M016576 Posted February 12, 2017 Report Posted February 12, 2017 Why didn't the M22 mustang work/catch on? Does anyone have a guess or opinion? It seems like such a great concept, yet obviously there was a problem, or these things would be everywhere.... anyone know? Quote
M20F Posted February 12, 2017 Report Posted February 12, 2017 Engine had a lot of issues, didn't really live up to performance expectations, expensive. The engine was probably the largest issue though and had that been right might have changed things. There is one flying around KFME that a co-worker knows the owner of. For various reasons I haven't made it out to see it yet. Believe there is one in SD as well. 1 Quote
carusoam Posted February 12, 2017 Report Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) We had one owner around here for a while... A normal four seat plane is getting 310 hp mounted in it now. The six seat mustang didn't get that much. The Mooney 301 project started in a similar way. A follow on challenge comes with pressurized singles. There are few good examples to try, to tell If this would work for your type of flying. A six seat Mooney would be nice for the people that had to leave MS when their family grew too large... i would like a pressurized O. Best regards, -a- Edited February 12, 2017 by carusoam Quote
M20F Posted February 12, 2017 Report Posted February 12, 2017 Believe the M22 was 5 not 6 seat. 1 Quote
carusoam Posted February 12, 2017 Report Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_M22_Mustang Thanks, Mike! i probably didn't get the hp right either. Wiki indicates 310 for the Mustang with a Turbo'd Lyc541. Best regards, -a- Edited February 12, 2017 by carusoam Quote
Alan Fox Posted February 12, 2017 Report Posted February 12, 2017 It was a DOG ..... It was expensive....... Quote
takair Posted February 12, 2017 Report Posted February 12, 2017 Not so sure that it was a dog....more of a puppy. Pull up flight aware on the rare flying one, in the flight levels and you will see some good TAS. There are a couple of airworthy ones and a few that could be. They had a few problems. I think it could have been more successful if Mooney had more cash. Unfortunately, they lost money on each one and went bankrupt...again. It was heavy and complex and were difficult to build. I think with evolution they could have made something of it. It never had an autopilot or de-ice, which is a tough sell for a high flying IFR bird. In the long haul, the few that were out there were plagued with the one-off engine and nose gear castings that would fail and no spares. A few out there were retrofitted with the Beach Duke engines, but those are only marginally more plentiful. If I had unlimited funds, I would love to get one and work out those bugs and make something of it. They are as big as a Malibu and just as fast. Quite a ramp presence and huge inside. Quote
M016576 Posted February 13, 2017 Author Report Posted February 13, 2017 I've always wondered- when you look at one, it kind of reminds me of a single engine T-Bone. And the concept seems sound- so the problem must have been in the execution.... Quote
Raptor05121 Posted February 13, 2017 Report Posted February 13, 2017 This one has been restored to what looks to be better than factory-new and has been for sale for about 2 years now:http://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M22+MUSTANG&listing_id=1742444&s-type=aircraft What is wrong with the powerplant? What would have been a better choice? TIO-550 Continental? Quote
takair Posted February 13, 2017 Report Posted February 13, 2017 24 minutes ago, Raptor05121 said: This one has been restored to what looks to be better than factory-new and has been for sale for about 2 years now:http://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M22+MUSTANG&listing_id=1742444&s-type=aircraft What is wrong with the powerplant? What would have been a better choice? TIO-550 Continental? There were only a few more engines made then airframes. The model engine was specific to the M22. The biggest issue is the low profile oil sump to clear the gear, so it is not an easy retrofit. I think there were issues with the oil pump as well...as a couple have been modified in this area. At least one owner I spoke to couldn't get it approved...at least at the time I spoke to her. It is a cool plane and it was ahead of its time. If you ever have an opportunity to see one up close, take advantage, full of quirky little features. Quote
carusoam Posted February 13, 2017 Report Posted February 13, 2017 Alternative power... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_IO-550 wasn't available until the 1980s. whatever engine it gets, needs to run a compressor for the cabin... The good news is that engine monitors with so many sensors are readily available, today. Pilots can be brought up to speed on modern operations pretty easily... adding an inter cooler would be nice if it didn't get one... Curvy balanced intake tubes didn't become popular for another ten years... with so few ever built they never got from MkI to Bravo... Best regard, -a- Quote
DXB Posted February 13, 2017 Report Posted February 13, 2017 This pressurized piston single market never really seems to have materialized in the ensuing 50 years after the failure of the M22. What is there now? Just the Piper Mirage? The M22 was a bold move for Mooney that I suspect would have been doomed even without its design flaws. Unfortunately that gambit really seems to have wounded a company that was making great planes otherwise. Quote
Raptor05121 Posted February 13, 2017 Report Posted February 13, 2017 I think if they didn't make the M22, they would have had the ability to continue to produce the 301, maybe albeit with a turboprop? I think the SEL turboprop market has been steady for the past few years. 1 Quote
thinwing Posted February 13, 2017 Report Posted February 13, 2017 I notice they got rid of the rubber doughnuts and went oleo struts.Which reminds me ..one of the most difficult rubber shock disc replacements was not on a Mooney (straight forward with the right tools)but on main wheels of wipline floats,!..the factory in order to compress them enough to pin them at the top like a Mooney doesn't use a compression jack or vise...they recommend getting 10 or 15 big guys to stand on the float to compress the discs!I kid you not! Quote
Brandontwalker Posted February 14, 2017 Report Posted February 14, 2017 This pressurized piston single market never really seems to have materialized in the ensuing 50 years after the failure of the M22. What is there now? Just the Piper Mirage? The M22 was a bold move for Mooney that I suspect would have been doomed even without its design flaws. Unfortunately that gambit really seems to have wounded a company that was making great planes otherwise. Cessna P210. Great example of a pressurized single. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 Quote
mike20papa Posted February 14, 2017 Report Posted February 14, 2017 At College Station, TX (KCLL) the Lonestar Flight Museum had a Pearl Harbor Day fly over. I meet the pilot flying the Spitfire named Warren Pietsch and introduced myself as a lowly wood wing Mooney pilot. Warren went on to say he regularly flies a M22 - N66179 and how his father was an early Mooney dealer in north Dakota. Warren flies one of the few Zeros in the world (and M22's) and you can find him on Youtube. For some reason ... we didn't talk much about Mooneys ... standing next to the Spitfire! 2 Quote
Mcstealth Posted February 14, 2017 Report Posted February 14, 2017 They tried to pressurize a roll cage instead of starting with a mostly fresh design. They had to put a lot of dope in the angular areas just to keep the pressurization. This made the bird heavy, and more expensive. Many, including my dad, had drawn up a new, rounder, easier to pressurize fuselage, but the powers to be claimed the Mooney roll cage was a selling point and had to be maintained. Yes it is a five seat, not six, had good room, and was fast enough for its time. First time you see one, you do a double take. df 1 Quote
M20F Posted February 15, 2017 Report Posted February 15, 2017 Pressurized pistons really don't work which is why you really don't seem them today (the Malibu isn't exactly setting the world on fire and there is no piston twin being made that I can think of). Time to climb into FL's unless there is a hell of a tailwind the climb time eats all the TAS speed gained unless you are going a very far distance. Most GA flights aren't long distances and burning 24+ in the climb limits range. I can get 160-170kts TAS between FL190-210. I fly a lot of GA long haul (mostly KDPA<->47N). Rarely does the math ever work to go high and I am looking solid west to east. If it does it is usually 15-30mins of savings to be on O2 (which is additonal cost but a bottle cost is a lot less than maintaining a pressure vessel and its acccessories). You also have all the bootstrapping, mag, no heat, 1hr of 100% power wear, lousy CHT cooling issues to deal with.. Money, time, fuel, reality is it just doesn't work to fly pistons in the FL's consistently thus no reason to be pressurized. While one can say Mooney could have made a turbine single in the 60's it sort of falls into the same issue as the M22. The engines available at the time just didn't work. Look on FlightAware at turbo Barons, super charged Tbones, turbo Senneca's, turbo Mooney's, turbo Bonanza's, etc. and they are all 9-11k feet. 1 Quote
peevee Posted February 15, 2017 Report Posted February 15, 2017 9 hours ago, M20F said: Look on FlightAware at turbo Barons, super charged Tbones, turbo Senneca's, turbo Mooney's, turbo Bonanza's, etc. and they are all 9-11k feet. I dunno why. If I'm going long range, say 1.5 hours or more, I go high. I have looked at the ad for that m22 before and thought having a nearly one of a kind airplane is way out of my budget. Imagine when all the little seals that keep the pressurization in start getting old and cracking. I'm sure they're unobtanium. Quote
aviatoreb Posted February 15, 2017 Report Posted February 15, 2017 10 hours ago, M20F said: I can get 160-170kts TAS between FL190-210. I fly a lot of GA long haul (mostly KDPA<->47N). Rarely does the math ever work to go high and I am looking solid west to east. If it does it is usually 15-30mins of savings to be on O2 (which is additonal cost but a bottle cost is a lot less than maintaining a pressure vessel and its acccessories). You also have all the bootstrapping, mag, no heat, 1hr of 100% power wear, lousy CHT cooling issues to deal with.. Money, time, fuel, reality is it just doesn't work to fly pistons in the FL's consistently thus no reason to be pressurized. While one can say Mooney could have made a turbine single in the 60's it sort of falls into the same issue as the M22. The engines available at the time just didn't work. Look on FlightAware at turbo Barons, super charged Tbones, turbo Senneca's, turbo Mooney's, turbo Bonanza's, etc. and they are all 9-11k feet. The higher power turbos can get up high pretty quickly. I once timed my time to 17 in under 13 min. True while I do not go that high or higher often, I often go to >12500 specifically because no one else does and I like the quiet airspace to be found even in the east coast - too high for most pistons who don't like o2 and too low for jets other than passing through. The P210 is a lovely airplane and there are two on my airfield. Not much fun in terms of "road feel" in flight but very capable. I always liked the M22 in principle and I always found its appearance to be striking - sort of a cross between a M20 and a Bonanza with that more stout looking nose. 2 Quote
Alan Fox Posted February 16, 2017 Report Posted February 16, 2017 On 2/13/2017 at 0:13 AM, DXB said: This pressurized piston single market never really seems to have materialized in the ensuing 50 years after the failure of the M22. What is there now? Just the Piper Mirage? The M22 was a bold move for Mooney that I suspect would have been doomed even without its design flaws. Unfortunately that gambit really seems to have wounded a company that was making great planes otherwise. That P-210 I own , might disagree with that last statement... Quote
DXB Posted February 16, 2017 Report Posted February 16, 2017 Sorry didn't mean to overlook the P210 folks! Definitely a very capable bird that had a good run from '79-85, albeit not problem free. But now it's just the Piper offering and I can't imagine they sell that many. Quote
Jerry 5TJ Posted February 16, 2017 Report Posted February 16, 2017 13 hours ago, DXB said: Sorry didn't mean to overlook the P210 folks! Definitely a very capable bird that had a good run from '79-85, albeit not problem free. But now it's just the Piper offering and I can't imagine they sell that many. Piper sold 36 piston engined PA46 planes in 2015, per GAMA. That's just their single engine pressurized piston aircraft. They also sold another 27 PA46 turbine powered airframes in 2015. Mooney sold 11 new planes the same year, alas. Ref: http://gama.aero/files/2015GAMAShipmentReport.pdf 1 Quote
N601RX Posted February 16, 2017 Report Posted February 16, 2017 I know someone who ordered a new Mooney at Sun-in -Fun 2015. Mooney missed delivery deadline after deadline for several months. When they finally got the plane ready on the last day of the year they did go ahead and declare it a 2016 model. Quote
peevee Posted February 16, 2017 Report Posted February 16, 2017 On 2/15/2017 at 7:19 AM, aviatoreb said: The higher power turbos can get up high pretty quickly. I once timed my time to 17 in under 13 min. True while I do not go that high or higher often, I often go to >12500 specifically because no one else does and I like the quiet airspace to be found even in the east coast - too high for most pistons who don't like o2 and too low for jets other than passing through. The P210 is a lovely airplane and there are two on my airfield. Not much fun in terms of "road feel" in flight but very capable. I always liked the M22 in principle and I always found its appearance to be striking - sort of a cross between a M20 and a Bonanza with that more stout looking nose. I took the rocket on a 30 minute hop today, 14,5 out and 15,5 back.... But there were big rocks in the way. I showed 1500+fpm the whole time, no worries at all. Thing was born to climb. Anyway, I still think the m22 is slick as snot, but the fantasy vs the reality is probably scary (and expensive) 1 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.