What brought Mooney down?

[Cargil48]

7 hours ago, flyer338 said:

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

I think good pics say often more than one thousand words...

 

Edited December 2, 2019 by Cargil48

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bravoman said:

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?

They’re similar enough, an I beam inboard, transitioning to conventional structure outboard.

Clarence

[Cargil48]

Interessting, though, that the first Mooney doesn't seem to sit so low as one generally sees in most pics...

[Cargil48]

One thing comes to my mind... I know it's "thin ice", but let's try it anyway... Is there any chance that Mooney had such bad results lately because their owners are from mainland China? And that in the US the anti-China talk is permanent?

[Cargil48]

Regarding that "sitting low on the ramp" thing, I found out where (aoart from the pics) I read it, at mooneypilots.com

"Another area where the M2OE (as well as the M2OC) falls short is in the area of "ramp appeal". Just like its C model brother, the E model sits low to the ground and looks small compared to other single engine airplanes on the ramp. Passengers will notice this and start questioning you about the strength of this airplane you are about to take them flying in. To passengers, "big" and "strong" go together. You and I know this is hogwash-- there is no stronger airframe in the world than a Mooney. But try convincing your non-aviation passengers. It gets kind of old reassuring everyone that this "little" Mooney is just as strong as the Bonanza or Cessna 182 towering over it from the next tie down space. But this goes with the territory if you own and fly an early (or even a late model) Mooney."

 

Edited December 2, 2019 by Cargil48

[carusoam]

some PP thoughts from a couple of days ago...

1) The M20 and M20A were built using nature’s composite materials...

2) Composite materials can be made pretty flexible... ever see a pole vaulter flex the composite pole?

3) Not sure how the materials are selected... but flexural strength is better than having things snap in two...

 

Then some from today...

4) Each guest is going to have different fears than the next...

5) The guests that come on my plane usually are interested in their first flight in a small plane...

6) They can’t tell the difference between GA and a 737...

7) Most often, they think the word stall has something to do with the engine stopping...

8) Selling airplanes to the masses is a tough job to overcome some of the most basic fears...

9) Cirrus took an interesting approach and put a plane in the middle of a state fair in Topsfield, Ma...

10) Lots of people talking aviation, possibly dispelling fears, if not... talking parachutes...

Qualifying customers is a salesman’s job.... part of the homework...

Best regards,

-a-

[Cargil48]

13 hours ago, carusoam said:

some PP thoughts from a couple of days ago...

1) The M20 and M20A were built using nature’s composite materials...

2) Composite materials can be made pretty flexible... ever see a pole vaulter flex the composite pole?

3) Not sure how the materials are selected... but flexural strength is better than having things snap in two...

(...)

Best regards,

-a-

My thinking about these three points:

1) One could use wood as the core of a sandwich composite material just as it is done in building yachts. But these have weights measured in tons... What I don't know is if using a composite sandwich material with lightweight balsa wood as core what then the cost advantage would be comparing with a full composite structure based on CfK.

2) Yes, composite materials CAN be flexible. In one direction only, at least regarding those used in avitaion manufacture (see the wings of the Dreamliner or the sailplanes, as already stated here. I replied to that point.)

3) I don't know either how the composite materials are selected. What I know is that it is a science in itself.  And what I know is that I read a short time ago about a given airplane (don't recall the brand and the type) something like this: "This model built in the traditional way had some 3.300+ different parts to be assembled, now made with composites it has just over 300..."

Regards,

CharlieG.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Cargil48
Typo

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, Cargil48 said:

My thinking about these three points:

1) One could use wood as the core of a sandwich composite material just as it is done in building yachts. But these have weights measured in tons... What I don't know is if using a composite sandwich material with lightweight balsa wood as core what then the cost advantage would be comparing with a full composite structure based on CfK.

2) Yes, composite materials CAN be flexible. In one direction only, at least regarding those used in avitaion manufacture (see the wings of the Dreamliner or the sailplanes, as already stated here. I replied to that point.)

3) I don't know either how the composite materials are selected. What I know is that it is a science in itself.  And what I know is that I read a short time ago about a given airplane (don't recall the brand and the type) something like this: "This model built in the traditional way had some 3.300+ different parts to be assembled, now made with composites it has just over 300..."

Regards,

CharlieG.

Composites are neat in that they can be flexible, in a very controlled way, along directions that are chosen deliberately, or they can be stiff in all directions, depending on how the material is laid up.  

[jetdriven]

23 hours ago, Bravoman said:

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?

The PA32 can come apart if overstressed. The wing is similar to the PA28, they are bolted to the carry-through.  Theres a reason they have zero-fuel weights. To keep the cabin loading and thus wing stresses lower.  They perform fine in the envelope, but get into a thunderstorm or lose control of the plane at high speed,  they can and do break.

[EricJ]

6 hours ago, Cargil48 said:

1) One could use wood as the core of a sandwich composite material just as it is done in building yachts. But these have weights measured in tons... What I don't know is if using a composite sandwich material with lightweight balsa wood as core what then the cost advantage would be comparing with a full composite structure based on CfK.

Composite come in all kinds of flavors, shapes, sizes, properties, etc.    Adobe brick is a composite material, with the straw being the reinforcement and the mud being the matrix.   Likewise steel reinforced concrete is a composite material, with the rebar/mesh being the reinforcement and the concrete the matrix.  Composite sandwiches use a core material like you mention and add another interesting dimension to the engineering possibilities.   Lightweight aluminum honeycomb core composites have been in use in aircraft since at least the late 50s, early 60s (the T-39A in our school hangar was built in 1960 and has flaps that are metal laminate over an aluminum honeycomb core.)    Nomex paper honeycomb cores are fairly common in aviation and I think that's what Cirrus uses in some of their structures, at least it looks like it when observing pics of crashed Cirrii.

Likewise the number of reinforcing fabrics for modern composites is crazy, from many different types of carbon, carbon-kevlar, kevlar, fiberglass, blended weaves, etc., etc.   How to combine them and orient the fabrics in the composite gives a lot of control over the rigidity, tensile strength, and flexibility properties in various dimensions as you mentioned.  Different matrix materials makes it even more diverse.

So when somebody says "composite" it's like saying "airplane".   It doesn't really narrow down much what you might be talking about or the properties or efficiency or ease of maintenance or whatever.   Things made of strictly carbon fiber composite have high tensile strength but tend to be very brittle, so wouldn't necessarily flex like a long wing needs to.   Blending other materials is the involved science that gets stuff like that strong in the right ways and still light and economical.

The downside of composites seems to be repair and maintenance.   It's all fun and games until you have to fix it. 

[aviatoreb]

23 minutes ago, EricJ said:

 

The downside of composites seems to be repair and maintenance.   It's all fun and games until you have to fix it. 

I thought one of the upsides of composites was when it comes to repair.  I have seen some amazing composite repair outcomes.  From airplane wings, to carbon fiber sculls (the scull I was rowing in this summer fell of the carriage truck on the way to a race and got really really munched....but some new fabric and epoxy and it seems as if as good as new) to bicycles (again I have seen a munched-crashed bicycle repaired).

[steingar]

The problem is of course that Mooney has a type certificate.  That's why they've been building the same airplane for all these years, because that's the one for which they have a type certificate.  In order to built a composite whatever they have to get a new type certificate.  The numbers I've read about the M10 are $70 million to design the thing and build a prototype.  The do the same for  the  M20 would probably cost even more.  Right now they're having trouble keeping the lights on.  Where is all this money going to come from for certification?

[EricJ]

3 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

I thought one of the upsides of composites was when it comes to repair.  I have seen some amazing composite repair outcomes.  From airplane wings, to carbon fiber sculls (the scull I was rowing in this summer fell of the carriage truck on the way to a race and got really really munched....but some new fabric and epoxy and it seems as if as good as new) to bicycles (again I have seen a munched-crashed bicycle repaired).

It depends on the repair.   Surface repairs can be pretty easy.   Structural repairs like a spar crack or damage in a fully composite wing or complex structure is going to be a lot harder to repair and some structural cracks or damage can result in a situation where it is just not economical to repair.  While the same can be true for typical aluminum structures, unzipping rivets and tweaking or overhauling a structure seems to have proven practical for damage levels that would result in throwing away a composite structure.   Many composite structures, like Mooney's cabin, are made in an autoclave and repairs have to made in the field where the repair technique won't be completely comparable to the original.

I personally don't have faith that a structural repair on a composite will always be as strong as the original structure since the reinforcement fibers are no longer continuous.   A repaired metal structure can often be repaired to as-new in the field with high confidence.

There are always tradeoffs, and the composites work really well in a lot of applications.   I like the fiberglass cowl on my J because it comes completely off easily, and it's not hard to repair, but it's also not structural.  Making more of a Mooney composite, like the wings or empennage, might not be great in the long run.   Many (if not most or all) composite aircraft structures are life-limited, including the Cirrus fleet.  There's no life limit on our Mooney airframes, nor on most GA aluminum airframes.

 

[KSMooniac]

If the M10 had been successful, it likely could've been in serial production right now and helping fund the M20 replacement. The composite M10 would've been a great stepping stone to a modern 4 place XC bird... But that ship has sailed and I doubt the ownership will touch the stove again and try a new plane from scratch. I hope I'm wrong, or they sell it to someone that wants to do so, but with the right people in charge the next time.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[EricJ]

4 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

If the M10 had been successful, it likely could've been in serial production right now and helping fund the M20 replacement. The composite M10 would've been a great stepping stone to a modern 4 place XC bird... But that ship has sailed and I doubt the ownership will touch the stove again and try a new plane from scratch. I hope I'm wrong, or they sell it to someone that wants to do so, but with the right people in charge the next time.
 

Making another, more entry-level, model with the same, or very similar, wings, tail, and gear, as the current airplanes shouldn't be too tough and could probably use existing drawings to minimize, or even avoid, certification costs.   Having only one tier in a product line seems to be a difficult strategy. 

[Cargil48]

59 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Making another, more entry-level, model with the same, or very similar, wings, tail, and gear, as the current airplanes shouldn't be too tough and could probably use existing drawings to minimize, or even avoid, certification costs.   Having only one tier in a product line seems to be a difficult strategy. 

Eric, first of all many, many thanks forthe time you took for your very deep explanations on composite materials. It's a great enrichment to this thread.

Second, have I overlooked something, or the reasons why the ne M10T failed were not discussed? What exactly went wrong? 

Thanks again and regards.

CharlesG.

[KSMooniac]

Making another, more entry-level, model with the same, or very similar, wings, tail, and gear, as the current airplanes shouldn't be too tough and could probably use existing drawings to minimize, or even avoid, certification costs.   Having only one tier in a product line seems to be a difficult strategy. 

I generally would agree, but in Mooney's case they really need to get the fabrication time and labor costs down, so that means a new design. Even if the aero configuration is maintained, altering the structural design would trigger all kinds of engineering and certification costs... But those are just paid once and hopefully the increased sales from quicker assembly and lower costs would more than offset that expense.

Perhaps it might be possible to look at reducing part count without changing the design enough to trigger new cert activity? At my employer, we can form fuselage skins that are 20+ feet long... If that were applied at Mooney then the wing skins could potentially be one piece from the breakpoint to the tip. But Mooney likely doesn't have that capability... And it would mean more expensive repairs in the fleet down the road. Perhaps the spars could be milled from plate instead of built up assemblies?

There are plenty of other things to look at, and I have no idea what has been studied in Kerrville in the past. I hope they'll get another chance to keep the brand alive, and hopefully flourish in the future.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[KSMooniac]

Eric, first of all many, many thanks forthe time you took for your very deep explanations on composite materials. It's a great enrichment to this thread.

Second, have I overlooked something, or the reasons why the ne M10T failed were not discussed? What exactly went wrong? 

Thanks again and regards.

CharlesG.

I and a few others have commented on other threads... My executive summary is great idea/concept, terrible execution. The plane ended up hundreds of pounds overweight, and didn't fly very well. IMO there isn't really anything to salvage from the program aside from the idea of it.

 

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[Cargil48]

1 hour ago, KSMooniac said:

I and a few others have commented on other threads... My executive summary is great idea/concept, terrible execution. The plane ended up hundreds of pounds overweight, be and didn't fly very well. IMO there isn't really anything to salvage from the program aside from the idea of it.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

I can't understand this at all! So may small airpllane builders make composite GA models, including VLA, and have sucess with it and a CAD/CAM design made by Mooney is such a flaw??

Last news on a Google search are from July 2016 and they seem more than optimistic: 

"The M10T has flown more than 47 flights and 66 hours, and this has included stall testing, envelope expansion, handling qualities evaluation, engine cooling tests and engine tuning. Mooney hasn’t announced the certification timeline for the M10s, but expects to do so by year-end. " Nowhere I can find any news about thye programm's cancellation and about the whys... Is it me??
 

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/general-aviation/2016-07-27/mooney-track-dual-q3-certifications

Edited December 3, 2019 by Cargil48

[carusoam]

Look for any news related to the California design office... a few people made the transition to TX after the CA office closed...

Best regards,

-a-

[KSMooniac]

There wasn't any grand announcement with fanfare that the program was scrapped... The second CEO let it slip before he was fired, and then later they said it was being evaluated. Eventually Chino closed and just about everyone out there was let go. The bond tools were scrapped, etc.

Lots went wrong with the program. I know how I would've done things, but I wasn't in charge of anything. . I feel bad that so much capital was wasted and that it might've been a fatal blow to the company. Perhaps not... We'll see what happens next.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[Cargil48]

This looks much, much plausible to me than overweight problems, excuse me, Gentlemen...

"Like everyone else in the airplane biz, Mooney has had its dead ends, most recently the clean-sheet M10T composite training aircraft proposed in 2015. The design was appealing and innovative, but two years later, it was canceled, evidently because Mooney realized the sales volume juice couldn’t justify the developmental squeeze.

And that gets us to China which, increasingly, we’re hearing is just not happening. For both the legacy metal airplanes and the new age M10, China was seen as a bottomless pit of demand, fueled by rich Chinese in whose hearts there burned an unquenchable desire to fly. The reality has proven more sobering, with regulation still stifling GA growth and recently imposed counter tariffs denting even modest sales. When I was at Kerrville last year, two M20s shipped to China had been returned because of type certificate hang-ups. It’s awfully late to still be fooling with that. Chinese-owned Progressive Aerodyne had hoped for strong demand from China for its SeaRey, but it hasn’t materialized. It might eventually, but I think it will be years.

The CEO of another Chinese-owned company told me the flow of Chinese investment into the U.S. has been significantly slowed by anti-corruption efforts and a slowing industrial economy caused in part by U.S. tariffs."

The economic politics (trade tariffs) and the pure lack of GA history in China... This seems plausible to me. For a Chineese driving the latest Ferrari or Lamborghini has for sure a potential effect on the female world there... Flying Mooneys? What for, if they can afford much more valuable "status simbols" like the bizjets??

https://www.avweb.com/insider/mooneys-last-act/

[KSMooniac]

I can assure you the M10 was very overweight. If it performed to the original goals, then you can bet it would've gone into production for the US market. There is a need for trainers here, now. And ones that could be operated for less than current Cessna and Piper options would be hugely popular. Selling in China would be gravy... The money was spent, so it's not like they got a great design in the air and said, "well, we can't sell these in China yet so let's just shut it all down.". Far from it... It was a flop of a plane.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk