Pipe Dream

[carusoam]

Thanks for the help today, John!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.cn
 

They were having fun the day they selected the tail number!

Best regards,

-a-

[carusoam]

Interesting point 1980...

It is the pipe dream thread...

And personalized panels are all the rage.

What would the panel of choice look like?

1) Garmin light?

2) Garmin extra?

3) Aspens

4) Dynon 
 

5) Gtns

6) Avidyne

7) Low cost

8) high level

9) full integrated with GPSS...

10) Nothing but the basics... minimalist special.

 

PP thinking out loud... 

Best regards,

-a-

[Nippernaper]

It's interesting to compare performance of a J and an SR20.  Same horsepower (actually SR20 has 210/215), one composite, one aluminum/steel.  Almost the same useful load (J has a bit more), cruise speed (J has a bit more), etc.  SR20 is a bit roomier, though.  I think to move the needle significantly, you need to address the engine-out fear that drives the parachute factor.  Small turbine?  TBM, Piper M500/600, Pilatus all are much larger aircraft.  What about a 4-place turbine aircraft, with all the reliability, speed, altitude performance that would come with it.  Efficient?  No.  But really, really cool.  There's a reason folks love their Lancairs.

Tom

[afward]

I've been toying around (in my head!) with the idea that Mooney should bring back the J as a E-AB kit plane, but with simplified construction.  How?

• Ditch the cage can convert to standard stringers & longerons.  This will probably impact cabin dimensions a bit, and "may" reduce weight a touch, but primarily it'll make construction easier.
• Convert the tail to non-pivoting and instead make the h. stab move.  This should simplify construction and might reduce weight.
• Redesign the main spar to reduce weight.  It can take a big reduction and still be strong enough.
• Add a pilot door.
• Make both doors a little bigger.
• Switch to a modern airfoil to improve efficiency.
• Apply the CAFE Mooney mods.
• Target usage of an IO-390 in the kit (though builders are allowed to use a different engine if desired, at the cost of potentially needing to mod the cowl & engine mount).

With all that, Vs0 should be a few miles per hour lower and cruise speed should go up a good bit, plus the fuel burn should be nearly the same (or better, with the right engine mods).  The "competition" would be RV-10, Lancair Mako, and Evolution Piston.  The RV-10 might be a little cheaper (more expensive engine, but the kit isn't too bad), but would be slower on a higher fuel burn.  The Mako would be faster, but much more expensive and higher skill (and builders that choose a 6-cylinder engine would have as much performance or more).  The Evolution is a whole different class and is even more expensive (and again, with a turbo 6-cylinder engine builders could have equivalent performance).

[Bob - S50]

My original idea was to use the original design with mods that have already been approved to build an up to date slightly improved version.  That incurs very little extra cost.

If we start changing the design then it essentially becomes a new airplane with all the expense of certification.  I doubt Mooney would want to have homebuilts out there that look exactly like the certified version for liability reasons.  However, if they wanted to offer a kit, part of the 49% work could include the welded structure.

If someone wanted to make all those changes and market it as a kit they could call it the Newny or Money or Nooney or something else.  But they would probably have to do their own design work because I don't think Mooney would give that info away.

[Hank]

10 hours ago, afward said:

I've been toying around (in my head!) with the idea that Mooney should bring back the J as a E-AB kit plane, but with simplified construction.  How?

• Ditch the cage can convert to standard stringers & longerons.  This will probably impact cabin dimensions a bit, and "may" reduce weight a touch, but primarily it'll make construction easier.
• Convert the tail to non-pivoting and instead make the h. stab move.  This should simplify construction and might reduce weight.
• Redesign the main spar to reduce weight.  It can take a big reduction and still be strong enough.
• Add a pilot door.
• Make both doors a little bigger.
• Switch to a modern airfoil to improve efficiency.
• Apply the CAFE Mooney mods.
• Target usage of an IO-390 in the kit (though builders are allowed to use a different engine if desired, at the cost of potentially needing to mod the cowl & engine mount).

With all that, Vs0 should be a few miles per hour lower and cruise speed should go up a good bit, plus the fuel burn should be nearly the same (or better, with the right engine mods).  The "competition" would be RV-10, Lancair Mako, and Evolution Piston.  The RV-10 might be a little cheaper (more expensive engine, but the kit isn't too bad), but would be slower on a higher fuel burn.  The Mako would be faster, but much more expensive and higher skill (and builders that choose a 6-cylinder engine would have as much performance or more).  The Evolution is a whole different class and is even more expensive (and again, with a turbo 6-cylinder engine builders could have equivalent performance).

Do all of that, and you'll have a less draggy Cherokee with a funny looking tail, not a homebuilt Mooney. The safety cage was part of the attraction to me, having read NTSB reports where it saved pilots and pax.

The pivoting tail is a good aerodynamic design, and the jack screw is not that heavy--how would you move just the horizontal stab?

Mooney has a second door (both are larger) in the composite fuselage, with a safety cage. No need to go backwards, yank out the cage and do strange things. 

The challenge with bringing back any short- or mid-body designs is that the fixtures were scrapped decades ago . . . . .

[bradp]

On 2/27/2020 at 1:07 PM, 1980Mooney said:

Let’s not forget a big problem with aluminum and steel constructed Mooney’s. Past Mooneyspace posts references a 1993 company statement that it took about 3,800 man hours to build a J/201 or nearly 2 man years per plane.  But look at Mooney’s recent real world labor input per plane.  Kerrville Aviation, the FBO, that runs the airport facility which Mooney leases, says that Mooney had 260 Kerrville employees in 2018 after consolidating and closing the Chino facility and terminating development of the M10. Mooney produced 17 planes in 2018.  Assume 10 employees are working full-time on making Repair parts for the existing fleet. That means All in, Assembly line, Front office, back office, procurement, technical support, etc. that is 14.7 man years of labor per plane. They said sometime in 2019 Mooney cut Kerrvile to 60 employees while it produced seven planes. Assuming 10 were devoted to replacement parts that’s still more than 7.1 man years of labor per plane. 
 

Mooney has to go to a design or type of construction which cuts the labor requirement way way back or if they’re going to stick with aluminum and steel they need to move manufacturing to someplace that pays only a few dollars per hour for labor. 
 

The “pipe dreams“ that suggest Mooney should allow each buyer to select their own combinations of avionics and engine packages are just that. It will make an economically unviable plane even more so. 

Same reason mooney is not a viable kit plane - even in quick built /factory assist form it would be very time intensive.  The same engineering that we laud and mechanics hate make an amateur built non viable. 

[afward]

16 hours ago, Hank said:

Do all of that, and you'll have a less draggy Cherokee with a funny looking tail, not a homebuilt Mooney. The safety cage was part of the attraction to me, having read NTSB reports where it saved pilots and pax.

The pivoting tail is a good aerodynamic design, and the jack screw is not that heavy--how would you move just the horizontal stab?

Mooney has a second door (both are larger) in the composite fuselage, with a safety cage. No need to go backwards, yank out the cage and do strange things. 

The challenge with bringing back any short- or mid-body designs is that the fixtures were scrapped decades ago . . . . .

Well...  If I'd wanted to suggest a "pure" Mooney homebuilt, I'd start with an Ovation Ultra and not make many (any?) changes.  That's really not what I'm suggesting here...

I see it as "start with the J drawings and create a kit that's as easy to build as we can make it", so anything to make construction easier would be a win.  The suggested structural changes are entirely for the purpose of simplifying construction for the homebuilder (well, except the lighter spar, but that probably goes without saying).  Even with those changes, though, the end result is a Mooney in performance, economy, looks, and (importantly) handling.  It not having the nearly aerobatic-capable main spar, a cage, and a pivoting tail are sacrifices suggested in the name of making it a viable homebuilding product.

I think once one does all the math, one will find that the pivoting tail isn't substantially better than pivoting the h.stab on the 1/4 chord (similar to airliners).  It's a complexity to construction that doesn't buy enough to justify its existence.

To be honest, the short- and mid-body designs are great, but I wouldn't want to go back to them as-is for a production product.  There's not enough pricing headroom in the long-body designs to justify their cost, so how would the smaller designs have even a slight chance of success?

10 hours ago, bradp said:

Same reason mooney is not a viable kit plane - even in quick built /factory assist form it would be very time intensive.  The same engineering that we laud and mechanics hate make an amateur built non viable. 

This is really why I think re-engineering to simpler construction methods is so important for a hypothetical homebuilt kit.  A RV-10 is stated as a 2000 hour project, with the actual range going from about 1400 to 6000+.  I don't think many homebuilders would be OK with a stated 6000 hour project (theoretical range being 4000 to "I'll be done after I lose my medical" hours).

Edited March 2, 2020 by afward

[Andy95W]

If this were to be a real thing, I would say definitely return to the mid-body as the most versatile.  Highly efficient as a 200 hp normally aspirated (J) or 220 hp turbo (K) or a fire breathing 300 hp like the Missile or Rocket.  Keep the second door and the fiberglass fuselage shell of the newest M20U/V.

Let the experts at the factory build the wing and the tail.  Builder constructs all flight control surfaces and the fuselage.  Don't have wingtips- owner can install them or have a flat wingtip like the original J.

That would be a pretty decent quick-build option that should meet the 51% rule with about a million different options depending on what the owner wants.

[Hank]

2 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

If this were to be a real thing, I would say definitely return to the mid-body as the most versatile.  Highly efficient as a 200 hp normally aspirated (J) or 220 hp turbo (K) or a fire breathing 300 hp like the Missile or Rocket.  Keep the second door and the fiberglass fuselage shell of the newest M20U/V.

Let the experts at the factory build the wing and the tail.  Builder constructs all flight control surfaces and the fuselage.  Don't have wingtips- owner can install them or have a flat wingtip like the original J.

That would be a pretty decent quick-build option that should meet the 51% rule with about a million different options depending on what the owner wants.

Hey, look! Sense broke out! This looks like it could work . . . . Factory could build the original flat-tip wing and the entire movable tail, with the jackscrew supplied as "parts." The builder would decide on fuselage length [short, mid, long--which determine firewall and nose wheel locations], number of doors, metal / fiberglass / carbon fiber fuse, J-bar or electric gear, etc.

[afward]

We were talking about "Pipe Dream" here, right?

I must mention that I don't intend to offend with my "Not Mooney" E-AB suggestion.  I get that it's a big departure and really kills the product in some people's eyes (not to mention the cost of the engineering work involved).  My concern is more with "If Mooney shipped an E-AB product, what would it need to look like to be competitive while still paying the bills?"  Maybe my take is wrong, and I'm OK with that.

In any case, I'd argue the RV-10 is the most direct competition to the J-level E-AB idea, and without a lot of engineering work the RV-10 will win nearly every time:  Saint Aviation in Florida can build a nice IFR RV-10 (with the "builder" showing up for the requisite hands-on bits to meet the 51% rule) for $269,000, and it would be done in about a month.  There's not a snowball's chance in a lit furnace that Mooney can touch that with the current design scaled to mid-body size.

Technically, one could compare to a Lancair Mako if one chooses a long-body and IO-550G, but I don't know if that would really be competitive: A similarly-equipped Mako would be about $344,000 with "Fly-away build assist...", and would carry more at a slightly faster speed using slightly less fuel.  Their FAQ says roughly 6 months to complete.  Mooney does a little better here, but it's still clearly not a win.

Ah well, I have my (vintage) Mooney and will care for it to the best of my ability, so this is all just a neat diversion into "what if..."; I don't want my plane to think I'm not happy with her...

[Volzalum]

The main problem with the RV10 for Mooney fans is the Vne is 200 kts TAS (not indicated airspeed) due to wing flutter. Most Mooney fans would want to go faster in the EAB than allowed in an RV10.

[Tim Jodice]

Would it ever make sense to design a clean sheet airplane?

 https://www.google.com/amp/s/generalaviationnews.com/2012/09/09/the-cost-of-certification/amp/

Says it costs $1 Million so add another million for avation reality.

Would it make sense if it:

*Cuts build time drastically say in half or better.

I forget the numbers but a Beechcraft Duchess cost alot less to build than a Travel air. I would think that was a big reason the went through the certification process to make a new airplane that does the basically the same thing. 

*Is able to go 210 KTS TAS on about 300-350 HP naturally aspirated or 250-260 with a turbo. Or 190KTS 

*Can sit 4 overweight Americans comfortably and their baggage say approximately 1000 payload and enough gas to go 600-700 miles while typically equipped, TKS, A/C etc.

*A Chute in the design from the beginning. 

*All of that while using NON disruptive technology.

*Structurally out of Aluminum and composites where necessary to reduce labor.

*Off the shelf Lycoming or Continental engine

*These are are the obvious things I think many would look for.

*Figure $700,000-$900,000 a piece. Crazy? I dont think so. Cirrus can't build them fast enough. Last summer I looked at buying a SR20 and had I ordered one I would not have seen it until this fall.

*Same price as a Cirrus but it would need to do EVERYTHING better than a Cirrus. 

Possible? 

 

[1964-M20E]

Eliminate the pivoting tail to distinguish the AEB Money JEX from the original Mooney.  Keep the 2 doors, roll cage and make a composite fuselage.  Like others have said let Mooney built the wing, cage and landing gear and have the wing married to the cage.  Bring it home and add landing gear, make control surfaces mat up the 2 half's of the composite fuselage etc.    Factory assistance can be had for a fee for those who want to complete faster.  Select any engine from 200HP up to 310HP owners choice.  Avionics owners choice G1000 or steam. etc.

Well we are dreaming. 

[BradB]

On 2/27/2020 at 1:29 PM, carusoam said:

Interesting point 1980...

It is the pipe dream thread...

And personalized panels are all the rage.

What would the panel of choice look like?

1) Garmin light?

2) Garmin extra?

3) Aspens

4) Dynon 
 

5) Gtns

6) Avidyne

7) Low cost

8) high level

9) full integrated with GPSS...

10) Nothing but the basics... minimalist special.

 

PP thinking out loud... 

Best regards,

-a-

You had me at Turbine.

 

Bradb

 

[Schllc]

All this which list and no one says turbine?

Pressurize it, fix the landing gear to get the fuel, and then put on a turbine. 
I mean if we are wishing, right.....?

[Nippernaper]

All this which list and no one says turbine?
Pressurize it, fix the landing gear to get the fuel, and then put on a turbine. 
I mean if we are wishing, right.....?

I'm pretty sure I said turbine. Didn't I say turbine somewhere up above?

Tom


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rbridges]

On 2/24/2020 at 6:12 PM, M20Doc said:

I’d take one if an IO720 was an option!

Clarence

That automatically adds the 1000 gallon fuel tank mod. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, rbridges said:

That automatically adds the 1000 gallon fuel tank mod. 

Not required, the 130 gallon Monroy STC tank is fine.

Clarence

[Nippernaper]

My pipe dream is a small turboprop on the front of a long-body (or even mid-body).  I think a few years ago Mooney was in talks with Rolls Royce regarding their developmental RR500 engine.  I'd be happy with the smaller RR300, which maxes out at 300 shp.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/civil-aerospace/helicopters/rr300.aspx#/

[1964-M20E]

11 hours ago, Nippernaper said:

My pipe dream is a small turboprop on the front of a long-body (or even mid-body).  I think a few years ago Mooney was in talks with Rolls Royce regarding their developmental RR500 engine.  I'd be happy with the smaller RR300, which maxes out at 300 shp.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/civil-aerospace/helicopters/rr300.aspx#/

I like this too but the turbine cost is outrageous.  However, since we are dreaming we can have the turbine, gearbox and prop for oh let's dream big $60k.