Jump to content

Future of Mooney: Speculation thread


toto

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, KSMooniac said:

Great idea, looked ok/good, but didn't perform well.

Skycatcher had similar failings with the added constraint of trying to squeeze into the LSA class with a low weight limit. I've heard it flew fine, but seemed fragile and not up to flight school duty. Textron sent production overseas and I believe had lots of issues from that decision, and at the end of the day they couldn't make money on it so they were scrapped.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

The Skycatcher is really a nice trainer and personal runabout.  All metal, high wing, full wing doors, very roomy, bulletproof engine, excellent avionics, and low cost of maintenance.  The performance in the pattern exceeds that of a 160HP 172 and blows away a 150.  
They are pretty inexpensive too due to Cessna no longer making them.  They are still supported by Cessna and it’s authorized suppliers.

 

Definitely spend a few hours flying one and I think you’ll agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ryoder said:

The Skycatcher is really a nice trainer and personal runabout.  All metal, high wing, full wing doors, very roomy, bulletproof engine, excellent avionics, and low cost of maintenance.  The performance in the pattern exceeds that of a 160HP 172 and blows away a 150.  
They are pretty inexpensive too due to Cessna no longer making them.  They are still supported by Cessna and it’s authorized suppliers.

 

Definitely spend a few hours flying one and I think you’ll agree.

Reading that reminds me of the Cardinal...  I love the look of that airplane but they just didn't put a big enough motor on it.  I would think a streamlined cantilever high wing with 300+ Hp would be a real screamer and comfortable as well.  Sort of like the 310 but not sol bulky and no pressurization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Austintatious said:

Reading that reminds me of the Cardinal...  I love the look of that airplane but they just didn't put a big enough motor on it.  I would think a streamlined cantilever high wing with 300+ Hp would be a real screamer and comfortable as well.  Sort of like the 310 but not sol bulky and no pressurization.

Yep. I loved the Cardinal and really wanted one. The 172 is boxy and cramped.  A Cardinal with a 180hp engine would be great. 

The 162 is a hidden gem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mooney did not get creative enough to sell and support the airplane.  Cirrus outdid both Mooney and the Cessna Columbia even though the latter are both superior airframes to the Cirrus. 

That said, hopefully they at least re-open as a parts and support operation which undoubtedly could be profitable if well planned out.  If Meijing plans to sell, hopefully the selling price is at a point to enable someone with enough capital to be able to operate a profitable venture for maintaining the fleet of existing aircraft and possibly finding a niche, maybe even building parts for other manufacturers.  Selling 4 planes per year will not cover costs and its no surprise that they were trying to keep afloat by raising prices for parts.

The few Ultras that sold will definitely be sought after aircraft.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to sound like a heretic...but who cares? This is really the crux of the issue: the future of Mooney.

When I bought my E a decade ago I think Mooney was insolvent. The factory was there (I used their runway a number of times during my familiarization period), but my need and interaction with them was minimal. I will say that the skeleton crew there was very nice and sent me a few engineering drawings when I requested them.

I managed to redo my interior, redo seats, add 3-axis AP, add MVP-50, etc., etc., etc., all without the factory. Parts for my E abound, but if I had had something catastrophic (gear-up?) the reapers would be summoned because the hull value just is not there. Like the circle of life, my E would feed some other E (or C, or even J).

So you can argue until the cows come home about why the company went under, if it did indeed go under, and if it will resurface again (I think it will), but to the vintage owners it really is business as usual. Unless, of course, you do not have a J-bar in your Mooney, then you have that spring to worry about. Then again, has the factory even had any of those for the last few years?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, HRM said:

I hate to sound like a heretic...but who cares? This is really the crux of the issue: the future of Mooney.

When I bought my E a decade ago I think Mooney was insolvent. The factory was there (I used their runway a number of times during my familiarization period), but my need and interaction with them was minimal. I will say that the skeleton crew there was very nice and sent me a few engineering drawings when I requested them.

I managed to redo my interior, redo seats, add 3-axis AP, add MVP-50, etc., etc., etc., all without the factory. Parts for my E abound, but if I had had something catastrophic (gear-up?) the reapers would be summoned because the hull value just is not there. Like the circle of life, my E would feed some other E (or C, or even J).

So you can argue until the cows come home about why the company went under, if it did indeed go under, and if it will resurface again (I think it will), but to the vintage owners it really is business as usual. Unless, of course, you do not have a J-bar in your Mooney, then you have that spring to worry about. Then again, has the factory even had any of those for the last few years?

I agree. I knew when I bought the C for a low price what I was buying. The hull was almost worthless and considered it a freebie, a very slick freebie.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry for double posting - but the following seems better suited to this thread so I just cut and paste my own (and add a bit more).

From a certification perspective - it would be less trivial to put a BRS in a Mooney than a Cirrus, or retrofit to a C172/182, because of the retractable gear and also because the gear are quite firm with picks rather than cantilever - I would think.  From the gear perspective I would think the gear need to be down since part of the BRS idea is it still hits the ground hard enough that special seats are part of the Cirrus system and I don't know how that would work in a Mooney with our firm gear even if down, and would new seats be needed - if so perhaps highly sprung seats could make up the gap?  And I doubt that the system would be viable with gear up since that would be quite a hard pancake landing indeed leading to spinal compression injuries - perhaps fatal ones - so any BRS system would have to be coupled to gear actuation mechanisms.  Luckily Mooney has pretty quick gear swing probably on the order of the speed of a relatively low altitude BRS deployment and landing.  All this weight aside.  I do think all this could be overcome from an engineering perspective - but I don't know if from a price or certification perspective.

Then the weight thing - that too could be overcome if enough changes are afoot.  For example - I am very impressed with the EPS V8 graphite diesel.  400hp on 15gph and that is accessible at cruise settings nonstop.  That would make a 265TAS Mooney.  So imagine you can actually cruise at 265-270kts? instead of just brag 242 kts at take off setting that no one does.  Or cruise at 225 its at 10,000 ft.  Then the speed differential becomes so extreme that well its more like a TBM kinda speed.  BUT that is not the most important part - at 15gph for that kind of speed - you can either still have your 130 gallon that makes KJFK-KLAX range - or - you can truly carry a small amount of fuel now to make for enough weight to travel with 4 people.

And to lighten up - a new wing - a carbon fiber wing - smoother-fasterr, lighter, faster to build, maybe cheaper?  Build the wing outsourced in a specialty carbon shop.  Maybe even off shore and bring it to Kerrville as a build shop - maybe rent the 747 beluga for the supply chain (haha).  I am just amazed by carbon - I have carbon bike wheels.  I rowed all summer in a carbon rowing scull by fluid design - we are talking a 27’ boat weighing in at 14kg, including hardware - ok it is a paper thin rowing shell but amazingly strong to resist me a heavyweight full power and stiff but still durable - AND easy to build and repair - this very same boat in its history fell of the truck - literally the team didn't tie it down well to the transport truck and it fell off at highway speed and was broken badly.  But being carbon fiber a local craftsmen repaired it so it seems as good as new.  Carbon fiber work is a highly trainable skill.  I would think if they can do a front cowl, then they could do a full wing as yet another bolt on replacement to the factory build.

AND we are all very impressed with the new auto land autopilots.  A much better solution if we are talking pilot incapacitation than a parachute.  Saving the parachute for other extreme scenarios.

I am not selling parachutes as safer but I am fully sold that parachutes sell airplanes and I am sold that if Mooney should survive they need to jump on the BRS train.

AND MT 4 blade prop - for weight - 35lbs - for cool looks - and smooth cruise.

Edited by aviatoreb
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rebuild old Mooneys to modern. Buy/license the Sabremech cowl STC, gut the avionics and install Dynon (get them to finish the AP part of the STC). That should lower the weight and add a few knots. They could also offer painting and engine rebuilding concurrently with that work.

They have the tools and people to do the work. One stop shop to completely modernize one's Mooney.



Wayne

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks @aviatoreb.  Good stuff.

Cirrus obviously had to overcome some engineering challenges with the BRS In the SF50, particularly given higher speeds, higher altitudes, and a pressure vessel (not to mention the gear). But I assume that having a fully integrated system makes a lot of that easier - a complex workflow that's largely driven by (and tunable with) software. 

An emergency handle with a gear interlink seems solvable, and a seat redesign seems well within scope - especially if we're talking purely about new aircraft and not retrofits. 

Given the low SEP production numbers for everyone but Cirrus, it almost feels like there's a business opportunity for a third party manufacturing firm to produce aircraft on demand. One that's capable of carbon fiber work as well as metal and rivets. They make an airplane for any company that sells one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, toto said:

Thanks @aviatoreb.  Good stuff.

Cirrus obviously had to overcome some engineering challenges with the BRS In the SF50, particularly given higher speeds, higher altitudes, and a pressure vessel (not to mention the gear). But I assume that having a fully integrated system makes a lot of that easier - a complex workflow that's largely driven by (and tunable with) software. 

An emergency handle with a gear interlink seems solvable, and a seat redesign seems well within scope - especially if we're talking purely about new aircraft and not retrofits. 

Given the low SEP production numbers for everyone but Cirrus, it almost feels like there's a business opportunity for a third party manufacturing firm to produce aircraft on demand. One that's capable of carbon fiber work as well as metal and rivets. They make an airplane for any company that sells one.

6 years ago Installed BRS in my  all metal "European LSA"  (Annex II Aeroplane).  It is a taildragger with a firm gear. Theoretically BRS is installed in a way that "hard pancake landing"  would avoided and energy of impact will be absorbed first by one wing followed by tail. Easier to achieve with metal construction vs. Carbon/fiberglass construction, which does not absorb energy that good.

hopefully not off topic

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, brndiar said:

6 years ago Installed BRS in my  all metal "European LSA"  (Annex II Aeroplane).  It is a taildragger with a firm gear. Theoretically BRS is installed in a way that "hard pancake landing"  would avoided and energy of impact will be absorbed first by one wing followed by tail. Easier to achieve with metal construction vs. Carbon/fiberglass construction, which does not absorb energy that good.

hopefully not off topic

 

That is very interesting - so it is designed so that a wing hits first - slightly - thus bending a tad bit and absorbing some energy - is there a risk of the wing rupturing and spilling fuel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, toto said:

Thanks @aviatoreb.  Good stuff.

Cirrus obviously had to overcome some engineering challenges with the BRS In the SF50, particularly given higher speeds, higher altitudes, and a pressure vessel (not to mention the gear). But I assume that having a fully integrated system makes a lot of that easier - a complex workflow that's largely driven by (and tunable with) software. 

An emergency handle with a gear interlink seems solvable, and a seat redesign seems well within scope - especially if we're talking purely about new aircraft and not retrofits. 

Given the low SEP production numbers for everyone but Cirrus, it almost feels like there's a business opportunity for a third party manufacturing firm to produce aircraft on demand. One that's capable of carbon fiber work as well as metal and rivets. They make an airplane for any company that sells one.

I am convinced it can be done - gentlemen, we have the technology,  We can rebuild him - stronger, faster...(steve austin).  It can be done, but it would be more than slapping on a parachute. Some integration would be required.  I think it could even be done as a retrofit - at least in electric gear Mooney's.  But the focus here is not on parachutes but marketing new mooneys so the priority is on doing this for new mooneys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

That is very interesting - so it is designed so that a wing hits first - slightly - thus bending a tad bit and absorbing some energy - is there a risk of the wing rupturing and spilling fuel?

With "hard pancake landing"  wing rupturing and spilling fuel would always be the issue. Not so bad as with some LSA (a lot of them....) where the tanks are in fuselage and pilot literally sits on  50-60L of Benzin. After BRS activation there is always a risk of fire + your ship  will become a toy of wind.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf8DYXUOai8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brndiar said:

 

So much to say here.  The M10 missed an unrealistic (and hidden) schedule, weight goals and speed goals as a result.  Carbon fiber didn’t and won’t help it get as light or as inexpensive as aluminum (every OEM has proven that from small to Boeing ... corrosion is another issue).  My team did a great job of clean-sheet designing, building and flying the POC in 14 months after the mock-up fiascos.

LSA are NOT certificated and therefore are not in the same class.  Adding a chute is a BIG deal as the opening loads are large and not in the same place as Flight loads.  An M20 would lose >100lbs. of useful load.

The M10 and M20 teams were intentionally kept apart (why?).

If the original intent of the M10 was kept, it could have (and still could be) a great trainer/personal airplane.  Composites, diesel and Garmin don’t meet the original intent (price point).  Breathe.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From an European point of view, I thought the M10 a fantastic proposition. Most of us Mooney owners fly 2 - 3 up, rarely 4 for the simple fact that most Mooneys are not capable of carrying four over the range they are bought for. Now here comes an airplane which has the range, speed and 3 seats of a J model. The M10J would have been perfect for Europe, where jet fuel is masively cheaper, where there are whole countries with virtually no Avgas (Greece) and where it had a good chance of taking the market in storm as there was (and is) no Diesel powered plane even close to that performance.

When I talked to Mooney at Friedrichshafen while they were developing that plane I did ask the usual "J" question. What is your entry model? Cirrus has the SR20, you have nothing. Answer: the M10J is that plane.

Well, as we know now it was a pipe dream destroyed by incompetence and infighting as much as with the G1000 cockpit as the only option it would have been way too expensive for a 3 seater to sell. So a missed chance. Yes, there would have been a market, a huge market. But then it has to be a top airplane, not what it became. I only learnt some of the full extent of this as a consequence of the shutdown and now it makes sense that this project was stopped.

Generally I thought the Ultras were a great proposition, 2 doors finally and a great cockpit and cabin, combined with range and performance. But heavens, the price. And if what I hear now is correct that they can not make any profit even at that price, then what is the REAL price that plane would have to have? Not enough people buy it now, how many will if it's priced to make a profit?

We all have ideas how to change the company to make it work, but none of us has ever designed, let alone certified an airplane. IMHO, what would put Mooney firmly back in the market would be a mid body sized plane with either 180 hp Avgas or a diesel variant (the former for the US market, the latter for Europe) which can be produced for max 300 k. That won't happen unless someone can pull an Elon Musk type of ops and gear up a serial production of many thousands of them to divide the cost in.

So with the US market going mostly experimental and the European Market going UL or LSA, it is difficult to find a proper solution to this problem.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2019 at 2:53 PM, Austintatious said:

Ok, Ill try to make this short.

Electric tech is no where near being able to provide a meaningful X-C platform.  Yes, Pipestrel has an electric aircraft... it is barely good enough to be a training platform and even then to get a PP certificate you will be forced into a piston aircraft to meet the XC requirements.  It has an 80 mile range for 2 people with almost no baggage space.  have you ever flown a Pipestrel?  I have and it was the most uncomfortable aircraft I have ever flown ( And I own a glider!).

I have heard rumors of  Lithium Co2 batteries that supposedly hold 7x the power of current batteries.  Though I am not certain I am convinced this is a reality.  However even if it were, that still would not be enough to make an electric Mooney viable.  Look at the math, it does not add up.  100LL has an energy density of 44.0 MJ/KG ... Current Li batteries have 0.875 MJ/kg  even if we get them to 7x as much,  that is still only 6.125 MJ/KG.  Which is 1/7th the amount of 100LL.   Physics dont magically change when you go electric.  It still takes X energy to move the aircraft through the air at Y speed for Z distance.  Fill your tanks to 1/7th capacity and see how much use you can get out of your aircraft.  Then keep in mind that the 7x capacity I have granted you does not exist and divide how far you can go by another 7.  Then keep in mind it will take you an hour to re-charge the batteries and that You will carry 100% of their weight 100% of the time.

Electric VTOL  right now the same as the flying cars of the 80's.... great at 1 thing... soaking investors for money for something that is way beyond our horizons.  The problems are so numerous I could go on for way too long for this thread.

 

On 11/14/2019 at 4:57 PM, afward said:

I believe I recall that the competition all had a substantially lower empty weight (something like 100 pounds difference), so the performance of the C162 wasn't good enough to really compete.

The efficiency of the electric motor vs the ICE helps a bit but without an order of magnitude increase in battery energy density the electric Mooney is a pipedream.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Building and re-building are too a large extent different skills and resources.  It might only need the last 25% of the production line, what are you going to do with the rest of the space?

The factory has type certificates and parts manufacturing approval and ability.  So there are really only two things to do:

1) manufacture and distribute parts for existing fleet - probably does not leave a large amount of space or employees, but I am sure could be profitable.  

2) manufacture existing line - I don't think the M20 series could ever be competitive with the Cirrus.  Is a function of the design and construction methodology.  If you could get a substantial portion of the labour done in a foreign country at 1/3rd of the labour cost, then you have a viable strategy.  I'm sure the short body could have been converted to diesel for way less money.

Any talk of new designs is just a non starter.  If I had a bunch of money to develop a new design, I don't need a legacy design or factory to hold me back.  I need a strong lead designer and team that can put together a clean sheet design.  It probably needs to be composite, and then probably built in Mexico or offshore (Icon, Cessna TTx etc.) .  And then look how those turned out.

Also, this is the wrong group to speculate.  All I really care about is ongoing support for the existing fleet because i am one of them.    Whether a new Mooney has a parachute, autoload, more payload, cost $600 or 800k really does not make a difference to me because I'm never going to be in that market.  If I were buying a new plane, 'manufacture stability' would be vey high on that list.  Without it, your resale value could be zero (Adam A700), low (Mooney), or high (Beech, Piper Cessna, Cirrus).

The first time I saw a rendering of the M10 I thought it would be a failure.  It does not look good, did not fit into the Mooney mantra (speed and economy), and is in a crowded market.  Mooney could have probably bought something like the Symphony rights for way less.

Yes the Ultra has been a nice revision.  But by now users have got a hate on going for G1000's.

One idea that doesn't seem to have been tried very hard is the RR300 / 500 turbine (did it ever get certified).  That would be a game changer and fit into the Mooney mantra.

Aerodon

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question in my mind in such situations is always the same one: What made the brand great at the time and what was changed?

Mooney set out and succeeded in doing something then quite new:

Build a fast, efficient and affordable airplane. All those things in one airframe. The M20 fulfilled all of this and did it well, to this day.

So what got lost?

First of all, it is no longer an affordable airplane. $800k plus is not affordable which ever way you turn it. 

Which models got the most numbers? Basically the C and the F/J. Why? Because they were the ones who were and are amongst the most efficient airplanes ever built and at the time, they were affordable too.

Why am I flying a almost 60 year old airplane and still am faster and more efficient than everyone else, including newer offerings? Because not only Mooney went astray of this but everyone else as well.

So at the time, Mooney was competing basically to the Bonanza and did what it did more affordable and more efficiently. They outclassed everyone else with regards of mph/kt, efficiency and were and are the best bang for buck.

Today, the Acclaim and Ovation are airplanes which still have a lot of appeal, but competition in the market is much different. And the affordable tag definitly has been lost a long time ago. Today the only plane which ressembles the performance of the J model is the SR20.

So what would I do, if I was put in the position to change that?

Figure out how to turn the M20 into what it used to be, a fast, efficient and affordable plane and yes, it would most probably need to get a shute too. 

I did indeed think that the M10J would be that airplane but it was not.

The question is: Can the current M20 airframe be turned into somthing like that? I would think that should be feasible, but it will take some effort. Like the transition between the F and the J, it would take some wiz guy like LoPresti but in terms of weight and structure. Would it be possible to return the cell to "J" kind weights, given the composite structure of the front? Return the interior to something more cost efficient and, first and foremost, produce that cell at a much lower work effort? Then use an efficient engine, either a diesel (for the European market) or the well known IO360 or 390? Get rid of the G1000 and use more cost efficient instrumentation such as Aspen/Avidyne or the certified Dynon sets?

Turn out a 160 kt @ 8 gph airplane with 1000 NM range and space for 4 people plus a shute with a price cap 20% below the SR20. Would that sell? I think it would.

And I also wonder if the basic idea of the M10 for a basic trainer could be revived and get certified, but again with cost efficiency in mind? Not a G1000 set up, but possibly Dynon or others? The general idea was great there but apparently the way it was built was not. So can that be corrected? Probably would need a complete redesign and while one is at that, it may well try to look a bit more like a Mooney. And with a BRS of course

One thing keeps returning to my mind. In both cases, when the M10 was announced and the Ultras, the echo in this forum was close to zero. When I asked why at the time, people all answered the same thing: We are not in the market for new planes. Ok, fine, but not even interested in what the company is doing? Then how does anyone expect a company like Mooney to survive at all? Maybe we have even then identified the very reason why Mooney is at this situation today: For almost all of us the new planes are so far out of reach that we would never ever consider them. Well, if not us here at Mooneyspace, how would we sell them to others? Most who are in that market will fly either biz jets or ... well I won't say the word.

In this time and age, new plane price is the biggest threat to certified GA I can identify. We have over years worked hard to get away from that image, yet with Singe piston planes costing up to 1 million dollars or above, that is not an easy thing to do. So in my mind, this is where a change is needed badly. How to bring it about? I don't know but I am sure that there are people who do.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“it would take some wiz guy like LoPresti but in terms of weight and structure.”

My following comment is not meant to diminish the content of Urs-Wildermuth’s post.  

My post is to further clarify that LoPresti did not create the mid-body model speed increase modifications.  

All those mods we know and admire had been previously created by Mooney engineers, factory workers, and yes, even janitors, and tested in the air at different times.  Roy had the financial authority, and wisdom to put them all together at one time.  Hence, the new speedy J came to be.  

The only modification Roy created was the original winglet.

Again, this information is emphatically stated by the late beloved Mooney guru Bill Wheat.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To follow on to Mitch’s comment, the aerodynamics that were done to make the “J” can be done much, much better today.  Yes, all the Mooneys can be made faster and more efficient with today’s knowledge/CFD.

I look up to and highly respect Al and Art Mooney, Ralph Harmon (the real designer of the unbreakable, metalized Mooney wing) and Roy LoPresti, but we know a lot more now.  And yes, despite all the generally negative comments about the younger generations, have brilliant minds today, too. :)

PS. Mitch: The “Ovation” would be a great one to start with ... both faster and lighter (=> more useful load).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome aboard Blue.

Where have you been?

MS has recently celebrated 10 years in operation...

Anyone that knows art, al, ralph, roy and Bill .... signed on at least once in the past decade...

 

What kept you from joining us earlier?

I hope you can stay around...

Best regards,

-a-

 

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.