All mid body gross weight increase

[carusoam]

One thing that can annoy existing owners...

1) Sell them today’s product, at today’s price....

2) Don’t tell them a new version is in the wings for next year....

3) the disappointed consumer will remind you of that for the next decade while they still own the plane...

 

4) back in the day.... Mooney marketing was disconnected from the laws of physics...

5) More in tune... With an extravagant cover story...

6) Things were moving forwards at an incredible pace...

7) The documents, approvals, and engineering, and construction, all  had a lag to it...

8) Many things took a year to develop and another year to show up in the type written POH...

 

 

The one thing that will really benefit an owner when raising the MGTW...

9) A formal Transition Training program to go with that...

10) Full up with modern tools to support it...

11) a full understanding of DA, and its affect on T/O distance and climb performance will be more important than ever...

12) This point gets easily lost between aviation 101, and starting the T/O roll on a warm day... a year or two later...

13) Have the data, distribute the data, and the pilot being able to use the data... all need to occur...

14) It will be the most worthwhile training...

15) Use actual WAAS measuring tools to confirm the actual book numbers... (especially if you are a self study kind of person)

 

PP thoughts only, not a mechanic or CFI...

Best regards,

-a-

[hammdo]

I’d like to get a short body weight upgrade in order to get long range tanks ;o)

-Don

[Blue on Top]

41 minutes ago, PT20J said:

None of this really matters: The point is that there is no way to get gross weight increases without either complying with the type certificate or an existing STC. 

If someone thinks it’s a great business proposition to get a new STC to up gross older airframes then I’m all for it. Thus far, Mooney hasn’t wanted to bite that apple, but someone else might make a different ROI calculation. You probably could not get data from Mooney or Rocket — I’m pretty certain that is closely held as proprietary. @Blue on Top might have some idea as to the process and cost to get the data package for FAA approval.  -Skip

This is a fascinating thread!  Hearing the rumors and listening to what people think is simply way freakin' cool ... and sometimes scary.  As it turns out, I have done a few of these gross weight increases while working for an OEM, and I am in the process of doing another one right now for Blue on Top LLC.

As has been mentioned above by different posters, there are several areas that need to be addressed: structures (wing positive & negative bending, landing, etc.), performance (takeoff, landing, stall speeds, etc.) and others.  It might very well be "just paperwork"; it might not.  From a Flight Test standpoint, 10% is typically the maximum amount that is allowed without new test data being required.

As @PT20J mentioned, OEMs (Mooney in this case) and STC holders (Rocket Engineering) typically won't give out free data ... nor should they.  It would bring unnecessary liability to them.  Sometimes there are ways around this.  

[Shadrach]

18 hours ago, Ron McBride said:

As a former owner of an F, in my humble opinion with a useful load of over 1000#’s.  I did not need another 160# useful load.  
would the airplane handle it, yes.    Add density altitude to it, it would be just so so.  I rejected one takeoff and spent the night in Gallup NM.  I was well below gross weight, approx. 450#’s below gross.  The next morning, 15* cooler the plane wanted to fly and we went.  
Most of my flying was in the western half of the country.  Home base was at 2250’ with mountains around and summer density altitudes of 5000’. 
Just an old conservative pilots opinion. 
 

 

I currently have an F with a UL of 1058lbs. Taking it to 2900 would bring the UL to 1218lbs. As a mid-Atlantic flat lander, I’d be cautious loading that way in August but this time of year it would be fine. That’d be 208lbs per seat at full fuel. Would make a plane that is a good load hauler one of the best.

Edited December 28, 2020 by Shadrach

[M016576]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

I currently have an F with a UL of 1058lbs. Taking it to 2900 would bring the UL to 1218lbs. As a mad-Atlantic flat lander, I’d be cautious loading that way in August but this time of year it would be fine. That’d be 208lbs per seat at full fuel. Would make a plane that is a good load hauler one of the best.

And thus begins the eternal debate any time we all bring up the potential for a gross weight increase on the older J’s/F’s... should it be allowed based on subjective assessments of “is it safe/smart?”

some like the opportunity/flexibility that having the options- provided that the pilot knows the limits/performance... brings.

others say “I’ve flown a J/F and the extra 100-200 lbs would be way to dangerous in conditions X,Y,Z.”

my thoughts are this: to certify the aircraft to that max gross weight, it would have to comply with normal aircraft category standards.  A pilot must also take accountability for their actions/understanding of how to fly their airplane.  the newer J’s are certified up to 2900 lbs... if it’s proven that the older ones and possibly even F’s are rated up to that weight... I don’t see why anyone would feel any less comfortable flying up to those weights in the older models.  But the paperwork/research still needs to be completed to legally “get there.”

 

[ArtVandelay]

One option is to only certify it for 2900 lbs on takeoff and let the 2740 lbs landing limitation remain, like the Acclaim.

Then questions of strength of landing gear or steel frame are less important.

Isn’t this the thinking about approving ferry tanks and overloading the plane on ferry flights ...fuel burn will reduce weight before landing?

[Niko182]

12 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

One option is to only certify it for 2900 lbs on takeoff and let the 2740 lbs landing limitation remain, like the Acclaim.

Then questions of strength of landing gear or steel frame are less important.

Isn’t this the thinking about approving ferry tanks and overloading the plane on ferry flights ...fuel burn will reduce weight before landing?

That limitation only applies to the LB mooney due to the landing gear. Since all J models have the same landing gears, and it is proven that they could handle the weight, I think it would be a somewhat pointless limitation. 3050 seems like a good weight that the IO360 could definitely handle. 3200 is too high in my opinion for sure. Any J or pre J will struggle at that weight. Especially with high DA's.

[Shadrach]

10 hours ago, M016576 said:

And thus begins the eternal debate any time we all bring up the potential for a gross weight increase on the older J’s/F’s... should it be allowed based on subjective assessments of “is it safe/smart?”

some like the opportunity/flexibility that having the options- provided that the pilot knows the limits/performance... brings.

others say “I’ve flown a J/F and the extra 100-200 lbs would be way to dangerous in conditions X,Y,Z.”

my thoughts are this: to certify the aircraft to that max gross weight, it would have to comply with normal aircraft category standards.  A pilot must also take accountability for their actions/understanding of how to fly their airplane.  the newer J’s are certified up to 2900 lbs... if it’s proven that the older ones and possibly even F’s are rated up to that weight... I don’t see why anyone would feel any less comfortable flying up to those weights in the older models.  But the paperwork/research still needs to be completed to legally “get there.”

 

As we both know, legal does not equal safe and safe does not equal legal. Any pilot that’s not straddling the line that ensures both those requirements are met may come to grief (physically or legally). This is the case whether the airplane has a gross of 2740 or 2900. We all occasionally have to use ADM to get through the “yes this is legal but is it smart?” process. I agree that a max gross weight increase would require additional consideration by the pilot. However, we’re talking <6% increase and there are many factory versions of this airframe and power plant that have been flying for decades with the 2900lb limitation. Seems like it would be low hanging STC fruit compared to some of the other endeavors undertaken by STC applicants.  
 

I dislike scenarios that may encourage illegal behavior. This is just the type of scenario that some pilots might use as an excuse to load over gross.  If the difference is indeed only paper work, that can be used b a pilot to rationalize what they perceive to be “safe but not legal” behavior.

Edited December 28, 2020 by Shadrach

[ArtVandelay]

That limitation only applies to the LB mooney due to the landing gear. Since all J models have the same landing gears, and it is proven that they could handle the weight, I think it would be a somewhat pointless limitation. 3050 ...

I was thinking what would be the easiest/cheapest option.
If you go to 3050 that would result in the most testing, engineering work. Not a good option for a struggling company.
If you leave the 2740 landing restriction, then that eliminates the drop tests. So we only have the minimum climb testing, which they have already done and applies to all J and possibly the F models.
Less expensive to certify, larger market = more $.

[glbtrottr]

I remember having a few of these conversations at the factory over a decade ago with people far smarter. At the time, the focus was on selling ovations and bravos and getting the acclaim out the door to compete with Cirrus, not helping support an aging fleet.

At the time, the company had just come out of another financial ditch. Gretchen was CEO, Barry was still CFO, our friendly Mr Ellis and others were in hard working seats, Bull Grebe, Mike and out since departed friend were three test pilots, and the factory was slowly trying to him back to life.

Pre-J model tooling has been sold to Mexico for scrap. Tigger was collecting dust after the military said no before it made its trek out and back to now private hands, and the service center was trying to keep things afloat. One person pushing foe the service center to do these types of things no longer there tried to get some of these things done, but they were not as well regarded. He wanted upgrades from the 231 go 252 to be sold and done by the service center, and from the 252 to the encoré. Obviously there were serial number limitations, and the difference had to do with landing gear if I recall, and whether the drop testing data was available and components able to be sold. At the time, i believe Mr Bill Wheat was approached with the question but I don’t think the factory had interest.

I have a 231 converted to a 252 and while at the factory I took a huge GW loss; I’d certainly love to get some pounds back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shadrach]

24 minutes ago, glbtrottr said:

I have a 231 converted to a 252 and while at the factory I took a huge GW loss; I’d certainly love to get some pounds back.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can you go into more detail about this? Why so much weight gain for the conversion? I assume this is what prompted the encore to go 3130lb (which I assume was dropped tested).

[Shadrach]

55 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

I was thinking what would be the easiest/cheapest option.
If you go to 3050 that would result in the most testing, engineering work. Not a good option for a struggling company.
If you leave the 2740 landing restriction, then that eliminates the drop tests. So we only have the minimum climb testing, which they have already done and applies to all J and possibly the F models.
Less expensive to certify, larger market = more $.

The encore has a 3130lb max gross and is a mid body. I would assume that it was been dropped tested.

[ArtVandelay]

The encore has a 3130lb max gross and is a mid body. I would assume that it was been dropped tested.

From an AOPA article:

The increase in max gross weight required Mooney to run nearly a complete recertification program on the 252, according Thomas A. Bowen, Mooney's director of engineering. To handle the extra loads, the Encore uses the beefier landing gear found on the longer and heavier Ovation and Bravo. The 252 used the same landing gear as Mooney's other short-body product, the 200-hp MSE (soon to be renamed the Allegro)

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, ArtVandelay said:

From an AOPA article:

The increase in max gross weight required Mooney to run nearly a complete recertification program on the 252, according Thomas A. Bowen, Mooney's director of engineering. To handle the extra loads, the Encore uses the beefier landing gear found on the longer and heavier Ovation and Bravo. The 252 used the same landing gear as Mooney's other short-body product, the 200-hp MSE (soon to be renamed the Allegro)

That should make the upgrade process to 3130 even easier. Those parts are all still in production or readily available from dismantlers.

Edited December 28, 2020 by Shadrach

[glbtrottr]

34 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

That should make the upgrade process to 3130 even easier. Those parts are all still in production or readily available from dismantlers.

That’s the point. 
 

my airplane was converted by mod works - I was told it was the original demonstrator.  That’s not where the weight increased that much. 
 

Mkne went ti the factory and came out with new upholstery, avionics and paint.  

[Igor_U]

10 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

----- To handle the extra loads, the Encore uses the beefier landing gear found on the longer and heavier Ovation and Bravo. The 252 used the same landing gear as Mooney's other short-body product, the 200-hp MSE (soon to be renamed the Allegro)

Is this true?

To my understanding, 252 to Encore conversion is all about SB engine, landing gear doors and dual puck brake upgrade.

I'm sure few MS members that converted their 252 would know the detail$...

[kortopates]

52 minutes ago, Igor_U said:

Is this true?

To my understanding, 252 to Encore conversion is all about SB engine, landing gear doors and dual puck brake upgrade.

I'm sure few MS members that converted their 252 would know the detail$...

No, not really, just marketing non-sense. But I am not going to call Tom Bowen a liar either, but I believe the writer misquoted him. The gear isn't actually beefier at all, but the torque plate mounting bracket on the spindle is beefier to merely allow bolting on the larger torque plate with more bolt holes. It's not even enough to affect the weight of the spindles! And it surely has nothing to do with the weight it can support, merely the braking torque. That's the only difference in the spindles.

But perhaps more importantly, the Encore got fresh more modern flutter analysis resulting in almost twice as much balance weights in all the control surfaces. So I do think Mooney did a lot of engineering work to bless the increase and much more so than a popular STC holder did for their similar increase. 

Edited December 29, 2020 by kortopates

[PT20J]

Perhaps @Blue on Top can weigh in but I always had the impression that the TC holder had to do a lot more with the FAA than may be required for an STC. At a homecoming factory tour years ago I asked someone why the factory installed speed brakes using the STC instead of just adding them to the TC and was told that the cost that an airframe manufacturer has to go through to get a design change accepted was prohibitive.

Back in the day, Mooney always did good engineering and was very conservative. I'm sure that if engineering increased a tube size they thought it necessary to maintain a desired factor of safety. A manufacturer has a lot more on the line than an STC holder, and a lot of STC holders are defunct. 

Skip

[Blue on Top]

2 hours ago, PT20J said:

Perhaps @Blue on Top can weigh in but I always had the impression that the TC holder had to do a lot more with the FAA than may be required for an STC. At a homecoming factory tour years ago I asked someone why the factory installed speed brakes using the STC instead of just adding them to the TC and was told that the cost that an airframe manufacturer has to go through to get a design change accepted was prohibitive.

Back in the day, Mooney always did good engineering and was very conservative. I'm sure that if engineering increased a tube size they thought it necessary to maintain a desired factor of safety. A manufacturer has a lot more on the line than an STC holder, and a lot of STC holders are defunct. 

Skip

Thanks, @PT20J, Skip, this is a snake pit  but I will always be open and honest with everyone.

The regulations for STCs and ATCs (Supplemental and Amended Type Certificates) are identical for both the follow-on applicant and the OEM, respectively.  Similarly, there are no differences in the regulations for primary and secondary composite structures.  With that said, though, OEMs know more about their airplanes, have analysis models and know which parts are more critically loaded than others.  The roll cage tube change was implemented for solid reasons.

Similarly (and we are fighting this in ASTM right now), currently the FAA has no control over which STCs can or cannot go on the same airplane.  Here's a good non-Mooney (Cessna) example.  On the C185 there is a wing tip extension STC (4', I believe).  There is also a substantial gross weight increase STC.  Both are approved STCs.  No one has looked at combining the gross weight increase STC with the wing tip extension STC.  The wing tip STC probably proved that the wing would not fold at the strut.  The gross weight increase probably proved that the wing, strut and fuselage bulkhead could take the load, BUT no one has looked at both at the same time.

A good OEM will step up to the new regulations for every modification that they certify.  By regulation, they have to; it's called the changed product rule.

At one time there was talk that every modification (STC) would have to go through the OEM.  Obviously STCers didn't like that idea.  It was then changed to it had to go through the same ACO (Aircraft Certification Office).  This would alert the OEM (and they could point out potential issues), and one ACO would know all the modifications (and potential conflicts).  This died, too, for the same reasons.  Sadly, it is a grey area in a black and white world ... engineering.  

Bottom line:  Yes.  STCers have an easier job certifying changes because they don't have the resources to look at everything.  And OEMs should not be forced to give out their data and analysis tools.

[Seth]

On 12/26/2020 at 11:21 PM, carusoam said:

Oooop! May have had a slip up....

I was thinking about starting a new company... called Missile Engineering.... 

We could increase the MGTW of all Mooneys... one at a time...

May need an engineer, an STC writer, Chief pilot, and a sales guy....   

PP dreaming out loud, not actually starting a company...

Best regards,

-a-

I'll be your pilot.

-Seth

[AerostarDriver]

On 12/27/2020 at 9:34 PM, hammdo said:

I’d like to get a short body weight upgrade in order to get long range tanks ;o)

-Don

I also would be down for a Short body E weight increase, BUT I believe the reason we will never see this has to do with rotational momentum in the lateral and vertical axis in regards to pitch and yaw stability/effectiveness. If you where able to get something approved I suspect the range would be rather narrow and located around keeping the the ideal moment arm for the tail.

Edited December 29, 2020 by AerostarDriver

[Seth]

17 hours ago, PT20J said:

Perhaps @Blue on Top can weigh in but I always had the impression that the TC holder had to do a lot more with the FAA than may be required for an STC. At a homecoming factory tour years ago I asked someone why the factory installed speed brakes using the STC instead of just adding them to the TC and was told that the cost that an airframe manufacturer has to go through to get a design change accepted was prohibitive.

Back in the day, Mooney always did good engineering and was very conservative. I'm sure that if engineering increased a tube size they thought it necessary to maintain a desired factor of safety. A manufacturer has a lot more on the line than an STC holder, and a lot of STC holders are defunct. 

Skip

Rocket is alive and well. They converted the M20J and M20K into the Missile and Rocket. They still hold the STC for both and still support both. And Rocket gave the largest gross weight increase in the Missile and Rocket than any other STC.

You are correct that many of the STC holders are defunct.

-Seth

Edited December 29, 2020 by Seth

[M016576]

On 12/28/2020 at 8:43 AM, Shadrach said:

That should make the upgrade process to 3130 even easier. Those parts are all still in production or readily available from dismantlers.

I’m fairly certain those are the same landing gear components that take the missile up to 3200lbs.

[M016576]

22 hours ago, kortopates said:

So I do think Mooney did a lot of engineering work to bless the increase and much more so than a popular STC holder did for their similar increase. 

That’s not necessarily fair and is also speculation on your part; to imply that Rocket’s STCs are not sound or well engineered (because they certainly are).  The missile and rocket mods have been flying for 35+ years and tens of thousands of hours without mechanical issue, and passed all FAA requirements to be certified.

I do admit that I’m biased... but your implication is unfounded.

[M016576]

On 12/28/2020 at 5:12 AM, Shadrach said:

I dislike scenarios that may encourage illegal behavior. This is just the type of scenario that some pilots might use as an excuse to load over gross.  If the difference is indeed only paper work, that can be used b a pilot to rationalize what they perceive to be “safe but not legal” behavior.

I too dislike scenarios that encourage illegal and unsafe behavior... and whether I like it or not- a very real one exists, which we’re all debating on this board: what was actually done to raise the gross weight on the J models, and could an STC be made to do that very thing.

Let me be very clear on this point, however- At no point, and in no way, have I, or anyone else in this thread ever recommended flying outside the legal published limits of ones airframe.  Like you mention above- operating outside of the published limits is illegal and asking for trouble on multiple levels.  It’s reckless behavior and contradictory to legal and safe piloting.

what we are debating is whether or not an STC should/could be entertained, engineered and approved.  

some have stated that they feel that the J/F would be unsafe at a higher gross weight than what they are originally certified for... my point is, that with a proper, legal STC, I don’t see why any pilot would feel that it would be unsafe to fly up to their legal, STC certified Max gross weight, so long as they take into account their operating environment... just like one currently has to do in every other aircraft they fly.

To make my statement in the form of an example:  is it smart(legal?) to launch a c150 at max gross from Leadville on a high density altitude day?  Absolutely not.  Does that mean that C150’s need a lower certified Max gross weight? No.