Technology Today vs the 1960 Mooney Design

[EricJ]

55 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

Electric, likely. Hybrid, doubtful. Hybrid is a heavy temporary patch to make up for the limitations of electric motors. I don't see electric motors being practical until those limitations are addressed without heavy, bolt on, work arounds.

 

-Robert

Actually, hybrid technology doesn't so much solve an engine problem as an energy storage problem.   Electric motors are already quite good, but batteries kinda suck compared to gasoline for energy storage.   So having a heat engine that can draw from the easily-replenished gasoline when the batt isn't quite full opens up a lot of operating envelope space.

My car is a hybrid (Ford Fusion).   I bought it just to commute to school and back for a couple years because my CTS-V was 13 years old and wasn't the best tool for the job.  Now that school is done and I don't really need it, I think I like it enough to keep it until something stellar comes along that I like better.   When you get used to the energy efficiency it really changes your perspective on evaluating the tradeoffs.  It's not underpowered, either, I've been impressed.   I wouldn't want an all-electric vehicle until the range/recharge issues get a lot better.

 

 

[EricJ]

Just now, carusoam said:

Two seat tandem...

https://blackshapeaircraft.com/en/gabriel/

Not very helpful for my four seat requirement...

-a-

Buy two! 

[RobertGary1]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

Actually, hybrid technology doesn't so much solve an engine problem as an energy storage problem.   Electric motors are already quite good, but batteries kinda suck compared to gasoline for energy storage.   So having a heat engine that can draw from the easily-replenished gasoline when the batt isn't quite full opens up a lot of operating envelope space.

My car is a hybrid (Ford Fusion).   I bought it just to commute to school and back for a couple years because my CTS-V was 13 years old and wasn't the best tool for the job.  Now that school is done and I don't really need it, I think I like it enough to keep it until something stellar comes along that I like better.   When you get used to the energy efficiency it really changes your perspective on evaluating the tradeoffs.  It's not underpowered, either, I've been impressed.   I wouldn't want an all-electric vehicle until the range/recharge issues get a lot better.

 

 

I think we’re saying the same thing. Hybrid is a bolt on work around for limitations in electric power plant limitations 

[V1VRV2]

1 hour ago, carusoam said:

Two seat tandem...

https://blackshapeaircraft.com/en/gabriel/

Not very helpful for my four seat requirement...

-a-

Just saying.... someone could build something with 2 more seats. Crazy speed, low fuel burn, carbon fiber and two more seats for you! 

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, V1VRV2 said:

When you do away with FAA regs you get planes that look like this. Blackshape Gabriel. 164 kts with a 160hp IO320. $280K base price.

 

 

Its a beauty.

[carusoam]

1 hour ago, V1VRV2 said:

Just saying.... someone could build something with 2 more seats. Crazy speed, low fuel burn, carbon fiber and two more seats for you! 

I’ve seen it... his name is Tom... the machine is called a Lancair IVPT...

The things I like most about it... very well defined Airframe, turbine powered...

I like the turbine for the low failure rates... + speed, then pressurization...

But other than that... My O fits me just fine...

 

Pressurized, turbine, Mooney.... flown for 15years, then sold to me...   I can wait...   

 

Best regards,

-a-

[N201MKTurbo]

3 hours ago, V1VRV2 said:

Do away with FAA Part 23 certification and you get planes that look like this. Blackshape Gabriel. 164 kts with a 160hp IO320. $280K base price.

 

 

Let’s see, make a 4 seat version. Put an IO-360 in it, it will probably do about 160 KTS on 10 GPH!

Oh, wait, I have one of those!

[Blue on Top]

Cooling and fuselage drag can be reduced on all M20s.  We all play by the same aerodynamic laws.

As for electric airplanes, they require the same power as their ICE counterparts.  Power required is power required; electric or not.  Propeller noise is propeller noise; electric or not.  Hybrid is the TEMPORARY solution to lack of electron storage.  Electric motors (if cooled properly) are good enough in their current state.

Why do I always have to open my BIG mouth?  -Ron

[carusoam]

Let’s not go overboard...

plastics are in... the  plastics are out...

Save the trees today... complain the tree farms are doing something bad...

Lycoming is bad one day because their cams go away... today Lycoming is good because they can be dialed back to use mogas...

Mogas is good until you try to find some...

Lycoming would be good if they handed out free cams... Lycoming would be bad because a free cam costs about 10amu to get installed...

I have heard of somebody swapping out their Continental cam... it took a few hours of labor...  sure, Continental is evil because  there was something wrong with the cam gear that needed to be swapped...

 

Have no fear... Long body Mooney owners will not be screwed... any more than any other airplane owner...

As you get older... you get used to crisis of the day...

And how much reading is required to debunk most things... and get to a usable solution...

 

My continental IO550 doesn’t need LL... that work has already been done prior to 1994... says so right in the POH...

 

Shopping bag crisis... depending on the day... 

• Paper bags stink, they get damp and fall apart...
• plastic bags work really well...
• plastic bags don’t hold their shape...
• paper bags don’t have strong handles...
• a paper bag, put in a plastic bag solves most of the problems...
• plastic bags aren’t biodegradable...
• paper bags take a lifetime to degrade, since they all get tossed in the same landfill...
• what about reusable fabric totes...
• what about tree friendly paper bags with integral handles...

Pick a project and work on it...

Find somebody working on a project, and support it... it may have a higher cost until the quantities increase...

For lead free fuels... these guys want your business...

but, you probably didn’t support their efforts...

There are threads about this topic that are years old...   

what are your thoughts on how to make this work..?

https://www.swiftfuelsavgas.com

Best regards,

-a-

[MikeOH]

When batteries are developed that have anywhere near the energy density of gasoline give me a call...meanwhile all electric aircraft will elicit a yawn.

[Blue on Top]

When I first really got on MooneySpace, I asked a question about certifying the LS3 engine.  That is still the shortest path to a long-term solution.  Yes, especially for the long bodies ... and every other airplane produced today.  The only new engine that Continental makes is the IO-550.  As mentioned above, diesels are heavy and lower on power ... and I'll add to that VERY heavy, need to be turbocharged (and failures of the turbo are significant), expensive and hard to cool (and water radiators add a LOT of drag).

[Hank]

7 hours ago, MikeOH said:

When batteries are developed that have anywhere near the energy density of gasoline give me a call...meanwhile all electric aircraft will elicit a yawn.

Thanks, but I'll wait on a way to recharge that super new battery in ten minutes or less.

I just can't get excited about an electric car with "400 mile range" that will recharge to 80% in only 45 minutes. That 80% charge won't reach from my home to my elderly mother's, and 45 minutes for 3/4 capacity does nit compare well to the 100% fill in 5-6 minutes at the gas pump, especially when those 16 gallons that I buy will take me 600 miles or more before requiring another 5-minute fillup. 

An electric airplane with this handicap is even less interesting . . . . .

[Boilermonkey]

There is no "economic incentive" to change anything right now.  Not even a mid-term incentive.  If the users or regulators said that 100LL was going to be phased out because no one would buy it or it would not be legal to sell...well then there would be an incentive to find an alternative. 

What's we've seen so far is "research."  Sure Swift has found a decent solution, don't know much about it, but without an incentive it is not going to go from research/niche to commodity.  Whereas if there was an incentive then all the major 100LL providers would license the technology and we'd have it everywhere.   As long as we continue to buy 100LL, what incentive do the existing suppliers have to license something from Swift versus buying from the one remaining TEL supplier?

Now let's get serious...why can the entire GA fleet move to turbines?  Simpler, better fuel, etc.   Are the existing business models the hurdle?

[N201MKTurbo]

I don't think making any of our engines run on UL94 would be a big challenge. The challenge would be recertifying all the planes for lower takeoff power. 

[steingar]

On 2/1/2021 at 6:28 PM, V1VRV2 said:

Do away with FAA Part 23 certification and you get planes that look like this. Blackshape Gabriel. 164 kts with a 160hp IO320. $280K base price.

 

 

I bet if you made a tandem seating Mooney with the consequently reduced frontal area it would go faster than that.

[Greg Ellis]

Back in 2017, GAMI was working on their G100UL fuel as a replacement for 100LL.  I wonder what ever happened to that.  I checked their website and the last posting about it was in 2017.  Just sort of faded away.

[Hank]

4 hours ago, Boilermonkey said:

Now let's get serious...why can the entire GA fleet move to turbines?  Simpler, better fuel, etc.   Are the existing business models the hurdle?

Better economy up high, horrible fuel burn down where most of GA flies.

Is there such a thing as a 200-hp (or less) turbine? Or can one be developed that is comparably priced to a Lycoming O- or IO-360? How about the smaller, lower powered GA training fleet?

[201Mooniac]

21 minutes ago, Hank said:

Is there such a thing as a 200-hp (or less) turbine? Or can one be developed that is comparably priced to a Lycoming O- or IO-360? How about the smaller, lower powered GA training fleet?

I don't know about pricing but here is at least one in the works:

https://turb.aero/product/ta200tp-turboprop-engine

[cliffy]

22 hours ago, Blue on Top said:

When I first really got on MooneySpace, I asked a question about certifying the LS3 engine.  That is still the shortest path to a long-term solution.  Yes, especially for the long bodies ... and every other airplane produced today.  The only new engine that Continental makes is the IO-550.  As mentioned above, diesels are heavy and lower on power ... and I'll add to that VERY heavy, need to be turbocharged (and failures of the turbo are significant), expensive and hard to cool (and water radiators add a LOT of drag).

The LS3 looks to be a great idea who's time has come. My original thought was why couldn't  a mount be designed to accept the engine as a plug & play with the reduction drive contained in the mount system and the engine just bolts on  ?  That way the mount takes all the prop torque (and gyroscopic torque) directly to the engine mount and on to the airframe without the engine having to be stressed that way.  Weight might keep this engine out of smaller lower power airframes. But there might be other good candidates for smaller engines. Heat rejection might be the biggest issue faced when pulling higher powers.   Again, radiator drag is heavy but the P-51 found a way to solve it with thrust instead of drag.  GM would still have to sign off on its products being used in an airplane. 

Edited February 4, 2021 by cliffy
added bold item

[Blue on Top]

1 hour ago, cliffy said:

The LS3 looks to be a great idea who's time has come. My original thought was why couldn't  a mount be designed to accept the engine as a plug & play with the reduction drive contained in the mount system and the engine just bolts on  ?   Weight might keep this engine out of smaller lower power airframes. Het rejection might be the biggest issue faced when pulling higher powers.   Again, radiator drag is heavy but the P-51 found a way to solve it with thrust instead of drag.  GM would still have to sign off on its products being used in an airplane. 

The LS3 all up with gearbox (and radiator I believe) is slightly under the weight of an all up IO-500.

On the GM would still have to sign off part ... well ... that's really not true.  GM would have to sign off IF the engine were spec'd from an OEM.  This is one BIG reason why airplanes are so expensive today.  If OEMs would do a little work and certificate there own designs (or others), airplanes could be affordable again.  Generators/Alternators are a great example.  Most earlier airplanes used automotive generators.  (I'm trying to be PC here).  Some companies would buy off the shelf units, test them as required (minimal), put their label on them and sell them at a reasonable cost to the operator.  Others, on the other hand, said let's make a spec, give it to a manufacturer, legally bind them to an agreement and a process that if they change their design (which sells millions of units) they have to tell us.  And they need to fix their problems ... because we ordered 100 of them! LOL.  And people wonder why that $200 automotive generator now costs $3,000?

[EricJ]

6 hours ago, Hank said:

Better economy up high, horrible fuel burn down where most of GA flies.

Is there such a thing as a 200-hp (or less) turbine? Or can one be developed that is comparably priced to a Lycoming O- or IO-360? How about the smaller, lower powered GA training fleet?

The early Allison 250 engines were only 250 hp and weighed around 120 lbs.   Now they're around 600 hp but still less than 200 lbs.   They're really simple engines and very small, relatively speaking.

They still need lots of fuel, though, especially at low altitudes.   That's  a problem that is just kind of inherent in turbines.

[FlyingDude]

On 2/1/2021 at 5:16 PM, 1980Mooney said:

No doubt plasma tv was superior in its time but you may not be up to date on the inevitable and natural progression of improvement.  Attached is an excellent in-depth and up to date side by side technical comparison of plasma vs OLED.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLdkiyYeod8  The summary at the end is compellingly clear - "it is time to move on"

And so it is in aviation.  Yes the Pipistrel Panthera is the the modern Ovation.  

Three doors vs one historically for the Mooney fleet (2 if Ultra was in production). 10 inches more cabin width up front.  Equal or better cruise.  25 kt higher VNE. 4 kt better VS0.  16 better kt maneuvering VA.  Climbs at same rate to FL250 vs FL200 for Mooney. Has a chute standard. 120 lbs. more useful load vs M20R (getting approval for another 100 so it will be equal to Cirrus or 220 lbs more).  And it does this all on a Lycoming rated for Mogas.  Rumor is that it will base priced chute included, IFR certified at $600,000 - $700,000 and you have to assume that Pipistrel is pricing it to make sustainable profit.  Mooney, by all indications, was losing money on every Ovation at $700,000 base.

Don't get me wrong - I like my Mooney Missile.  This will be my last plane.  I would not pay $700,000 for a new Panthera or Ovation.  New pilots will have to chose.  And just like with new TV's, they will likely conclude it is time to move on.

I disagree with the "natural improvement" remark regarding plasma vs OLED. Yes, any LED technology is cheaper to build and costumes less power, and in a world where hotels no longer offer single-use shampoo bottles but provide big home-style economy-size bottles, all in the name of preserving the planet, which however leaves you to wonder how long before I'll wash my hair with some prankster's children, yeah, the ecological OLEDs can be touted as the latest and greatest, but as far picture quality, I trust my eyes more than a YouTube synopsis...

As for planes, you made interesting points...

[MikeOH]

9 hours ago, cliffy said:

The LS3 looks to be a great idea who's time has come. My original thought was why couldn't  a mount be designed to accept the engine as a plug & play with the reduction drive contained in the mount system and the engine just bolts on  ?   Weight might keep this engine out of smaller lower power airframes. Heat rejection might be the biggest issue faced when pulling higher powers.   Again, radiator drag is heavy but the P-51 found a way to solve it with thrust instead of drag.  GM would still have to sign off on its products being used in an airplane. 

And, for the wet-rag point-of-view, here I am!

Automobile engines are engineered for use in, wait for it (credit to Dave Barry), automobiles, NOT aircraft.  As such, they are NOT designed to operate at even mid (50%) power levels for very long before overheating problems occur, not to mention compromised longevity.  They are water cooled with all those attendant 'advantages'  Their rpm vs torque and power curves are way off from what is optimal for propeller driven aircraft; hence the need for an expensive reduction gearbox which just adds another expensive point of failure.  Then you need to gen up a way to drive the prop governor.  Are you ok with a single plugs/ignition per cylinder?  What are GM's altitude specifications? What happens above, say, 15K feet?

Thanks, but I'll stick with powerplants designed and built for aircraft.

[cliffy]

I wonder what the MTBF is between an LS3 engine and an IO550 engine?

Giving that an LS3 can sustain an equal HP output constantly-

IF all the Fed regulations are for SAFETY and IF the LS3 is anywhere near the same MTBF it might show just how kittle more SAFETY we get by using antiquated systems in the name of certification. 

[MikeOH]

I'd be VERY interested to see MTBF data for an LS3 at, say, 200 HP continuous (around 50%) at 10,000 DA....my gut says it won't make 2000 hours.