M20BE Posted October 21, 2008 Report Posted October 21, 2008 Hello, One of the most important news releases of 2008 in GA was the release of Rolls Royce new engine for GA, the R500. Sadly, i seem to be the only one in this GA world thinking about this. This is a total revolution, it fits in current airframes, it weighs less, and they say they'll price it just a little more than the IO-550 for example. Luckely, only Mooney at this moment was willing to make a model out of it. For me, in Europe where not every airport carries Avgas 100LL plus where the JetA1 fuel is much cheaper than 100LL this is amazing. Not to talk about the reliability we'll have because we're flying a turboprop. Certification should take a few years (3 to 5 ?) I talked with the Mooney factory about this and they told me wisely to first get enough flight hours by buying a new Mooney for the moment :-) What do you think about it ? Quote
mooniac58 Posted October 21, 2008 Report Posted October 21, 2008 I think it could be wonderful. Turbines produce lots of power, run on cheaper fuel and generally have much higher TBO's. I am ecited to see any more information on this bird Mooney put the R500 in in... Quote
TurboExec Posted October 21, 2008 Report Posted October 21, 2008 Here is a sneak peak of a concept a friend of mine was hired to do..... Quote
GeorgePerry Posted October 21, 2008 Report Posted October 21, 2008 Quote: TurboExec Here is a sneak peak of a concept a friend of mine was hired to do..... Quote
NWI_Pilot Posted October 21, 2008 Report Posted October 21, 2008 It is an interesting concept. My question is, since turbines tend to do better up high, what about pressurization? As I understand it, the M20 airframe isn't suited for pressurization. Is everyone going to have to have a mask or is it just going to be certified to 25K? Maybe that's something they're going to have to figure out. For that matter, what about 6 seats in the Mooney? I guess I'll probably have to wait to see what hapens too huh? Quote
RobertoTohme Posted October 21, 2008 Report Posted October 21, 2008 I think that a pressure vessel would need to be a new design, but keeping the Mooney lines and heritage. On the other hand, What is it that everybody hates wearing oxigen? I fly my Acclaim in the flight levels all the time and after 2 or 3 flights you get used to it... Hell, now anytime I'm below FL170 I feel like I'm scratching the surface! Of course, I fly mostly where the floor is already over 4000 ft msl... that may give me a bias, though. Even on the Eagle, which has no turbo, I'm seldom below 14000 ft, and most of the time it 17 to 18K (yes, it's running out of breath at those altitudes, but the ride is much smoother) Since I use my Eagle as a lab, I will approach Tradewind Turbines soon with the question of what it would take for them to look into the possibility of converting it to the RR they use in the Bonanza; if the A36 can take it, the modern M20's can too (I think), and it never hurts to ask. I'll be making a trip to their shop in Amarillo within the next 3 weeks to look at their A36's, and to pop the question about the M20. They may just politely show me the door, but I think it's still worth making the effort. I'll post what happens as soon as I do it. Quote
TurboExec Posted October 21, 2008 Report Posted October 21, 2008 Quote: GeorgePerry Can you give us any hints as to what was behind the "whited out" boxes? or expand on the details behind the photo. Sure would be interesting to hear about. Quote
GeorgePerry Posted October 21, 2008 Report Posted October 21, 2008 Quote: NWI_Pilot It is an interesting concept. My question is, since turbines tend to do better up high, what about pressurization? As I understand it, the M20 airframe isn't suited for pressurization. Quote
NWI_Pilot Posted October 21, 2008 Report Posted October 21, 2008 Those are some interesting numbers. I hoe that this can become a reality for Mooney and not that they're putting something out there hoping to get some money to stay afloat. Something to challenge the Meridian makes me a little nervous though. After all, Lockheed and McDonnell-Douglas beat each other up with the DC-10/L-1011 and now neither of them are making civillian planes (of course Mooney doesn't have Airbus and Boeing to compete with either). Quote
M20BE Posted October 22, 2008 Author Report Posted October 22, 2008 Great posts guys, but who said the M20 can't be pressurised,... the M20 HAS been pressurised before!!!!! Quote
M20BE Posted October 22, 2008 Author Report Posted October 22, 2008 Ah sorry :-) PS: we need emicons !! Quote
TurboExec Posted October 22, 2008 Report Posted October 22, 2008 Quote: JimR No, it was the M22 Mustang that was pressurized. It was an entirely different airframe. Quote
G-Man Posted October 22, 2008 Report Posted October 22, 2008 If Mooney is going into the turbo prop business I feel the plane to go after should be the Piper Matrix. I would not go after the big ones like TBM 850 or any one with expensive pressurization. For me, I'd love to see a Mooney that can carry four grown people, with full tanks and cruise at ove 250kts. Quote
M20BE Posted October 22, 2008 Author Report Posted October 22, 2008 This is the e-mail i got from Mooney some months ago : Dear Mr., Thank you for your interest in the new agreement between Mooney and Rolls Royce. Although exciting, this project is in its infancy. If all proceeds as planned, the aircraft is at least 4-5 years from certification. In the meantime, I would certainly suggest that you proceed with a current Mooney model purchase. You would then be familiar with Mooney systems when the new model is ready. Please let me know how I can help with your first Mooney purchase. Best regards, Quote
Greg_D Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 Quote: M20BE This is the e-mail i got from Mooney some months ago : Dear Mr., Thank you for your interest in the new agreement between Mooney and Rolls Royce. Although exciting, this project is in its infancy. If all proceeds as planned, the aircraft is at least 4-5 years from certification. In the meantime, I would certainly suggest that you proceed with a current Mooney model purchase. You would then be familiar with Mooney systems when the new model is ready. Please let me know how I can help with your first Mooney purchase. Best regards, Quote
TurboExec Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 Quote: GeorgePerry Mooney should announce plans to introduce two “new” aircraft that get back to basics...Specifically, airframes that incorporate the suggestions that have already made along with either an IO-360 or a turbo normalized TSIO-360 and affordable avionics options. Avionics options could range from traditional gauges to an Aspen panel or up to a Garmin G600 system, with Garmin 430s. To ensure success, Mooney must keep the weight and expenses low. Price point for the new airframes should start in the $275K range for a base normally aspirated model, and top out around $420K for a fully equipped turbo. This combination should yield aircraft capable of 165 knots (normally aspirated) and 185 knots (turbo) at 12,000 ft. burning 9.5 &12.5 gal/hr respectfully. For the TSIO-360 equipped aircraft this configuration would also allow for significant performance increases if the pilot opts to go higher. A broader product lineup that utilizes a high degree of parts commonality will aid in keeping production costs low and at the same time appeal to a larger range of customers. Quote
Greg_D Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 Wow! That must be new thinking sice the leadership changed. Mooney owners have been asking for just that sort of airplane year after year at the MAPA conventions. Instead of listening to their customers, Mooney kept coming up with reasons on why the plane they were asking for couldn't be built. This could be interesting. Quote
KSMooniac Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 Greg- That is George's own analysis that he posted on the MAPA email list...not any publication from Mooney itself. It is a fine effort in my opinion, but not realistic on many points. I'm afraid our dream of a sub-$300k M20J is wishful thinking at best. I see no way Mooney could get there today, and I don't think the market is there anyway for that sort of plane. SR-22s are outselling SR-20s (closest thing to a new M20J today) by a wide margin. When the Ovation came along, the vast majority of new buyers opted for it over the MSE. Mooney offered the M20S as an M20J replacement but it failed too. In my opinion, new buyers today are NOT concerned with fuel burns of 10 vs. 15 GPH. After all, anyone shelling out $400-$600k for a new plane likely can support the bigger motors, so they opt for them. The folks that want the really efficient planes (like me!) on a budget can't or won't spend $300k for a new plane anyway, and are stuck waiting for the depreciation to take it's toll and then pickup a plane on the used market. There is still an ample supply of used 180-200 hp Mooneys at reasonable prices, and thus I don't see much of a market for a brand-new M20J today or in the near future. I'm excited about the turboprop option and think that is a market that is still growing rapidly, and has high margins. Mooney could exploit that in a big way to ensure survival in the future and then perhaps back-fill with a lower end piston if the market is there. TBM and PC-12 sales continue to grow every year, and if the upcoming boom of VLJs ever happens, the single-engine turboprop will serve as a great intermediate step for those folks. I think that is the wisest place to go in today's market... Quote
GeorgePerry Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 Quote: KSMooniac I'm excited about the turboprop option and think that is a market that is still growing rapidly, and has high margins. Mooney could exploit that in a big way to ensure survival in the future and then perhaps back-fill with a lower end piston if the market is there. TBM and PC-12 sales continue to grow every year, and if the upcoming boom of VLJs ever happens, the single-engine turboprop will serve as a great intermediate step for those folks. I think that is the wisest place to go in today's market... Quote
KSMooniac Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 George- I enjoy the topic immensely and share the same hopes as you do. (I'm sure we all do!!!) Cirrus has *always* been good at marketing...even when they had nothing to market! (I worked there long ago.) I hope Mooney is listening...as many alluded to on the MAPA list there are many of us that can offer Mooney quite a bit of expertise as they navigate this difficult time. However, I wish to point out that fabrication (when done correctly in a factory) with advanced composite is *far* less labor intensive than building with metal, especially with the way Mooney does it with sheet metal, rivets, and steel tubes + welding. I would bet a dollar that Cirrus and Cessnalumbia (and likely Diamond) spend 1/2 the man-hours putting those planes together compared to Mooney. Things like CNC pre-punching (ala Van's) can take a lot of the labor out of the sheet-metal equation at relatively low cost, but to reduce labor on the steel tube operation would require a huge capital investment that doesn't make sense for Mooney's low-rate production. We could argue chicken-and-egg about buying the equipment to reduce the labor cost, but I think that money is better spent on a new product at this point. At the end of the day Mooney is still working with a 1950's design that was laid out for craftsmen, by craftsmen, while the modern plastic planes were optimized for composite production. I sure hope the new president will scrub the production labor aspect of the equation, but I bet every other president has done the same in an effort to reduce the cost. That well might be dry, unfortunately, but who knows. My reasons why Mooney could not build a modern MSE for $300k are: *powerplant...IO-390 or IO-360 will only cost ~$10k less than an IO-550 at OEM pricing. 2-Blade prop might be $4k cheaper than 3-blader. *airframe materials...fractionally cheaper due to the shorter fuselage, lighter engine mount but that is it *labor....perhaps 5% less due to shorter fuselage and smaller wing tanks to seal *avionics...wildcard. I believe the G1000 cost + installation labor is roughly close to a steam-gauge panel + labor. Call it a push. Perhaps a G600 or Triple-Aspen plus two G430Ws and an STEC-30 would be a cost savings, but likely not more than $20-$40k under a G1000/GFC700 instl. *interior...perhaps go down to bare-bones fabric & plastic vs. leather & ultra-suede/ultra-leather sidewalls. Maybe $10k less. Add all that up, and we are still north of $400k for an out-the-door price. My main point is anyone that can or would spend $400k can very likely spend $450k or $500k to get the Ovation. That was the case with the previous MSE and Eagle. *IF* they could get it down to $300k, perhaps there would be a market...but I don't think they can get there unfortunately. The only possibility in my mind would be to move the fabrication and maybe even final assembly to the Far East or Mexico, and none of us would like that. They're already in perhaps the least expensive part of the US right now! I like the latest Mooney campaign with individual profiles. I hope it has a positive impact...it will be interesting to watch. We can all do our part by talking up the positive aspects, giving rides, etc. Many people have never even sat in a Mooney and listen to the old wives tales about the cramped cabin, difficult landing behavior etc. We need to keep preaching the gospel of AL! Quote
TurboExec Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 That is it...we need a composite 201!!!! Quote
Greg_D Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 Quote: JimR Sorry, Greg, but I think that maybe you misunderstood the post. It wasn't a statement by Mooney, it was a statement to Mooney by a MAPA member. Quote
Greg_D Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 Quote: TurboExec That is it...we need a composite 201!!!! Quote
GeorgePerry Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 Quote: KSMooniac as many alluded to on the MAPA list there are many of us that can offer Mooney quite a bit of expertise as they navigate this difficult time. I sure hope the new president will scrub the production labor aspect of the equation, but I bet every other president has done the same in an effort to reduce the cost. That well might be dry, unfortunately, but who knows. I like the latest Mooney campaign with individual profiles. I hope it has a positive impact...it will be interesting to watch. 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.