Technology Today vs the 1960 Mooney Design

[cliffy]

As I was watching this video I was struck by the fact that we are hanging onto technology that is more than 60 years old and feeling that it is the cat's meow today but lets look back.

What if we were hanging onto technology 60 years before Mooney in 1960? We wouldn't even have anything to compare to. Let's say 55 years before Mooney we'd have the Wright Flyer we were trying to keep in the air in 1960. No different than trying to produce a 1960 Chevy Corvair and sell it in today's world

And today we have the technology in the video and we wonder why no one can make a go of Mooney (with 60 year old technology)? 

I like my Mooney but?

The world moves forward and waits for no one!

 

 

[59Moonster]

However the FAA is as slow as cold tar yet we all have to wait for them. 

Really disappointing but you already know that!

[GeeBee]

I was just reading about the Panthera in Flying magazine. Other than 3 doors and a chute, what capability does it deliver over an Ovation? Not much. All this points to the fact, the new airplanes do not represent any quantum leap above where we are now. Certainly no enough to justify 500 more AMU's above where I am at right now. In fact, looking at the Panthera and it's 11 gear doors, I'm guessing annuals get could pricey.

Now looking at the pictures, sure it looks like its going a million miles per hour, but the stats say its the same performance as a Mooney long body and maybe a little shorter on range. So this is the latest and greatest?

 

[cliffy]

Speed always has its limitations. Use the same powerplant and the same weight and you have essentially the same performance BUT younger people do look at the technology of the build. We can build tube and fabric airplanes that travel fast Why don't we anymore?  Because aluminum construction came along. You couldn't sell a fast tube and fabric today (Maule excepted to a small audience). 

New pilots (and their wives) are attracted to the sleek and slippery designs More akin to what they see in their cars today. 

The Pamthera does have a chute which does sell and another big item not yet out too much in public- it will recover from a 10 turn spin with 4 on board in about half a turn. 

[larryb]

For us all the innovation is in the electronics. And that’s a pretty big improvement since the 60’s in my book.

[carusoam]

Al Mooney was incredibly forward thinking...

His last design... was a carbon fiber, twin, pressurized, canard...

A little bigger than a four seat GA plane...

 

One thing I have noticed... When it comes to carbon fiber aircraft designs...  the first design, the alpha model, comes out way too heavy...

Beach Starship, Original Cirrus, and our favorite Mooney M10... for fun include the Raptor...

With all the CAD that is available... how does this first version always come out so portly..?

 

It is interesting that the Boom plane is testing using a 1/3 scale plane...

See if Ron is visiting this thread...   @Blue on Top

Best regards,

-a-

[RobertGary1]

Not following. Most of us have updated our Mooneys. We’re not flying across the country using adf’s. I have voice terrain and traffic alerts. I can shoot an approach to 200 feet with no ground equipment. I have a computer that monitors more than a dozen engine parameters vs the couple in the 70’s. I don’t need a sliderule to know my ground speed. I’m not seeing the same technology argument. 

[geoffb]

Most, if not all the research into the aerodynamics and construction were done long before 1960.  None of this is new.  Now, the ability to build something that can get certified and built at extremely low volumes for less than $1M a pop and have a chance of any ROI?  The market is really small.

not a question of the “technology”

hate that word

[N201MKTurbo]

The airframe is just a container for the avionics....

[Blue on Top]

3 hours ago, carusoam said:

1) Al Mooney was incredibly forward thinking...

2) One thing I have noticed... When it comes to carbon fiber aircraft designs...  the first design, the alpha model, comes out way too heavy...

3) Beach Starship, Original Cirrus, and our favorite Mooney M10... for fun include the Raptor...

4) With all the CAD that is available... how does this first version always come out so portly..?

5) It is interesting that the Boom plane is testing using a 1/3 scale plane...

See if Ron is visiting this thread...     Best regards,  -a-

Thanks for the add @carusoam

1) Al Mooney AND HIS BROTHER ART were great designers and producers.  The original M20 would have been as fast as an M20E, but Al was forced into a different engine that had much higher cooling drag.  The wood wing is faster, too.  But that's a different topic  

2) Carbon fiber is heavier than aluminum because the main failure mode of most airplane structural parts is compression or buckling, where composites are poor.  Where buckling/pillowing of aluminum is allowed, it is frowned upon in composites (and very difficult to certificate).  The SR airplanes are relatively very heavy compared to a comparable aluminum airplane.  In addition, where minimum thickness is all that is required (flight controls, flaps, empennage, outboard wing skins, etc.) 0.020 aluminum (or thinner) is MUCH lighter than 2-core-2 carbon.  Oh, and add a copper mech (heavy) or aluminum mesh with a fiberglass layer for corrosion protection for all outside surfaces for lightning protection and dissipation if it is carbon fiber.

3) The Starship has a lot of aerodynamic problems (in addition to weight) starting with a canard design that by definition is very draggy.  There is over 1,00o lbs. of down force on the inboard main wing due to the canard.  Propellers are in the worst place possible, etc.  Original Cirrus (and the current ones, too) are fiberglass, which is very heavy.  The only carbon in a Cirrus is the spar ... and the name of the paint scheme.  A metallic M10 would be a great airplane ... same shape with a better wing ... and MUCH lighter.  Mooney can make ANYTHING in aluminum!  The raptor ... well it's for a different reason.  The B787 is composite solely because composites don't corrode (if designed properly with proper hardware.  An aluminum 787 would be lighter ... but might corrode.

4) Because composites are heavier.

5) I won't comment on Boom.  I know many very good people that have come and gone from there (almost me, too).  Their video is good, though.

Why no change?  Mooney could advance state of the art, but they are unwilling/unable to do so.  There are many, many items in both design and manufacturing that they could improve upon, but ...   This is where getting older and hopefully wiser tells me I should stop.   

[Blue on Top]

PS. Everyone wants a "J", but that production ended 35 years ago.  Account for inflation, labor costs, engine costs and btw, throw out integrated glass, leather interior, engine monitoring, ADS-B, GPS, TCAS, etc.  I do think that this is the way to go ... especially now that Garmin (although good) isn't the only player in the game.  

My lot more than 2 cents  

[Boilermonkey]

It may be 15-20 years from now for it to scale, but the powerplant is the next big evolution for GA.  Lightweight and efficient eclectic/hybrid propulsion will eventually materialize driven by other industries: automotive, consumer electronics, and urban air mobility.   Unfortunately I don't think it will be available as an STC.

[RJBrown]

The biggest blockade to modern technology of any kind are the FAA certification rules.

‘the way the FAA operates guarantees that we have dated technology in our planes.

 

[Hank]

1 hour ago, RJBrown said:

The biggest blockade to modern technology of any kind are the FAA certification rules.

‘the way the FAA operates guarantees that we have dated technology in our planes.

 

Yep. They spend more time certifying the manufacturing process than they do the final product. You want to change the process? Get it re-approved . . . .

[steingar]

Boom is vaporware.  They haven't even got a prototype, scale or not.  There's nothing there, at least not yet.  As far as my Mooney, I can get better mileage out of a machine designed in the 50's and built in 1962 than a lot of modern cars.  Al Mooney was a genius.  Maybe these Boom guys are too, but I've seen guys like that come and go.  

[Blue on Top]

6 hours ago, Boilermonkey said:

 Unfortunately I don't think it will be available as an STC.

The STC route is the way to go!  We're definitely not ready yet, as we are waiting on energy density of something to be as good (and as cheap) as 100LL.  In the meantime, we should be doing designing and testing on distribution systems (and their failure modes) to be ready when the massive flow of electrons come! 

[Hank]

29 minutes ago, Blue on Top said:

The STC route is the way to go!  We're definitely not ready yet, as we are waiting on energy density of something to be as good (and as cheap) as 100LL.  In the meantime, we should be doing designing and testing on distribution systems (and their failure modes) to be ready when the massive flow of electrons come! 

Boy, you want to talk carbon footprint and nasty, evil residue, look at high capacity [electric vehicle] battery manufacturing!! It makes oil look clean . . . . .

[FlyingDude]

"new" is not always "better". Plasma TV's are far better than today's Qled or Oled technology. They were more expensive to build and burn 4x electricity, but offer far better picture (as in dynamic range and contrast). I can hook you up with my BMW freak buddies who can lecture about how the excessive use of electronics ruined drivability after early 2000s. 

I think wing and aerodynamic studies peaked in the 60s-70s. Al Mooney hit the nail on the head. As for engines, they can be made more efficient (lower consumption, emissions, unleaded fuel, no oil leaks) but the more stuff you add, the more the probability something might fail. Well Rotax is a good name in that field. Today's technology leads in composite structures and electronics. Other stuff plateaued after our planes were built, so not that we missed out a lot.

[RobertGary1]

On 1/28/2021 at 2:30 AM, Boilermonkey said:

It may be 15-20 years from now for it to scale, but the powerplant is the next big evolution for GA.  Lightweight and efficient eclectic/hybrid propulsion will eventually materialize driven by other industries: automotive, consumer electronics, and urban air mobility.   Unfortunately I don't think it will be available as an STC.

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

[carusoam]

46 minutes ago, 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’m looking forward to their Bravo model...   

Remind me when that one is available...

Best regards,

-a-

[N201MKTurbo]

You can expect electric airplanes to utilize and benefit from the advances in electric car technology. I would expect the range numbers to be in line with the difference we currently see. My super efficient Mooney can get 20 MPG if I go high and LOP.  About the same as my pickup. That being said, there are no electric pickups on the market yet, although there is a lot of vaporware out there claiming 500 mile range. we will see. That's about 3 hours in the Mooney. An electric plane that will do 3 hours at 150 KTS would be usable, if you could recharge it in a reasonable time. The current Tesla's will do about 300 miles on a charge, so a 500 mile pickup is wishful thinking.

[N201MKTurbo]

Just wait until you have to replace your FAA-PMA battery pack. I bet it will make an engine overhaul look cheap!

[V1VRV2]

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.

 

 

[GeeBee]

Are you doing away with the regulations....or the certification? Two different things

 

 

[carusoam]

Two seat tandem...

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

Not very helpful for my four seat requirement...

-a-