New 4 seat Mooney from retooled M10?

[gsengle]

Mooney feels existing market needs a new airframe in this market segment? Discuss?!

 

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Mooney-Shows-Certified-Acclaim-Recalibrates-M10-Project-228772-1.html

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KSMooniac]

The M10 was a great concept in my opinion, but poorly executed. It ended up very heavy and I don't think the performance was there. It will be very interesting to see what evolves next.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

[gsengle]

You'd think there would have been enough advances in materials science that we could start to make composite aircraft lighter...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Urs_Wildermuth]

Hang on, you say it "was" a great concept"? So what is happening? has it been abandoned?

I still think particularly the "J" model would have been a nice airplane particularly with the Diesel.

[gsengle]

It appears that the M10 has been abandoned as a literal configuration, they are now suggesting it was more of a proof of concept, research test bed...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KSMooniac]

The investor jumped the gun IMO and built a factory over there...long before there was a viable product to fill it, beyond re-assembling a few M20's that were shipped over.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

[KSMooniac]

You'd think there would have been enough advances in materials science that we could start to make composite aircraft lighter...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not the materials that are the issue, it is equal parts how they are employed by the design team and what is required for certification. A workable airframe made from carbon fiber isn't necessarily lighter than aluminum, especially at the smaller end of the GA spectrum. The major advantages should be improved aerodynamic contours and lower drag and lower fabrication time, if employed well.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

[gsengle]

So what would the ideal Mooney look like to be Cirrus competitive or beating? Realistically? How do you avoid being just "me to" except as a faster retract (I hope)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1964-M20E]

Aerodynamics are aerodynamics you might get some odd one off neat looking models but in the end look at nature all the fastest birds look very similar.  They are not copying form each other so much as it is what works.  Also in nature  birds retract their landing gear while in flight. 

The composite materials allows for reduced drag and smother shapes over aluminum or other materials.  Every seam, every gap, every joint, causes turbulence and turbulence causes drag.  Look at the evolution of NASCAR from the 50s to the 90s and you will see how they started closing gaps with fairings to increase speed and efficiency.  Al did that very well in the beginning and it was greatly improved on over the years to today's Ovation models.

But I do think a retract, turbo charged, 200 to 225hp diesel, 4 seat composite Mooney just might have some appeal especially if you can put 4 FAA adults in it.  Further, with a new air frame and wing you could play more with the seat locations and give passengers some more room longitudinally and laterally.

Maybe the next step with the long body Mooney is using a composite frame, lengthen the chord of the wing to increase useful load and control stall speed IDK I'm just rambling.

 

 

[gsengle]

I'm not convinced that fuel economy is what beats the competition. How about a 4 seat pressurized turbine powered model?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rbridges]

8 minutes ago, gsengle said:

I'm not convinced that fuel economy is what beats the competition. How about a 4 seat pressurized turbine powered model?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

how about a 4 seat plane that actually carries 4 adults with full fuel?  What is the bottleneck with gross weight on the mooneys?  Is it the weight on the landing gear or how much weight the plane can get off the ground?  my buddy's sr22 has a disappointing 550-600 lbs remaining after full fuel.  

[AndyFromCB]

10 minutes ago, rbridges said:

how about a 4 seat plane that actually carries 4 adults with full fuel?  What is the bottleneck with gross weight on the mooneys?  Is it the weight on the landing gear or how much weight the plane can get off the ground?  my buddy's sr22 has a disappointing 550-600 lbs remaining after full fuel.  

I don't think it's what can be gotten off the ground, but to say the least, I once have seen a Bravo take off around 3650lb, catch its breath and climb away at 900fpm. Bonanza A36 can be brought to 4024lb gross weight with an STC. Granted, the A36 landing gear is built to handle over 6000lb, so in case of a Mooney, it has to be the landing gear. Now, watching a A36 depart at 4000lb is kind of scary for a few seconds as it accelerates in ground effect, but if Bonanza can depart at 13.3lb/hp, I don't why a M20M/R/T cannot depart at 11.6 lb/hp with 310hp lifting 3600lb. M20J does it routinely at 13.5lb/hp at sea level and closer to 18lb/hp at altitude.

Edited April 5, 2017 by AndyFromCB

[gsengle]

how about a 4 seat plane that actually carries 4 adults with full fuel?  What is the bottleneck with gross weight on the mooneys?  Is it the weight on the landing gear or how much weight the plane can get off the ground?  my buddy's sr22 has a disappointing 550-600 lbs remaining after full fuel.  

Climbs fine with more weight. My understanding is there are 2 M20 issues.

Landing gear structure/strength and...

At any higher weights the wing exceeds the part 23 stall speed requirement for single engine airplanes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ArtVandelay]

M40: 4 seat, NA, carbon fiber panels, use titanium instead of steel in the frame and landing gear payload with full fuel is 800 lbs, 350HP 6 cylinder engine.
M60: 6 seat, turbo, FIKI, pressurized cabin, 8 cylinder engine, cruise >300knots
Oleo struts allows for more weight.
Electronic ignition, yes a chute, intelligent AP, descends if pressurization lost, attitude recovery, etc.
M40 $750K, M60 $1.25M

[Mooneymite]

Time for Mooney to go back to its roots for something really novel:

[rbridges]

20 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

Time for Mooney to go back to its roots for something really novel:

That looks like it would be a blast.

[Mooneymite]

7 minutes ago, rbridges said:

That looks like it would be a blast.

Much more fun to fly than a boring old M-20!

4 GPH/120 MPH....manual gear and flaps.  You can even find them with adjustable (not constant speed) props.

Read all about them.

[1964-M20E]

1 hour ago, Mooneymite said:

Much more fun to fly than a boring old M-20!

4 GPH/120 MPH....manual gear and flaps.  You can even find them with adjustable (not constant speed) props.

Read all about them.

They can be constant speed but you jut have to be quick and willing to climb out on the nose with the engine running.

didn't say it was practical or safe.

[Mooneymite]

Just now, 1964-M20E said:

They can be constant speed but you jut have to be quick and willing to climb out on the nose with the engine running.

didn't say it was practical or safe.

Yes....the Beech-Roby adjustable propeller is kind of an enigma.  The Mites equipped with them have a crank in the panel which allows the pilot to change the pitch in flight.  Not too many of the Mites had these.  I have no first hand experience and some who do say it's not worth the weight, or complexity.

Speaking of climbing out on the nose, most Mites came from the factory with no electric system, or starter, but a few were produced with the A-65-12 engine with a generator and starter.

Here's a Beech Roby for sale on the Mite site:  Beech-Roby controllable propeller for sale. Fresh inspection by Tarver Propellor. Approved for Continental Series Mooney Mite. Includes factory manuals. Price: $1,000 OBO.

[AndyFromCB]

1 hour ago, Mooneymite said:

Yes....the Beech-Roby adjustable propeller is kind of an enigma.  The Mites equipped with them have a crank in the panel which allows the pilot to change the pitch in flight.  Not too many of the Mites had these.  I have no first hand experience and some who do say it's not worth the weight, or complexity.

Speaking of climbing out on the nose, most Mites came from the factory with no electric system, or starter, but a few were produced with the A-65-12 engine with a generator and starter.

Here's a Beech Roby for sale on the Mite site:  Beech-Roby controllable propeller for sale. Fresh inspection by Tarver Propellor. Approved for Continental Series Mooney Mite. Includes factory manuals. Price: $1,000 OBO.

How does it work? Never heard of it.

[Mooneymite]

Just now, AndyFromCB said:

How does it work? Never heard of it.

I've never owned one, but as I understand it, the crank in the panel adjusted a plate on the engine shaft that changed the prop blades' pitch.  There is no governor whatsoever (other than the pilot    ).  

Not really sure, just guessing.

[1964-M20E]

http://www.notplanejane.com/beechcraft.htm#BeechControlAd_03

Take a look here  you could also get it in electric.

 

[Tom]

7 hours ago, gsengle said:

So what would the ideal Mooney look like to be Cirrus competitive or beating? Realistically? How do you avoid being just "me to" except as a faster retract (I hope)

It'd cruise at 201mph, burn mogas, cost <500K out the door, and look like this:

 

Edited April 5, 2017 by Tom

[carusoam]

I predict...

Tom the Cirrus sales guy is about to post a Cirrus-under-chute photo...  

Probably need Marauders help to get it straight and level...

waaaait for it...   waaaaait for it....

Best regards,

-a-

[Mcstealth]

So which is it? Stall spead or landing gear? Or both? It seems to me, strengthing the landing gear is attainable. 300 pounds of usable load worth of strength? I don't know.