Mooney and Rolls Royce

[bradp]

Bugatti. 

[Gone]

Looks like an aircraft design engineer is looking at putting hydrogen fuel cells (two of them) in a new design GA aircraft. See http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-i-designed-a-practical-electric-plane-for-nasa.

 

[bradp]

Seems like having a bunch of moving parts at the outboard end of a critical control surface is a bad idea.  Just saying 

[zulu168]

6 hours ago, Hank said:

What plane does rolls make??? I know they make jet engines in many sizes, but planes? Haven't heard of those . . . Please share!

RR probably made some during WWII for the British army.  BMW and Mutsibushi? I think Mitsubishi just makes everything on earth.  Paper, elevators..... Let's see if we can get Trump to talk about getting Mooney manufacturers in USA. He keeps on talking about Carrier going to Mexico. 

[Hank]

8 hours ago, zulu168 said:

RR probably made some during WWII for the British army.  BMW and Mutsibushi? I think Mitsubishi just makes everything on earth.  Paper, elevators..... Let's see if we can get Trump to talk about getting Mooney manufacturers in USA. He keeps on talking about Carrier going to Mexico. 

Mooney's manufacturing and assembly happens in Texas, which last I recollect is still part of the U.S.A. Until DC gets them so ticked off they leave us as written into their State Constitution, or split into five states each with the right to leave.

There is a growing Mooney presence in China, and I think that's where the bulk of the M10s will end up flying. But Mooney is adding a hangar in Kerrville to build them, too.

as far as Mexico, two years after Bill Clinton pushed the NAFTA agreement through, all of our customers had moved to Mexico and the company I was working for at the time followed. Not caring to work in Tijuana, nor able to afford housing in San Diego, I changed industries and moved from Ga. to NC, ending my first round of flight lessons as they weren't available there.

[Andy95W]

The saddest thing about NAFTA is that it had widespread bi-partisan support. Only Ross Perot was against it, but everyone thought he was nuts and out in left field. 

[N9453V]

17 minutes ago, N1395W said:

The saddest thing about NAFTA is that it had widespread bi-partisan support. Only Ross Perot was against it, but everyone thought he was nuts and out in left field. 

NAFTA has been great for the US and Canadian economies and has had little impact to the Mexican economy. Trade between the US and Canada is also significantly higher than trade between the US and Mexico.

-Andrew

[Guest]

2 hours ago, N9453V said:

NAFTA has been great for the US and Canadian economies and has had little impact to the Mexican economy. Trade between the US and Canada is also significantly higher than trade between the US and Mexico.

-Andrew

Free trade between countries with similar wage structures and standards of living seems to work.  Adding free trade with countries with low wages and standards of living doesn't seem to great an idea.

Clarence 

[Hank]

2 hours ago, N9453V said:

NAFTA has been great for the US and Canadian economies and has had little impact to the Mexican economy. Trade between the US and Canada is also significantly higher than trade between the US and Mexico.

-Andrew

It was great for my job. ALL of our customers (from Atlanta, Nashville, Chicago, NYC, even Montreal) moved to Mexico, so my plant closed and also moved to Mexico. Those dozen-odd factory closings were great for the U.S. economy. Or maybe I misunderstand how losing several thousand jobs is a good thing? Speaking just for us, our building sat empty for less than a decade before someone else moved in, with fewer employees. Don't know about their payroll or sales in comparison.

Now I need to go fly and get this lunacy out of my mind. At least Mooneys are still being built in America.

[aviatoreb]

31 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Free trade between countries with similar wage structures and standards of living seems to work.  Adding free trade with countries with low wages and standards of living doesn't seem to great an idea.

Clarence 

That imbalance was initial the case when East and West Germany rejoined, and soon it equilibrated.

 

[Yetti]

I've been saying we should annex Mexico for a long time.  Sure it's a fixer upper, but I think we can do it.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Yetti said:

I've been saying we should annex Mexico for a long time.  Sure it's a fixer upper, but I think we can do it.

That would be a good idea, once the border is gone the drugs can flow freely, leaving thousands of DEA and CBP agents out of work.

Clarence

[Hank]

8 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

That would be a good idea, once the border is gone the drugs can flow freely, leaving thousands of DEA and CBP agents out of work.

Clarence

Nah, they'd just be transferred to the new southern border, and the old northern border! 

[N201MKTurbo]

I doubt we will ever get a fuel/engine combination that has a better energy to weight ratio then what we are currently flying. Sure they are making some amazing electric motors these days, but the energy density of the best batteries is tiny compaired to a tank of gasoline. 

A hybrid car makes sense because cars start and stop often and the engine only has to produce the average power required instead of the maximum power required. In a plane a hybrid makes no sense. We require our engines to produce a constant high power. Adding the additional weight of a generator, batteries and a motor to transfer power from the engine to the propellor makes no sense at all. 

[Jerry 5TJ]

I have a few dozen hours in a Rolls Royce powered P210.  It's a nice little engine (300 hp is a little turbine) and fits that airframe fairly well. 

A RR might mate well with the long body Mooneys, With JetA priced 25% cheaper than 100 LL the fuel burn in $ per hour are about equal. 

 

 

 

[Hector]

Seems like having a bunch of moving parts at the outboard end of a critical control surface is a bad idea.  Just saying 

Agree. Pitch stability will be a problem I think. Also, Both the wing and thrust from the engines will be creating a pitch down moment which will have to be counterbalanced by the V-tail having a rather large negative angle of attack. Any power change will require lots of trimming. I think I would have gone with a conventional tail and place the motors on top of the wing if you need to create a little more ground clearance for the props.

[Hank]

30 minutes ago, Hector said:

Agree. Pitch stability will be a problem I think. Also, Both the wing and thrust from the engines will be creating a pitch down moment which will have to be counterbalanced by the V-tail having a rather large negative angle of attack. Any power change will require lots of trimming. I think I would have gone with a conventional tail and place the motors on top of the wing if you need to create a little more ground clearance for the props.

I thought he put the props on the tail so that thenairflowmover the wing would be less disturbed. Gear length is immaterial with retract, but they are very short--it would be like driving an oversize MG Midget down the runway. The trim question though, is something not addressed in the article, and I'd like to be able to see his response to questions like this.

[bradp]

When Rocket did their Jet prop why did they choose a PT-6A that was derated (-35) and then offered a -21 (~500 hp)?  It would seem that mating to a less thirsty RR500 turbine (then Allison 250) would give the similar TO / Landing performance gains (mostly because of a fully feathering prop), increase the SHP/weight ratio, provide range and address the Achilles heel of the jetprop conversion - the quintessential range vs useful load issue with these things.   The reason why this and the P210 conversions are the only ones that have been successful are that they are pressurized airframes. 

A reason that the avweb announcement for bolting a RR turbine on a Mooney is a non starter is because there's not much market for a non-pressurized turbo (look at the A36 conversion).  The cost per unit of the small turbines is significantly less than a PT6 or Garrett.  I found reference to the turbo shaft version of this RR engine at about $150k.  For a 5000 TBO that is pretty similar to the cost of new piston engines given a longer maintenance free period.  

These 500 max and 350 continuous HP small turbines would be absolutely fantastic for pressurized twin conversions.  or as an alternative to the JetProp on the Malibu airframe.  

[Hank]

Just now, Hyett6420 said:

Rolls Royce made armoured cars, no planes ever i am afriad.  They are damn good at making engines though.  Now how can i get my merlin into my mooney? . 

You'll just need a bigger engine mount, new longer cowl and some weight in the tail. Then you'll be able to fly for maybe an hour on full fuel . . .    But you'll sound so good doing it!

[sleepingsquirrel]

6 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I doubt we will ever get a fuel/engine combination that has a better energy to weight ratio then what we are currently flying. Sure they are making some amazing electric motors these days, but the energy density of the best batteries is tiny compaired to a tank of gasoline. 

A hybrid car makes sense because cars start and stop often and the engine only has to produce the average power required instead of the maximum power required. In a plane a hybrid makes no sense. We require our engines to produce a constant high power. Adding the additional weight of a generator, batteries and a motor to transfer power from the engine to the propellor makes no sense at all. 

1671 kilowatt hours is Mooney capable. 48 gallon gasoline equivalent.

[donkaye]

On May 31, 2016 at 7:34 PM, zulu168 said:

I was pretty disappointed that Mooney didn't go with RR., that having said has anyone swapped out for a RR's engine in their bird?

Not one in my plane, but one in my car.  Gas mileage is a poor 9 mi/gal, so a 26 gallon tank.  Also, a little heavy for the plane.  :-).

[Jerry 5TJ]

4 hours ago, bradp said:

When Rocket did their Jet prop why did they choose a PT-6A that was derated (-35) and then offered a -21 (~500 hp)?  It would seem that mating to a less thirsty RR500 turbine (then Allison 250) would give the similar TO / Landing performance gains (mostly because of a fully feathering prop), increase the SHP/weight ratio, provide range and address the Achilles heel of the jetprop conversion - the quintessential range vs useful load issue with these things.   The reason why this and the P210 conversions are the only ones that have been successful are that they are pressurized airframes. 

I had a -21 JetProp for some years. The engine seemed well-matched to that 4300 pound plane.  

All PT6A versions used in JetProp (-21, -34, -35) were flat-rated.  The latter two were limited by Rocket's STC to 560 shaft HP.  The -21 has a 550 shaft HP gearbox limitation so that's the STC limit. At sea level any version can far exceed those figures.

The JetProp has a max authorized altitude of 27,000.  At that altitude on ISA standard day at max available power the -21 engine would be at around 98% Ng, and within a few degrees of 680 turbine inlet redline. In short it was near its peak efficiency. IAS was about 163 knots, 250 KTAS.  Torque would be 700-750 ft-lbs, equal to around 290-315 hp at the prop. Fuel flow 29-31 GPH.  

The RR 250 performance falls off too much above 20,000 to fit the PA46 airframe as well.   It might work as a slower climbing plane cruising around FL200 at about 210 KTAS on 16-20 GPH.  (But it might have been hard to sell that combination compared to a hot rod PT6 upgrade)

Conversely the higher performance-35 engine at its peak power at 27,000 drives the PA46 beyond Vmo of 172 KIAS. Ok if you're comfortable cruising above redline.  The -35 JetProp would be happiest at 30,000-32,000 feet. But then you need RVSM authorization, and cabin altitude with max 5.3 PSI differential would top 11,000.  

The RR250 seemed better matched to the P210 with its 3.35 PSI pressurization suited to around 15,000 cruise where the engine provides good power.

I have  talked to engineers who were part of the Malibu design team at Piper.  They indicated the design was specifically optimized to cruise at 200 knots at 20,000 powered by the then-new 310 hp Continental operating LOP at 14 GPH. With 120 gallons it had great range and good useful load.  The plane's performance met the goals.  Reliability was a different story.  

 

[bradp]

That's great info / insight Jerry.  

[N201MKTurbo]

On June 4, 2016 at 0:03 PM, sleepingsquirrel said:

1671 kilowatt hours is Mooney capable. 48 gallon gasoline equivalent.

Yes 48 gallons of gasoline is equivalent to 1671 KW/h 

A Tesla Roadster has a 54 KW/h battery.

[neilpilot]

Just now, N201MKTurbo said:

Yes 48 gallons of gasoline is equivalent to 1671 KW/h 

A Tesla Roadster has a 54 KW/h battery.

Careful with your units.  KW/hr has no meaning. It is just the way that the uninformed sometimes write kWh.