Mooney Experimental

[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. 

[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. 

[carusoam]

O&N Silver Eagle

• Powerplant | Rolls-Royce 250-B17F 450 shp (5 minutes)
• Length | 28 ft 2 in.
• Height | 9 ft 8 in.
• Wingspan | 39 ft 2 in.
• Seats | 6.
• Max takeoff weight | 4,000 lb.
• Takeoff distance over 50-ft obstacle (sea level) | 2,200 ft.
• Max cruise speed | 215 kt.

 

O&N Silver Eagle

• Powerplant | Rolls-Royce 250-B17F 450 shp (5 minutes)
• Length | 28 ft 2 in.
• Height | 9 ft 8 in.
• Wingspan | 39 ft 2 in.
• Seats | 6.
• Max takeoff weight | 4,000 lb.
• Takeoff distance over 50-ft obstacle (sea level) | 2,200 ft.
• Max cruise speed | 215 kt.

O&N Silver Eagle

• Powerplant | Rolls-Royce 250-B17F 450 shp (5 minutes)
• Length | 28 ft 2 in.
• Height | 9 ft 8 in.
• Wingspan | 39 ft 2 in.
• Seats | 6.
• Max takeoff weight | 4,000 lb.
• Takeoff distance over 50-ft obstacle (sea level) | 2,200 ft.
• Max cruise speed | 215 kt.

-a-

[Austintatious]

Yea that engine looks like it might fit the bill.  I wonder how much it cost?

That might make a 250 knot Mooney. 

EDIT:  found a video

I still think my initial assessment holds...  looks like they are burning 24 GPH...  I suspect if this engine went in a mooney you would need to get the extra tanks and you could pull it back to less fuel flow.  But man the operating cost and hot section/ PH price is sooo high.

 

[carusoam]

Turbine OHs are expensive... but...

The number of hours between OHs is quite long...

Turbines can use a lot of fuel... but...

The Jet-A is much lower cost than 100LL... 

 

Turbines have tremendous SHP... but...

Hard to use for more than T/O and climb...

 

The 450SHP engine in the Eagle is rated for five minutes at full power...

Not sure how much power is available after that...

With all that power, it is easy to exceed Vne...

So... Flying in thin air is important for converting IAS to TAS....

...and... if you like the short take-offs of excessive power to weight machines...

The landing roll-out when the prop is pulled back into beta... is really short...

More on beta... a reverse camera, back-up camera, a camera that looks over your shoulder... is required for backing into your parking space...

 

Once you have OH’d a big Mooney engine and swapped out a prop...

A hot section inspection doesn’t look terribly bad after that.

 

Reliability of turbines is really high...

Fuel level monitoring and tracking is tremendously important...

There is some weight savings using a turbine... so...

The 130 gallon fuel tank option will be good for two POBs...

Mounting a Turbine on the Mooney is going to require a new cowl, and an engine mount adapted to the airframe... a few new fuel lines and the STC flight tests...

See if David wants to build the next cowl to fit the turbine Mooney... 

 

Where the finances really go awry...  insurance expenses.

Insurance differences have been mentioned a few times around here...
 

PP thoughts only...

Best regards,

-a-

 

Mr. Bertorelli gets all the good assignments! 

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, Austintatious said:

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

 

You are being entirely analytical and I get it.

But there is very little analytical reason to argue 200kts over 170kts in my opinion.

I think its mostly bravado/excitement.  Its just fun to be able to go 200kts.  But you get that at work and them some.

If I were king for a day and I could choose a diesel to replace my tsio520nb I would choose in order, a) the eps diesel - MUCH faster at 420hp and also significantly more fuel efficient. b) continental 300hp diesel - same hp/speed but much more fuel efficient, c) the delta hawk at 200hp so slower - but still fast in real world terms - and much much more fuel efficient in mpg. All 3 would be much more expensive up front in hardware and reap big savings in real over the life of the engine, and even more so fantastic savings if elsewhere in the world.

But the way the game seems to unfold in the certified world. if we would ever get any one of these three we would be lucky, and it would likely not be our choosing.  I would be maybe thinking of any one of the three if it were available at time of overhaul, but least interested in c.

[Austintatious]

That 420 hp diesel would certainly be awesome.  I suspect 240 knots would be the norm with that engine.  Would it fit ? How heavy is it?

What a dream machine that would make!

[aviatoreb]

40 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

That 420 hp diesel would certainly be awesome.  I suspect 240 knots would be the norm with that engine.  Would it fit ? How heavy is it?

What a dream machine that would make!

More details. I am not sure it could be made to work, from either weight or dimensions standpoint, but maybe.  One version says 30-50lbs more than a lycoming 540.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_Propulsion_Systems_Graflight_V-8

[Ibra]

10 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

But there is very little analytical reason to argue 200kts over 170kts in my opinion.

You can make as much as +30kts difference by flying only in tailwind days (does not work in practice as you have to take train or airline back ) but will be a lot of stretch...

The difference in speed is very noticeable when aircraft change puts you in different league than random changes of level, route and weather on the same aircraft 

So we have 220kts, 190kts, 160kts, 130kts, 100kts, anything in between could be grouped to some extent by flying in good/bad days or 10min early 

[aviatoreb]

3 hours ago, Ibra said:

You can make as much as +30kts difference by flying only in tailwind days (does not work in practice as you have to take train or airline back ) but will be a lot of stretch...

The difference in speed is very noticeable when aircraft change puts you in different league than random changes of level, route and weather on the same aircraft 

So we have 220kts, 190kts, 160kts, 130kts, 100kts, anything in between could be grouped to some extent by flying in good/bad days or 10min early 

Actually you can make a 30 kts difference by taking an elevator up and then only flying downhill.

ive heard of tail winds but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen one.

in all seriousness a fast plane makes even more difference on a headwind day.

Edited April 2, 2020 by aviatoreb

[gsxrpilot]

58 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

in all seriousness a fast plane makes even more difference on a headwind day.

Yep, and a turbo can go faster up high even going west. As long as the difference in wind doesn't exceed the speed advantage of altitude. 

[aviatoreb]

53 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

Yep, and a turbo can go faster up high even going west. As long as the difference in wind doesn't exceed the speed advantage of altitude. 

Usually this is right.

And then pedal to the floor, whether  up high or down low, I tend to want to put coal on the fire and push hard when there is a head wind.

[Austintatious]

5 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Usually this is right.

And then pedal to the floor, whether  up high or down low, I tend to want to put coal on the fire and push hard when there is a head wind.

Absolutely... 

Tailwind =  ECON power setting, ride the wave

Headwind = High power setting, punch through

The goal is to maximize your time in a tailwind and minimize it in a headwind.  ALways!

The is especially true for slower aircraft.  The faster an aircraft is, the less you are effected.  How much do you think the SR-71 cared about a 100 knot headwind?

 

[aviatoreb]

Just now, Austintatious said:

Absolutely... 

Tailwind =  ECON power setting, ride the wave

Headwind = High power setting, punch through

The goal is to maximize your time in a tailwind and minimize it in a headwind.  ALways!

The is especially true for slower aircraft.  The faster an aircraft is, the less you are effected.  How much do you think the SR-17 cared about a 100 knot headwind?

 

Right on that last sentence.  If you are in an F16 going 1000kts then a measly 75kts wind aint gonna hurt as much as if you are in a Cessna 150 doing 98kts but with a 40kts head wind.

[PJClark]

Hence: Rocket.  Because every knot counts, and fuel doesn't!  

[Joel Ludwigson]

Those speeds are indicated airspeeds. When I was flying the Falcon 10 we were at .86 (at FL 380) but the airspeed indicator read in the low 200s. The key is flying high where the IAS goes down and the TAS goes up. I've not flown an Acclaim (or any turbocharged Mooney) but I suspect that the IAS in the low flight levels is about the same as my J model at 4,000 feet. So if you put a turboprop on it the key is to fly high. Fuel consumption also goes way down as you go high. The 30 GPH someone mentioned earlier would likely go way down in the upper teens where you would want to fly it. I have a friend who is converting a piston powered amateur built airplane to a Czk built turboprop (An uncertified PT6 clone) of about 250 HP. The fuel consumption at sea level will take your breath away but once you get it above 10k it starts plummeting. Be ready to taxi and fly once you light the fire! He keeps telling me to put one on my 201 but as also mentioned above the certification requirements prevent that, not to mention my checkbook. The engine costs $140k!

[aviatoreb]

6 hours ago, Austintatious said:

Absolutely... 

Tailwind =  ECON power setting, ride the wave

Headwind = High power setting, punch through

The goal is to maximize your time in a tailwind and minimize it in a headwind.  ALways!

The is especially true for slower aircraft.  The faster an aircraft is, the less you are effected.  How much do you think the SR-71 cared about a 100 knot headwind?

 

Are there winds of any kind at 75,000 ft?  

[carusoam]

I think the earth turns underneath you when you are up that high...

-a-

[Ibra]

7 minutes ago, carusoam said:

I think the earth turns underneath you when you are up that high...

I am not sure what you smell/drink but you can't go that high on Avgas 100LL 

Edited April 2, 2020 by Ibra

[gsxrpilot]

7 hours ago, Joel Ludwigson said:

Those speeds are indicated airspeeds. When I was flying the Falcon 10 we were at .86 (at FL 380) but the airspeed indicator read in the low 200s. The key is flying high where the IAS goes down and the TAS goes up. I've not flown an Acclaim (or any turbocharged Mooney) but I suspect that the IAS in the low flight levels is about the same as my J model at 4,000 feet. So if you put a turboprop on it the key is to fly high. Fuel consumption also goes way down as you go high. The 30 GPH someone mentioned earlier would likely go way down in the upper teens where you would want to fly it. I have a friend who is converting a piston powered amateur built airplane to a Czk built turboprop (An uncertified PT6 clone) of about 250 HP. The fuel consumption at sea level will take your breath away but once you get it above 10k it starts plummeting. Be ready to taxi and fly once you light the fire! He keeps telling me to put one on my 201 but as also mentioned above the certification requirements prevent that, not to mention my checkbook. The engine costs $140k!

My 252, unfortunately not a Rocket variant, but just the factory 252, will do 205 knots TAS at FL250 with an IAS of about 130 knots, if I'm flogging her, ROP at 14.5 gph. I've been to FL260 but don't have any records of that performance.

[ESPN168]

Got this from the Continental rep. what I asked if the engine is available for purchased.  quote  Unfortunately no. Any installation of this engine we want to control very carefully and not offer it for people to try and adapt various installations on different aircraft. 

[Austintatious]

2 minutes ago, ESPN168 said:

Got this from the Continental rep. what I asked if the engine is available for purchased.  quote  Unfortunately no. Any installation of this engine we want to control very carefully and not offer it for people to try and adapt various installations on different aircraft. 

I getting real sick of the controls in place that have been stagnating aviation for so long. 

In 4-5 years we will be selling 1 of our Rockets... At that time I may just re-evaluate owning a standard AW aircraft.  Perhaps a LA IVP is in my future.

[McMooney]

uhmm, what's a LA IVP?

if I take my mooney apart then reassemble can I convert it to experimental? 8)  woot gm LM2 here I come

 

[Austintatious]

Just now, McMooney said:

uhmm, what's a LA IVP?

if I take my mooney apart then reassemble can I convert it to experimental? 8)  woot gm LM2 here I come

 

Lancair 4 pressurized... 280 knot experimental.

[ESPN168]

12 minutes ago, McMooney said:

uhmm, what's a LA IVP?

if I take my mooney apart then reassemble can I convert it to experimental? 8)  woot gm LM2 here I come

 

Lol,  I am sure a few people have thought of doing the same thing.  Just reassembled it and turn the vertical stabilizer around and log it as 51% of the work.

Edited April 3, 2020 by ESPN168