What was actually announced today?

[toto]

Just now, MikeOH said:

No argument with those points.  But, if the parachute is the reason for the weight increase, that is a sad and bad decision, IMHO.

And, with the same power, you're still going to take the performance hit.

Yeah, it depends on how much all the BRS stuff weighs and how much of that is accomplished with reduction in other areas. If the BRS itself is 150 pounds and they get that from a gross weight increase on the type cert, but they have had to shave another 250 pounds to add the beefy gear and seats, you could potentially opt out of the parachute and get a 150-pound paper increase for a cold day with some extra bags. And get the crashworthiness benefits for "free."

[MikeOH]

Just now, toto said:

Yeah, it depends on how much all the BRS stuff weighs and how much of that is accomplished with reduction in other areas. If the BRS itself is 150 pounds and they get that from a gross weight increase on the type cert, but they have had to shave another 250 pounds to add the beefy gear and seats, you could potentially opt out of the parachute and get a 150-pound paper increase for a cold day with some extra bags. And get the crashworthiness benefits for "free."

I guess what I'm getting at is that I just don't think there's a real market for that.  How many E/F/J owners fill the seats and get to gross on a regular basis to say, wow, I wish I had another 150 pounds and can live with anemic performance?

BWTHDIK?

[toto]

Just now, MikeOH said:

I guess what I'm getting at is that I just don't think there's a real market for that.  How many E/F/J owners fill the seats and get to gross on a regular basis to say, wow, I wish I had another 150 pounds and can live with anemic performance?

BWTHDIK?

Yeah, I dunno either. If the perception from New Mooney is that you have to have a chute at all costs, then having a chute as a factory option is an absolute minimum requirement. 

There are a whole bunch of LSAs that offer a BRS as an option, and a lot of those buyers opt out because they don't want to give up the payload. 

It may well be that there is no significant value to a gross weight increase without the chute, but that doesn't mean it doesn't carry marketing weight

[Tim Jodice]

57 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I'm not sure I understand the attractiveness of the gross weight increase without a concomitant POWER increase.  At my M20F's current gross weight on what is typically, here in southern California, above standard atmospheric conditions, it is not a stellar performer.  I just don't see myself wanting to takeoff with another 150 pounds on-board!  I like some safety margin in my performance.  YMMV, I suppose.

Useful load sells airplanes. You can slap STC on top of STC on a Bonanza and you get a 400+ pound gross weight increase. 

Lycoming would sell a lot more IO-390s if they included a gross weight increase. I know it is not easy or cheap but other companies do it with engine upgrades. 

[Urs_Wildermuth]

1 hour ago, M016576 said:

If the “new, new.... ok, really this time... new” mooney is able to offer a gross weight increase of 100-150lbs STC for E/F/J/K models that is reasonably priced (2-3K?), I think they will probably sell around 1000 of the kits.

I agree. If they include the C model, I would be one. But I think they were talking about the newer models first. Those are also the ones which really need them.

I wonder what this thing about weight increases are. Basically, there is two ways of achieving the same goal.

A) you increase the gross weight. There have been several ways to do that. Structural, adding fuel tanks (Piper Twin Commanche), paper exercise to reduce the reserves built into the original GW or possibly some minor modification such as a small power increase to the engine or something else. If I remember right, the M20J did get a GW increase somewhere during the production run, any idea how that was achieved?

B ) you decrease the empty weight. Either by sorting out/removing unnecessary or redundant stuff or by replacing heavy materials on removable non structural items with lighter ones. It appears this is part of the plan for the Ovation/Acclaim series with the new cowl and possibly other weight reductions.

Combine the two and you might end up with substantial figures.

 

[MikeOH]

@Tim Jodice

Correct!  Add more POWER with an engine upgrade, and you've got a product that will SELL!  You're NOT going to do that with a $2K-$3K paperwork STC, however.

You, apparently, missed where I specifically stated, "without a concomitant POWER increase."

Edited September 6, 2020 by MikeOH

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

I'm not sure I understand the attractiveness of the gross weight increase without a concomitant POWER increase.  At my M20F's current gross weight on what is typically, here in southern California, above standard atmospheric conditions, it is not a stellar performer.  I just don't see myself wanting to takeoff with another 150 pounds on-board!  I like some safety margin in my performance.  YMMV, I suppose.

I agree.

My rocket is very high power considering its gross weight.  At gross I take off in a very short distance and I climb like a homesick angel.  If I had a couple of extra pounds of gross I would be confident in still having climbing power and I would bring a few extra friends.

[MikeOH]

Just now, aviatoreb said:

I agree.

My rocket is very high power considering its gross weight.  At gross I take off in a very short distance and I climb like a homesick angel.  If I had a couple of extra pounds of gross I would be confident in still having climbing power and I would bring a few extra friends.

EXACTLY!  My comments were limited to the 200HP machines.

The newer models have excess power and a 'paper' STC, or beefing up the gear as required, would be a very marketable product!

[M016576]

18 minutes ago, Urs_Wildermuth said:

else. If I remember right, the M20J did get a GW increase somewhere during the production run, any idea how that was achieved?

Yes.  I have a Missile.  It’s a J that’s been modified and a STC that takes the max gross up to 3200lbs.  They accomplished this by replacing some of the landing gear components with later model J/K or M/S landing gear components.  I’m assuming for additional strength.  The list of components is pretty short- I cant imagine they’d be too expensive to buy or install.

[Parker_Woodruff]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

I guess what I'm getting at is that I just don't think there's a real market for that.  How many E/F/J owners fill the seats and get to gross on a regular basis to say, wow, I wish I had another 150 pounds and can live with anemic performance?

BWTHDIK?

I had the M20J with the 160 lb increase.  2900 pounds was fine until about 95 degrees (taking off at 600' MSL).  Any warmer and it was an uncomfortably slow climb.

One could certainly get into trouble at higher DAs with terrain.

[M016576]

39 minutes ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

I had the M20J with the 160 lb increase.  2900 pounds was fine until about 95 degrees (taking off at 600' MSL).  Any warmer and it was an uncomfortably slow climb.

One could certainly get into trouble at higher DAs with terrain.

Just as one in a C150 gets into trouble at a higher DA with terrain?  I agree that my previous J didn’t like 100 degree plus days.  My Missile doesn’t either.  But I certainly would have liked an extra 150lbs in the winter at 40 degrees F, and at lower altitudes!

my point is this- allow the pilot to make the decision, while showing the envelope...Otherwise, why not just limit all max useful in any mooney to.. say.. 500lbs... that way the pilot will always have excess power for hot, high DA days.

Edited September 6, 2020 by M016576

[M016576]

3 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I wonder what could cost 2-3k?  Some kind of spring or oil spring system that goes where the rubber discs are now?

I was imagining an entirely new landing gear kit and that would be at least like 15k plus at least like a 10k install - making up numbers from nowhere...

My reason for saying 2-3K is the small list of parts required to go from 2740 to 3200 on the Missile STC, plus the cost to do the required test flights, run the paperwork/certification etc on a previously certificated airframe.  My guess is that they are *not* planning on an extensive retrofit... and most likely have assessed that they can/have/will be able to leverage the existing test data from the previous J/K GW increase, and/or Rocket/Missile test data.  So the small number of parts (say $500 worth), plus the paperwork ($1500-$2500 amortized for data/effort)... could be a cheap, fast way to generate cash flow quickly, before moving on to more cash intensive endevours.

[Tim Jodice]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

@Tim Jodice

Correct!  Add more POWER with an engine upgrade, and you've got a product that will SELL!  You're NOT going to do that with a $2K-$3K paperwork STC, however.

You, apparently, missed where I specifically stated, "without a concomitant POWER increase."

I must have written it wrong. I agree with you that to add weight you should add power.

Upgrade to a IO-390 while keeping the same power to weight ratio would up a late model 201 to 3045 gross weight. 5 pounds less than a SR20 with the same engine.

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, M016576 said:

My reason for saying 2-3K is the small list of parts required to go from 2740 to 3200 on the Missile STC, plus the cost to do the required test flights, run the paperwork/certification etc on a previously certificated airframe.  My guess is that they are *not* planning on an extensive retrofit... and most likely have assessed that they can/have/will be able to leverage the existing test data from the previous J/K GW increase, and/or Rocket/Missile test data.  So the small number of parts (say $500 worth), plus the paperwork ($1500-$2500 amortized for data/effort)... could be a cheap, fast way to generate cash flow quickly, before moving on to more cash intensive endevours.

I don't know exactly what rocket engineering did for the Missiles/Rockets to increase gross weight of the gear, but if it was just what you said, changing out some parts with the more modern beefed up versions of the same, that makes sense.

From what it seems Mooney may be soon offering for their new builds a several hundred pound increase, to what is already several hundred pounds more than our 3200.  To get that, I was guessing they may be doing something beyond just beefier parts and a rubber disc system.  Maybe an oil shock replacement of some kind? If that is true then that is where my guess we are talking an upgrade in the tens of thousands.

If they are selling something as you think in the 2-3k range they will sell many many.

It is a good revenue stream to find ways to engage with us the old fleet owners.  7000 of us (is it?) and goodness knows I have spent a lot of money on my Mooney on upgrades over the last 10+ years - and almost none of that has gone to the Mooney factory because they have had nothing to offer me.  If they start developing exciting things to offer me (us) then maybe they could start making some money from us too - and not just from the small pool of potential new owners - I mean 750k is a lot of money but from what I hear they are only making a small fraction of that.

Edited September 6, 2020 by aviatoreb

[MikeOH]

16 minutes ago, M016576 said:

Just as one in a C150 gets into trouble at a higher DA with terrain?  I agree that my previous J didn’t like 100 degree plus days.  My Missile doesn’t either.  But I certainly would have liked an extra 150lbs in the winter at 40 degrees F, and at lower altitudes!

my point is this- allow the pilot to make the decision, while showing the envelope...Otherwise, why not just limit all max useful in any mooney to.. say.. 500lbs... that way the pilot will always have excess power for hot, high DA days.

Well, by that logic, why have the POH at all?  As the pilot is already responsible for making decisions, isn't he?.  Hell, if this supposed STC is just to beef up the gear, and you're an ace pilot that always gets a squeaker, then what's stopping anyone from flying over gross as it is if it is cold enough?  Isn't there some exception for over-gross operation in Alaska where it's cold?  

This is just another example of legal/safe, smart/dumb.  The plane doesn't know you've got a piece of paper or not.  This 'piece of paper' may encourage pilots to take off under conditions they shouldn't;  I'll be the lawyers won't be shy about bringing that up...after the fact.

My point was merely that I don't see this as a 'product' that will sell well for 200 HP Mooneys.

[Tim Jodice]

Just now, MikeOH said:

The plane doesn't know you've got a piece of paper or not.

With this in mind I always shake my head when I hear people say they don't want to actually weigh there airplane because the magic piece of paper says it weighs less than it really is. 

You can fool/lie to the laws of man but not the laws of physics. 

[MikeOH]

Just now, Tim Jodice said:

With this in mind I always shake my head when I hear people say they don't want to actually weigh there airplane because the magic piece of paper says it weighs less than it really is. 

You can fool/lie to the laws of man but not the laws of physics. 

EXACTLY!

Excellent example

[Parker_Woodruff]

1 hour ago, M016576 said:

Just as one in a C150 gets into trouble at a higher DA with terrain?  I agree that my previous J didn’t like 100 degree plus days.  My Missile doesn’t either.  But I certainly would have liked an extra 150lbs in the winter at 40 degrees F, and at lower altitudes!

my point is this- allow the pilot to make the decision, while showing the envelope...Otherwise, why not just limit all max useful in any mooney to.. say.. 500lbs... that way the pilot will always have excess power for hot, high DA days.

I get it.  I like the flexibility.  I just urge anyone (especially lower time pilots)  to go fly with a CFI at max weight on a warm day before they do these flights on their own.  And especially do the performance calculations and give a pessimistic fudge factor to the data used in the calculations.

When I was an insurance underwriter it wasn't unheard of to have transition pilots flying a PA32-260 go get checked out with a CFI at MTOW prior to releasing them for solo.  We weren't worried *as* worried about the 300 hp version, but the 260 fully loaded is a dog.

[Cruiser]

22 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Fair enough point taken.  But that doesn’t change my position. I’m not going to pay in advance via subscription for a change in the Type Certificate when it’s just an idea or dream in somebody’s head......

not a surprise you don't even support this group. 

[aviatoreb]

I'm thinking offering goodies to improve our airframes from the factory, enticing upgrades that only the factory can efficiently add to the type certificate may well be a major revenue stream.  Goodness knows I have spent a huge amount of money on N314EB in the last ten years and none of it has gone to Mooney sadly.

[Missile=Awesome]

44 minutes ago, Cruiser said:

not a surprise you don't even support this group. 

Low blow and kind of bush league.  It’s a choice buddy boy.  Watch ads or not.  Sheesh...

[carusoam]

The coolest STC would be...

Take the plane we have today...

Re-define how well it actually flys today...

With...

• updated procedures
• updated performance charts
• updated engine data

And an App that would...

• help our actual pilots
• fly the actual plane
• With actual performance numbers...

We are too modern to be running our fingers through POH graphs, screwing it up, and then adding a giant safety margin...

The small safety margin is for what can go wrong in real life... not for what can go wrong making calculations...

PP thoughts only, not a CFI...

Best regards,

-a-

[M016576]

3 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

don't know exactly what rocket engineering did for the Missiles/Rockets to increase gross weight of the gear, but if it was just what you said, changing out some parts with the more modern beefed up versions of the same, that makes sense.

The parts list and description is in the STC packet I’ve got for my plane.  I think I may actually have posted it here at one point... but I can’t remember... I’m away from my logs for the month, or I’d go back and look at the specific parts... but if I remember correctly- the list was only about 6-9 parts, all from newer Mooney’s, and all involving landing gear components.

[MikeOH]

18 minutes ago, M016576 said:

The parts list and description is in the STC packet I’ve got for my plane.  I think I may actually have posted it here at one point... but I can’t remember... I’m away from my logs for the month, or I’d go back and look at the specific parts... but if I remember correctly- the list was only about 6-9 parts, all from newer Mooney’s, and all involving landing gear components.

Hmm,  seems the ONE part, the elephant in the room that "allows" the gross weight increase, is the IO-550 ENGINE, would dispute that ALL parts are landing gear components

[M016576]

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Hmm,  seems the ONE part, the elephant in the room that "allows" the gross weight increase, is the IO-550 ENGINE, would dispute that ALL parts are landing gear components

Hah!  All “upgrades” are in the eye of the beholder, right?

 I will say this- while 3200lbs is probably not a good idea in a M20J... 2900lbs flys in all later model M20J’s right now.  So why not extend that weight increase to earlier M20E/F/J/K’s through a strengthening of the landing gear?  Have those late model J’s and K’s been falling out of the sky?  Are they blatant safety risks?  Of course not.  So why not strengthen their landing gear and give them the extra 160lbs or useful load?

*the other J/K’s are already flying with this max gross, and have been for ~35 years with no additional increased engine horsepower*

Edit: I’m an “old” fighter pilot... so I’ll through a quote out there... “The quality of the box matters little. Success depends upon the man who sits in it.” (Richthofen)

Edited September 7, 2020 by M016576