What brought Mooney down?

[Austintatious]

1 minute ago, Cargil48 said:

Nope, that's the paint on the original design. My changes were (or are): I heightened the landing gear up some 3" to give a better ground clearance since some critics say the Mooneys "sit too low" and therefore are "not appealing" to bustanders...  And especially to allow a better handling on grass fields. Maybe that augmenting the ground clearance would diminsh a bit the ground effect on the flare, I thought... Then, I put the forward landing gear strut some 7 to 8" more forward to give the plane a better weight distribution on the ground. And, since the height of the airplane regarding the ground is now increased, I decreased the AoA to give the plane a more horizontal position. Since when accelerating on the start roll one gets anyway an "up moment" I guess one doesn't need a big AoA of the plane when on the ground. And - to go along with some other critics - it improves the visibility forward, when on the ground. Last (but not least) I substituted those 70+ rivets holding the front compartment doors in the engine bay with quick action metal straps to allow a (much) faster access to the engine compartment. 

You know, I did a 0 flap takeoff the other day just to see... and I have to say, it was really nice.  I think with the flaps down a tremendous cushion of air is created and the aircraft gets a bit squirrely before L/O speed. No flaps may be what I do from now on.  I bet your idea would be great to improve this.

Edited December 1, 2019 by Austintatious

[Cargil48]

39 minutes ago, carusoam said:

That’s pretty creative, Cargil...

Some things got stretched...

Some got squeezed...

But nothing got out of round...

How many baggage doors do we want/need? Put mine next to the pilot’s door...

Why did we keep the fixed step?  Store that away properly...

Would the turbine fit under cowl?

How about Clarence’s HO eight? (Horizontally opposed)

Looks like the cowl got shorter... the O has room for six, then a bunch of space behind it...

How far back would my seat have to recline for me to fit inside?

Would I be able to see over the cowl?

Is that a short rudder, with a fixed tail cone?

How Long does it take modify the drawing so seamlessly?

What is the gray antenna on the bottom?

Best regards,

-a-

I listed already the changes I made to the original design. I did nothing, nothing at all to the basic design, just what I mentioned: making the l/g struts some 3" longer, placing the front wheel strut some 7 to 8" more forward and substituing the rivets by fast straps. Nothing more.

PS: I still have the original drawing in my computer, but I don't know anymore where I downloaded it from... The official Mooney website has it but whitout landing gear down... 

Edited December 1, 2019 by Cargil48
Adding a PS

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, Austintatious said:

So, I am all about speed, which is why I bought a Rocket... However, above 200 knots with the ranges afforded by these aircraft, there is very little gain.

So with those 2 speeds, all else being equal,  on a 1000 mile trip,  the Mooney would make it in ~4.13 hours ... the Cirrus in ~4.69 ....  so  .55  hour longer.  It wont even be that much of a difference because the climb and decent portions cut it down some.  On a 500 mile trip, the difference is probably only 10-15 min.

TO gain that half hour by choosing a Mooney you are giving up a LOT of space and UL and quite frankly giving up a modern looking cockpit that seems more like a car (women like that more) for an old school style cockpit.

You should keep in mind when I write this that I dont like Cirrus.  I dont like side sticks (at least spring loaded ones).  I dont like gear hanging out.  I dont need or want a parachute.   But I am in the minority.  I fully recognize why Cirrus is just murdering Mooney... and make no mistake, that is exactly what is happening.

Yes yes I’m actually pretty good at arithmetic.

and I’m definitely not cool enough to hope to get the gorgeous woman into my cockpit - to enjoy my beautiful instrument panel like you clearly do.  

i was mostly making fun of your “my opinion is the only one of value - end of story” schtick you’ve developed since you got a cirrus.  I am very pleased you live your new airplane.  But you gotta know you’ll get a little blow back for your continued my way or the highway persona as a born again cirrus owner returning to your old haunts.

just know I’m just rubbing you - nothing personal.

Edited December 1, 2019 by aviatoreb

[carusoam]

I would really like the improved access to the engine...

The attitude has much to do with flight characteristics for T/O and landing... making changes there would make the landings get even more sportier...

Longer legs would add the cost of additional weight... if going there... make them oleo struts.... that really adsorb some impact...

The things that got removed are generically called 1/4 turn fasteners... not too hard to undo... but adding a hinge would be nice, and something to hold the lid up... I like looking for things that are loose, or leaking, before committing to flight...

 

Do people really not like the way it sits on the ground... or is it so squatty... they have to sit Corvette style on the floor...?

 

I was simply attracted to the Mooney for its performance... Speed, distance, efficiency, safety.... it really didn’t matter what it looked like...

Selecting a Mooney from a chart was really easy...

As long as the engine is running... The parachute doesn’t have very much attraction...

Having my only engine problem on T/O... the parachute wouldn’t have solved that...

Reading ‘Zefs’ input on safety back before parachutes is interesting... strength of the wing, and strength of the roll cage...

 

Since, I’m planning on the success of the return of Mooney...

Make mine a turbine, with pressurization...

Or do I have to start building a Lanceair....?

Best regards,

-a-

[Austintatious]

55 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Yes yes I’m actually pretty good at arithmetic.

and I’m definitely not cool enough to hope to get the gorgeous woman into my cockpit - to enjoy my beautiful instrument panel like you clearly do.  

i was mostly making fun of your “my opinion is the only one of value - end of story” schtick you’ve developed since you got a cirrus.  I am very pleased you live your new airplane.  But you gotta know you’ll get a little blow back for your continued my way or the highway persona as a born again cirrus owner returning to your old haunts.

just know I’m just rubbing you - nothing personal.

I dont own a Cirrus... I own a Rocket with a second one on the way.  Did you even read my post or did you just cherry pick what you wanted to read ?

[aviatoreb]

21 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

I dont own a Cirrus... I own a Rocket with a second one on the way.  Did you even read my post or did you just cherry pick what you wanted to read ?

I thought you sold your rocket and bought a cirrus.  In any case, Im sorry, I misunderstood.

[MooneyMitch]

“Reading ‘Zefs’ input on safety back before parachutes is interesting... strength of the wing, and strength of the roll cage...“

Dawgonnit!..........it doesn’t matter who says it, but every time someone makes reference to the Mooney tubular structure as a “roll cage”, I just have to comment.

No, as falsely advertised years ago by a Mooney sales representative, it was NOT designed by NASCAR!   It is NOT a roll cage....... never was intended to be so, and in its current configuration, never will be!

Have there been situations where the tubular structure has been a benefit?  Yes!! By luck or whatever.....

 

[Andy95W]

21 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

I thought you sold your rocket and bought a cirrus.  In any case, Im sorry, I misunderstood.

Erik- You might be thinking of Peevee.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

What is particularly damning of Mooney's current difficulties is this is happening in a very strong economic environment while fleet wide piston singles are generally selling relatively well.  How much worse would they be doing in a down economy?

My general feel is that they have gotten away from their roots.  Part of their roots is speed which they still have.  But it is economic speed - the simple "roadster".  Almost all of us here have used aircraft - in large part because that is what we could afford.  Some of us could afford a new airplane at half of what a M20V costs.

My stepfather used to have a 1974 Porche 911 which I got to drive around when I was 18.  It was light.  Peppy and a hoot to drive.  Made lots of zoom zoom noises.  It was fast but not crazy fast.  Then later he bought like a brand new 911 which was much heavier, much faster, much much much more expensive, and it was nothing like the old 911 except for the same general shape.  I kinda liked the old one better.  Not just because it was cheaper - it was more of a roadster.

I know Mooney tried selling stripped down versions many times... but...

And I know it is expensive for many reasons.

But how is Piper able to sell the archer for $369k new?  With g1000?  I know the engine is smaller, but still... its still basically a spam can with lots of man hours to drive lots of rivets.  Comparable avionics work cost.  Comparable cost to do the firewall forward - roughly. I mean does it take so many more hours to hang an IO550 than an IO360?  What is piper doing that is allowing this to be so much cheaper?

Imagine how a simpler but still very fast Mooney would sell at $450k?  Then it would not be head to head vs Sr22.  It would be head to head vs Piper.

I don't know how it could be so much cheaper - but I am just wondering how the heck Piper does it but Mooney cannot.

If you were to look at the wing structure of a Piper Archer or an Arrow and compare it to a Mooney spar, you’ll see where huge labour savings are on Piper’s side. Piper uses a forged aluminum I beam for the inboard section, transitioning to traditional folded ’s is a thing of beauty built of many small parts all fastened together with thousands of bolts which all add the empty weight.

Piper’s fuselage is made the same way as Mooney’s save for the steel structure.  Piper’s fuel tanks are a wet wing similar to Mooney’s but it’s a modular unit built separately and screwed to the wing, in my 35 plus years I’ve repair one Piper tank.

A big part of Mooney’s pricing is outright labour to build the airframe.

Clarence

[aviatoreb]

43 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

If you were to look at the wing structure of a Piper Archer or an Arrow and compare it to a Mooney spar, you’ll see where huge labour savings are on Piper’s side. Piper uses a forged aluminum I beam for the inboard section, transitioning to traditional folded ’s is a thing of beauty built of many small parts all fastened together with thousands of bolts which all add the empty weight.

Piper’s fuselage is made the same way as Mooney’s save for the steel structure.  Piper’s fuel tanks are a wet wing similar to Mooney’s but it’s a modular unit built separately and screwed to the wing, in my 35 plus years I’ve repair one Piper tank.

A big part of Mooney’s pricing is outright labour to build the airframe.

Clarence

You certainly know the details a lot more than I do - clearly.  So still - does it compute to you that the labor is that much more intensive for the Mooney build that we are seeing that difference between a $369k new piper vs a $800k new Mooney?  Ok, they both of G1000.  But the Mooney has a much nicer / more expensive engine, and nicer interior.  But still - the price gap is $430k.  Is that all really mostly labor or said another way, it seems strange to me that piper can do this so dramatically cheaper.

[aviatoreb]

47 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

Erik- You might be thinking of Peevee.

Thanks Andy95W.  Yes that is exactly what happened - Peevee had a rocket which he sold for a Cirrus and then had that tone I was playing on but I mistakenly got confused and I'm sorry again Austintateous.  And Peevee.

[Austintatious]

44 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

If you were to look at the wing structure of a Piper Archer or an Arrow and compare it to a Mooney spar, you’ll see where huge labour savings are on Piper’s side. Piper uses a forged aluminum I beam for the inboard section, transitioning to traditional folded ’s is a thing of beauty built of many small parts all fastened together with thousands of bolts which all add the empty weight.

Piper’s fuselage is made the same way as Mooney’s save for the steel structure.  Piper’s fuel tanks are a wet wing similar to Mooney’s but it’s a modular unit built separately and screwed to the wing, in my 35 plus years I’ve repair one Piper tank.

A big part of Mooney’s pricing is outright labour to build the airframe.

Clarence

I'm no expert, but I believe that the composites are MUCH less labor intensive.  I have always wondered why Mooney didn't go for an all composite aircraft with all the same aerodynamics of the metal bird... One would think that if everything stayed the same... Airfoil, moment arms, plan-forms ECT... and only the construction material was different that certification would be a breeze.    The aircraft isnt going to fly all that different if it is glass vs metal so really the question would be load testing,  not aerodynamics.

If mooney would have done that, and provisioned for a chute, they would likely have an even faster aircraft, which took less time to build and had a chute option.  THAT would be a competitor to the Cirrus.

[Andy95W]

59 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

I'm no expert, but I believe that the composites are MUCH less labor intensive.  I have always wondered why Mooney didn't go for an all composite aircraft with all the same aerodynamics of the metal bird... One would think that if everything stayed the same... Airfoil, moment arms, plan-forms ECT... and only the construction material was different that certification would be a breeze.    The aircraft isnt going to fly all that different if it is glass vs metal so really the question would be load testing,  not aerodynamics.

If mooney would have done that, and provisioned for a chute, they would likely have an even faster aircraft, which took less time to build and had a chute option.  THAT would be a competitor to the Cirrus.

That's a really great point.  Why not have a fully composite wing and tail bolted to a conventional/standard Mooney fuselage?  This way, you could even offer a mid-body fuselage available because everything else would be identical (the Mooney wing, from 1961 M20B to M20V, is 98% identical- the only differences are fuel tanks and wingtips).   Same exact platform should make certification a cinch with the FAA (relatively speaking, at least.)

Save a bunch of hours on manufacturing and go a little faster with a completely smooth wing.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Austintatious said:

I'm no expert, but I believe that the composites are MUCH less labor intensive.  I have always wondered why Mooney didn't go for an all composite aircraft with all the same aerodynamics of the metal bird... One would think that if everything stayed the same... Airfoil, moment arms, plan-forms ECT... and only the construction material was different that certification would be a breeze.    The aircraft isnt going to fly all that different if it is glass vs metal so really the question would be load testing,  not aerodynamics.

If mooney would have done that, and provisioned for a chute, they would likely have an even faster aircraft, which took less time to build and had a chute option.  THAT would be a competitor to the Cirrus.

Anything is possible, Mooney made the switch from wooden structures to aluminum way back in history. This company made a Comanche copy with composite materials and sold it as a kit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravin_500

Clarence

[Cargil48]

1 hour ago, Austintatious said:

I'm no expert, but I believe that the composites are MUCH less labor intensive.  I have always wondered why Mooney didn't go for an all composite aircraft with all the same aerodynamics of the metal bird... One would think that if everything stayed the same... Airfoil, moment arms, plan-forms ECT... and only the construction material was different that certification would be a breeze.    The aircraft isnt going to fly all that different if it is glass vs metal so really the question would be load testing,  not aerodynamics.

If mooney would have done that, and provisioned for a chute, they would likely have an even faster aircraft, which took less time to build and had a chute option.  THAT would be a competitor to the Cirrus.

Yes, building planes with composite parts or even the complete plane is indeed easier to do and much less labour intensive. And the outcome is much stiffer than the metal bird. I've read in one account that one airplane (don't recall the name anymore) had such a stiff fuselage (made out of kevlar reinforced materials) that the complete interior had to be designed and built in such a way that there was a part of absorption of the shocks originated by turbulence bumps, otherwise everybody aboard would be thrown from one side to the other of the seat... The metal construction, I learned, does indeed absorb part of the bumps. It "works" so to speak while the composite materials transmit the shock waves 100% to all what is attached to it.

[Austintatious]

5 minutes ago, Cargil48 said:

Yes, building planes with composite parts or even the complete plane is indeed easier to do and much less labour intensive. And the outcome is much stiffer than the metal bird. I've read in one account that one airplane (don't recall the name anymore) had such a stiff fuselage (made out of kevlar reinforced materials) that the complete interior had to be designed and built in such a way that there was a part of absorption of the shocks originated by turbulence bumps, otherwise everybody aboard would be thrown from one side to the other of the seat... The metal construction, I learned, does indeed absorb part of the bumps. It "works" so to speak while the composite materials transmit the shock waves 100% to all what is attached to it.

That just depends on how it is made... I can assure you that my gliders wings WORK a LOT when I fly around.  Sometimes it is frightening how much they flex.

[Cargil48]

3 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

That just depends on how it is made... I can assure you that my gliders wings WORK a LOT when I fly around.  Sometimes it is frightening how much they flex.

Correct. I know those huge span glider wings bend enormously so that it looks really frightening. But it's because of the high aspect ratio they have. The fuselage is a cage, no way of getting flexible,.It's like a stiff shoe box...

Edited December 2, 2019 by Cargil48

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, Austintatious said:

I'm no expert, but I believe that the composites are MUCH less labor intensive.  I have always wondered why Mooney didn't go for an all composite aircraft with all the same aerodynamics of the metal bird... One would think that if everything stayed the same... Airfoil, moment arms, plan-forms ECT... and only the construction material was different that certification would be a breeze.    The aircraft isnt going to fly all that different if it is glass vs metal so really the question would be load testing,  not aerodynamics.

If mooney would have done that, and provisioned for a chute, they would likely have an even faster aircraft, which took less time to build and had a chute option.  THAT would be a competitor to the Cirrus.

I was pushing on that a few weeks ago.  That wouldn't it be great even if just the wing could be made all carbon and then bolt it on.  Perhaps the wing could be outsources to a carbon savvy company.  It would be smoother faster, possibly lighter.

[aviatoreb]

37 minutes ago, Cargil48 said:

Correct. I know those huge span glider wings bend enormously so that it looks really frightening. But it's because of the high aspect ratio they have. The fuselage is a cage, no way of getting flexible,.It's like a stiff shoe box...

Ever see a Boeing 787 in flight?  Those wings have a lovely curve too.

[NeedSpeed]

You can indeed buy a brand new Mooney now, it’s called a TBM. (It doesn’t cost me one penny more to dream of owning a TBM than it cost to dream of owning a brand new Mooney Acclaim.)

[Cargil48]

9 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Ever see a Boeing 787 in flight?  Those wings have a lovely curve too.

Correct. Same as I said before: high aspect ratio wings.

[Cargil48]

15 hours ago, carusoam said:

That’s pretty creative, Cargil...

(...)

Best regards,

-a-

Here's the real thing...

[Cargil48]

It's a crime that this truly American GA jewel will most likely not be produced anymore. Jaguar and Aston Martin plus Volvo are also in the hands of Far Eastern companies, and these ones knew very well - against all odds... -  to "incarnate the spirit" of these brands and all of them - plus Land Rover! - are better than they ever have been. 'nuff said, it surely is a pitty.

[flyer338]

1 hour ago, Cargil48 said:

It's a crime that this truly American GA jewel will most likely not be produced anymore. Jaguar and Aston Martin plus Volvo are also in the hands of Far Eastern companies, and these ones knew very well - against all odds... -  to "incarnate the spirit" of these brands and all of them - plus Land Rover! - are better than they ever have been. 'nuff said, it surely is a pitty.

Thus my gratitude and appreciation for my 201 are that much greater.

[Bravoman]

18 hours ago, M20Doc said:

If you were to look at the wing structure of a Piper Archer or an Arrow and compare it to a Mooney spar, you’ll see where huge labour savings are on Piper’s side. Piper uses a forged aluminum I beam for the inboard section, transitioning to traditional folded ’s is a thing of beauty built of many small parts all fastened together with thousands of bolts which all add the empty weight.

Piper’s fuselage is made the same way as Mooney’s save for the steel structure.  Piper’s fuel tanks are a wet wing similar to Mooney’s but it’s a modular unit built separately and screwed to the wing, in my 35 plus years I’ve repair one Piper tank.

A big part of Mooney’s pricing is outright labour to build the airframe.

Clarence

Is there much difference between the wing structures of the PA 28 and PA 32 lines? I have heard that there are some differences which, in essence from a layman’s  perspective, translate to the PA 32 being somewhat beefier/more rugged?