Mooney + Porsche

[toto]

They aren't reintroducing the M20L, but it sounds like a cross-marketing campaign is in the offing.  Target is 50 airframes / year.

Mooney hopes to build 20 aircraft this year as it continues its re-entry to the high-performance single market. At a news conference at AirVenture, Director of Marketing Lance Phillips said they’re planning to ramp up to 40 aircraft next year with a goal of maintaining about 50 aircraft a year after that. Australian certification of the latest two-door models of the Acclaim and Ultra will open a market that has been historically strong for Mooney. It’s borrowing a few marketing ideas from the automotive industry as it ramps up its business and a familiar name is again associated with the brand.

Mooney has entered a marketing alliance with iconic carmaker Porsche. There will be no technical cross pollination, however. In the 1980s, Mooney and Porsche certified the PFM 3200 an aviation version of the six-cylinder boxer engine in its 911 sports car for aircraft and while it attracted a lot of attention it didn’t sell well. One of the automotive-style marketing ideas for new Mooneys is called Fill and Fly. For the first three years, new Mooney owners will only pay for fuel in most cases. The company will cover all the scheduled maintenance and consumables in the first three years.

https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Mooney-Aims-For-50-A-Year-231292-1.html

[Yetti]

They might be better off picking up support for the Mooney Porsche they abandoned. You don't want to be the person with 20 of the rarest things out there when you show up for service.

[Yetti]

or STC a J to have a new porch engine

[MyNameIsNobody]

37 minutes ago, Yetti said:

or STC a J to have a new porch engine

Or STC a J to have a new PORSCHE engine...

[MyNameIsNobody]

2 hours ago, Yetti said:

They might be better off picking up support for the Mooney Porsche they abandoned. You don't want to be the person with 20 of the rarest things out there when you show up for service.

Ya, because I am sure no one will bring up something that happened over thirty years ago...

Edited July 29, 2018 by MyNameIsNobody

[MyNameIsNobody]

=‘s Awesome?  Rhetorical.

[aviatoreb]

Why would anyone want a Porsche engine in their airplane esp after the m20L disaster?!

the only m20L that are still worth anything were converted to a continental io550.

Edited July 29, 2018 by aviatoreb

[Yetti]

[INA201]

I say switch to Ford Power....580HP

http://www.fordracingbyspeedshopdirect.com/mobile/product.aspx?ProductCode=m-6007-a52xs&404;http://www.fordracingbyspeedshopdirect.com:80/Ford_5_2L_Aluminator_XS_Crate_Engine_p/M-6007-A52XS.htm?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIz6fNvdHE3AIVkrfACh0dmA0LEAQYASABEgKQovD_BwE

[PTK]

They should try and work with BMW M division! That would be something worth doing since BMW builds the best driving machines today and has a legacy building aircraft engines. And the M for Mooney! 

BMW M Powered Mooney...

the ultimate flying machine!

[LANCECASPER]

On 7/29/2018 at 10:33 AM, aviatoreb said:

Why would anyone want a Porsche engine in their airplane esp after the m20L disaster?!

the only m20L that are still worth anything were converted to a continental io550.

The main reason it failed, is that although it had a smooth,  217 hp advanced engine, the airplane was 5 knots slower than the J and $100,000 more expensive. It was a lot slower than the 252 and $12,000 more comparably equipped. People buy Mooneys for speed. It sounded like a car on startup which was good, it had electronic ignition and fuel injection, one power lever, not three. They made 40 of them in 1988 (and one in 1989), which would make it a rip-roaring success today. (Mooney was the only airframe maker at that time building airplanes on speculation.)

Back then, under French ownership, for a few years they were determined to come out with a new model every year. They had a hard time selling the end of the M20L run when the M20M was introduced in '89. Also Mooney was usually behind on their payments to suppliers back then. Mooney stopped building the L model on speculation when the engine supply ran out. Later, of course, Porsche bought most of the M20L's back since they didn't want the liability of being in the airplane engine business. Finally in 2005 they turned in the type certificate for the engine to the FAA and stopped supporting it with parts. It's still legal to fly if you can keep it airworthy.

Hard to believe that they would partner up with Porsche again since that didn't go so well the last time. I'm sure they feel that Porsche buyers fall into the same demographics as new Mooney buyers. A Porsche themed Mooney with Porsche colors, full leather interior with leather headliner, glareshield, etc might be a nice M20 Ultra Porsche edition.

[LANCECASPER]

15 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Why would anyone want a Porsche engine in their airplane esp after the m20L disaster?!

the only m20L that are still worth anything were converted to a continental io550.

And those have a useful load of not much over 600 pounds. Nearly impossible to sell any M20L, even one that's been converted to an IO-550.

[N201MKTurbo]

All you people who want to put auto engines in your airplanes should read a little aviation history. It has been tried quite a few times. They were all disasters.

[MyNameIsNobody]

30 minutes ago, PTK said:

They should try and work with BMW M division! That would be something worth doing since BMW builds the best driving machines today and has a legacy building aircraft engines. And the M for Mooney! 

BMW M Powered Mooney...

the ultimate flying machine!

U never fail to disappoint.  BMW makes some great cars, but “The ring” doesn’t seem to have many putting down “ultimate” lap times.  Just say’n...#putuporshutup

[MyNameIsNobody]

12 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

All you people who want to put auto engines in your airplanes should read a little aviation history. It has been tried quite a few times. They were all disasters.

I believe they are marketing the concept of “turn-key” flying.  Put in fuel and go with no maintenance out of pocket for a few years.  Not so much on the “Ben-Done” engine movie.  A success ruined by lawyers...

[MyNameIsNobody]

52 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Why would anyone want a Porsche engine in their airplane esp after the m20L disaster?!

the only m20L that are still worth anything were converted to a continental io550.

Because of lawyers.  I would be very interested if that partnership had continued.

[aviatoreb]

If I were tempted to put a car engine in an airplane - and I am not....but if I were...it would be a Wankel rotary.

[DonMuncy]

37 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

If I were tempted to put a car engine in an airplane - and I am not....but if I were...it would be a Wankel rotary.

Why Erik, can the Wankel put out continuous high power. As near as I can tell, that is the drawback to most automotive engines.

[aviatoreb]

4 minutes ago, DonMuncy said:

Why Erik, can the Wankel put out continuous high power. As near as I can tell, that is the drawback to most automotive engines.

Irrational reasons - I always though it was a cool concept.  No pistons - it’s already doing circles so send well suited for airplanes.  Narrow footprint.

but I understand for attempted conversions auto to aero applications there’s heat and gear box issues.

i had an old rx7 once upon a time

still...

Edited July 29, 2018 by aviatoreb

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

If I were tempted to put a car engine in an airplane - and I am not....but if I were...it would be a Wankel rotary.

Its been tried before with a few different variations of the Wankle engine installed in Vans Aircraft models.  Van would always invite the builder to Oregon to fly a competition against a stock Lycoming power RV.  None could ever match the performance or fuel economy of the Lycoming engine, hence you don’t see many flying.

Another attempt was made with the Subaru Baxter engine by Eggenfellner Aircraft, they too went broke.

Clarence

[Guest]

4 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

All you people who want to put auto engines in your airplanes should read a little aviation history. It has been tried quite a few times. They were all disasters.

Those who don’t read about history are bound to repeat it.  

Clarence

[NJMac]

Seems to me that among the reasons new Cirrus planes sell so well is the "feel" and "look" - did anyone see how gaudy the 7000 edition planes were? But they're limited run that provably commands a stupid premium.

Bringing Porsche on board to nail the interior, paint, and special edition dramatic effect seems to make great sense.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[EricJ]

25 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Irrational reasons - I always though it was a cool concept.  No pistons - it’s already doing circles so send well suited for airplanes.  Narrow footprint.

but I understand for attempted conversions auto to aero applications there’s heat and gear box issues.

i had an old rx7 once upon a time

still...

The main advantage of the rotary is few moving parts, so some increased reliability from that perspective.   They don't weigh a lot, either, depending.   They generally have some special needs for oiling to keep the apex seals happy.  You pay a high price for the "advantages", though, in that they don't make much torque (which is easy to understand), and torque is what you need to turn a propeller.   Hence large displacement reciprocating engines with huge pistons and strokes to match are typical in GA.

I raced an RX-7 for a few years.  Not a lot of fond memories of that car.        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrowL4p_WoQ

 

[aviatoreb]

45 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Its been tried before with a few different variations of the Wankle engine installed in Vans Aircraft models.  Van would always invite the builder to Oregon to fly a competition against a stock Lycoming power RV.  None could ever match the performance or fuel economy of the Lycoming engine, hence you don’t see many flying.

Another attempt was made with the Subaru Baxter engine by Eggenfellner Aircraft, they too went broke.

Clarence

I know, I know...  it seems like it SHOUld be great.  Fewer moving parts for more reliability, lighter, etc. But it just has not been made to work.

Love the Subaru engines too.  That too should work, but it doesn't.  Oh well, we have 3 Subarus in the family and love them.  An Impreza wagon, a Crosstrek (basically same thing with big wheels), and a Subaru wrx-sti (mine- 2004 had it since new). Love em and it would be fun if those smooth engines did work out for airplanes.

I do like the EPS diesel 8 coming along by Burt Rutan etc.

[bonal]

They all require water cooling which is superior but does add complications even PORSCHE had to go that way air cooling just won't allow HP needed to be competitive in today's world. And as we all know it's all about when a propeller starts losing efficiency and that speed is usually not where a modern engine makes its horsepower so a reduction system is needed adding weight and added mech requirements. Airplane engines were designed to make max power at the same RPM as our props are most efficient and as mentioned above you do that with big bore and stroke. When you think about cubic inches to HP our engines really aren't that good but they do the job better than any other design (kerosene burners) excepted. Porsche and Subaru do kind of make sense as they are both boxer design and might fit better in the normal cowling most airplanes use. I for one am a fan of both. 

Sitting in a new Ultra I don't think there is any lack of quality and fit compared to most autos. And for me personally I would not want an airplane that makes me think I'm in a car. I want to be sitting in something that says you sir are in an airplane.