Future of Mooney: Speculation thread

[carusoam]

Tank sealants and polymer o-rings everywhere...

All susceptible to many things including changes in fuel and additives...

Best regards,

-a-

[Blue on Top]

9 hours ago, steingar said:

I think one of the things that made the M10 so darned heavy was the diesel engine. 

I KNOW one of the things that made the M10 so darned heavy was the diesel engine … and radiator … and gearbox … and ...

[Blue on Top]

Just now, carusoam said:

Tank sealants and polymer o-rings everywhere...

All susceptible to many things including changes in fuel and additives...

Best regards,

-a-

It is interesting that you mention these things. 100/100LL aeromatic content is significantly higher than autofuel.  Ironically, it attacks fuel tank sealant in wet wings (hint, hint).  The sealant used back then did not have 100/100LL in mind at that time.

[carusoam]

Sealants have improved over time... as have various seals and o-rings...

To be able to know with certainty that a new fuel or additive will be OK... Is more of an environmental lab job... with very specific experience.

My first Mooney had O-rings in their fuel caps that were swelled about 10% oversized when I first got it...  probably my first lesson regarding the previous owners...  

There are so many places where seals get used... the fuel cap was the first, the sump drains are probably next... fuel level floats, fuel injection, carbs, oil filter, and fuel pumps are much more critical...

PP thoughts only, I have not done the research... I thought about it for my M20C but the logic is tough to get past... my M20R can use 100 octane without the LL...

Seen any of that around?

Best regards,

-a-

[marcusku]

On 11/18/2019 at 2:16 PM, 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.

Kind of off topic but I think the real reason for diesel electric locomotives is the large engine in a locomotive has a narrow rev range-they run at very low rpm.  They would need an enormous number of gears to travel at different speeds.  The electric motors essentially serve as the transmission.  

I really like the idea of a jet A powered Mooney.  I think you could get some impressive speeds for the fuel burn.  It would also be nice to get rid of the mixture control, ignition system and in some cases valve train.  Overall should be much more reliable.

[jetdriven]

The traction motors also serve as a clutch, you can’t move 20,000,000 pounds from a dead stop with any kind of clutch or torque converter that exists. Perhaps they could invent that now, but not in the 1930s when this technology was invented.

[EricJ]

41 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

The traction motors also serve as a clutch, you can’t move 20,000,000 pounds from a dead stop with any kind of clutch or torque converter that exists. Perhaps they could invent that now, but not in the 1930s when this technology was invented.

The slack in the couplings means that initially it only moves a car or two, then as more couplings take up the slack the momentum from the first ones helps accelerate the remainder.   On a long train by the time the last car moves the locomotive and the rest of the train have quite a bit of momentum.
 

 

[Tony Starke]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

The slack in the couplings means that initially it only moves a car or two, then as more couplings take up the slack the momentum from the first ones helps accelerate the remainder.   On a long train by the time the last car moves the locomotive and the rest of the train have quite a bit of...

Smoke Weed..Hehehe

Edited November 21, 2019 by Tony Starke

[Urs_Wildermuth]

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 4:52 AM, Blue on Top said:

Did anyone ever try to certify the eligible Mooneys for autofuel? 

As far as I know Petersen did, but with negative result. As far as I know they own most of the Mogas STC's. Not sure why it did not work out.

I'd be more than happy if anyone could make that happen.

[kortopates]

As far as I know Petersen did, but with negative result. As far as I know they own most of the Mogas STC's. Not sure why it did not work out.
I'd be more than happy if anyone could make that happen.

The Mooney airframe flunked. Doesn't help us much in the US since ethanol free gas is at least rare if not unobtainable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Blue on Top]

2 hours ago, kortopates said:

The Mooney airframe flunked. Doesn't help us much in the US since ethanol free gas is at least rare if not unobtainable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is interesting.  There is autofuel at many airports here in Kansas (Midwest) without alcohol to support the 2-cycle and Rotax fleet.

EAA did STCs for lower compression ratio engines (<9:1) that were certificated for 80/87 and 91/96 octane fuels.  Petersen did those and went into the higher compression ratio engines utilizing a water/alcohol injection system.

Does anyone know which engine(s) we’re tested and why it failed?  In other words, was it an engine issue or an airframe delivery issue?

[Urs_Wildermuth]

1 hour ago, Blue on Top said:

Does anyone know which engine(s) we’re tested and why it failed?  In other words, was it an engine issue or an airframe delivery issue?

As far as I reckon it can't be an engine issue as it is a bog standard O360, so it must be airframe related. There are other airframes (PA28-180/Archer) which do have the STC.

[toto]

For a second today, I thought Mooney was starting the big relaunch (below).  But it turned out that they just don't have anything set up on the root domain.

 

[kortopates]

This is interesting.  There is autofuel at many airports here in Kansas (Midwest) without alcohol to support the 2-cycle and Rotax fleet.
EAA did STCs for lower compression ratio engines ( Does anyone know which engine(s) we’re tested and why it failed?  In other words, was it an engine issue or an airframe delivery issue?

Urs above is correct, O-360 is approved, but the Mooney airframe flunked due to vapor lock issues. Approval required both engine and airframe to pass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Blue on Top]

16 minutes ago, kortopates said:

... but the Mooney airframe flunked due to vapor lock issues ...

I am (educatedly) guessing that there is only one aux fuel pump, and it is mounted somewhere near the firewall (I’m not guessing which side).  The fuel must be sucked up to the engine.  If it were pushed from the fuel tanks, it probably would have passed.

 

Fuel line proximity to hot engine parts is an issue, too.  Ironically, 100/100LL is probably worse, but that is water under the bridge.

[kortopates]

1 minute ago, Blue on Top said:

I am (educatedly) guessing that there is only one aux fuel pump, and it is mounted somewhere near the firewall (I’m not guessing which side).  The fuel must be sucked up to the engine.  If it were pushed from the fuel tanks, it probably would have passed.

 

Fuel line proximity to hot engine parts is an issue, too.  Ironically, 100/100LL is probably worse, but that is water under the bridge.

I can't say for all airframes, but every model I've seen has the aux pump right in front of the gascolator, quite a ways back from the firewall below the pilot. But very true, I would expect high wing aircraft to not have any problems. But makes me wonder why the Archer passed while the Mooney didn't and if more firesleeve usage forward of the firewall could have gotten it to pass. We know of a 90 degree fuel fitting on the firewall that is a source of vapor lock on the IO-360's on some of the Vintage airframes which firesleeve fixes.

[Blue on Top]

38 minutes ago, kortopates said:

... But makes me wonder why the Archer passed while the Mooney didn't and if more firesleeve usage forward of the firewall could have gotten it to pass. We know of a 90 degree fuel fitting on the firewall that is a source of vapor lock on the IO-360's on some of the Vintage airframes which firesleeve fixes.

Now you have me seriously curious.  It seems strange to me that the vapor lock would be downstream of the aux pump.  Maybe they tried to pass without the pump ON?

If the pump would be required to be ON  for takeoff/go-around, it would become a “no go” item on the MMEL (or MEL).

[carusoam]

Either way...

Reviewing the documents and tests to possibly modernize the result wouldn’t be out of the question...

Since this was first done many things have changed...

One of those things is the open sharing of info amongst Mooney users...

Go MS!

Best regards,

-a-

[tmo]

3 hours ago, kortopates said:

But makes me wonder why the Archer passed while the Mooney didn't and if more firesleeve usage forward of the firewall could have gotten it to pass.

Speculation warnink but if you look at the explanation for Grumman AA5A (approved) vs AA5B (not approved) - which are basically the same airframe, I believe it comes down to peak fuel flow.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, kortopates said:

I can't say for all airframes, but every model I've seen has the aux pump right in front of the gascolator, quite a ways back from the firewall below the pilot. But very true, I would expect high wing aircraft to not have any problems. But makes me wonder why the Archer passed while the Mooney didn't and if more firesleeve usage forward of the firewall could have gotten it to pass. We know of a 90 degree fuel fitting on the firewall that is a source of vapor lock on the IO-360's on some of the Vintage airframes which firesleeve fixes.

Most Piper Cherokee series have the fuel gascolator and the Bendix style fuel pump forward of the firewall within a metal shrouded compartment which is cooled by a 2” Scat duct and most have fire sleeved fuel hoses.

Clarence

[afward]

8 hours ago, toto said:

For a second today, I thought Mooney was starting the big relaunch (below).  But it turned out that they just don't have anything set up on the root domain.

Ha, yeah.  Lots of not-quite-tech-savvy companies make that mistake.  "Repeat after me: Host it on the root domain, or put in a redirect".

I wonder how many people have gone to "mooney.com" to research the airplanes and have decided to look elsewhere due to the missing redirect?  Or is that a "new" thing?  I know it had me going for a moment when I clicked your link...

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

10 hours ago, Blue on Top said:

This is interesting.  There is autofuel at many airports here in Kansas (Midwest) without alcohol to support the 2-cycle and Rotax fleet.

EAA did STCs for lower compression ratio engines (<9:1) that were certificated for 80/87 and 91/96 octane fuels.  Petersen did those and went into the higher compression ratio engines utilizing a water/alcohol injection system.

Does anyone know which engine(s) we’re tested and why it failed?  In other words, was it an engine issue or an airframe delivery issue?

We had an auto gas STC on the 1960 Cessna P-172 I co-owned; it had a Continental GO-300 engine.  The engine seemed to run just the same as with 100LL, but...We had several exhaust valves stick open after shut-down, and we heard this was a common problem due to the bronze bushings not getting a little lead coating on the exhaust stroke.  Newer engine with steel valve guides were not supposed to have the issue.  I cannot verify the explanation, but it does sound plausible.

[Blue on Top]

11 hours ago, Ah-1 Cobra Pilot said:

We had an auto gas STC on the 1960 Cessna P-172 I co-owned; it had a Continental GO-300 engine.

C175?  I owned a 1963 P172D for a while with the GO-300.  We had planned on putting in an O-470 when the GO-300 gave up.

[carusoam]

The lead is in the fuel to lubricate the valves... it also helps with the octane chemistry...(?)

Same challenge needed to be overcome in the automotive world... when going lead free...

Best regards,

-a-

[Blue on Top]

8 minutes ago, carusoam said:

... it also helps with the octane chemistry...(?) ...

Yes … and no.  Lead is definitely there for the octane boost, hence the problem with taking the lead out of 100/100LL.  It is not an issue in automobiles because they have variable timing now and can run on lower octane (remember that autofuel and aviation fuel use different octane rating systems, too).  The secondary problem that comes in (if you use an automobile engine and ignition in an airplane) is guaranteeing horsepower rating.  In other words, if I have an auto/aircraft engine rated at 300 Hp and it only gives me 280 Hp on a high hot day (to save the engine from detonation), the airplane may hit an obstacle.