How heavy will the new Mooneys be?

[Tim Jodice]

I say 3600. I have no educated reason to say that but I pick it because other new 300HP category piston singles (G36 and SR22) are 3600 GW.

Would that be enough? How much would the airplanes empty weight go up to up the gross weight?

Most here say their useful load is around 950. If the gross weight went  up about 230 pounds and had about an 1100 useful load WITH, TKS, A/C, oxygen and all the other awesome (heavy) things that make a new airplane nice.

I know there are some Eagles that have a useful load like that but as Cirrus proves few people buy new bare bone airplanes.

Would a well equipped Mooney with about 1100 useful be a game changer? 

 

[Niko182]

23 minutes ago, Tim Jodice said:

I say 3600. I have no educated reason to say that but I pick it because other new 300HP category piston singles (G36 and SR22) are 3600 GW.

Would that be enough? How much would the airplanes empty weight go up to up the gross weight?

Most here say their useful load is around 950. If the gross weight went  up about 230 pounds and had about an 1100 useful load WITH, TKS, A/C, oxygen and all the other awesome (heavy) things that make a new airplane nice.

I know there are some Eagles that have a useful load like that but as Cirrus proves few people buy new bare bone airplanes.

Would a well equipped Mooney with about 1100 useful be a game changer? 

 

I think it needs to be above 1200 to be marketable, and after that make them stock with monroy tanks. A 3600lbs takeoff weight would be great. They would however have to increase the landing weight. 3600lbs takeoff weight with a 3200lbs landing weight is a lot of fuel to use.

[MooneyMuscle]

Off topic, I noticed cirrus is getting 315HP at 2500RPM out of the SR-22 now.......

[M20F]

2 hours ago, Niko182 said:

I think it needs to be above 1200 to be marketable, and after that make them stock with monroy tanks. A 3600lbs takeoff weight would be great. They would however have to increase the landing weight. 3600lbs takeoff weight with a 3200lbs landing weight is a lot of fuel to use.

There is a reason why Mooney’s have gotten faster since the J and useful load has gone down.  Horsepower isn’t a solution to drag (see the J).  

That being said there isn’t much to clean up on a modern Mooney.  IMHO they would be better off building a plane people want versus the fastest piston in the world that nobody wants because it is impractical.

No chute, no useful load, etc. for $1M.  No thanks.  

 

[Tim Jodice]

33 minutes ago, M20F said:

No chute, no useful load, etc. for $1M.  No thanks.  

 

 Agreed.

A chute was one the things I didn't write in but factored it in to the weight gain. 

When Mooney builds new airplanes it HAS to have a chute or it won't sell to the (wife) masses.  

[M20F]

11 minutes ago, Tim Jodice said:

 When Mooney builds new airplanes it HAS to have a chute or it won't sell to the (wife) masses.  

The chute is the least of their issues.  They need to focus on an Ovation successor.  Flying +12500ft in GA is just to rare to make that the focus and the useful load penalty is crippling.  

[ArtVandelay]

The chute is the least of their issues.  They need to focus on an Ovation successor.  Flying +12500ft in GA is just to rare to make that the focus and the useful load penalty is crippling.  

Unless they can make it pressurized.

I believe there’s 2 aspects of max gross weight:
1. Minimum climb ability, probably not an issue with 300+ HP.
2. Landing gear, specifically being able to pass the drop test. You’ll need to go to oleo struts to handle the extra weight.

The chute is complicated by the fact they need to deploy the gear to absorb some of the impact, obviously Cirrus doesn’t have this problem.

[jaylw314]

5 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

Unless they can make it pressurized.

I believe there’s 2 aspects of max gross weight:
1. Minimum climb ability, probably not an issue with 300+ HP.
2. Landing gear, specifically being able to pass the drop test. You’ll need to go to oleo struts to handle the extra weight.

The chute is complicated by the fact they need to deploy the gear to absorb some of the impact, obviously Cirrus doesn’t have this problem.

I thought max gross weight was a structural limit rather than a performance limit? 

[LANCECASPER]

6 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

2. Landing gear, specifically being able to pass the drop test. You’ll need to go to oleo struts to handle the extra weight.
 

Agree 100%. It's time for a new landing gear. The Lord Mounts (shock discs) which were motor mounts off of dump trucks in the 1950's have outlived their intended use.

[Marcopolo]

25 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

The chute is complicated by the fact they need to deploy the gear to absorb some of the impact, obviously Cirrus doesn’t have this problem.

Ohh, but they do!  SF50 Vision Jet is a retract and has a BRS.

[Niko182]

1 minute ago, Marcopolo said:

Ohh, but they do!  SF50 Vision Jet is a retract and has a BRS.

same with the Icon A5.

[Tim Jodice]

40 minutes ago, M20F said:

The chute is the least of their issues.  They need to focus on an Ovation successor.  Flying +12500ft in GA is just to rare to make that the focus and the useful load penalty is crippling.  

Ovation successor like clean sheet design?

Whats wrong with flying +12,500? If you don't want to don't. Who made flying +12,500 the focus?

Agreed. I think useful load is unacceptable and needs to be raised by about 200 pounds 

[M20F]

Just now, Tim Jodice said:

Ovation successor like clean sheet design?

Whats wrong with flying +12,500? If you don't want to don't. Who made flying +12,500 the focus?

Agreed. I think useful load is unacceptable and needs to be raised by about 200 pounds 

There is nothing wrong with flying +12500.  I own a turbo normalized airplane and fly long haul.  It rarely benefits me to put on O2. 

Check out FlightAware and see how many GA folks on a given day are on O2, it isn’t much.  
 
The J and Ovation were successful for a reason in terms of sales.  Mooney needs to stop trying to be the fastest piston in the world and instead be the best selling.

Long range, high useful load, great economy, comfort, maximum TAS without O2.  That’s what people spending $1M on a new plane want.

PS You can fly your Mooney with +200lbs or more today.  It certainly isn’t legal but it will do it, and it will be a pig.  Increasing useful load at the expense of performance isn’t the solution either. 

[Tim Jodice]

48 minutes ago, M20F said:

There is nothing wrong with flying +12500.  I own a turbo normalized airplane and fly long haul.  It rarely benefits me to put on O2. 

Check out FlightAware and see how many GA folks on a given day are on O2, it isn’t much.  
 
The J and Ovation were successful for a reason in terms of sales.  Mooney needs to stop trying to be the fastest piston in the world and instead be the best selling.

Long range, high useful load, great economy, comfort, maximum TAS without O2.  That’s what people spending $1M on a new plane want.

PS You can fly your Mooney with +200lbs or more today.  It certainly isn’t legal but it will do it, and it will be a pig.  Increasing useful load at the expense of performance isn’t the solution either. 

I have never owned or operated a turbo airplane. I thought the biggest benefit of having one is to fly high. 

I have never looked it up on flightaware but 1 friend that has a turbo Bonanza says the same as you and rarely goes high enough to need oxygen. 

No doubt the Ovation and J model were successful but many people on here really like the small bore turbo K models and some say they are the ultimate Mooney. 

Being the fastest is their trademark. They need to find a way to do that and fix where they lack like useful load and a chute.

How long is long range? Few people like sitting in the airplane longer than 3-4 hours. Assuming ROP 17GPH the smallest tanks on an Ovation will bring you about 700 miles in 4 hours with a healthy reserve. 

What is a high useful load? G6 SR22s are around 1200UL typically equipped. Would you consider 1200UL sufficient? 

Comfort,  Americans are only getting fatter so unless they make the cabin wider that will be hard to fix. Other than that I think the cabins on new Mooneys are awesome. Have you sat in an Ultra? I think adding and enlarging the door was a great improvement. 

For $1M it needs to check 9 out of the 10 boxes.

No one ever flies their airplane over gross.

[N201MKTurbo]

The best airplanes have already been designed. It is all down hill from here....

[ArtVandelay]

I thought max gross weight was a structural limit rather than a performance limit? 

Hence the drop test, of course how the impact is absorbed is a function of the landing gear.

[1964-M20E]

+12500 flying I have not done it but on very rare occasions.  I have played with O2 but really prefer to avoid the hassle.  I think there is something to this statement.

Turbo charging or Turbo normalizing is a great idea to maximize your performance at any altitude you choose to fly at.

Pressurizing and or clean sheet designs are nice when you are selling 100s of planes a year.  When you are barely selling any that is tough unless you have huge pockets back filling the bank account.

 

The problem is our planes and almost all GA planes are built so good they last for many decades.  This is not good for the factory who makes new ones.  The buy in costs for a new on is so high that the average GA owner will keep and maintain the older plane simply because he can't afford a new one.  I know I'm dreaming but if I could get a new M20 for $100 to $150k today I would consider it but not at 8 to 9 times that amount.  As an individual I can't justify it.   If I were independently employed and had my own business then I could possibly justify it.

[Danb]

My plane and myself loves flying in the teens, unfortunately I try to make flying as easy as possible on my wife, therefore I generally fly below 13,000 ft her pulse ox is 90 at that level, I generally start 02 at 8,000 feet. I think the teens are a very safe place to fly most traffic is below or above me. 
When alone I stay below 18,000 due to basic med requirements, otherwise my max would be about 22,000, my M performs great FL130 and FL 200

[McMooney]

27 minutes ago, Danb said:

My plane and myself loves flying in the teens, unfortunately I try to make flying as easy as possible on my wife, therefore I generally fly below 13,000 ft her pulse ox is 90 at that level, I generally start 02 at 8,000 feet. I think the teens are a very safe place to fly most traffic is below or above me. 
When alone I stay below 18,000 due to basic med requirements, otherwise my max would be about 22,000, my M performs great FL130 and FL 200

I'm with you, i love flying high, less traffic, better weather and the oxygen doesn't bother me.  maybe they could add a built in oxygen concentrator.

I love my E but if I ever upgrade, the next plane will be turbonormalized.

  honestly make it a turbodiesel and less expensive than a cirrus/diamond and you'd win.

 

 

[larryb]

+1 for flying high. I would only consider flying low to escape high headwinds, like 50 kt on the nose on the way home from Vegas a year ago. Otherwise, 16 - 17 thousand for any trip of any distance. There are many reasons: Better efficiency, improved terrain clearance, more airports in gliding range, smooth air above the turbulence, cool air in the summer, above mid-level clouds, etc. Generally the worst 20 minutes of the flight are dropping below 10,000 into the hot bumpy air in the summer for landing. The key is a good O2 setup that is comfortable, easy to use, and doesn't need to be filled often.

[cliffy]

Look to the experimentals and Light Sport to see what is really selling to the masses. (both in performance and cost)

One can't make it in the airplane business by selling only to the carriage trade with only one offering. 

How many Bonanzas go out the door every year and at what price? Not too many.