Mooney Experimental

[GeeBee]

I too believe that diesel power plants running Jet A are the future. I looked into developing an STC for the Continental unit for a PA-18. The problem with the Continental diesels as now constituted is recurring and expensive gear box inspections and the fact that the engine is a "throw away". There is no overhaul allowed when it reaches TBO which is really called "end of life".

For a Mooney, the SMA SR305-230 would be a much more viable option.

 

 

[aviatoreb]

12 minutes ago, Ibra said:

The M20J VNE/VNO are 195kts/175kts, these are irrespective of power plant and she does 165kts on IO360 engine

The new engine will barely cover an extra 30kts/10kts  also no idea about the initial/running costs but obvious advantage of that RR500 engine is the sound on the ramp, priceless 

If there’s a will there’s a way.  An airplane like an m20 could be structurally strengthened if I big enough engine were enlisted to call for it.  I’m speaking engineering terms not Faa legal terms. I believe the liquid rocket m20l with the tsio520l has gussets added at the wing roots to go along with its 350hp engine.

[mike_elliott]

12 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

Thanks for amending the group to include the rest of us turbos. I'm so in. And I'll buy the first round! 

On Oct 16th-18th we are having the Mooney Summit VIII. Turbos, non turbos, wood wings, mites and well, if you ever owned or wanted to own a Mooney hat even, you are invited.

www.mooneysummit.com

 

[Ibra]

44 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

If there’s a will there’s a way.  An airplane like an m20 could be structurally strengthened if I big enough engine were enlisted to call for it.  I’m speaking engineering terms not Faa legal terms. I believe the liquid rocket m20l with the tsio520l has gussets added at the wing roots to go along with its 350hp engine.

Yes, if there’s a will there’s a way, Beech has put a lot of will and effort in the Bonanza to make T34C Mentor with a PT6 and 550hp, but that draggy beast only delivered 220kts  I would be scared putting that in a Mooney, it will make 470kts or Mach 0.70 at sea level (if the M20J rule Xhp = Xmph still applies, 550hp = 550mph) 

 

 

 

[M20F-1968]

13 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

Thanks for amending the group to include the rest of us turbos. I'm so in. And I'll buy the first round! 

Does a lowly turbonormalized F model count as a "turbo."

John Breda

[aviatoreb]

14 minutes ago, M20F-1968 said:

Does a lowly turbonormalized F model count as a "turbo."

John Breda

It does!  The most efficient turbo of them all!

[1964-M20E]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

I too believe that diesel power plants running Jet A are the future. I looked into developing an STC for the Continental unit for a PA-18. The problem with the Continental diesels as now constituted is recurring and expensive gear box inspections and the fact that the engine is a "throw away". There is no overhaul allowed when it reaches TBO which is really called "end of life".

For a Mooney, the SMA SR305-230 would be a much more viable option.

 

 

This would not be bad if the price point was reasonable.  However, if they want $60 to $80k for a new one throw asway after 2000 hours or worse a calendar time is a non starter and a foolish business adventure for them.  JMHO

[GeeBee]

I would agree the price point is unreasonable at present. The SMA engine however has the advantage it can be overhauled and it is air cooled.

 

 

 

[Austintatious]

2 hours ago, 1964-M20E said:

This would not be bad if the price point was reasonable.  However, if they want $60 to $80k for a new one throw asway after 2000 hours or worse a calendar time is a non starter and a foolish business adventure for them.  JMHO

IT cost 65k to overhaul a TSIO520 at continental....

 

even at 80,000 dollar to replace, that is 40.00 an hour to get a brand new engine (if you do so right at "TBR")

The fuel savings alone make it worth it for any mooney with a 280 + HP engine.  The fuel burn is almost HALF and the fuel price is half or LESS than half.  AND you gain a TON of range.

Id say I average about 19 GPH on the TSIO 520.  Typically doing 200 TAS and 17.5 GPH in cruise.   Fuel price averages 4.00 a gallon. So 76.00 an hour in fuel.  If an 80,000 diesel engine can burn 10 GPH at 2.00 a gallon, that is 20.00 an hour in fuel.  56 dollars less than the TSIO 520. 

56.00 x 2000  that is a fuel savings of 112,000

Lets be pessimistic and say that it burned the SAME amount of fuel, but you are buying Jet A...

That is STILL $56,000.00 in fuel savings over the life of the engine...

You cant afford NOT to do it!

[aviatoreb]

7 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

IT cost 65k to overhaul a TSIO520 at continental....

 

even at 80,000 dollar to replace, that is 40.00 an hour to get a brand new engine (if you do so right at "TBR")

The fuel savings alone make it worth it for any mooney with a 280 + HP engine.  The fuel burn is almost HALF and the fuel price is half or LESS than half.  AND you gain a TON of range.

Id say I average about 19 GPH on the TSIO 520.  Typically doing 200 TAS and 17.5 GPH in cruise.   Fuel price averages 4.00 a gallon. So 76.00 an hour in fuel.  If an 80,000 diesel engine can burn 10 GPH at 2.00 a gallon, that is 20.00 an hour in fuel.  56 dollars less than the TSIO 520. 

56.00 x 2000  that is a fuel savings of 112,000

Lets be pessimistic and say that it burned the SAME amount of fuel, but you are buying Jet A...

That is STILL $56,000.00 in fuel savings over the life of the engine...

You cant afford NOT to do it!

You are definitely doing the right kind of analysis, but I beg to differ with some of your assumptions.

65k to overhaul a tsio520 must be the absolute top of the price scale for boutique overhauls.  The low end of the price scale for respectable overhauls is jewell and a few others comparably priced - https://www.jewellaviation.com/pdf/Price Sheet 2020 Engines.pdf

at 18k not incl r&r and not including accessories.    (And of course one would want to do a lot of major other parts, eg the exhaust stack, the mags, maybe the prop, etc).

But your assumptions did not include r&r so not part of the discussion. This makes almost a 40k gap to your discussion.

Also critical, is if a continental or any other diesel option because available, then the first time install would be significantly more expensive than an r&r swap.  It would require a lot of re-engineering work not to mention the STC.  This would be a very major cost.  Eg consider how much the reworking of the m20k to a rocket cost the first time it was done, vs the lesser cost of doing an engine overhaul later.

Edited April 1, 2020 by aviatoreb

[Austintatious]

6 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

You are definitely doing the right kind of analysis, but I beg to differ with some of your assumptions.

65k to overhaul a tsio520 must be the absolute top of the price scale for boutique overhauls.  The low end of the price scale for respectable overhauls is jewell and a few others comparably priced - https://www.jewellaviation.com/pdf/Price Sheet 2020 Engines.pdf

at 18k not incl r&r and not including accessories.    (And of course one would want to do a lot of major other parts, eg the exhaust stack, the mags, maybe the prop, etc).

But your assumptions did not include r&r so not part of the discussion. This makes almost a 40k gap to your discussion.

Also critical, is if a continental or any other diesel option because available, then the first time install would be significantly more expensive than an r&r swap.  It would require a lot of re-engineering work not to mention the STC.  This would be a very major cost.  Eg consider how much the reworking of the m20k to a rocket cost the first time it was done, vs the lesser cost of doing an engine overhaul later.

Those are all valid points.  there is a big difference between 60 and 80k for the engine.  if we assume 60k then another 40K for the retrofit (not accounting for what your old engine would be worth) we are talking a 100K upgrade vs a 23,000.00 overhaul at the place you linked.  SO a 77,000.00 difference.  97,000.00 if the engine cost 80k.

I think the fuel savings alone would still make it worth it for someone who planned to fly the engine out.  And even if one didn't, certainly that mod would affect resale in a very positive way.

Gaining that much range and ease of operation (ONE control lever, fadec) are BIG pros as well.

 

[aviatoreb]

6 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

Those are all valid points.  there is a big difference between 60 and 80k for the engine.  if we assume 60k then another 40K for the retrofit (not accounting for what your old engine would be worth) we are talking a 100K upgrade vs a 23,000.00 overhaul at the place you linked.  SO a 77,000.00 difference.  97,000.00 if the engine cost 80k.

I think the fuel savings alone would still make it worth it for someone who planned to fly the engine out.  And even if one didn't, certainly that mod would affect resale in a very positive way.

Gaining that much range and ease of operation (ONE control lever, fadec) are BIG pros as well.

 

I agree - I was only nit picking the numbers.

Since no STC is available for the Mooney at this time, then I will dream of the EPS 8 cylinder diesel.  

Diesel is no doubt fantastic from the range stand point.

The computation of fuel costs over the lifetime of the engine, vs hardware costs of converting to a different engine, become totally different again if we consider fuel costs of avgas vs jet A in other parts of the world.  Eg. in Europe the cost would be cheaper for diesel and not even close.  How much is avgas in Germany these days?  12-15 dollars US?

And separate from that - how long will we really have avgas even in some- any form available?  Certainly not for 20 years.  For 10 years?  5 years?

[tmo]

In the EU 100LL is anywhere between $2 and $2.50 per liter, which is roughly $8 per gallon.  And availability is reportedly decreasing, especially the further south one goes.  JetA1 is roughly half that.  And no, prices haven't gone down.  Car gas did get cheaper.

[Davidv]

1 hour ago, tmo said:

In the EU 100LL is anywhere between $2 and $2.50 per liter, which is roughly $8 per gallon.  And availability is reportedly decreasing, especially the further south one goes.  JetA1 is roughly half that.  And no, prices haven't gone down.  Car gas did get cheaper.

Taxes, how else will all of the productive countries in Europe continue to bail out the non-productive ones!

[Shadrach]

Power does not yield a lot of return for the investment. The Cafe foundation reclassified an M20E as experimental. Quite a machine!

https://cafe.foundation/blog/185-mph-on-6-7-gph-cafe-mooney-for-sale/

[Ibra]

UK has cheapest JetA around at 3$/G (sold untaxed at pumps, private individuals have to pay about 30% taxes/duties separately) while 100LL is usually about 8$/G 

Yes, flying in southern Europe (Italy & Spain & Greece) one is better go full fuel and fly 55% LOP, I recall Avgas/100LL was 17$/Gal at Almeria, Spain, my wife helped paying for that bill, at those prices I would be better renting a school DA40NG with diesel than flying my 100LL aircraft 

 

Edited April 1, 2020 by Ibra

[Austintatious]

45 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Power does not yield a lot of return for the investment. The Cafe foundation reclassified an M20E as experimental. Quite a machine!

https://cafe.foundation/blog/185-mph-on-6-7-gph-cafe-mooney-for-sale/

I believe it is entirely possible to go from standard to experimental, if in fact you are doing so for R&R purposes.  However if it is just so you can maintain your own aircraft, that is another story.

 

[Austintatious]

42 minutes ago, Ibra said:

UK has cheapest JetA around at 3$/G (sold untaxed at pumps, private individuals have to pay about 30% taxes/duties separately) while 100LL is usually about 8$/G 

Yes, flying in southern Europe (Italy & Spain & Greece) one is better go full fuel and fly 55% LOP, I recall Avgas/100LL was 17$/Gal at Almeria, Spain, my wife helped paying for that bill, at those prices I would be better renting a school DA40NG with diesel than flying my 100LL aircraft 

 

That is crazy... we are currently paying 1.78 USD for 1 gal Jet A.  100LL seems to average around 4.00 a gallon right now.  I have seen it for 3.50.  Most places are 3.80-4.20 with the larger airports being over 5.00.

IMHO... having an aircraft that is cheap to fly is important.  When I was shopping for an aircraft I ran numbers for miles flown per month, MO payment and cost per mile, insurance, hangar ect..  I could have purchased a  baron and been about the same $ per month as the Rocket... however I started to realize that paying 300.00 + an hour was going to be very discouraging to me and would mean I would probably fly less.

To me... I would rather be paying a higher monthly P&I payment and be able to fly cheaply. This way I will actually go FLY!  It is much easier to justify it when I can meet or beat an airline ticket for me and my wife.

If a turbo diesel ever becomes available to put on the front of my rocket, I will do it.  Even if I am not due for OH.  I could sell the existing TSIO520 to offset the cost.  I would then have an aircraft with more range that burned 20.00 an hour in fuel and about 50 an hour for maintenance.  70 dollars an hour at 200 knots would be a heck of a way to get around. 

 

 

[aviatoreb]

12 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

That is crazy... we are currently paying 1.78 USD for 1 gal Jet A.  100LL seems to average around 4.00 a gallon right now.  I have seen it for 3.50.  Most places are 3.80-4.20 with the larger airports being over 5.00.

IMHO... having an aircraft that is cheap to fly is important.  When I was shopping for an aircraft I ran numbers for miles flown per month, MO payment and cost per mile, insurance, hangar ect..  I could have purchased a  baron and been about the same $ per month as the Rocket... however I started to realize that paying 300.00 + an hour was going to be very discouraging to me and would mean I would probably fly less.

To me... I would rather be paying a higher monthly P&I payment and be able to fly cheaply. This way I will actually go FLY!  It is much easier to justify it when I can meet or beat an airline ticket for me and my wife.

If a turbo diesel ever becomes available to put on the front of my rocket, I will do it.  Even if I am not due for OH.  I could sell the existing TSIO520 to offset the cost.  I would then have an aircraft with more range that burned 20.00 an hour in fuel and about 50 an hour for maintenance.  70 dollars an hour at 200 knots would be a heck of a way to get around. 

 

 

How about this as a thought experiment? What if delta hawk offers their 200hp turbo diesel for M20J and M20K - and since we are M20K I bet we would qualify on their stc.  So there we would be burning 5gph but on 200hp not going as fast as a rocket but still superb fuel specifics.  Would you convert to that?

[Austintatious]

18 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

How about this as a thought experiment? What if delta hawk offers their 200hp turbo diesel for M20J and M20K - and since we are M20K I bet we would qualify on their stc.  So there we would be burning 5gph but on 200hp not going as fast as a rocket but still superb fuel specifics.  Would you convert to that?

Well, I don't really have enough info to go on for that hypothetical... I never look at simple hourly cost.  That is a big fallacy that I feel a lot of potential owners fall into.  What I really care about is the cost per mile.  This is why you see me always throwing the speed into the equation.

It gets real complicated when you throw real world factors into the equation.  It is simple when you only think in terms of still air.  However in the real world when you find yourself facing headwinds, speed can pay for its self really fast.  Headwinds always hurt you more than tailwinds help, and you have headwinds more often than tailwinds.

If this does not make sense, let me know and I will give some examples that should make it clear.

 

The 180hp delta hawk advertises 7.5 gph @ 75% power.  I think it would be safe to assume 8 gph for a 200 HP version.  The 300 HP engine I referenced claims I believe 10 GPH @75%... which is not surprising given larger diesels are more efficient.

So 150 HP @ 8 gph or 225hp at 10 gph...  im going with the 225 every time.  The extra speed will offset the fuel burn, especially when facing headwinds.

 

That all being said... I spend my professional career flying around at 530 kIAS.  I think if I did anything below 200kias I would lose my mind.

[aviatoreb]

12 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

Well, I don't really have enough info to go on for that hypothetical... I never look at simple hourly cost.  That is a big fallacy that I feel a lot of potential owners fall into.  What I really care about is the cost per mile.  This is why you see me always throwing the speed into the equation.

It gets real complicated when you throw real world factors into the equation.  It is simple when you only think in terms of still air.  However in the real world when you find yourself facing headwinds, speed can pay for its self really fast.  Headwinds always hurt you more than tailwinds help, and you have headwinds more often than tailwinds.

If this does not make sense, let me know and I will give some examples that should make it clear.

 

That all being said... I spend my professional career flying around at 530 kIAS.  I think if I did anything below 200kias I would lose my mind.

Right for sure mpg is more relevant than gph.  But the last sentence you wrote - that you value >=200kias (but in a mooney I think you meant 200tas - but Ill forgive the units since as a jet driver....yer used to looking at big numbers).

So if you value two things then you either have a multi-objective optimization problem in which case one must consider the Perato front which is how one balances competing desires when optimizing more than one objective, here speed and separately mpg.  Faster is better, and more miles per gallon is better.  OR the way you stated it which is >=200tas then you have a constrained optimization on just one objective, which is mpg - so maximize mpg while staying greater than 200TAS.

I don't think 200hp will do either.  But it would give amazing gph at respectable speed - I think I computed a turbo diesel mooney would give 170tas at altitude.  How about that on 5 or 6 gph?  Would you (we) give up 200? Pareto. (wiki Pareto).

[Austintatious]

Just now, aviatoreb said:

Right for sure mpg is more relevant than gph.  But the last sentence you wrote - that you value >=200kias (but in a mooney I think you meant 200tas - but Ill forgive the units since as a jet driver....yer used to looking at big numbers).

So if you value two things then you either have a multi-objective optimization problem in which case one must consider the Perato front which is how one balances competing desires when optimizing more than one objective, here speed and separately mpg.  Faster is better, and more miles per gallon is better.  OR the way you stated it which is >=200tas then you have a constrained optimization on just one objective, which is mpg - so maximize mpg while staying greater than 200TAS.

I don't think 200hp will do either.  But it would give amazing gph at respectable speed - I think I computed a turbo diesel mooney would give 170tas at altitude.  How about that on 5 or 6 gph?  Would you (we) give up 200? Pareto. (wiki Pareto).

Well, to constrain my answer to specifics... would I go 170 knots @ 6 gph of jet-a vs 200 @ 10gph of jet-a?    NO.

If you are asking would I accept 170 knots @ 5 gph jet-A over what I do currently.. 200 @ 17.5 GPH of 100ll ... then possibly.

 

Lets look at a scenario using the first comparison:

800 mile trip out and back. (1600 total miles)

30 knots TW leg 1, 30 knots of HW leg 2

 

170 knot aircraft makes leg 1 in 4 hours, burns 30 gallons (@ 2$ a gallon = 60.00)

170 knot aircraft makes leg 2 in 6.15 hours, burns 46.12 gallons ($92.24)

total burn 76.12 gallons over 10.15 hours.

 

200 knot aircraft does leg 1 in 3.47 hours, burns 34.7 gallons (x2.00g = $69.4)

same aircraft does leg 2 in  4.7 hours, burns 47 gallons (x$2= 96.00)

Total burn 81.7 gallons over 8.17 hours.

 

So the faster aircraft burning more GPH burned 5.5 more gallons of fuel ($11.00) yet spent 2 hours less on the trip.

To me that is a no brainier.

 

For fun,  rocket numbers for that scenario...

Total time 8.17 hours  147 Gallons burned ($588.00 at $4.00 a gal)

so the cost of fuel would obviously be 436.00 less for that trip in the slower aircraft.  although it would be 2 hours less engine time (60 bucks?) so say $376.00 more expensive in the rocket, or you could say $0.24 per mile more.

It would definitely be a tough call if the 180 HP version was all that was available.  I would feel like I was spending a lot of money to go slower.  If I decided I was willing to slow down, I would probably sell the rocket and get another aircraft with a run out engine to modify with the 180hp diesel.

 

as much as I like to fly... I hate long XC legs...  If I want to do long XC flights for fun I do it in my glider

 

[carusoam]

The cost of climbing seems to be more expensive than the cost of cruising...

Are we including the climb to the FLs in the numbers?

My max FF is up near 30gph until MP drops off... with a pair of turbo-normalizers it would be this high for about .25 hrs...

And...

What is the typical height above ground when a glider gets released?

Best regards,

-a-

[Austintatious]

57 minutes ago, carusoam said:

The cost of climbing seems to be more expensive than the cost of cruising...

Are we including the climb to the FLs in the numbers?

My max FF is up near 30gph until MP drops off... with a pair of turbo-normalizers it would be this high for about .25 hrs...

And...

What is the typical height above ground when a glider gets released?

Best regards,

-a-

I ignored the climb and descent phase.  For a few reasons.  The first being that the two will obviously not climb at the same rate.  The 300 Hp ship may climb twice as fast as the 180hp ship.  Secondly, I used a pretty long leg for the comparison, which minimizes the impact climb would have.  Lastly, In my experience the descent phase seems to equalize the climb.  IOW I gain back about what I lost ROUGHLY.

 

As far as the gliders go.  It just depends...  Typically you are paying per 1000 feet of tow.  At the club I fly at it is 25.00 for the first 2000 feet and then 10.00 for every 1000 after that.  What people usually do is if they find a good thermal during tow, they cut loose and begin soaring.  I have cut loose at 1200 feet because I found a really nice thermal.  That is atypical though.

My glider is actually self launch capable, so I dont need no stinking tow plane!  I basically take off... fly a safety pattern (in case my engine quits) over the field, then head upwind until I find lift.  I will then start working it while I bring the engine back to low power to cool it off.  Once cool I shut it down and stow it, all while working the thermal.  Then I head off soaring!

[Mooneymuscle56m]

On 3/31/2020 at 3:40 PM, Austintatious said:

That is my point... you need a turbine engine that can do at least that for it to make any sense.  There are currently no turbine engines that would be suitable replacements, they all burn too much fuel.

 

I have 2 rockets, and yes, I get 210 knots at 210, but I am only burning about 17-18GPH.

How about the light Allison they use on the P210 silver eagle? Lighter than a continental  and 450hp with reverse.