Would you buy a new J/K?

[aviatoreb]

A kit built Mooney would be an interesting and unique concept. I mean there have been several builders that have gradually used data from their kit built airplanes to transition to a certified airplane.  But have any companies gone the other way.  Gradually closed down their certified build but then offered a kit built?

On the other hand, the Raven 500 is a very interesting - odd bird.  It is a knock off by a third party, of the successful discontinued design of the Piper Commanche.  They mimicked the shape of the commanche but in modern using an all composite build.

http://www.ravininternational.com/specifications/ravin-500-specifications/

Wouldn't it be fun if Mooney or someone would come out with an all composite build kit (or certified) of the Mooney M20?

[Gagarin]

How about a refurbished M20J by the factory? The factory will buy used M20Js refurbish/overhaul them and sell them for $200k. 

[EricJ]

43 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

A kit built Mooney would be an interesting and unique concept. I mean there have been several builders that have gradually used data from their kit built airplanes to transition to a certified airplane.  But have any companies gone the other way.  Gradually closed down their certified build but then offered a kit built?

The Mooney Mite was offered as both a complete aircraft and a kit.   So was the J-3 cub (iirc).   I think there have been others as well.

 

[INA201]

The Mako would be comparable to a new Mooney Ultra.  I selected Lycoming, paint, interior, prop, their lowest avionics, and Fly-Away assistance(90K).  The total came to $391,000.

The Vans can be done for $200k I am thinking.  The RV 10 quickbuild sells for $63,000.  I'm not a huge fan of the Vans RV 10.  My guess is you can pay someone to help too like the Lancair.  

 

http://lancair.com/mako-pricing-options/

 

https://www.vansaircraft.com/order-a-kit/kit-prices-and-lead-times/

[larrynimmo]

the mako would be a great option to consider

 

[steingar]

6 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

A kit built Mooney would be an interesting and unique concept. I mean there have been several builders that have gradually used data from their kit built airplanes to transition to a certified airplane.  But have any companies gone the other way.  Gradually closed down their certified build but then offered a kit built?

On the other hand, the Raven 500 is a very interesting - odd bird.  It is a knock off by a third party, of the successful discontinued design of the Piper Commanche.  They mimicked the shape of the commanche but in modern using an all composite build.

http://www.ravininternational.com/specifications/ravin-500-specifications/

Wouldn't it be fun if Mooney or someone would come out with an all composite build kit (or certified) of the Mooney M20?

Wow, those guys are still out there. I remember hearing about this when I first started flying. All those years and still no kits for sale.

 

[carusoam]

Choosing the right motor is where it starts...

Raven got in trouble with a Chevy and gear box...

Gear boxes are naturally heavy...

So light weighting them has been a technical, near insurmountable challenge...

 

All from fuzzy old memories...

If my kit plane is costing 100s of AMUs... I’ll start with the twin TNs, with a pair of ICs... on my IO550...

Let the first, or is that the last, 100amus be spent on the power plant... including the MT...

Looks like the Lancair IVPT has become the Mako...  (saw it at KOSH, tried not to make eye contact... )

Lets go to TX and build a few planes...

Best regards,

-a-

[gsxrpilot]

The retract nose gear and fixed main gear just looks silly to me. I don't care about the specs. It looks ridiculous and I wouldn't own one.

[Pasturepilot]

I love the idea of a Mooney kit, but having built an RV-4 tail with my granddaddy and done a couple condition inspections on others, I’ll say this: Mooney’s wing is not suitable for homebuilders. The wing and tail jig for the RV fit easily in our little workshop; a jig for a Mooney wing would take up 40 feet by the time you had enough room to squeeze around either end. The structure has a lot more to it than an RV as well. So you’d have to either have some really advanced quick-build option for the wing, or go to the factory to handle that. 

Or just make a “plastic“ wing. That could lower the parts count and tie up fewer man hours. Use the experimental wing to develop the process and design for an improvement to the certified design that might reduce hours on the assembly line. 

This is all hypothetical rambling from me of course. I’m no engineer and to be honest, my antiquated C model is about where I need to be in terms of finances. A 20 year old Mooney is about the best that my day job will ever subsidize. I’m not complaining - when I need to go somewhere in a hurry or in bad weather, I go to the bigger airport, flash my ID and beg nicely for a jumpseat wherever I need to go. My Mooney is for a different kind of travel. 
 

I just wish to see continued success for our friends in Kerrville, regardless of how they can brainstorm a way out of their situation. I’ve flown and maintained several designs that had zero factory support. It’s doable, but not what I signed for when I bought a Mooney. 

[INA201]

49 minutes ago, Pasturepilot said:

Mooney’s wing is not suitable for homebuilders. The wing and tail jig for the RV fit easily in our little workshop; a jig for a Mooney wing would take up 40 feet by the time you had enough room to squeeze around either end.

The kit manufacturer can produce the wing at the factory, AKA Mooney, as long as the builder produces 51% of the kit.  My post earlier showing both the high end with the Lancair and the RV 10 leads me to believe that a really nice J could be done in the $200-$250 range.  If you went experimental on the engine, autopilot, Dynon displays, and did the paint and interior yourself you could probably do sub $200. Heck, don't listen to me on this as I'm just interpolating data off the internet on this one.  I do like Lancair's concept of paying $90K and then flying in six months.

[Jerry 5TJ]

9 hours ago, carusoam said:

Gear boxes are naturally heavy...

The PT6A has two gear boxes—a beefy one up front spinning the propeller and a smaller one at the rear to drive accessories.  The engine is still far lighter than a direct drive piston of similar power.  

Rotax aircraft engines are all geared, I believe, and they seem quite successful in their < 140 hp class. 

To add to the speculative chat of this thread — How about visualizing a Rotax of around 200 hp powering a “Super J” Mooney?   It can burn car gasoline, placing the plane at a strong competitive advantage when 100LL is no longer available.   

[tmo]

AFAIR all the diesels, which are inherently heavy by design, are geared as well, and they don't stop spinning every other Sunday.

[201er]

14 hours ago, INA201 said:

The Mako would be comparable to a new Mooney Ultra.  I selected Lycoming, paint, interior, prop, their lowest avionics, and Fly-Away assistance(90K).  The total came to $391,000.

The Vans can be done for $200k I am thinking.  The RV 10 quickbuild sells for $63,000.  I'm not a huge fan of the Vans RV 10.  My guess is you can pay someone to help too like the Lancair.  

 

http://lancair.com/mako-pricing-options/

 

https://www.vansaircraft.com/order-a-kit/kit-prices-and-lead-times/

By the time you click yes on every option, you’re back to around the price of a new Mooney and you still gotta build it yourself!

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

15 hours ago, INA201 said:

http://lancair.com/mako-pricing-options/

So many posters here keep saying Cirrus outsells Mooney because of the parachute.

So, how many do you suppose actually choose the parachute option on the Mako?

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

The PT6A has two gear boxes—a beefy one up front spinning the propeller and a smaller one at the rear to drive accessories.  The engine is still far lighter than a direct drive piston of similar power.  

Rotax aircraft engines are all geared, I believe, and they seem quite successful in their < 140 hp class. 

To add to the speculative chat of this thread — How about visualizing a Rotax of around 200 hp powering a “Super J” Mooney?   It can burn car gasoline, placing the plane at a strong competitive advantage when 100LL is no longer available.   

A hangar neighbor has an LSA with a Rotax.   The gearboxes can be problematic with expensive overhauls.   They have a clutch in the gearbox to mitigate prop strikes, i.e., a prop strike is usually a gearbox teardown and saves the engine.  The motors can have electrical and fueling issues.   The closer I look at his the more I don't want one.   

Planetary gears seem to do much better and can be engineered to handle tons of torque (e.g., geared radials are nearly universally planetary gears).   The PT-6 propulsion gearing is planetary.

[Volzalum]

Note that the Mako and Barracuda are not the IV/IV-P successors. The Evolution is. Lancair rebadged under Evolution and sold the "Lancair" name for the other kit builds.

https://www.evolutionaircraft.com

The Evolution Piston is more closely matched to the Acclaim Ultra. No prices are evident on the webpages, but they claim 1500 hour build times.

[tmo]

Speaking from club experience, the gearbox on the Rotax is way less problematic than current Lycoming cylinders for the O-235 we have in our C152's.  Had to rebuild three out of three, two of which were freshly (within a year or two) overhauled.  At different shops.

The Rotax on our Tecnam we just replace with factory new when Mr. TBO comes knocking.  IIRC price is very competitive to a full OH on the C152 Lycomings, and experience shows it gets much better results in terms of reliability.  The ability to run any mogas (including those with some alcohol) is a very welcome feature for private operators, but that is even more of a digression.

Not trying to start an argument, just presenting a view from a land far away.

Alas, none of the Rotax engines make sense for a M20J v.2.0 - not enough power.

[marcusku]

11 hours ago, tmo said:

AFAIR all the diesels, which are inherently heavy by design, are geared as well, and they don't stop spinning every other Sunday.

I know the Delta Hawk engine is supposed to weigh the same as the equivalent gas engine.  I don’t believe most diesels typically have gears.  2000-2700 rpm is right in their power band.

When I visited the Delta Hawk facility a guy I talked to insinuated they were talking to Mooney but didn’t want to come out and say it.  Hard to say and who knows where it’s at though. 

[carusoam]

So the Lancair IVPT became the Evolution....?

There was an Evolution at my home drome for a while...

It is quite large compared to my Mooney...

Looks like a fabulous, yet corporate, kind of plane...

I’d be looking for something that fits in an ordinary hangar...

Operating costs similar to a Mooney on steroids...

Not operating costs of 2X Mooneys...

 

The finance administrator doesn’t like me researching various planes... last time I researched the M20J... I came home with an M20R...

Our C lived outdoors... the R lives indoors...

 

I need to start practicing.... uh honey... I’m going to build our next plane... it’s going to be turbine powered...   

 

 

For Jerry... the gear boxes on home built Ravens... were in the small AMUs category... and bolted to a 400hp Chevy LS engine... lots o torque, and not enough technology afforded...

Now a PT6 on a raven.... that would be good for a guy I know in Canada... 

 

Now I have to go do more research...

-a-

[KSMooniac]

The Evolution was a new design, not a derivative of the IV and it is substantially larger as you observed.

The ES was essentially a IV with a bigger wing and tail and fixed gear. The Columbia evolved from the ES in concept and size, but in fact has nothing in common with the ES.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[Stephen]

@carusoam

You just need a marketing department... if I may...:

I need to start practicing.... uh honey... I’m going to build our next plane... it’s going to be turbine powered... 

 

... Hi honey, I just thought I'd bring you these lovely flowers...your favorite!....yeah they sure are, but not nearly as beautiful as YOU!............ So, I've been thinking..... for our next plane, I think that it is time that we fly smarter. I think we should go with  a platform that will let us use less expensive, more modern avionics and other technologies. At the same time it looks like there are options that will also give me more freedom to work on it myself with out always having to pay shop rate! In fact one of the options is to  use an engine that we don't have to overhaul nearly as often and it is much more safe and reliable! 

[tmo]

Now imagine you had to request permission, sometimes pay for it, sometimes be restricted to VFR only, just so you can fly to/over another state in a homebuilt.  Welcome to Europe...  Yeah, there are some arrangements easing it, but nothing as nice as the US has.  And don't get me started on a unified airspace layout...

[carusoam]

tmo...

Did you see the pic of an MSer flying his Mooney past the Statue of Liberty?

Nothing says freedom of flight like cruising by the statue flying next to NY, NY... 

Bring The K to the USA!

Best regards,

-a-

[Stephen]

3 minutes ago, carusoam said:

tmo...

Did you see the pic of an MSer flying his Mooney past the Statue of Liberty?

Nothing says freedom of flight like cruising by the statue flying next to NY, NY... 

Bring The K to the USA!

Best regards,

-a-

+1

[marcusku]

In another thread someone showed the list price in 2005 for an Ovation 2 with the G1000 was $420k?  I realize that's 15 years ago and some inflation needs to be factored in but the price has gone up substantially for a not so different airplane.  So I wonder what's changed in 15 years?

If you factor in inflation, if I calculated correctly $420k in 2005 = $550k now.

Although not affordable to me, I would think they would sell a few more at that cost.