Jump to content

Future of Mooney: Speculation thread


toto

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, steingar said:

What I could never figure out is why everyone is so hung up on diesel.  Yeah, Jet-A is cheap and everywhere, but car gas is cheaper and even more universal.  There just aren't that many places without it.  Not only that, but there are already lightweight aircraft engines that burn the stuff.  Rotate engines burn is just fine, and if there's no booze in it (I think we're the only ones stupid enough to do that) you can run auto gas in the legacy Continentals and Lycosaurs.  Why reinvent the wheel when you don't have to?  The only real disadvantage to car gas is it goes bad after awhile, which isn't a big concern for a training fleet. 

The "car gas" you get out of the typical retail pump to pump into the typical road vehicle is almost universally contaminated with a fair percentage of ethanol.   While it does have some advantages, efficiency generally goes down, and it typically plays havoc in older vehicles with seals that weren't made for it, e.g., older airplanes.    So you'd need to carry more to get the same distance, and be prepared to deal with leaks in unhappy places.

"Mogas" conversions usually assumed 100% gasoline, which is a lot harder to find.    If it were easy to get, it might be a reasonable solution.   Blame the corn lobby, but on the upside, it's made our farmers wealthier...oh, wait...  ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Ah-1 Cobra Pilot said:

Are the 2019 models that much different from the 1999 models?  I expect to see ideas now in development to be produced, but unlikely to be outrageously different.

There are chances of break throughs, but they are few and far between.  More likely is seeing ideas that exceed the capability to produce at the time, i.e. flying cars.  Fortunately, technology can catch up and make them real, i.e. Dick Tracy's wrist telephone.

There are significant potential sea changer technologies ready to open up aviation to take avantage.  Most notably are computational power, control algorithm to use the computational power that together allow for control theories to perform digital flow controllers, and what you are seeing in the quadcopter arena is just the beginning. If you remember, 10 years ago, there were no quadcopter, and suddenly there were.  Humans will regularly fly short distances in these soon.  Second is electric energy storage is dramatically advancing - I expect to be flying in an all electric airplane flown by Cape Air sometime shortly after 2023- https://www.wbur.org/earthwhile/2019/08/08/cape-air-eviation-alice-electric-plane  Cape air is a local regional airline that I fly often from KMSS near us - and they have contract to buy many of these.  Anyway - not pie in the sky and not plausible all electric flight even 10 years ago.

But it always was so it always will be - really?

-The classic business school model against that is the horse and whip company that makes the ultimate best whips for driving horses.  That thrived for years.  With the absolute best possible whip.  Great action.  Great feel of the grip.  Great customer service and customer loyalty and major share of the market...until one day...the sea changed and people didn't want to drive around with horses anymore.  Suddenly gas powered cars came on the scene.

-I remember when cell phones came along.  Seemed like suddenly everyone, including me had a cell phone in their pocket and to their ear.  What happened to land line phones?

-Remember coal?  That black sooty stuff?  My dad - who lived in the city in washington DC area btw - tells me about how when he was a kid, before he would go to school one of his chores was to shovel coal into the household furnace.

-once upon a time there was no antibiotics.  And people died from all sorts of stuff...like pneumonia and athletes foot even.

Things are entirely mostly the same, e.g. the buggy of 1880 and the buggy of 1900..a lot the same as the buggy of 1780.  Until the sea change the buggy of 1920 was quite different.  Just ask Henry Ford.  Yes the buggy of 1999 is quite like the buggy of 2019.  The buggy of 2039 may well be quite different as well - 100% electric will be the smallest of changes.  That you won't drive it but the computer will is quite a big change.  So once you aren't driving it and people get used to that - will you need a driver seat?  Next gen driverless vehicles may well have everyone sitting around a circular table in a little minivan thing with no steering wheel to be seen.  Maybe no one will own cars anymore.  They will a ll be owned by Uber (or the like) and you just call them up on the app on your iPhone 28.

And your Mooney will have 21 props - 20 of them very tiny like 10 inches across and one of them almost as big as today.  And it will be plug in hybrid electric.  But you won't fly it.  The computer will.  And Uber will own that too.  Oh and the props will rotate to allow it to over land like a quadcopter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hank said:

There are three kinds of people in this world:  those who can count, and those who can't . . . . .   :P

--- not a mathematician, just an engineer whose Fluid Dynamics days are well behind

Did I tell you that joke or did you hear it somewhere else? I tell that joke all the time!  And I laugh whenever I tell it.  Sometimes my class will laugh - and sometimes they don't but at least Im having fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, amillet said:

Y’all need to watch more “alien” shows on the History Channel. Well soon have anti-gravity propu:ph34r:lsion 

quadcopter look like anti-gravity to anyone in 1800. Or 1400.  Ever read Mark Twain a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthurs Court?  Anyway the technologies I describe are describing incremental advances on existing ideas.  Someday in the distant future there may well be a levitation concept that is silent and mysterious to us today that we would call antigravity if we saw it today for lack of another phrase.  And i am not talking mag lev trains.  Which is literally "anti-gravity propulsion" since magnets produce a force that counters the force of gravity and also serve as the propulsive force.  And you can ride one in Japan today.  Well tomorrow - you still need to fly to Japan in a pokey airplane.

I want the Star trek transporter deck.  Then I will stop complaining about leg room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

So, then, the idea itself is not crap, as you originally posted.  The technology itself might not be mature enough for aviation.  Doesn't mean that won't always be the case.  

My responses are above in italics.

1.  Turbines are generally great for airplanes except for bfsc.  Turbines are roughly .43 lb/hp-hr while gas recips are roughly .36, diesels .34.  (Specific fuel consumption)

2.  Yes.

3.  Check your premises.

4.  That does help.

5.  Ditto, see #3.

The reason it is crap for fixed-wing aircraft is that multiple motors/props results in gross inefficiencies.  I already said hybrid propulsion makes perfect sense for multiple lift devices, not propulsive devices.

The aircraft that I think can make a big difference was in development by NASA a few years ago.  It looks like a high-wing twin except for the tilting wing sections with the motors and props.  This way, the whole wing does not rotate, saving structural challenges and keeping the lift close to the CG, as compared to wing-end tilt rotors.  Unfortunately, I do not remember the X-number of the plane and could not find a picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Ah-1 Cobra Pilot said:

1.  Turbines are generally great for airplanes except for bfsc.  Turbines are roughly .43 lb/hp-hr while gas recips are roughly .36, diesels .34.  (Specific fuel consumption)

2.  Yes.

3.  Check your premises.

4.  That does help.

5.  Ditto, see #3.

The reason it is crap for fixed-wing aircraft is that multiple motors/props results in gross inefficiencies.  I already said hybrid propulsion makes perfect sense for multiple lift devices, not propulsive devices.

The aircraft that I think can make a big difference was in development by NASA a few years ago.  It looks like a high-wing twin except for the tilting wing sections with the motors and props.  This way, the whole wing does not rotate, saving structural challenges and keeping the lift close to the CG, as compared to wing-end tilt rotors.  Unfortunately, I do not remember the X-number of the plane and could not find a picture.

1-5 I don't follow your numbering scheme.

In any case can I ask a broader question?  In what way are you asserting different or the same as - that what is today as what it was in 1960 is as it will always be?  With the punchline crap.

Even 0.43 lb/hp-hr bfsc for turbines - yes yes that's roughly what we have today - by incremental improvements for over 50 years.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/50768/which-jet-engines-have-the-highest-thermal-efficiency

but in 1930 you would not find a jet engine.  In 1950 it was the best thing going.  Things change.  Even airplanes.  Any airplane company, any company for that matter that is not flexible enough to know when to go with something new...

Edited by aviatoreb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

1-5 I don't follow your numbering scheme.

In any case can I ask a broader question?  In what way are you asserting different or the same as - that what is today as what it was in 1960 is as it will always be?  With the punchline crap.

Even 0.43 lb/hp-hr bfsc for turbines - yes yes that's roughly what we have today - by incremental improvements for over 50 years.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/50768/which-jet-engines-have-the-highest-thermal-efficiency

but in 1930 you would not find a jet engine.  In 1950 it was the best thing going.  Things change.  Even airplanes.  Any airplane company, any company for that matter that is not flexible enough to know when to go with something new...

The numbers follow the earlier sets.

One of my main points is that what we will see in twenty years is already in development.  (Who thinks 3-D printing is new?  Only because the market has been flooded with new entrants because the patents recently expired.)  Lots of ideas, some work right away, some work once technology catches up, some are just never practical.

Battery energy density is still too low to be practical for airplanes, and will be for quite a while, let alone what the FAA will allow and when.  Until the density quadruples, electric propulsion for airplanes is a fools errand.  A few European companies have made battery powered aircraft, but they can produce max power for a whole 12 minutes!  That is not even good for practicing take offs and landings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

So, then, the idea itself is not crap, as you originally posted.  The technology itself might not be mature enough for aviation.  Doesn't mean that won't always be the case.  

My responses are above in italics.

Trains aren't very efficient as a mode of transportation.  The incredible efficiencies come from fuel burn per ton-mile, which gives them a giant multiplier on their fuel efficiency: "normal" trains have up to 14,000 tons of payload.  "Monster" trains can get well past 20,000 tons.  Given a "reasonable" multiplier for payload (8,000 tons, or roughly 80 cars), that works out to 18.4 gallons per mile.  And this, with a typical tier 3 locomotive achieving a BSFC as good as .334 lb/hp-hr.  Not exactly a Prius... :)

Let's stick with airplanes for our comparisons.  There's a whole lot out there to pull from beyond just production aircraft, so have fun with it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Ah-1 Cobra Pilot said:

The numbers follow the earlier sets.

One of my main points is that what we will see in twenty years is already in development.  (Who thinks 3-D printing is new?  Only because the market has been flooded with new entrants because the patents recently expired.)  Lots of ideas, some work right away, some work once technology catches up, some are just never practical.

Battery energy density is still too low to be practical for airplanes, and will be for quite a while, let alone what the FAA will allow and when.  Until the density quadruples, electric propulsion for airplanes is a fools errand.  A few European companies have made battery powered aircraft, but they can produce max power for a whole 12 minutes!  That is not even good for practicing take offs and landings.

We have a very different opinion of the nature of technology evolution.  Besides I thought you were talking about how multiple props on a wing were crap because we don't understand there is no change to the efficiency or vortex shedding of the wing.  In any case, I will give it to you.  The airplanes will remain as it is today.  For at least as long as until something changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, larrynimmo said:

let me give you another scenario....pack up factory and send some to China, some to Mexico to assemble assemblies....Kerryville would be kept to assemble the assemblies...this would make a labor intensive airplane affordable for the American market.

Does that model work for low-volume manufacturing?  Obviously there's cost associated with shipping components around North America for various stages of assembly.  Is there a target output number where this approach becomes significantly more cost-efficient?  (I know this is done by the automakers, but they have massive volume, and I just have no idea how that translates into tens of units vs thousands of units.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, toto said:

Does that model work for low-volume manufacturing?  Obviously there's cost associated with shipping components around North America for various stages of assembly.  Is there a target output number where this approach becomes significantly more cost-efficient?  (I know this is done by the automakers, but they have massive volume, and I just have no idea how that translates into tens of units vs thousands of units.)

agreed, but shipping charges aren't even a factor, but what is that US certified aircraft, the FAA Product manufacturing approval processes apply regardless of where its made and thus Mooney would have to work with the FAA to get approval to manufacture parts elsewhere. I am sure those cost at the small quantities Mooney needs would make such a move a non-starter. 

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

in production numbers of over 200 a year, my guess is that an ovation could be sold for less than $500,000....you could put 4 full wing assemblies in a container ship from china....  Wiring harnesses premade with all connections...interior kits...all premade....fuselage assembled in mexico, shipped by rail over the border....prepared for one aviation package...plug and play.

In many ways I don't understand why there isn't a larger manufacturing initiative for China in GA...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's possible to realize a $250,000 per unit savings while selling only 200 aircraft per year?  I'm completely ignorant of this stuff - my instinct would be that building three production facilities and dealing with bureaucracy in three different countries would have a massive increase in per-unit cost until you reached some serious volume milestone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2019 at 9:42 AM, Austintatious said:

I wonder if they could make any money doing something similar to the Renaissance Commanders...  Buy older models with run out engines for cheap... completely gut and refurbish them with modern avionics, New engine, interior, Head to toe inspection and fresh paint,  new windows and  Sold as New*  with some warranty.  Could bring a really nice and basically NEW aircraft to market for relatively cheap.

 

Old Mooney with run out engine         50k

Install new engine                                 40k

G1000 Suite                                            30k

New paint                                               20k

say 300 hours labor                             30k

factor 40k for warranty work              40k

Interior                                                     10k

__________________________________________

                                                               220k

 

Sell them for 300k  .... what other NEW certified aircraft would come close?    That's a profit of 80-120 k per aircraft... of course there are only so many available to buy, but perhaps you could offer a program for existing owners to upgrade for 250k and get all the new goodies + warranty and charge less.

                                  

 

I think you are 100% correct.  You maybe too conservative in your numbers but not by much.  Bottom line is Mooney is simply to expensive in today's competitive marketplace.  If they do not change their business model its just a matter of time.  To turn this company around they need to....

Seek used and create a refurbishment program  (this creates shop hours and provides good aircraft at reasonable hours).

Lower their margins on parts (keeps the doors open and talent in-house).

Become innovative... Bring back the M10 program.  Look at the possibility of a 6 place large reciprocating and turboprop market.  

Sorry to say this was predicted.  Just not going to work the way it is

 

Rick

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, larrynimmo said:

let me give you another scenario....pack up factory and send some to China, some to Mexico to assemble assemblies....Kerryville would be kept to assemble the assemblies...this would make a labor intensive airplane affordable for the American market.

I thought that was part of what killed the C162 Skycrapper; shipping the pieces around turned out to not be economical.   That was for a much less expensive airplane, but, still.    The logistics can get pretty expensive.   It can make sense for very large airplanes because of the technology/talent/supplier distribution relative to the high cost of the final product, but might be more challenging for smaller airplanes.

I don't think there's an easy answer to fixing Mooney's situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I am not saying composite is always lighter when it comes to props.

BTW as far as prop noise for the 112hp airplanes - I am just guessing it is mostly prop noise - but I could well be wrong.  Does anyone here know the answer for sure?

Aviatoreb:  The noise is almost all prop (I have done many noise tests).  Composite propellers can be lighter because the major load (centripetal) puts the blades in tension … where composites shine.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2019 at 9:42 AM, Austintatious said:

Old Mooney with run out engine         50k

Install new engine                                 40k

G1000 Suite                                            30k

New paint                                               20k

say 300 hours labor                             30k

factor 40k for warranty work              40k

Interior                                                     10k

Regretfully (and as KSMooniac pointed out), these $ values are from a couple decades ago.

New engine $80K, G1000 $100K, paint $30K, interior $20K+ and the largest omission, insurance $50K+

Yes, its stinks.  Someone hit the nail on the head about the quantities used in GA.  If you're even a Cirrus, making 300 parts per year is still in prototyping quantities.  We need to borrow from other industries and not certify what we don't need to certify.  We all fly with iPads … take the second screen out (saves $30K+).  Add a little cost to cool the iPad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, larrynimmo said:

let me give you another scenario....pack up factory and send some to China, some to Mexico to assemble assemblies....Kerryville would be kept to assemble the assemblies...this would make a labor intensive airplane affordable for the American market.

Both Boeing and Airbus follow this model with major subassemblies flown to the US for final assembly and completion.

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now for the hypothetical … UBER

1. no matter how many $B are spent, physics will not change.  Vertical takeoff and landing is VERY power intensive (~10X from an airplane).

2. Tilt rotor/engine/pods/wing are a compromise.  Propeller inflow where high thrust (1.1 GW minimum) is required is very low.  In cruise the inflow is high (180 knots).  The blades would need to be twisted differently.  Before you say it, I can rotate the blade.  True, but the Wright Flyer propellers are not twisted very much from root to tip (30 mph inflow) … and they did a great job!  Fast airplanes may have 30 degrees+ twist from root to tip.

3. The X-57 (with 12 propellers per side) is so inefficient that they are now down to using them for high lift (takeoff and landing only).  They are shutdown otherwise … yes, inside information.

4. Electric motors - Low end torque is not applicable.  The propeller controls how much torque can be used … and how efficiently.

5. Electric motors - cooling IS an issue,  Not as much is required, but it is in a very concentrated area.

6. Hybrid electric is just an interim solution until something with more power density comes along.

&. Airplanes are designed around failure modes and not everything operating 100%.  One may design with 20 electric motors but if one connection fails and takes out 10 of them, the airplane is a twin :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Blue on Top said:

&. Airplanes are designed around failure modes and not everything operating 100%.  One may design with 20 electric motors but if one connection fails and takes out 10 of them, the airplane is a twin :) 

Have you ever looked at the old Soviet Soyuz rockets?  They have 25 engines.  I have watched old movies of launches, and you can see that 3-5 of them will not be functioning!  The Soviets always built in plenty of redundancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ah-1 Cobra Pilot said:

Have you ever looked at the old Soviet Soyuz rockets?  They have 25 engines.  ... and you can see that 3-5 of them will not be functioning!  The Soviets always built in plenty of redundancy.

No I haven't but that is very interesting.  I'll have to look.

Somewhat ironically, this is what is going to have to happen to get the new autonomous vehicles certificated.  For example, 21, voting, stability augmentation systems.  7 can fail before it needs to land.  They are calling it "graceful degradation".

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.