Money=useful load increase

[keithmiller]

I heard thru a Mooney service center a couple of weeks ago that Mooney has started the weight increase discussion . Apparently the talk is a small shock replacement for the current system . Has anyone else heard this being discussed? 

Edited March 24, 2021 by keithmiller

[GeeBee]

Jonny has discussed it here although not in detail. One thing is for certain, if it comes to fruition you will have to buy it to protect the future value of your airplane which makes the product a winner for "new Mooney".

 

[MIm20c]

Sure would be nice to have Mooney take over the LR tanks stc as well...would be nice to have both IMO. 

[GeeBee]

6 minutes ago, MIm20c said:

Sure would be nice to have Mooney take over the LR tanks stc as well...would be nice to have both IMO. 

Good idea. It would seem to be complimentary products would it not?

 

[MIm20c]

6 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Good idea. It would seem to be complimentary products would it not?

 

Sure would be nice to fly direct to the lower 48 out of Homer or Cordova with a few hundred lbs of Halibut or Salmon... 

[keithmiller]

3 hours ago, keithmiller said:

I heard thru a Mooney service center a couple of weeks ago that Mooney has started the weight increase discussion . Apparently the talk is a small shock replacement for the current system . Has anyone else heard this being discussed? 

Do you think there’s some possibility? 

[Mcstealth]

3 hours ago, keithmiller said:

Do you think there’s some possibility? 

The factory is certainly working on "something"

We hope what "it" is makes Mooney more competitive against the competition, and attractive to current owners and new buyers alike. 

Fingers crossed. 

[ArtVandelay]

The factory is certainly working on "something"
We hope what "it" is makes Mooney more competitive against the competition, and attractive to current owners and new buyers alike. 
Fingers crossed. 

What’s the UL of the latest models these days?

As I recall, there is 2 tests you have to pass; drop test and climb test.

New gear would help the drop test and if weight reduced either by design or change to titanium could help the climb. I wonder how much the landing gear weighs?

[Mooney in Oz]

13 hours ago, keithmiller said:

Apparently the talk is a small shock replacement for the current system

Anyone hazard a guess what a 'small shock replacement' could be? 

It's just that I've never thought the rubber donuts were really shock absorbers.

 

[RJBrown]

The landing gear issues are what keep the Rocket gross weight (3200)and landing weight (3050)so low. They pass the climb tests at 3600#.

Later gear changes allowed the TLS gross of 3368. That number seemed real specific as if multiple tests were run and 3368 passed but 3369 failed. I always thought that number odd.

Is this weight increase for new aircraft only? Long bodies only?

[aviatoreb]

4 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

What’s the UL of the latest models these days?

As I recall, there is 2 tests you have to pass; drop test and climb test.

New gear would help the drop test and if weight reduced either by design or change to titanium could help the climb. I wonder how much the landing gear weighs?

Someone was conjecturing over on the M22 for sale thread that some version of an oleo would be offered as the gear upgrade.  That would be quite a change.  I doubt it.

What is the climb test?  Do you know the specs of what it needs to do?

[Mcstealth]

1 hour ago, RJBrown said:

The landing gear issues are what keep the Rocket gross weight (3200)and landing weight (3050)so low. They pass the climb tests at 3600#.

Later gear changes allowed the TLS gross of 3368. That number seemed real specific as if multiple tests were run and 3368 passed but 3369 failed. I always thought that number odd.

Is this weight increase for new aircraft only? Long bodies only?

Very astute observation. Something to contemplate. 

[KB4]

57 minutes ago, RJBrown said:

Is this weight increase for new aircraft only?

I hope not. That would be a terrible business decision —not enough sales.   My guess is they are working on lighter materials for the gear legs for whole fleet beginning with J’s.  I also wouldn’t be surprised if they were working on a Ballistic Parachute Mod for fleet and plan it to be standard in all new airframes, it’s available now for 172’s.  

[jetdriven]

There is also a stall speed certification requirement, IIRC its 60 MPH CAS, clean.  More weight increases the stalling speed as well.

[steingar]

I imagine with modern lightweight materials they could easily make new gear legs both light and strong.

[bfreelove]

2 hours ago, RJBrown said:

Later gear changes allowed the TLS gross of 3368. That number seemed real specific as if multiple tests were run and 3368 passed but 3369 failed. I always thought that number odd.

I was always curious about that as well....

The long bodies with the 3368 lb. max gross weight are still restricted to a 3200 lb. landing weight due to the gear limitation.  Certification allows an increase takeoff weight (assuming non performance limited) with landing weight of 95% of the takeoff weight.  3200/.95 = 3368.  

[Robert C.]

15 hours ago, keithmiller said:

Do you think there’s some possibility? 

On December 23rd Jonny posted this on the mooney.com website in response to a question under STCs.

"...

We’re working on it folks! Takes resources and time. The basic design is complete. Now working on prototype and then drop testing. The plane will ride higher on struts and will be much more forgiving on landing.

Jonny...."

[Jerry 5TJ]

48 minutes ago, steingar said:

.....with modern lightweight materials they could easily make new gear legs both light and strong

Light, strong, cheap.    Pick any two.

[rbridges]

17 hours ago, MIm20c said:

Sure would be nice to fly direct to the lower 48 out of Homer or Cordova with a few hundred lbs of Halibut or Salmon... 

Is Halibut code word for "meth"?  

 

https://www.newson6.com/story/605235189605120bdcc5d036/homeland-security-arrest-pilot-accused-of-having-more-than-100-lbs-of-meth-on-plane

[Mcstealth]

47 minutes ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Light, strong, cheap.    Pick any two.

Hahahahaha. Not picking option #3

[EricJ]

4 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

What is the climb test?  Do you know the specs of what it needs to do?

Back when C172s lost their 40-degrees of flaps and stopped at the far less fun 30 degrees, the word was that there was a certification requirement for climb performance with full flaps.   Cessna wanted a higher gross weight but couldn't meet the climb requirement with 40 degrees of flaps, so limited it to 30 in order to get the gross weight increase.

I've no idea whether that was actually the case, but it made sense at the time.

[Davidv]

6 hours ago, RJBrown said:

The landing gear issues are what keep the Rocket gross weight (3200)and landing weight (3050)so low. They pass the climb tests at 3600#.

Later gear changes allowed the TLS gross of 3368. That number seemed real specific as if multiple tests were run and 3368 passed but 3369 failed. I always thought that number odd.

Is this weight increase for new aircraft only? Long bodies only?

I believe it was very specific since the original TLS had flap gap seals and they had to take them off to get to 3368. Given that flap gap seals add only marginal aerodynamic changes I’m sure it came down to a knot or two.

[PT20J]

4 hours ago, jetdriven said:

There is also a stall speed certification requirement, IIRC its 60 MPH CAS, clean.  More weight increases the stalling speed as well.

Good point: CAR Par3:

§ 3.83 Stalling speed. Vso at maximum
weight shall not exceed 70 miles per hour for (1)
single-engine airplanes and (2) multiengine
airplanes which do not have the rate of climb with
critical engine inoperative specified in §3.85 (b).

70 mph = 61 KCAS

[RobertGary1]

10 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

What’s the UL of the latest models these days?

As I recall, there is 2 tests you have to pass; drop test and climb test.

New gear would help the drop test and if weight reduced either by design or change to titanium could help the climb. I wonder how much the landing gear weighs?

Plus updated performance data in the POH.

-Robert

[RobertGary1]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

Back when C172s lost their 40-degrees of flaps and stopped at the far less fun 30 degrees, the word was that there was a certification requirement for climb performance with full flaps.   Cessna wanted a higher gross weight but couldn't meet the climb requirement with 40 degrees of flaps, so limited it to 30 in order to get the gross weight increase.

I've no idea whether that was actually the case, but it made sense at the time.

There is no way the 150 would ever climb with 40 degrees of flaps. I never allowed my students to use them because if we did stalls with 40 degrees of flaps and they stuck we'd be in a field.

-Robert