gussets to strengthen the airframe. What are the advantages of a M20TP? More reliable engine (not to be scoffed at - turbo props are more reliable than pistons), more availability world wide than avgas, faster climb - by a lot, faster cruise (not as much as we think since I bet it would be redline limited instead of power limited), longer tbo, heavier weight so faster landing speeds (bad), greater fuel burn (bad so need to carry more fuel - can do with significant re-engineering to extend to 180gal), greater expense (I bet an M20TP would be $1M. But what a hot rod - I bet some would buy it). And last but NOT least - don't you just love that sound when a turbine engine turns on? I think the first two, reliability and fuel availability are the strongest reasons. 2 Quote
aviatoreb Posted January 28, 2016 Report Posted January 28, 2016 3 minutes ago, ChrisH said: You have 1.3M you buy a pressurized lancair evolution or a turbine acclaim? I personally buy a pressurized piston twin and pocket 1M for maintenance and gas. It runs the PT6 that must be run in the mid 20s for fuel efficiency. A RR250 can still run decent fuel burn in mid teens. That said - eh - if I had a million or two to spend on a little hot rod turbo prop - that Lancair Evolution is pretty ideal. Quote
1964-M20E Posted January 28, 2016 Report Posted January 28, 2016 While we are SWAGing here the RR 250 is much lighter than the IO540 so increased fuel load is balanced out by reducing the engine weight and using a 450SHP 5 minute rating for takeoff you can drag up some additional gross weight. 375SHP continuous at cruise wold be nice in the mid teens. One drawback is turbo exhaust is dirty (soot) compared to 100LL. Quote
aviatoreb Posted January 28, 2016 Report Posted January 28, 2016 The Bonanza Turbine (rocket) is cool. The Barron Cougar Turbine (again rocket engineering) is even cooler. Quote
KSMooniac Posted January 28, 2016 Report Posted January 28, 2016 IIRC, the RR TP/Mooney concept was optimized to fly in the teens, and likely would have been roughly equivalent to the Acclaim, speed-wise. It was proposed to capture a larger percentage of the world market where 100LL is scarce and/or expensive. The M20 airframe is not suitable for pressurization, so I wouldn't expect to see one setup for FL cruising. Of course the 2008 crash killed any possibility of developing such a plane. The M10 with a diesel engine of course satisfies the same goal of a non-100LL plane. If the program does well, it isn't hard to imagine a new family of Mooney planes based on the same technology but scaled-up. 1 Quote
M20F Posted January 28, 2016 Report Posted January 28, 2016 6 minutes ago, aviatoreb said: I bet the M20TP (M20 turbo prop - come on guys - don't you like my name for it?) could be built I really think. You can build anything, the question becomes though is it economically viable. I just don't see how you could ever make money selling one. Quote
aviatoreb Posted January 28, 2016 Report Posted January 28, 2016 Just now, M20F said: You can build anything, the question becomes though is it economically viable. I just don't see how you could ever make money selling one. Now how many airplane companies really do a good job answering that question? :-O The way to build a small fortune in aviation is to start with a large fortune! Seriously though, I have no much recertification would be necessary, but all the things I described seem as if tweaks to an existing airframe after you hang a new engine on the front. And a really cool narrow cowl. There are people buying $700k acclaims. I can't imagine I will ever be in that income bracket, but I bet some of those very same people might spring an extra few hundred k for 150 extra horsepower. Quote
carusoam Posted January 28, 2016 Report Posted January 28, 2016 There are people that make great pilots, mechanics, engineers and plane builders... It sometimes takes a person with Al Mooney skills to do all four and market a plane.... Don't feel bad if you don't have Al Mooney's skills... Best regards, -a- 3 Quote
MyNameIsNobody Posted January 28, 2016 Report Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, jrwilson said: While in general, I agree with the overall point of this post, it seems like you have some anger/stability issues...Might I recommend Thorazine? It might do wonders for you, and with third class medical reform coming, you might still be able to fly! A win/win situation! That is assuming you have a medical now, as you don't post any information about what you fly... I generally feel the same about c-blockers, c-teasers and tattle tales. I call them as I see them. There are a lot of ways to make a point JR. I swear like I drink coffee. Often. I shake my head in your general direction. Medication, the answer for all that that is ailing you...Thanks for your "general agreement". It's a wonder that I make it through the day sans a 'scrip... Do you? Edited January 28, 2016 by MyNameIsNobody Quote
aviatoreb Posted January 28, 2016 Report Posted January 28, 2016 1 hour ago, carusoam said: There are people that make great pilots, mechanics, engineers and plane builders... It sometimes takes a person with Al Mooney skills to do all four and market a plane.... Don't feel bad if you don't have Al Mooney's skills... Best regards, -a- I read Al's biography last month. He was a rare bird! 1 Quote
aviatoreb Posted January 28, 2016 Report Posted January 28, 2016 If I were filthy rich (I shoulda played the powerball), then I wouldn't blink to buy the M20TP over the M20TN for reliability reasons alone. Aren't turbo props something 100 times less likely to go belly up for cratering a hole than a piston? (but just as likely to stop for fuel starvation whether that be pilot error or fuel pump issues). Quote
M20F Posted January 28, 2016 Report Posted January 28, 2016 4 hours ago, aviatoreb said: There are people buying $700k acclaims. I can't imagine I will ever be in that income bracket, but I bet some of those very same people might spring an extra few hundred k for 150 extra horsepower. For a few extra $100K you have a lot more options than just 150HP. I would also point out that there aren't exactly a lot of people paying $700K for Acclaims which is why Mooney fell into insolvency, they certainly aren't turning a profit today. I love a Mooney as much as the next person (that is my heart), but as a business model it just doesn't work (that is my brain). As a mathematician I know you know that :-) Quote
aviatoreb Posted January 29, 2016 Report Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) 40 minutes ago, M20F said: For a few extra $100K you have a lot more options than just 150HP. I would also point out that there aren't exactly a lot of people paying $700K for Acclaims which is why Mooney fell into insolvency, they certainly aren't turning a profit today. I love a Mooney as much as the next person (that is my heart), but as a business model it just doesn't work (that is my brain). As a mathematician I know you know that :-) I don't need to be convinced of that - I'm just having fun... But the business of these small airplanes seems to be more in the realm of the irrational psychology than it is of mathematics. I can tell you that - it doesn't add up to by a new airplane when you can have the same airplane (essentially) for a quarter of that. But the fact remains, people buy new airplanes. And I cannot deny, if I had enough money that I could buy a new acclaim on a whim, then I would, because its just neat - not a rationally good idea, but just neat. So on those grounds I would even more so buy a M20TP because it is more neat. Psychology and irrational impulse buying is outside of mathematics - other than to say what fraction of the people are those sorts, and to note that they are out there and these things do sell. And lots of people are buying 700k Cirrus SR22 still. When they could buy a 175k 2003 SR22 (first year of tks). Smart money is if you need a turbo prop, then buy a used King Air for 300-400 k and then fly it until the engines need to be overhauled, part it out and then buy another one. Mission aside, a M20 is like a sports car, and most of the turbo prop bigger airplanes are more like vans/buses - great for the purpose but not a sports car. Edited January 29, 2016 by aviatoreb Quote
M20F Posted January 29, 2016 Report Posted January 29, 2016 4 minutes ago, aviatoreb said: But the fact remains, people buy new airplanes. Yes they do, just not in sufficient numbers to generate a profit. General aviation today is a business in search of a market and they seem to continually go in the wrong direction. Quote
aviatoreb Posted January 29, 2016 Report Posted January 29, 2016 17 minutes ago, M20F said: Yes they do, just not in sufficient numbers to generate a profit. General aviation today is a business in search of a market and they seem to continually go in the wrong direction. Its very very difficult that they are so far behind the supply and demand curve and it just keeps getting worse. If airplanes were produced in the same volume as cars, they would likely cost only twice as much as a comparable car. Instead of 20 times as much - speaking of a Mooney as comparable to my subaru wrx sti. A Gulfstream G650 for $65M has no counterpart in the car world, in cost, size, or performance even enough to make a comparison. If there is any comparable motor vehichle, it is more comparable to a yacht a VERY large yacht. But a Mooney M20, or a Cirrus, or a Cessna 172, is still a bit car like, and I suspect they would be 10 times less if they could some how achieve economy of scale of mass production. Will never happen at this point. I could foresee a sea change in our lifetime, where quadcopter-like people lifter-movers become ubiquitous, and every one is using them and they become very affordable. Quote
M20F Posted January 29, 2016 Report Posted January 29, 2016 1 minute ago, aviatoreb said: Its very very difficult that they are so far behind the supply and demand curve and it just keeps getting worse. If airplanes were produced in the same volume as cars, they would likely cost only twice as much as a comparable car. Instead of 20 times as much - speaking of a Mooney as comparable to my subaru wrx sti. A Gulfstream G650 for $65M has no counterpart in the car world, in cost, size, or performance even enough to make a comparison. If there is any comparable motor vehichle, it is more comparable to a yacht a VERY large yacht. But a Mooney M20, or a Cirrus, or a Cessna 172, is still a bit car like, and I suspect they would be 10 times less if they could some how achieve economy of scale of mass production. Will never happen at this point. I could foresee a sea change in our lifetime, where quadcopter-like people lifter-movers become ubiquitous, and every one is using them and they become very affordable. Or to put it in simple terms, if the Queen had balls she would be King. Quote
aviatoreb Posted January 29, 2016 Report Posted January 29, 2016 1 minute ago, M20F said: Or to put it in simple terms, if the Queen had balls she would be King. Ummmm.....that went right over my head. Maybe translate for the goody-two-shoes nerds here like me? Quote
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.