A Kit Plane For Mooniacs

[DaV8or]

We all know there are kit planes out there that are faster and more efficient then the M20J on the same engine, but we can always say, "Oh yeah, well where do the other two passengers sit?" Advantage Mooney- they can carry three passengers. Well here's a kit plane that can carry three passengers, uses essentially the same HP and is faster than a Mooney M20J-

White Lightning WLAC-1

 

It uses the Continental IO-360 engine with 210hp. Four place, cruise at 215 kts, 1500 fpm climb, stall with flaps 60 kts, 1000 lb useful load, 1600 mile range with VFR reserve.

 

 

Unusual seating arrangement though. Rear passengers face backward. This was done to keep the C/G more consistent no matter how many people on board. Reports say the rear seats actually have more shoulder room and of course, unlimited leg room.

 

 

Similar landing gear as the Questair Venture. This one was raced at Reno and did well.

 

 

Of course the gotcha is low speed handling. In clean configuration it stalls at 78 kts, so the big fowler flaps are very effective. There is a report that it has poor directional control in the stall and wants to spin. Spins are reported to be very difficult to recover. More work is needed on the design IMO to improve stall characteristics, but it is what it is. About 30 kits were sold and 2 people have died in them. The one pictured above recently sold, I think for around $100,000.

[Jeff_S]

Yikes! That one definitely earns the "Experimental" designation.

[KSMooniac]

I know a guy that built one in Texas, and even flew it to Europe long ago. I never got a ride though.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[yvesg]

No wonder it has trouble getting out of a spin... tail is too small... same with the M10.

Yves

[DaV8or]

24 minutes ago, yvesg said:

No wonder it has trouble getting out of a spin... tail is too small... same with the M10.

Yves

A common problem I think with designs where the sole mission statement is to go as fast as possible. Safety and slow speed handling become low priorities. There are many of these kits still not finished. It seems like a great opportunity to enlarge the tail and experiment with the wing tips, or add cuffs to the wing at some expense of cruise speed to see if slow speed control could be improved. It seems to me that this design was 85% there to being a truly great kit plane.

Edited May 26, 2016 by DaV8or

[steingar]

Looks like a complicated build. Faster than a 201, except for the years it takes to put the fool thing together.  Personally, I think kit builders should build kits because they want to build airplanes, not because they want a shiny airplane that has so much muchness. 

[aviatoreb]

5 hours ago, DaV8or said:

 

Smart idea for leg room turning the passengers backwards.  But it sure looks like the pilot's head must be touching the ceiling.

[ArtVandelay]

Only a transponder antenna, no VHF, GPS, etc. Reminds me of a cruise missile.

[Guest]

N100WL has now morphed into an RV8 from Vans Aircraft, the most successful kit manufacturer.  The number of White Lightenings  flying attests to their success.

Clarence 

Edited May 27, 2016 by M20Doc

[DaV8or]

8 hours ago, steingar said:

Looks like a complicated build. Faster than a 201, except for the years it takes to put the fool thing together.  Personally, I think kit builders should build kits because they want to build airplanes, not because they want a shiny airplane that has so much muchness. 

And that is how it does work. People that build and finish airplane kits actually want to and like building airplanes. There are those that want to fly the latest shiny mostest and muchness plane on the cheap, but they buy the tail kit and then sell it at a loss. Some of us actually are really clever and buy finished airplanes from the true builders at a fraction of what they really cost to build. The thing about true builders is that some of them are addicted serial builders and once they finish a plane, they need another project to get that high again. 

[jetdriven]

The lancair legacy is the more modern version of this, and has excellent handling to boot. Well, but it's two seats though. 

[DaV8or]

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

The lancair legacy is the more modern version of this, and has excellent handling to boot. Well, but it's two seats though. 

Actually, the Lancair Legacy is just an updated version of this airplane's contemporary, the Lancair 320/360. Besides being only two seats, nobody builds a Legacy with just 210 hp although in theory it can be built that way.

[DaV8or]

16 hours ago, M20Doc said:

N100WL has now morphed into an RV8 from Vans Aircraft, the most successful kit manufacturer.  The numer of White Lightenings  flying attests to their success.

Clarence 

The N number has morphed because the original N100WL (pictured above) is one of two White Lightnings that have crashed and killed their pilot. This one in 1986, was due to fuel starvation while flying over an undercast that was at 800AGL. Unknown to the 25,000 hour commercial pilot, his partner had made a modification to the fuel system and the pilot forced landed the plane on a highway thinking he was out of gas and hit something. In fact there was fuel remaining in an auxiliary fuel tank that he was unaware of. I looked it up. Sad story.

[MB65E]

Lancair just announced they are ending Legacy production. Such a sweet airplane!!

The last one will be the full  carbon fiber, with some Reno mods. 

-Matt

[DaV8or]

2 hours ago, MB65E said:

Lancair just announced they are ending Legacy production. Such a sweet airplane!!

The last one will be the full  carbon fiber, with some Reno mods. 

-Matt

No surprise there. The kit is crazy expensive and most people don't like working with fiberglass. The plane also has limitations. Those with money, get the Evolution these days. I've heard the kit business is in slump over all as well.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, DaV8or said:

No surprise there. The kit is crazy expensive and most people don't like working with fiberglass. The plane also has limitations. Those with money, get the Evolution these days. I've heard the kit business is in slump over all as well.

So many kit planes are price out of reach for so many, it's not a big surprise.

Clarence

[HRM]

On May 26, 2016 at 10:56 AM, yvesg said:

No wonder it has trouble getting out of a spin... tail is too small... same with the M10.

Yves

Wouldn't take much to square it off 

[kerry]

It kind of reminds me of one of Burt Rutans planes called the Stargazer.  The Stargazer is a 5 passenger with the pilot sitting solo up front and the 2 rear passengers facing rear.  I personally saw the plane in Mojave California with the rest of Burt's planes on display.  Burt has had some funking designs but the one I certainly drooled over was the Stargazer.

http://stargazer2006.online.fr/aircraft/pages/catbird.htm

[kerry]

Sorry,  It was called the catbird.  I just remember seeing it and didn't remember the name of the plane.

[DaV8or]

1 hour ago, kerry said:

It kind of reminds me of one of Burt Rutans planes called the Stargazer.  The Stargazer is a 5 passenger with the pilot sitting solo up front and the 2 rear passengers facing rear.  I personally saw the plane in Mojave California with the rest of Burt's planes on display.  Burt has had some funking designs but the one I certainly drooled over was the Stargazer.

http://stargazer2006.online.fr/aircraft/pages/catbird.htm

My favorite is the Boomerang. I think there are maybe more buyers for a pane like this than people think. It just needs to be widely demonstrated and made easier to get in and out of..

[INA201]

I think if you could combine the efficient beautiful wing of the Mooney with the body and sleek fixed gear of the RV10 you might have a pretty cool plane.  The 260 horsepower of the 10 may not even be needed for a good performer with that wing.  If I had unlimited resources it would be fun to try this.  You could also straighten the tail out too without having to add all the Mooney trim stuff.  

[DaV8or]

5 hours ago, INA201 said:

I think if you could combine the efficient beautiful wing of the Mooney with the body and sleek fixed gear of the RV10 you might have a pretty cool plane.  The 260 horsepower of the 10 may not even be needed for a good performer with that wing.  If I had unlimited resources it would be fun to try this.  You could also straighten the tail out too without having to add all the Mooney trim stuff.  

Why not just add fixed gear to the new Ultra? The RV-10 is not as aerodynamically slick as the M20. If you want a roomier cabin, how about a Mooney wing on a Bonanza? Might get the Bonanza to pick up a few knots, then once it sped up, put the fixed gear on. Maybe you would end up with a fixed gear Bonanza with the same speed as old retractable Bonanza, or as I might call it, a Cirrus.

[HRM]

7 hours ago, INA201 said:

You could also straighten the tail out too without having to add all the Mooney trim stuff.  

I question this. I have always been fascinated by the Mooney tail (you really can't get away from cockpit humor when discussing Mooney's, can you?) and my understanding is that it provides more rudder authority, but is it tied to the trimmable tail, or are they independent?

Aeronautical engineers? Please weigh in.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, INA201 said:

I think if you could combine the efficient beautiful wing of the Mooney with the body and sleek fixed gear of the RV10 you might have a pretty cool plane.  The 260 horsepower of the 10 may not even be needed for a good performer with that wing.  If I had unlimited resources it would be fun to try this.  You could also straighten the tail out too without having to add all the Mooney trim stuff.  

Why waste a nice wing on such an ugly airframe?  Van must have been having a bad day when he designed the 10.

Clarence

[INA201]

Can you imagine what these talented home builders would create if the Mooney factory offered an M20J kit.  You would have carbon fiber cowlings, 240 horsepower IO360s with electronic/magneto ignition along with 28v electrical.  The kit M20J could have dual carbon fiber entry doors.  You would see carbon fiber wingtips(that improve stall and high end), carbon gear doors, and LED everything.  You could install airbags and a chute system too.  This may be a bad case of thread drift here.  The Vans guys would have a very proven alternative.  Would a 190 knot M20j home built for $165,000 with a gross weight increase to 2940(+200lbs) be possible?  Mooney has the tooling.  It wouldn't compete with the long body's or the trainer(which has to be certified), would keep cash flow moving, and would keep parts production rolling.  I bet the company's liability is reduced significantly making the builder the "manufacturer."  You would have 100s of innovative builders and test pilots trying to improve where Lo Presti and gang left off along with improved technology.  I bet if Mooney pre sold kits as a test saying, "If we can pre sell 100 kits we will do it."  How long would it take?  A month, two?  Just my crazy right brain thought of the day.