Hello Jonny.....

[Nilster]

On 1/11/2021 at 5:26 AM, Jonny said:

Nothing nefarious about "last."  We're working on better - faster, more useful load. Stand by.

Jonny

How about a Jetfuel- / Diesel engine? Flying outside the US AVGAS is getting rarer by the month. I would buy a PT6 upgrade into my Acclaim in a heartbeat !

[Tim Jodice]

50 minutes ago, Nilster said:

How about a Jetfuel- / Diesel engine? Flying outside the US AVGAS is getting rarer by the month. I would buy a PT6 upgrade into my Acclaim in a heartbeat !

Use the 500HP one Rocket uses in the B36TC conversion!

Question for you engineers/mathematicians. I  know it is a diminishing return getting speed through more power but how much faster would a Mooney go with 500 hp available at 25,000?

[Hank]

59 minutes ago, Tim Jodice said:

Use the 500HP one Rocket uses in the B36TC conversion!

Question for you engineers/mathematicians. I  know it is a diminishing return getting speed through more power but how much faster would a Mooney go with 500 hp available at 25,000?

Or would it go fast enough to make up for the increased fuel burn?

[Tim Jodice]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

Or would it go fast enough to make up for the increased fuel burn?

Using the Bonanza conversions and the Piper Malibu vs the Meridian references the answer is no. That said the most fuel that can be put on a bonanza with tip tanks is 114 gallons and they still have about 700-800 miles range. Take a Mooney carrying 130 gallons and being a smaller, lighter more aerodynamic  airplane it likely could add 200 miles to the range while going faster. A B36TC is good for 250 KTAS with the PT6 rocket conversion.

Correct me if I am wrong. I have been told that it takes 8 times the power to go twice as fast. Using that logic and taking an Acclaim at 25,000 running 75% power (262HP) and going about 240KTAS then just about doubling the power to 500HP PT6-42 that has so much reserve thermodynamic power it still makes 500HP at 25,000 feet would add about 20-25% in speed or around 290 KTAS. problem is you would be going about 190 KIAS and you loose the yellow arc when you put a turboprop on it. What is the top of the green on an Acclaim? On a 201 it tops out at 175. would doing 260 at 25,000 feet be worth it?

I don't think it is worth it with a PT6. The one I would live to see is the Allison engine. It is very light and that would do two things, eliminate the need for any type of weight in the tail it may even require moving the batteries up front further reducing weight by eliminating the large wires running to the tail and offset some of the weight gained carrying m heavier fuel.

The performance gain would be awesome at lower altitudes but not life changing. At quick glance it a 420/450 HP engine. Not really, at that setting you are in the 5 min torque range and that assumes the density altitude allows you to do that without over temping the engine. In reality it is a 380 HP engine up in to the teens.  At 25,000 a stock piston powered Acclaim might go faster. at that altitude it has lost so much power the piston engine is making more power burning less gas. That is based on the Alison powered Cessna 210 vs the Vitatoe conversion that has a 550 continental very similar to the 310HP Acclaim engine.

So why would I want a Allison powered Mooney? I want an Allison powered because I want to go very fast with out wearing a nose hose/mask. these engines are at home at 8-17,000 feet depending on temperature. i got a ride in a Bonanza with the Allison engine and the experience can't be expressed with words on a computer screen. It was smooth, quiet, climbs better than a baron while burning less (28 GPH). At 9,000 feet in the summer (I didn't look at the density altitude? it was burning 20-21 GPH doing 180. I bet it would do 200-210 in a Mooney.

 

$1.3-1.5 million new? 

[aviatoreb]

A turbo prop mooney sounds exciting - and my irrational side pines for one.  The Allison seems the best version of that irrational dream.

My rational side and I also think the best seller would be a 300hp Diesel engine of some kind.  With a parachute.  Imagine the range and utility and speed of such a thing.  And of course world fuel flexibility.  

[Tim Jodice]

5 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

My rational side and I also think the best seller would be a 300hp Diesel engine of some kind.  With a parachute.  Imagine the range and utility and speed of such a thing.  And of course world fuel flexibility.  

A parachute is a must have in 2021. 

I second that. As much as I love and would love to have a turboprop Mooney fact is it is a piston airplane from the ground up.

Many think  the 220HP Encore is the ultimate Mooney. What do you think about SMA (someone else owns it now) 230HP 4 cylinder Diesel? Plain jane air cooled with mechanical fuel injection. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Tim Jodice said:

 At 9,000 feet in the summer (I didn't look at the density altitude? it was burning 20-21 GPH doing 180. I bet it would do 200-210 in a Mooney.

 

My 55 year old Comanche 400 will best that Bonanza for a lot less money.

Clarence

[aviatoreb]

2 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

My 55 year old Comanche 400 will best that Bonanza for a lot less money.

Clarence

It’s re as log an interesting unique and special 8 cylinder engine you have.  Why do you figure it is so rare and was hardly adopted in general?

 

[MooneyMitch]

On 1/12/2021 at 9:05 AM, Andy95W said:

What a man does in the privacy of his own house is his own business, but please keep your private life to yourself, Mitch.

Alright, use guys..................y'all's maken' fun of me, thinking that's funny................well, it is!!!  Yuck, yuck, yuck!

[Tim Jodice]

1 hour ago, M20Doc said:

My 55 year old Comanche 400 will best that Bonanza for a lot less money.

Clarence

Problem is you can't have one. Currently there not even 1 for sale on controller.

I have always admired the Comanche 400 just like the LS400. They both push the limits of there category. 

Power is awesome!

[takair]

1 hour ago, Tim Jodice said:

Problem is you can't have one. Currently there not even 1 for sale on controller.

I have always admired the Comanche 400 just like the LS400. They both push the limits of there category. 

Power is awesome!

Two currently on Barnstormers!  There was a turbo normalized one recently for sale too.  I love spending other people’s money....lol.  

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Tim Jodice said:

Problem is you can't have one. Currently there not even 1 for sale on controller.

I have always admired the Comanche 400 just like the LS400. They both push the limits of there category. 

Power is awesome!

I’m not sure I need a second one.  
 

The Cheyenne 400LS would be a very neat one as well, but it won’t fit in my hangar.

Clarence

[RJBrown]

A fast Mooney is a Rocket. Flight plan 200kts/20 gallons per hour at 12k, faster higher.

A cost effective turbine is a Jet-Prop. To really use a turbine you need pressurization.

Rocket engineering just does it better.

[GeeBee]

The Cheyenne 400LS has a serious deficiency, Garrett engines. Other than that it is a great airplane.

 

[exM20K]

10 hours ago, Tim Jodice said:

A parachute is a must have in 2021. 

I second that. As much as I love and would love to have a turboprop Mooney fact is it is a piston airplane from the ground up.

Many think  the 220HP Encore is the ultimate Mooney. What do you think about SMA (someone else owns it now) 230HP 4 cylinder Diesel? Plain jane air cooled with mechanical fuel injection. 

It didn’t go very well for Cessna less than a decade ago. Maybe they’ve improved the engine.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2015/may/14/cessna-not-accepting-182-jt-a-orders

There are many weight and balance and airframe/systems complexities to retrofitting a 100LL plane with a diesel. Diamond was able to do it in the DA40 because the fuel tanks are welded aluminum and feed stainless lines.  Maybe not so easy in the Mooney wing and fuel system. I don’t know.

regardless, IMO, the DA40 Austro diesel ruins a delightful-to-fly plane with a nose heavy solution.  I’ve flown both quite a bit.  M20TN is already nose heavy, though I don’t remember what w&b looked like on my 231.

-Dan

[carusoam]

Nilster has doubled his post count today!
 

+1 for inquiring with the boss... where we are with diesel...

+1 For discussing turbines and Mooneys...

One thing nice about turbines... if you don’t run out of fuel... the engines are known to keep running...

Reciprocating engines just don’t have the same record...

Hey... my memory isn’t all that strong... but, I remember that Mooney inked a relationship for a turbine power plant with the fine people at RR...

Then the Great Recession put everything on hold...

I’m not a big fan of high altitude flight using O2... without a few solid Plan Bs...

Running out of O2 that high up, you may not recognize the symptoms before the symptoms do their thing...

The good news... Turbine fuel... no lead, common, and pretty low cost... comparatively speaking...

PP thoughts only, Not a turbine driver...

Best regards,

-a-

 

[Nilster]

20 hours ago, Tim Jodice said:

Using the Bonanza conversions and the Piper Malibu vs the Meridian references the answer is no. That said the most fuel that can be put on a bonanza with tip tanks is 114 gallons and they still have about 700-800 miles range. Take a Mooney carrying 130 gallons and being a smaller, lighter more aerodynamic  airplane it likely could add 200 miles to the range while going faster. A B36TC is good for 250 KTAS with the PT6 rocket conversion.

Correct me if I am wrong. I have been told that it takes 8 times the power to go twice as fast. Using that logic and taking an Acclaim at 25,000 running 75% power (262HP) and going about 240KTAS then just about doubling the power to 500HP PT6-42 that has so much reserve thermodynamic power it still makes 500HP at 25,000 feet would add about 20-25% in speed or around 290 KTAS. problem is you would be going about 190 KIAS and you loose the yellow arc when you put a turboprop on it. What is the top of the green on an Acclaim? On a 201 it tops out at 175. would doing 260 at 25,000 feet be worth it?

I don't think it is worth it with a PT6. The one I would live to see is the Allison engine. It is very light and that would do two things, eliminate the need for any type of weight in the tail it may even require moving the batteries up front further reducing weight by eliminating the large wires running to the tail and offset some of the weight gained carrying m heavier fuel.

The performance gain would be awesome at lower altitudes but not life changing. At quick glance it a 420/450 HP engine. Not really, at that setting you are in the 5 min torque range and that assumes the density altitude allows you to do that without over temping the engine. In reality it is a 380 HP engine up in to the teens.  At 25,000 a stock piston powered Acclaim might go faster. at that altitude it has lost so much power the piston engine is making more power burning less gas. That is based on the Alison powered Cessna 210 vs the Vitatoe conversion that has a 550 continental very similar to the 310HP Acclaim engine.

So why would I want a Allison powered Mooney? I want an Allison powered because I want to go very fast with out wearing a nose hose/mask. these engines are at home at 8-17,000 feet depending on temperature. i got a ride in a Bonanza with the Allison engine and the experience can't be expressed with words on a computer screen. It was smooth, quiet, climbs better than a baron while burning less (28 GPH). At 9,000 feet in the summer (I didn't look at the density altitude? it was burning 20-21 GPH doing 180. I bet it would do 200-210 in a Mooney.

 

$1.3-1.5 million new? 

Allison / RR like in the Bonanza was my thinking. I see several advantages:

1) Less weight

2) More reliability

3) No more leaded AVGAS

4) Easier Engine-Management

5) More performance

 

Besides that turboprop-dream an STC for the Continental CD-300 should be done anyways. 

 

 

[Nilster]

 

8 hours ago, carusoam said:

Nilster has doubled his post count today!
 

 

 

[201Steve]

Beating a dead horse here, but there is no good argument for the turbine Mooney idea other than the neat factor. Exhibitionary in scope, it doesn’t help a company looking for profitability in any way. Lol

[EricJ]

On 1/13/2021 at 8:06 AM, Tim Jodice said:

Correct me if I am wrong. I have been told that it takes 8 times the power to go twice as fast. 

That is not correct.   Aero drag goes up by the square of the speed, so doubling the speed requires four times the power to overcome the drag.

 

On 1/13/2021 at 8:06 AM, Tim Jodice said:

So why would I want a Allison powered Mooney? I want an Allison powered because I want to go very fast with out wearing a nose hose/mask.

It sounds like you want a pressurized Mooney, which means an entirely different airframe and a useful load reduced even further.

You could just buy a Mooney M22 Mustang instead.  

[Vance Harral]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

Aero drag goes up by the square of the speed, so doubling the speed requires four times the power to overcome the drag.

That's about right.  As a practical example, if you replaced the 200hp engine on an M20E/F/J with an 800hp turbine, you'd get an airplane vaguely similar to a TBM 850.  The TBM 850 cruises around 300 KTAS, about double the cruise speed of the E/F/J.

[ArtVandelay]

That's about right.  As a practical example, if you replaced the 200hp engine on an M20E/F/J with an 800hp turbine, you'd get an airplane vaguely similar to a TBM 850.  The TBM 850 cruises around 300 KTAS, about double the cruise speed of the E/F/J.

Of course the TBM gets it’s speed at high altitudes.

[Vance Harral]

8 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

Of course the TBM gets it’s speed at high altitudes.

Sure, but that's all part of the power equation.  Everyone quotes max cruise numbers at the optimum altitude, and it takes a lot of power to get way up in the flight levels.

[ArtVandelay]

On 1/15/2021 at 12:34 AM, Vance Harral said:

Sure, but that's all part of the power equation.  Everyone quotes max cruise numbers at the optimum altitude, and it takes a lot of power to get way up in the flight levels.

There’s  3 ways to get more speed: more power,less drag, higher altitude.  The easiest way to boost speed is raised the service ceiling.  The Acclaim is limited in altitude, the question is that a engine limitation or are unpressurized planes limited to lower altitudes? 

[Guest]

Are we talking about saving Mooney as a company, or building cool niche airplanes?  Mooney needs to produce an easy (low cost to build) airframe, that weighs less, lifts more and has the creature comforts and safety features people want and is affordable to own and maintain.

While a Jet A burning diesel sounds cool,they're heavy and usually require liquid cooling which adds more to the complexity and empty weight.  A Lycoming engine that can burn premium auto fuel makes just as much sense.

Clarence