MikeOH Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 2 hours ago, M016576 said: “The quality of the box matters little. Success depends upon the man who sits in it.” (Richthofen) Let's rephrase that a bit, "The quality of the PAPERWORK matters little. Success depends upon the man who sits in it." IOW, I wouldn't pay $2k-$3K just to legally 'use' the capability I have now. If I felt comfortable I'd use it now; the paper doesn't change a thing (the gear isn't what I'm concerned about). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urs_Wildermuth Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 15 hours 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. Well, that is quite normal I'd say. Even up to the world of big passenger jets. The more weight you coax out of it, the less it will perform at MTOM. Somehow we are used to our planes performing by book which usually has only one weight in the performance tables. Clearly, if you wish to increase weight, it will need a new assessment of performance. Nor does it mean you can use the new MTOM up to 50°C in Dubai and expect to get the same performance. Try that in something like an A340 with max load and you are surely grateful for the curvature of the earth! Also you don't climb those to their max level straight away, you do step climbs. I guess some who may shed light in this are people who get 10% overweight permits for e.g. ferry flights. We all know that our Mooneys can do this, just read up on "honeymooney" or similar tales and that one is a stock E model with some speed mods and LOTS of fuel tanks. clearly, the initial climb will be marginal, but things will improve as you shed weight/fuel. My own experience with my lowly 180 hp C model is that it will reach 17000 ft at ISA+20 degrees after a LOOONG climb at MTOW. Also, it will perform much different at MTOW and 40°C outside than at ISA 15° even at sea level. But that is normal. Most probably the easiest way to get a weight increase would probably be to define a new MTOM and define the old MTOM as a Maximum Landing weight. Looking at structural limits, quite a few airplanes sport MLW in order to make take offs with higher weight possible. The load on the gear is quite normal during take off, but can be quite heavy on landing, particularly at high weights. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M016576 Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 8 hours ago, MikeOH said: Let's rephrase that a bit, "The quality of the PAPERWORK matters little. Success depends upon the man who sits in it." IOW, I wouldn't pay $2k-$3K just to legally 'use' the capability I have now. If I felt comfortable I'd use it now; the paper doesn't change a thing (the gear isn't what I'm concerned about). But it’s not just paperwork- it’s also a swap out of some landing gear components for the newer parts... I’m assuming those parts are stronger to avoid a gear collapse. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 10 minutes ago, M016576 said: But it’s not just paperwork- it’s also a swap out of some landing gear components for the newer parts... I’m assuming those parts are stronger to avoid a gear collapse. That's my understanding of what happened too. If this is what to is be offered more generally, I presume rocket and missile would not get any further improvement. My guess is they have more than that planned so as to be available for the even heavier long bodies. If it is a small change out of some parts that are other words similar to the current design I will just guess that you are right in spirit as to relatively lower price but I will guess 5-6k? If it is a more major rework and perhaps an entirely different kind of suspension scheme than rubber discs I will keep with my 25k cost guess. Since I only really mostly use my airplane as a two-up and rarely more then I would be interested in the lower price range for sure even if it would rarely change how I fly but probably not worth it to me individually for a much larger price point. But clearly this would be a big winner for the general sales! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1001001 Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 (edited) 17 hours ago, carusoam said: 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- If you want to get up to date performance numbers for your airplane, one option would be to perform the EAA's published flight test program on your airplane. It wouldn't be official, and it's likely you'd get lower numbers than the book, but they would be realistic for the way you fly the airplane. I'm actually thinking of doing this with my 201 before I fly the program on the RV-10 I'm building, so I would have some experience in how to do it. Edited September 7, 2020 by 1001001 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamR Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 On 9/5/2020 at 2:46 PM, 1980Mooney said: Good point. Everyone just needs to chill. Note that Pollack said the meager revenue is totally consumed just keeping the lights on. Let's face it, selling parts is not going to cover all the overhead, legal, insurance, etc on that big Kerrville plant which is sized to build planes, not just parts. All this talk about here about new landing gear systems, BRS, wider fuselage, engine conversions, clean sheet design is just talk that spells negative cashflow. Everything on this wish list will require engineering, prototyping, testing and some degree of regulatory approval.....and TIME. And time is money - investors will need to make more cash infusions. Clean sheet design is an even greater challenge. When they shut down Chino, AOPA Magazine reported they had 40 employees in Cal. working on the M10 Cadet, Mooney likely pissed away $10-15 million on that. For those that think fuselage enlargement or BRS will be easy let's reflect upon the past few years. Mooney just spent several years and a large sum ($millions?) redesigning the steel cage and fuselage shell. They could have attempted to widen it at the shoulders or hips in order to be more market competitive. But no - they didn't. I wonder why. Likely it affects some combination of the entire geometry, strength, manufacturing, weight, cost and regulatory approval challenge/timing to a degree that they couldn't bear. So you think Mooney will be redesigning it again immediately? What a waste of past opportunity. Pollack is telegraphing that change will be incremental and evolutionary for the near future. To speed it up will require buckets of cash which was the Meijing approach. Which begs the question where will the cash for the cashcalls be coming from. Will Meijing be providing 20% of future cash needs to match their 20% ownership? Or are they opting out of future financing after being bled dry? Here is the owner LLC. Owner details are hidden: https://wyobiz.wyo.gov/Business/FilingDetails.aspx?eFNum=081039059186167035061105011248207174064228112113 Also Pollack needs to explain "In partnership and in support of the Meijing Group, we have a unique opportunity to create an international Mooney network". Does the Meijing Group have exclusive marketing rights to the market outside the US as a part of their 20% ownership? Just be happy that Mooney is producing parts for the foreseeable future. I agree with all. Be happy for the short term offerings. Given US Fin seems to be just an investor group and not an activist sponsor, then, the real operational issues at Mooney will likely not be fixed. This company really needs a turnaround expert. Throwing more capital than talent at Mooney has happened many times over the last 20 years, right? In the early 2000's it was the Germans, then the banks as the company levered up (back when they were bankable), and then Meijing Group. How is this scenario different? Seems like more of the same... great ideas, with little to no talent to execute. I will stop now as it feels like piling on. It is fun to think of all the wonderful things Money could do. William 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Pilotte Posted September 9, 2020 Report Share Posted September 9, 2020 On 9/6/2020 at 6:18 PM, carusoam said: The coolest STC would be... Take the plane we have today... Re-define how well it actually flys today... With... updated twin turbocharged engine to hit 262kts Increased useful load 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- Fixed the first two points for YOU. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.