Dream to fly

Would anyone be interested?

Recommended Posts

I'll take a leap and put this out there.  Would anyone like to form a group that pushes our Mooney planes forward into new technology?  Maybe we could meet in the Midwest at some fly-in diner and brainstorm and see what materializes.  Nothing like bucking the system and forcing change:D.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

I've been a participant in aviation for almost 40 years. I've heard the same lament for the entire 40 years. 

Avionics are fantastic now. There is very little you can do to our engines to make them more powerful, efficent or reliable. 

So what are you talking about? Replacing our wheels with hover boards? We could put clickers on our doors, but you would loose some cabin space and useful load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MooneySpace is not the place to propose anything optimistic or disruptive unless you want to hear all about how it won't work.  It's the industries most ingrained in their ways that are the most ripe for disruption.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it was worth a shot....   I worked for a company once that had employees that were veterans to the company for 30+ years and heard the same things it won't can't work.  Signals can travel the speed of light and what is wrong with walking to the desk or wall to make a phone call...  Those who have been in the aviation field have seen the turn from steam gauge to electronics and they were the ones with why change it works.  NEWS FLASH THEY SUCKED!!!  Electronics make them better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mooniac15u said:

Don't stop dreaming and don't listen to the naysayers.

He knows whereof he speaks! If Craig had listened, there would be no MooneySpace . . . .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mooniac15u said:

Don't stop dreaming and don't listen to the naysayers.

Well I can't compete with 40+ years of knowledge.....  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, Call me a naysayer.

What kind of things would you do to modernize our Mooneys? Start a new company and invest $100,000,000 to develop a new engine that is 2% more efficient so you can sell 100 copies a year for $50,000?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but you may be too late.

Mooney has already moved into the latest realm of Clorox bottle technology copied from Cirrus.

Not sure why, but Boeing and Lockheed Martins F-35 Lightning || fighter are shunning Clorox and  seems to be sticking with tried and true aluminum with a little titanium thrown in.

Maybe, they are just getting things right.

 

Best,

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Joe- I would love to see some innovations in the realm of engine modernization.  And I think he probably has the experience to make a good start.

I don't know why I have that old saying stuck in my head, though.  "How do you make a small fortune in Aviation?  Start with a large fortune."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to be able to use avionics that you can buy and install in experimental aircraft in my Mooney. I’d be happy with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current engine technology is from the 30s. Diesel and Rotax would be a lot simpler to operate and lower maintenance cost and equal or better performance (in fuel effectiveness especially).

lot’s of room for improvements. Go for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, N9405V said:

I just want to be able to use avionics that you can buy and install in experimental aircraft in my Mooney. I’d be happy with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It can happen...  but two things must change....  One is you have got to convince the people that change is good, and second you have to empower the people to try and failure is an option.  I'm pretty sure the wright brothers didn't fly their first, second, or third bird they built.    But as been stated its been beat to death and what is working is perfect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, SkyTec adopted automotive starters to aircraft engines and now our planes are lighter and start better. Plane power adopted automotive alternators to aircraft engines and now we have lighter weight alternators. If the FAA would allow it we would have Electronic ignition and Electronic fuel injection almost overnight. The electronic systems already developed don't sell well because they offer very little as far as improved efficiency is concerned. They probably are easier to start and I would like that although I don't have any trouble starting it now. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone tried the group buy/bid concept yet?  Get 20 individuals who want something similar like a panel upgrade, new engine, paint job, tank reseal whatever....   Package it up and send the bid to 10 shops and make sure they all know who the other 10 shops are.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DAVIDWH said:

Sorry, but you may be too late.

Mooney has already moved into the latest realm of Clorox bottle technology copied from Cirrus.

Not sure why, but Boeing and Lockheed Martins F-35 Lightning || fighter are shunning Clorox and  seems to be sticking with tried and true aluminum with a little titanium thrown in.

Maybe, they are just getting things right.

 

Best,

 

 

 

 

Not really true.

While F35 uses a lot of Al and Ti in the airframe, significant percentage of structure (more then third, IIRC, namely all skins, etc) is composite.

As for Boeing, 787 is true fully composite plane and so is the wing of new 777-9. Word is that new 797, if they ever launch it will be composite as well. this includes the fuselage that was originally thought to be metallic.

 

As for Mooney, I hear not much is going with the M10 trainer as it's shelved as they wanted to re-think whole idea. It is hard to hope for any profits considering the cost of development and certification.

 

As someone said: "How do you make a small fortune in Aviation?  Start with a large fortune!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Robert C. said:

Current engine technology is from the 30s. Diesel and Rotax would be a lot simpler to operate and lower maintenance cost and equal or better performance (in fuel effectiveness especially).

lot’s of room for improvements. Go for it!

A Lycoming IO360 and a Continental IO550 can deliver a .38 or a .39 BSFC. Is there anything else more efficient?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

A Lycoming IO360 and a Continental IO550 can deliver a .38 or a .39 BSFC. Is there anything else more efficient?

Well, diesels would be in the 0.26 BSFC range, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

Well, diesels would be in the 0.26 BSFC range, right?

Show me one 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like some of the ship's diesels listed?  Not saying you can fit a ship's diesel into a Mooney, but that would be close to the theoretical minimum for diesels, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the problem since the 1930s, diesels are theoretically simpler and more efficient, but nobody has delivered one. The Theilert diesel on the DA42 was promising but had huge gearbox and TBR issues. People actually pulled the diesels off and put IO360s on them rather than buy 70k in gearboxes every 350hr. Cessna canned the TD182. We’re  just not there yet.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, why do you want a different engine?

if you want more power, there are plenty of more powerful engines available right now. Go buy a rocket or a long body. The fuel specifics of our engines iare quite good. Do you want an easier engine to operate? It isn't too bad now. 

Edited by N201MKTurbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So, why do you want a different engine?

if you want more power, there are plenty of more powerful engines available right now. Go buy a rocket or a long body. The fuel specifics of our engines iare quite good. Do you want an easier engine to operate? It isn't too bad now. 

I don't think more power is the issue how about better cams, ones that don't peel and spall maybe produce a better airflow thru stepped lobe ramp design.  Or maybe injectors that don't vapor lock.  Mags that are replaced by coil on plug technology where individual cylinder tuning can occur.  How about compound turbos that actually keep cylinders cool by producing power.  The technology is so far past what we use yet we accept what is.  All I am saying is why do we allow it.  An IO-360 in a vans RV is the same as in a mooney why the forbiddance of using technology.  IT has to do with greed. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now