Jump to content

Factory Closed Down?


chinoguym20

Recommended Posts

Just now, Blue on Top said:

@aviatoreb This is just my opinion.  Bonding dissimilar materials together that are this large is not a good idea.  Bonding aluminum to aluminum is a good idea.  Bonding CF to CF is okay, too.  CF to CF is just heavy and tolerances are critical (bond line thickness like resin content is a large weight driver.  CF parts vary in weight +/- 7%.  On a plus note for composites is the more of the structure that is co-cured, the lighter is becomes.  The drawback to that is one simple mistake causes a much higher dollar part to be scrapped ... ask Boeing about the $BB they spent developing the 787 processes.

As others have mentioned the bottom line, the wood wing by rumor is 5-6 mph faster than the aluminum wing.  This is most likely due to the plywood maintaining shape better than the thin aluminum.  The wood wing was fabric covered. 

...maybe we should skip the fancy materials and just go back to cloth covered wings.  Tyvek these days is it?

Ok back to earth.  What's your opinion?  What about very large sheets of Al that are already mostly shaped to the location bonded into place?  Eg, a big chunk of AL sheet shaped to be an entire wing, two per side (top and bottom)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any airplane that goes to 40 degrees of flaps can come down like a bent manhole cover.  C-150 - Boeing 727

Anyone ever done a flaps 40 power off decent in a 727? Its spectacular!!!

How far did the Lift Dump on old Hawkers go? 80 or 90 degrees? After landing only IIRC.  

Skip above makes some sense of the issue 

7 minutes ago, PT20J said:

 Maybe this makes them seem more effective. 

Maybe wing placement (high) negating the ground effect somewhat more than the lower Mooney wing also gives the impression of being better than a Mooney. 

If "on speed" I can land and get stopped in my D/C in less than 1000 feet from the end of the runway (no obstructions)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, PT20J said:

I keep hearing that Mooney flaps are ineffective. Flaps are used to lower stall speed which allows shorter runways to be used. If you compare Vso and Vs1 calibrated stall speeds from various GA singles (I’ve done that in other threads) you find that Mooney has one of the largest spreads. 

Perhaps we are more used to Cessnas and Pipers that have flaps that don’t decrease stall speed much but do create a lot more drag making steeper approaches easier. Maybe this makes them seem more effective. 

Skip

Sometimes I get the impression you just don't like me...:mellow:

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Ok back to earth.  What's your opinion?  What about very large sheets of Al that are already mostly shaped to the location bonded into place?  Eg, a big chunk of AL sheet shaped to be an entire wing, two per side (top and bottom)?

Personally, I am a big fan of bonded structure.  It has worked for decades.  

As for smoothness, look at a Citation CJ3 wing.  It is beautifully smooth.  It is also all aluminum.  It is rivetted while being held in place with a vacuum form.  Is it laminar flow?  Definitely not; there is a step at the aft end of the heated leading edge.

For those that believe composites save 1000s of hours of time to not drill, deburr, countersink and rivet, please include the time, machining and tooling that it takes to make the parts, mold them to shape, cook them and prep them for bonding.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flap types … are just descriptive features that can be confusing at best.  Any flap that is not a simple pivot has Fowler action (aft movement).  Cessna flaps are considered to be "single-slotted", but they do have some fowler action.  So do Mooney flaps that are more of a four-bar arrangement.  A rose is a rose by any other name.

Edited by Blue on Top
typos
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Design and development and proof of concept...

Seems like experimental aviation allows for lots of flexibility...


Moving on to full scale production is a whole new process... as the process often requires changes to the design...
 

There are two plane designs currently under construction, being completed in front of a YouTube audience...

 

  • one hoping to get to the kit build arena  (Raptor)
  • one hoping to win in the STOL competition arena.... (Scrappy)

The interesting part, Mike Patey’s Scrappy is a steal tube structure being clad in carbon fiber...

The other interesting part is Patey’s skills at prototyping....

  • design it
  • build it
  • Test it
  • Destroy it
  • Redesign it
  • Lots of design and test happens via computer...
  • Lots of testing is done in his construction ‘lab’

 

And... yes, he has added a parachute....

Scrappy is a quirky plane design based on an oversized super cub... with a giant IO720 for power.

previous planes designed by the Patey brothers include Turbulence and the more famous Draco...

 

The objective of these planes is STOL, safety, and entertainment... the light weightness is tested on a scale for each part and instrument tested to destruction at each design step... including dropping the whole plane from a rig to the floor...

It takes a really smart leader, with a great personality, that has the skill to present to an audience even when the headway is a small step...

Great example of under promise, over deliver...

 

Mooney has done an admirable job of fine tuning, for continued commercial production...

 

It would be interesting to see an Ultra Mooney go through the Mike Patey redesign process...

Adding a proper chute to a Mooney doesn’t seam to be that big of a struggle...

If Fancy flaps would make a valuable difference, This would be an opportunity to get it done...

The objective is to build one that meets all of the design criteria... Which includes the criteria for commercial production...

It would be a whole next step to go into certification and production from there...

 

Use caution watching YouTube.... there are many MSers posting interesting videos along with the construction of airplane videos...

The side effect of YouTube on product design is amazing.... lots of valid second guessing, why did you do it this way, and have you considered this other process....

Crowd sourcing brings up some interesting things that otherwise, only would come out after it was too late to be helpful... :)

Best regards,

-a-
 

Believe... it can be done...

chute, steal tube, carbon fiber... inflatable paint booth, and some fluff...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Blue on Top said:

Personally, I am a big fan of bonded structure.  It has worked for decades.  

As for smoothness, look at a Citation CJ3 wing.  It is beautifully smooth.  It is also all aluminum.  It is rivetted while being held in place with a vacuum form.  Is it laminar flow?  Definitely not; there is a step at the aft end of the heated leading edge.

For those that believe composites save 1000s of hours of time to not drill, deburr, countersink and rivet, please include the time, machining and tooling that it takes to make the parts, mold them to shape, cook them and prep them for bonding.

Questions - 

-Would a bonded Mooney wing of Al be a quicker build?

-Would it be faster/smoother - 

For that matter why isn't the CJ3 wing a laminar wing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

1. Would a bonded Mooney wing of Al be a quicker build?

2. Would it be faster/smoother - 

3. For that matter why isn't the CJ3 wing a laminar wing?

@aviatoreb

1. Most likely yes.  Prepping aluminum for bonding is something that Kerrville didn't want to take on.

2. Probably not faster; definitely smoother.  Smoothness is not a large factor in drag as most of the surfaces are within a deep boundary layer (slower air).   For example, if you fly your airplane with dust on it, it will come back with the same dust on it.  Truly laminar flow wings are very rare … and all that means is laminar flow is carried further back on the airfoil.  Reading my first article in "The Mooney Flyer", May 2020, may shed a little light on the subject.  If not, keep asking questions; I'm always glad to discuss airplanes.   solutions@blueontop.com

3. Laminar flow is very illusive.  The original CJ wing was touted as "laminar" … until it was flown for a little while.  FAA takeoff, climb and landing data had to be performed with the leading edge intentionally "dirty".  We sprayed contact cement and then ashtray sand into it for the official FAA testing.  The original laminar flow airfoils were really bad when they lost laminar flow.  Ask Dick Rutan how a Vari-EZ flies in the rain.  It doesn't.  Newer NLF airfoils are designed to not be as bad when they lose laminar flow.  In fact we typically, intentionally trip the flow to turbulent in CFD and in the wind tunnel to get real-world drag numbers.  Again, "The Mooney Flyer" article will help explain a little more.

3 (continued).  We spent a couple weeks smoothing/filling/sanding/repeating the original CJ prototype wing.  We got a short portion of one flight to show some laminar flow.  Realize that ALL airfoils have a little laminar flow on the leading edge … unless the leading edge is full of bugs.  Any bug, step, divot, hump, etc. will make the flow turbulent in an expanding wedge behind that imperfection.

3 (addendum) Some very high performance sailplanes can achieve laminar flow over a significant portion of the chord, but their Reynolds numbers are very low (very short chord) and some even have leading edge wipers to clean the leading edge after takeoff (low altitudes where the bugs are).

Hope this helps!  -Ron Blum

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2020 at 4:22 AM, Hyett6420 said:

Did I touch a nerve here perhaps.  History shows they were crap ships, and they regularly broke in half, History does not lie.  For the record we had already won it by the end 1940, up until that point we lost every battle, after that point we didn't lose one battle.  Then Hitler invaded Russia.  We didn't need the USA as a military force, we had already won, Russia would have been on Frances borders, but we had already won.  We needed your manufacturing might yes, but there was no need for the military bit.  History does not lie.

 

Your God damn right you hit a nerve. No need for your pompous put down of the America who, by your own admission, was needed for that same manufacturing you are so ready to criticize. I never mentioned a damn thing about military force. A bit sensitive, too, eh?

We were discussing manufacturing techniques related to their application to aircraft manufacturing.  There was ZERO need for you to interject an insult to the nation that was instrumental in keeping your country from falling to the Axis powers.  Or, are you really going to claim the UK would have been just fine without US help?  Really?  "History doesn't lie," I've heard.

I'm not looking for gratitude, but I won't tolerate America being put down without responding.

Tell you what. You cease hurling completely unnecessary insults and I won't have to respond. Deal?

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Liberty ships were pretty amazing. Spearheaded by HJ Kaiser and based on a modified British design, over 2700 were built in American shipyards during the war; some constructed in just 5 days. Contributing to their speedy construction was the innovation of welded steel hulls saving time, cost and weight over the then current practice of riveting. There was a learning process with this method and several did suffer catastrophic hull cracking failures. (Remember that when suggesting new cheaper, faster ideas for aircraft production).

If you’re in San Francisco, visit the Jeremiah O’Brien, one of only two remaining seaworthy Liberty ships. I’ve taken excursions on it around San Francisco Bay and it’s a kick to go down to the engine room and watch the triple expansion (3 cylinder) steam engine at work.

https://www.ssjeremiahobrien.org

Skip

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Blue on Top said:

Ask Dick Rutan how a Vari-EZ flies in the rain.  It doesn't. 

IIRC they had to change the airfoil on the canard on the first articles as the flying qualities in the rain were so bad. 

Edited by cliffy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, PT20J said:

The Liberty ships were pretty amazing. Spearheaded by HJ Kaiser and based on a modified British design, over 2700 were built in American shipyards during the war; some constructed in just 5 days. Contributing to their speedy construction was the innovation of welded steel hulls saving time, cost and weight over the then current practice of riveting. There was a learning process with this method and several did suffer catastrophic hull cracking failures. (Remember that when suggesting new cheaper, faster ideas for aircraft production).

I believe they fixed that by riveting a U-shaped plate over the center seam.  Welds are not so good in fatigue situations.

There are lots of Liberty Ships in the Gulf.  German Uboats could/would easily sink them with one torpedo.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ah-1 Cobra Pilot said:

There are lots of Liberty Ships in the Gulf.  German Uboats could/would easily sink them with one torpedo.

They weren't built for longevity or battle damage resistance, They were expendable, A cost of doing business. Just like fighter planes that were expected to last no more than a couple hundred hours in service. Many never made 10 hrs in combat. It was a war of attrition, he who produces the most wins the war. 

BTW, many fighter pilots in WWI  never made it through their first day of combat Of course many of them had less than 10 hrs flight time when they hit the front lines!!!!

Edited by cliffy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, cliffy said:

BTW, many fighter pilots in WWI  never made it through their first day of combat Of course many of them had less than 10 hrs flight time when they hit the front lines!!!!

@cliffy  Paul Glenshaw (and another that I can't remember his name) just finished a 2-hour documentary on the Lafayette Escadrille.  It's very good.  I don't know how to find the 2-hour version, but a 20-minute version is on YouTube.  One of the east coast aviation museums (Military Aviation Museum?) did a Zoom meeting with the two producers a couple weeks ago.  It was very good, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More than a little,. Dad was a tank Sargent under Patton and fought in the battle of the bulge and liberated the Jewish slaves at the camps when no one knew about what was really going on.  He never talked about it. mom lost her first husband in a b24 over ploesti. My uncle flew PBY's and my aunt welded those Liberty ships in Valejo.  Greatest number of lives lost was the with 8th Airforce doing daylight missions to improve accuracy and minimize collateral damage.  While the British were flying under the cloak of darkness.  It took a great coalition of nations to put an end to that terrible war and if the separatists had kept us out I do believe Europe would look a whole lot different today.

Anyone curious have been should watch Man In The High Castle. I binge watched it early in the lockdown and wow. If you’ve any interest in history it’s worth watching just for the Easter eggs (is that the Yamato under the Golden Gate? SS HQ where the UN is today)?

It’s a reminder how lucky we were even WITH our natural resources, hard work and other edges. Leadership matters and individuals can make a difference. Wish we didn’t have to keep re-learning this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, N9201A said:


Anyone curious have been should watch Man In The High Castle. I binge watched it early in the lockdown and wow. If you’ve any interest in history it’s worth watching just for the Easter eggs (is that the Yamato under the Golden Gate? SS HQ where the UN is today)?

It’s a reminder how lucky we were even WITH our natural resources, hard work and other edges. Leadership matters and individuals can make a difference. Wish we didn’t have to keep re-learning this.

The remarks in question immediately reminded me of High Castle.  I watched a few episodes but stopped after that since mostly I get irritated/sad when my mind engages in what the Nazi's were and could have been.  No knock on the series, and otherwise I tend to enjoy the concept of alternative histories.  In fact my son, the history major really enjoys the genre of alternative histories which is really engaging to ask, what if.   It is my humble opinion that WWII was a desperate battle for both sides and except for some surprisingly tenuous details, it could have gone either way.  Above all, it was a horrible human tragedy resulting in a lot of suffering and roughly 85million people dead.

Now what a meandering thread this one is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the main subject.  The factory did close down, but thankfully has reopened somewhat with just a handful of people. My understanding is they are under new ownership (Chinese are gone) and are trying to complete the last three Ultra’s that were left in production that have a chance of being completed without the skills of those that were let go. The big question is, what next?  They can’t survive on maintenance and spare parts.  Is there a plan?   I think it’s out of the question to spend $ on design improvements as there is no market out there for a Mooney.  Should they put a fork in it, or are there any ideas out there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, chinoguym20 said:

Back to the main subject.  The factory did close down, but thankfully has reopened somewhat with just a handful of people. My understanding is they are under new ownership (Chinese are gone) and are trying to complete the last three Ultra’s that were left in production that have a chance of being completed without the skills of those that were let go. The big question is, what next?  They can’t survive on maintenance and spare parts.  Is there a plan?   I think it’s out of the question to spend $ on design improvements as there is no market out there for a Mooney.  Should they put a fork in it, or are there any ideas out there?

Is still think there would be a market for a modernized Mooney and a well marketed Mooney.  But same old same old then same result.

Edited by aviatoreb
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New investors wouldn't have invested if they didn't see a possible return.  I know that they are working on a couple projects.  Long term would have to be parts and service, in-sourcing, improvements/upgrades and then a totally new product.  It also depends on what the Chinese sold them.  The only TC/PC is the M20.  I'm looking forward to great things.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.