Mooney upgrades?

[wcb]

So, I bought a new F250 with the 6.7L diesel (LOVE IT) and that got me thinking (always dangerous).  I also recently had the Mercedes twin turbo gas 4 cyl. (Diamond is putting in Mercedes diesels in some of their planes).

Here is the thought.  Mooney aerodynamic efficiencies with more efficient diesel engines.  What would a Mooney have to look like to have my big BAD 6.7?  More realistic what if Mooney went back to one of its more popular frames (the J) and add even more of the aerodynamic efficiencies available today (like Lo Presti Cowl, Tips, etc etc) as well as a twin turbo 4 cyl diesel.  Try to get Mooney truly back to the sweet spot.  SPEED AND EFFICIENCIES at a reasonable price (What price would be considered reasonable for a brand new 4cyl updated J model?)

 

 

 

[Hank]

There have been many discussions here about "bringing back the J," but none involving a turbodiesel variant. Seems there are two issues:  1) the factory got rid of the mid-body fuselage jigs, but since it's now half composite, that should be less of an issue, right?  2) there is little cost difference, mostly the delta between the Lycoming IO360 and the Continental IO 5XX rather than the $300K or more that people are hoping for . . .

But it's an idea! Maybe . . . . .

I just don't like the way Ford is now putting small turbo gas engines and 8-10 speed autos in their new trucks. Not sure how well a 2.3L Turbo will do hauling cargo and not playing commuter car, and I just don't like automatics because they are ofterin the wrong gear; doubling the number of gears will just increase the amount of times that it's not in the gear that I want it in.

[jaylw314]

1 minute ago, Hank said:

There have been many discussions here about "bringing back the J," but none involving a turbodiesel variant. Seems there are two issues:  1) the factory got rid of the mid-body fuselage jigs, but since it's now half composite, that should be less of an issue, right?  2) there is little cost difference, mostly the delta between the Lycoming IO360 and the Continental IO 5XX rather than the $300K or more that people are hoping for . . .

But it's an idea! Maybe . . . . .

I just don't like the way Ford is now putting small turbo gas engines and 8-10 speed autos in their new trucks. Not sure how well a 2.3L Turbo will do hauling cargo and not playing commuter car, and I just don't like automatics because they are ofterin the wrong gear; doubling the number of gears will just increase the amount of times that it's not in the gear that I want it in.

It's a shame that most aluminum semi-monocoque designs in GA require jigs.  Lose tooling, lose the design.  It's sad when Van's Aircraft makes RV kits that are mostly CAD pre-punched and cut sheets, so no precision jigs are necessary for construction.  Presumably, as long as you have a backup of the CAD data, the designs will never be lost.

As to diesel engines for aviation, I'm still waiting for the Deltahawk to come out with there 200 hp diesel.  I think their valve-less design is innovative and takes a bunch of moving parts out of the equation.  The size and power is close enough to the IO-360 that it would be easiest to get approvals to replace them.  Of course, we're probably talking about a cost as much or more than the cost of the existing airframe, but hey, I can still dream, right?

[carusoam]

Dream big...

if you find that there is no replacement for displacement....

And you like... 6.7 liters... or 409 ci....

Then an IO550 is even bigger/better...

 

But, the mid body is your thing...

Go Missile... a J with a 9 liter N.A. engine...

 

Sounds like a great idea that has already been engineered and delivered pretty close to perfection... go Rocket Engineering...

Why settle for 200hp when 300hp is readily available...?

Full power gets you off the ground in a shorter distance... initial climb is spectacular...

Cruising at altitude is LOP efficient... @ 165kts...

Sure a diesel would be nice if it were engineered and delivered already...

Join the upgrade club... 

PP thoughts only... not a plane salesman...

Best regards,

-a-

[MIm20c]

I think the 172 and 182 have both dropped the TD as a factory option. The company that designed the 2.3l TD went out of business. Many RV builders lost a lot of money and a massive amount of time trying surpass the lycoming options. 

Efficiency is irrelevant for selling new planes IMO because of the huge purchase cost (capital and insurance). Capability and performance are more important.  Come out with more UL or pressurization to sell more planes. 

[Marauder]

56 minutes ago, wcb said:

So, I bought a new F250 with the 6.7L diesel (LOVE IT) and that got me thinking (always dangerous).  I also recently had the Mercedes twin turbo gas 4 cyl. (Diamond is putting in Mercedes diesels in some of their planes).

Here is the thought.  Mooney aerodynamic efficiencies with more efficient diesel engines.  What would a Mooney have to look like to have my big BAD 6.7?  More realistic what if Mooney went back to one of its more popular frames (the J) and add even more of the aerodynamic efficiencies available today (like Lo Presti Cowl, Tips, etc etc) as well as a twin turbo 4 cyl diesel.  Try to get Mooney truly back to the sweet spot.  SPEED AND EFFICIENCIES at a reasonable price (What price would be considered reasonable for a brand new 4cyl updated J model?)

 

 

 

Don't get any water in your fuel... I own a 2011 6.7.

[1964-M20E]

I talked with the Mooney guy at the Mooney Summit and he said they thought about bringing the J back but the economics are not currently working.  I even suggested doing a program where you  go in and get a totally new air frame from them keeping your engine, avionics, landing gear and data plate.  Again the economics may not work but if it gets them building more air frames that helps the factory with keeping the workers busy.

However, I do think there is a place where the economics can work but all manufacturers need to team up and establish a factory with as much automation as economically feasible and then all riveted metal parts would be manufactured in one spot for Cessna, Beech, Piper, Mooney etc.  Most of the riveting on each part would be done by robots and  photographing each and every rivet.  They can even set up a facility that make steel weldments i.e. landing gear, roll cages, control links etc.

This approach would allow the different manufactures to pool and centralize specialized and skilled craftsman to keep them at optimum productivity.

Instead of building 10 to 20 wings, fuselages, tail sections a year for Mooney they would build 100 to 200 a year for everyone.  The finished products can then be shipped to the respective manufacturers for final assembly and inspections.

[Cooperd0g]

There is also the upgrade cost to consider. If you already have a J model and you go 160 knots on 9.5 gal/hr and you miraculously manage to get a 200hp diesel to fit still doing 160 knots on 4.5 gal/hr here are your annual fuel differences:

100 hours per year: 

100LL - 950 gallons at, call it $5.30 per gallon = $5035

Jet A - 450 gallons at, call it $4.95 per gallon = $2227.50

 

150 hours per year:

100LL - 1425 gallons at, call it $5.30 per gallon = $7552.50

Jet A - 675 gallons at, call it $4.95 per gallon = $3341.25

Seems like a big difference and the more you fly, the more it makes sense to upgrade to this hypothetical engine. However, I would guesstimate the engine swap would be in the $40-45 AMU range. The existing IO-360 is costing $50.35 per hour on 100LL versus $22.28 per hour on Jet A for the theoretical diesel on the prices I used (sourced from averaging numbers on 100LL.com). That would take about 1500 hours to justify the cost of the engine swap; 3/4 of the way to TBO. Meanwhile I think most of the diesels that did come to market had lower TBO than the proven gas engines. Even if you did the swap at overhaul, there is probably a $10-20 AMU difference in cost and near 1000 hours of flying efficiency gain to earn back your investment. 

Now if you could get a 200hp turbo diesel for similar cost ... that is a different story, but also very unlikely. And don't forget the weight penalty; diesels weigh considerably more than gas engines for the same power. 

 

[wcb]

Here is the Paul with AVweb about the Mercedes Benz engine that turns into Diamond 180hp and seems like it could get more HP from maybe a little different engine (but who am I to say).  I know the gas Mercedes 4 cyl twin turbo puts out about 250 hp.

 

 

[jaylw314]

28 minutes ago, Cooperd0g said:

Now if you could get a 200hp turbo diesel for similar cost ... that is a different story, but also very unlikely. And don't forget the weight penalty; diesels weigh considerably more than gas engines for the same power. 

Nice analysis!  FYI, the Deltahawk diesel is turbo normalized.  The current production is spec'd at 180 hp, but they expect to update it to a 200 hp version at an unspecified date.  I don't know how it compares in terms of weight to the IO-360, but they say slightly lower weight and less space.  They are working on STC for Cirrus SR 20 first, of all things.  For now, still a pipe dream

[jaylw314]

57 minutes ago, 1964-M20E said:

I talked with the Mooney guy at the Mooney Summit and he said they thought about bringing the J back but the economics are not currently working.  I even suggested doing a program where you  go in and get a totally new air frame from them keeping your engine, avionics, landing gear and data plate.  Again the economics may not work but if it gets them building more air frames that helps the factory with keeping the workers busy.

However, I do think there is a place where the economics can work but all manufacturers need to team up and establish a factory with as much automation as economically feasible and then all riveted metal parts would be manufactured in one spot for Cessna, Beech, Piper, Mooney etc.  Most of the riveting on each part would be done by robots and  photographing each and every rivet.  They can even set up a facility that make steel weldments i.e. landing gear, roll cages, control links etc.

This approach would allow the different manufactures to pool and centralize specialized and skilled craftsman to keep them at optimum productivity.

Instead of building 10 to 20 wings, fuselages, tail sections a year for Mooney they would build 100 to 200 a year for everyone.  The finished products can then be shipped to the respective manufacturers for final assembly and inspections.

Interesting idea.  I wonder if this would qualify as "zero-timing" with a manufacturer "rebuilt" airframe, akin to a rebuilt engine?  More pipe dreams...

[Seth]

2 hours ago, carusoam said:

 

But, the mid body is your thing...

Go Missile... a J with a 9 liter N.A. engine...

 

-a-

I like this idea!!