Acclaim Ultra M20V

[carusoam]

There are currently two large battery access panels for the two batteries and the avionics rack.

The current access panels can be rethought.  The batteries are a challenge to maintain where they are. Compared to the avionics that don't get touched very much.  And Charlie weights are back there in place of O2 and FIKI tanks...

Larger composite panels in place of the current aluminum would be a step in the right direction....

Modern Gell cell batteries capable of working in the flight levels would be nice.  Or whatever the latest battery technology is...

Best regards,

-a-

[DXB]

Couldn't be happier about what Mooney is doing here.  Except for that paint scheme, which is an abomination.

[Seth]

Update:

 

I shot a message to Jared Absher, Director of Sales and Marketing at Mooney who I met with a Mooney Summit III (GREAT EVENT) with some questions - I then asked permission to post this information on MooneySpace, and he thanked me for asking permission and said yes.  His answers are in Red:

1) With the carbon fiber shell technique around the cabin, are there other areas of the aircraft that will get carbon fiber components for less man hours in the manufacturing process and smoother lines?  Small clarification: for this application we chose an E-Glass (fiberglass) composite with honeycomb structure. The composites were used in an area that was the most logical application. The M20 was engineered with the steel roll-cage as the primary load-bearing structure with aluminums skins primarily in place to enclose the cabins and keep the wind out. The changeover to composites for the doors and cabin shell was the best application of composites without going into a major certification program which would draw out our release time to the market.

 

2) Did the carbon fiber shell save weight? Yes, but the addition of the second door, related mechanisms, and additional interior accoutrements offset this to some degree. We won’t release any numbers until we reach the right point in the certification effort, but the expectation is a small weight change (positive or negative) from the previous generation of the Acclaim and Ovation.

 

3) I noticed a ramp max weight vs a takeoff weight (smart to burn a gallon or two during startup/taxi/runup before departing), so is a gross weight increase in the near future or will useful load increase with  more carbon fiber use? I really can’t say – our primary focus right now is this current program and a successful market launch prior to tackling whatever the next variation entails. As mentioned in the response to question 2, it’s fairly weight change neutral for the move to composites.

 

4) Is there a reason the M20V stuck with the G1000 instead of the G2000? The G1000 system is still a fantastic system and has the full support of Garmin for the foreseeable future.

 

After reading these questions and discussing with another Mooney pilot and friend, it's noted that with the composite fuelage (actually E-Glass, or Fiberglass with a honeycomb structure as mentioned above), wrapping around the in tact roll cage, we have to assume the following:  A BRS Parachute system is in the works.   The steel cage was left and was "modified" for the second door, which means it's now symmetrical, and who knows if other attachment points for the parachute were restructured or modified during that process.  The rip away cords can be easily embedded in the new fiberglass cockpit shell or future shell on the exterior.  Last but not least, the separate access panels being discussed could simply be moving the battery around, moving avionics, or adding in the required spaces to access more back there including the mounting and deployment area for the rocket and parachute.  I personally would give back charlie weights and instead replace that weight with a parachute.

 

I believe Mooney is going to continue to save weight with composites where appropriate, however, the main purpose of composites will be to lower man hours to build with the composite pieces to lower the cost of manufacturing, and also undertake a full weigh saving program by streamlining systems and looking to redesign where they can to shed weight.  That plus testing to increase gross weight, which will not be retroactive due to the newer composite shells, will increase useful load over time.

 

 

1.  The steps are apparent in adding the BRS

2.  A manufacturing cost savings program

3.  A weight savings program

 

I see this in the future of the M20 line before any diesel program or TP program evolves.   

Way down the line, I could see a redesign of the fuselage with an eye toward pressurization and potentially concurrently or beforehand a redesign of the gear for greater useful load.  This of course after the BRS and weight savings.

Just speculation of course.

It is pleasing, relieving, and exciting to see commitment to the M20 Platform.

-Seth

[Mcstealth]

Slightly bummed that we are talking glass, and not carbon. That explains the coyness about weight savings. 

The analolgy of not eating the whole elephant in one sitting comes to mind.  First do the makeover. Then improve and enhance ala Cirrus. 

I guess I am the impatient type. Give me the plane that can out perform the 22 and also has a chute. That way buyers have a choice between Corvette and Surburban.

[Piloto]

Aside from a pilot relief tube another good addition would be window retractable shades, like those in the airliners. This would make early mornings flights more comfortable for passengers and pilot.

José

[Hank]

17 minutes ago, Piloto said:

Aside from a pilot relief tube another good addition would be window retractable shades, like those in the airliners. This would make early mornings flights more comfortable for passengers and pilot.

José

Are those installed in airliner cockpits? I don't think so . . . Just upgrade your sunglasses and wear a good hat. I find the visors to be relatively useless on the side, they are so short.

[Joe Zuffoletto]

7 hours ago, Piloto said:

Aside from a pilot relief tube another good addition would be window retractable shades, like those in the airliners. This would make early mornings flights more comfortable for passengers and pilot.

José

Hey, Tocayo, you're just not flying early enough in the morning.

Joe

[KSMooniac]

16 hours ago, Mcstealth said:

Slightly bummed that we are talking glass, and not carbon. That explains the coyness about weight savings. 

The analolgy of not eating the whole elephant in one sitting comes to mind.  First do the makeover. Then improve and enhance ala Cirrus. 

I guess I am the impatient type. Give me the plane that can out perform the 22 and also has a chute. That way buyers have a choice between Corvette and Surburban.

Just to give you an engineering opinion... carbon fiber is technically lighter than aluminum in theory, but many times in practical structure in a real vehicle there is a minimum thickness (thus weight) needed to prevent damage from occurring with everyday use.  When you can damage a door frame rubbing against it during ingress/egress, then you don't have a practical solution.  If hail can punch through, that ain't good either.  I don't know for certain if the "practical" requirements determined the thickness of the new composite shell or not, but I suspect that is the case in much of the design.  If that is true, using carbon fiber would not really yield a weight savings, and it costs 10x as much as fiberglass.  Thus using fiberglass for the shell might have been the best solution overall.  

I'm certainly happy to learn of the bigger doors and the time/labor savings on the production line.  I'm sure the techs installing stuff inside the frame are especially happy to have much greater access to do their jobs, too.  After doing my upgrades and having to work behind the panel and along the sides I know I would be much happier working in those areas if I could reach from inside and outside!  

I don't know if there is a chute option coming for the M20 or not, but I would speculate that a provision could be built into the fiberglass shell much easier than the original aluminum sheets.  I still wouldn't want it, and I don't know if it would help with marketing or not, but some buyers certainly demand it.  IMO there would need to be a significant gross weight increase to absorb the 60-80 lbs for the system since the newest planes are already extremely limited with low useful loads.

At least there is still some ongoing improvement!  For that we can all be thankful, even if we're not buying the new ones ourselves.

[cliffy]

Just curious about all the talk of the chute, We just had a local 22 go in for a chute and rocket 10 year replacement.  Cost right at $20,000. In my book that's 2K a year just for chute and rocket change. 

Doesn't that alone dampen some enthusiasm for the system?

That works out to be a little over 600 gallons of gas. Let's see, I burn sat 10/hr so that's 60+ hrs of flying. 6-7 hrs/ year. 

[aviatoreb]

23 minutes ago, cliffy said:

Just curious about all the talk of the chute, We just had a local 22 go in for a chute and rocket 10 year replacement.  Cost right at $20,000. In my book that's 2K a year just for chute and rocket change. 

Doesn't that alone dampen some enthusiasm for the system?

That works out to be a little over 600 gallons of gas. Let's see, I burn sat 10/hr so that's 60+ hrs of flying. 6-7 hrs/ year. 

From the SR20 on our field  - that had a chute replacement, it looks as if it was not built in a manner that was designed to have the chute replaced.  There is a lot of fiberglass to dig out to get at it, which then needs to be rebuilt afterwards.  Seems like a poor design for something that must be done every 10 years.  Could they have made it more like a cartridge thing to access easily to replace?

[cliffy]

Come on folks, some of you that are so interested in having a chute chime in on the recurring cost aspect. Is it really that valuable to you at $2000/year ?

[KSMooniac]

44 minutes ago, cliffy said:

Come on folks, some of you that are so interested in having a chute chime in on the recurring cost aspect. Is it really that valuable to you at $2000/year ?

Not for me!  I don't want one anyway due to the weight, but the cost is another good reason to not have it.

[jackn]

Never was interested in a chute. My pet peeve is the shoulder harness. The 4 point seat belt of the cirrus hopefully would keep my Mellon from hitting the ceiling when it's very bumpy. 

[Hank]

The lap belt keeps you from bouncing up and down; the shoulder belts keep you from going forward.

My lap belt generally keeps my head from hitting the ceiling. I snug it down extra when it's bumpy. My 5'3" wife has bounced off the ceiling in unexpected turbulence when my 6' self beside her has not . . .

[Joe Zuffoletto]

I've cracked my head on the ceiling in both of my Mooneys. The lap belts don't always hold. The Hooker Harness in my RV-8, however, holds me tight as hell with no give at all.

[Piloto]

On 2/19/2016 at 8:49 AM, Hank said:

Are those installed in airliner cockpits? I don't think so . . . Just upgrade your sunglasses and wear a good hat. I find the visors to be relatively useless on the side, they are so short.

I have these retractable shades from Walmart for $4.75 ea. on all four windows. When you head north or south in the morning they make a big difference. Just lower them enough to block the sunlight. For tablets it enhances the display contrast. Worth having them. I recently modified them with solid vinyl fabric instead of the perforated cloth. This mod makes it easier for my wife to sleep with the sun on the wing.

José

 

[201er]

20 minutes ago, Piloto said:

I have these retractable shades from Walmart for $4.75 ea. on all four windows. When you head north or south in the morning they make a big difference. Just lower them enough to block the sunlight. For tablets it enhances the display contrast. Worth having them. I recently modified them with solid vinyl fabric instead of the perforated cloth. This mod makes it easier for my wife to sleep with the sun on the wing.

José

 

What about for the front? 

[Piloto]

13 minutes ago, 201er said:

What about for the front? 

I just use the traditional pilot cap with a visor and sunglasses. 

 

[Mcstealth]

On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 6:34 PM, Joe Zuffoletto said:

I've cracked my head on the ceiling in both of my Mooneys. The lap belts don't always hold. The Hooker Harness in my RV-8, however, holds me tight as hell with no give at all.

Joe, do you ever make a flight that you say, " I should have flown the 8, or I should have used the TN?

[Joe Zuffoletto]

11 hours ago, Mcstealth said:

Joe, do you ever make a flight that you say, " I should have flown the 8, or I should have used the TN?

Not really. I bought them for completely different reasons. I fly the TN to go long distances and over mountains. It's our traveling machine and much more comfortable for long flights. The 8 is my day VFR, light acro fun flier. I take it on short cross countries sometimes, but I really prefer to just yank and bank with it.

[Mcstealth]

I have flown in the front seat of an 8. Climbs like nobody's business. Very impressive performance that's for sure. Did some tight turns for but no loops. Really fun feeling to fly. A little loud, but not grossly so. The builder/pilot, took him three years, 

Two different planes, for sure.

2 hours ago, Joe Zuffoletto said:

Not really. I bought them for completely different reasons. I fly the TN to go long distances and over mountains. It's our traveling machine and much more comfortable for long flights. The 8 is my day VFR, light acro fun flier. I take it on short cross countries sometimes, but I really prefer to just yank and bank with it.

 

[Seth]

On 2/20/2016 at 8:23 PM, aviatoreb said:

From the SR20 on our field  - that had a chute replacement, it looks as if it was not built in a manner that was designed to have the chute replaced.  There is a lot of fiberglass to dig out to get at it, which then needs to be rebuilt afterwards.  Seems like a poor design for something that must be done every 10 years.  Could they have made it more like a cartridge thing to access easily to replace?

On that note, has a repacked/replaced Cirrus full plane parachute ever been tested or used in real life?  I'm curious what the failure rate may be after repacking/replacing vs factory and who may be liable.

-Seth 

[Seth]

On 2/19/2016 at 5:02 PM, KSMooniac said:

Just to give you an engineering opinion... carbon fiber is technically lighter than aluminum in theory, but many times in practical structure in a real vehicle there is a minimum thickness (thus weight) needed to prevent damage from occurring with everyday use.  When you can damage a door frame rubbing against it during ingress/egress, then you don't have a practical solution.  If hail can punch through, that ain't good either.  I don't know for certain if the "practical" requirements determined the thickness of the new composite shell or not, but I suspect that is the case in much of the design.  If that is true, using carbon fiber would not really yield a weight savings, and it costs 10x as much as fiberglass.  Thus using fiberglass for the shell might have been the best solution overall.  

I'm certainly happy to learn of the bigger doors and the time/labor savings on the production line.  I'm sure the techs installing stuff inside the frame are especially happy to have much greater access to do their jobs, too.  After doing my upgrades and having to work behind the panel and along the sides I know I would be much happier working in those areas if I could reach from inside and outside!  

I don't know if there is a chute option coming for the M20 or not, but I would speculate that a provision could be built into the fiberglass shell much easier than the original aluminum sheets.  I still wouldn't want it, and I don't know if it would help with marketing or not, but some buyers certainly demand it.  IMO there would need to be a significant gross weight increase to absorb the 60-80 lbs for the system since the newest planes are already extremely limited with low useful loads.

At least there is still some ongoing improvement!  For that we can all be thankful, even if we're not buying the new ones ourselves.

Adding a parachute with the gear necessary in the tailcone section would most likely allow the removal of the Charlie weights.  That would would be a weight swap, so useful load would not dip quite as much.  With a weight savings program as part of this, maybe the chute could be a zero weight change with useful load still in the 1000 range, though useful load in the 1200 range would be so much better.

 

-Seth

[KSMooniac]

Aren't the Charlie weights <20 lbs, and located near the vertical stab?  An M20-sized parachute system would be in the 80 lb range, and I'm not sure it could be installed in the tail anyway.  The anchor points would have to be on the steel tubes around the CG, and they might even need to be locally strengthened to handle the deployment loads.  I'm having  a hard time imagining how the rocket/chute assembly could be installed in the back and have the lines routed where they can be deployed through the aluminum tailcone but I won't say it is impossible.

[carusoam]

charlie weights are stacked in the area near the O's batteries...

Nice to trade lead bricks, for:

- FIKI equipment.

- Air Conditioning equipment.

- Built in O2 equipment.

- Nav and weather instrumentation hardware.

- Chute?

So many possibilities... (All very expensive)

Best regards,

-a-