Long Body Gross Weight Increase - Any Updates?

[irishpilot]

I've been keeping my ear to the ground about this announcement from Mooney since late last year. I called Mooney last month and they say "we're working on it" but no timeline released. Has anyone heard anything? I'm also on the Mooney forum but no updates from there either. A 400-500 lb useful load would be a real gamechanger for carrying 4x real humans, fuel and luggage. 

[ArtVandelay]

I can’t believe they can do that without changes to the landing gear, so it might take a while.

[irishpilot]

Just now, ArtVandelay said:

I can’t believe they can do that without changes to the landing gear, so it might take a while.

Yeah, it's probably wishful thinking it would just be upgraded pucks, but probably not. Does anyone know what the mods are to the Bonanza GW increase? I've heard that's very useful for that crowd.

[AvGuy]

2 hours ago, irishpilot said:

Does anyone know what the mods are to the Bonanza GW increase? I've heard that's very useful for that crowd.

There’s a whole menu of STCs for bonanzas. The bonanza was originally certified to its production gross weight in the Utility category, so some modes expand the envelope and just call the expansion “Normal” category. 

Adding VGs is is a funny paperwork exercise, because after doing nothing structural you gain another 100-200 lbs of UL doing this paperwork dance. 
 

Some of the other Dshannon mods are a little more structurally invasive (ie larger engine or tip tanks) so there’s some actual rational behind raising GW.

Edited May 16, 2021 by AvGuy

[LANCECASPER]

We are limited by 11 little pieces of rubber (shock discs). When a long body is at 3368 pounds, Max Gross Take-off weight, it sits pretty low.

I doubt Mooney really has the engineering resources right now to design a new landing gear, and get it approved by the FAA, although it would be great if they did. If there was some margin built into the new landing gear then I could see VG's also adding a gross weight increase, since take-off performance would be better. Past people in Mooney engineering also have commented that the tail limits the design. So even if we did get a gross weight increase I would never expect 400-500 pounds. I think we would be extremely fortunate to get 100-150.

Now the real question is, if they spent all of those resources and did get it approved, how many people would spend between $30,000 - $40,000, or maybe more, to do it?

[irishpilot]

@LANCECASPER, $30-40k for 100ish pounds is too steep for me. I think it is just wishful thinking on my part...

[NJMac]

I heard 400 lbs for that price range and initially was willing to wait for it. 

[aviatoreb]

There are 3 things that cause limitations to take off weight.  1 take of performance, 2 landing performance primarily stall speed at or below 61kts 3 landing gear strong enough for the mass.

vgs do help take off performance and landing performance by lowering stall speed.  So I can see why they may allow more gross weight as long as the landing gear is not a limiting factor.  As I understand it in Mooney landing gear is a limiting factor.

[FoxMike]

Your being awfully optimistic.  When the new gear gets done I think it will available only on new production airplanes.  I think they might bolt the wing of a Mustang to new airplanes.  Mustang grossed at 3600lbs.  That much weight increase might be available on a new airplane.  Don't look for kits to be added to older airplanes.

[carusoam]

Call me optimistic...

I also send a monthly Mooney pic for the Mooney of the month contest...  

When it comes to mechanical updates and flight testing requirements for new certifications...

I would need to hear it from those in the know...

When would be a good time to ask the big guy if there is any update on this project?

@Jonny (Any insight you can share regarding MGTW increase project?  Any headway, or details available since last discussions?)

Always good to hear updates from Mooney...

Best regards,

-a-

[philiplane]

There can be several flavors of gross weight increases. The easiest one retains the existing gross weight as the maximum landing weight, and allows a higher weight for takeoff. It's also the smallest increase because it has to maintain the same stall speeds and not overtax the structures while taxiing. This one can be done via engineering review & calculations. You might get 150 pounds this way. 

Increases of 300 or more pounds will require landing gear changes. Which would include revised brakes, heavier ply tires, and probably additional lift devices such as increased flap travel, vortex generators, increased elevator and rudder travel, etc. That is provided the wing and tail structures don't need beefing up. 

When Cirrus upped their GW from 3400 to 3600 pounds, they took an already well built wing, and added more carbon fiber plies to the spar. And increased the size of the chute. Why so much work for 200 pounds? Well, when you give a pilot 200, he generally takes 400... there has to be margin for those who don't look at weight and balance after they pass their private checkride. 

I once saw, well, more than once saw, a Bravo owner load 750 pounds of people, plus overnight bags, and fly his monthly 3 hour trip. I don't want to do that W&B. 

[Patrick Horan]

18 hours ago, FoxMike said:

Your being awfully optimistic.  When the new gear gets done I think it will available only on new production airplanes.  I think they might bolt the wing of a Mustang to new airplanes.  Mustang grossed at 3600lbs.  That much weight increase might be available on a new airplane.  Don't look for kits to be added to older airplanes.

Mooney stated that they arent in the business to make new planes (currently) the gross weight increase will be for all Long body mooneys. So in a sense, it will be a kit.

If they follow through with it. That will be a different story

Edited May 17, 2021 by Patrick Horan

[Awful_Charlie]

From the POH there is only 0.6 knots margin on the stall speed for certification with the current 3368lbs. If you look at the overweight ferry SI (SIM20-133) you'll see the 15% over gross figure is 65KIAS which is not an insignificant speed to get back somehow. Whether the solution is VGs or modified flaps or something else will be up to Mooney. Also bear in mind the climb performance - particularly the Bravo with only 270bhp. You're going to use nearly 10hp just to carry up 400lbs at 500fpm, and that's before your consider the extra induced drag to overcome. From experience I can tell you that at gross and ISA+30 the climb is already rather anaemic! I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of temperature limits applied. For takeoff and landing performance, it will be whatever it is - unless there's a whole new wing or new (more powerful) engine, then the TORR and LDR are just going to be more (you've got to accelerate all that mass) - if that means you need a 10,000ft runway, then it is up to the PIC to determine if it can be done.

From the same SI there is also the +2.5G limitation, but as the normal category requires 3.8 then it wouldn't surprise me if anything more than a couple of hundred pounds increase involved a number of very expensive and invasive modifications, also worth a look at the SI to see the resultant W&B envelope might look like. Regulations also specify that MLW can be a minimum of 95% of MTOW so there's the whole gear issue already mentioned - the existing 3368/3200 is using the full extent of the allowance.

Tailplane limitations will be interesting - supposedly the long bodies are already close to the limit with a forward CofG and full flap, with extra limitations if icing has been encountered. Unless a significant CofG limit is applied, then this might require a new tail and elevators, maybe even a whole empennage? The price continues to go up....

I'm not in any rush, but would probably be interested in a 200lb increase. If there was a 400lb option for $$$$ and a 200lb option for $$, I wouldn't look at the 400lb option, on the basis I already have near as dammit 1000lbs available, and:

a) If I'm going somewhere with four 200lbs adults, you can pretty much bet that after 3 hours one is going to need to pee, and everyone will be ready to stretch their legs (unless you are four masochists). In any case, you wouldn't pile four large adults in a mini to drive cross country for hours and hours without a break so why do it in a Mooney? At 90lbs/hr of fuel, then 1200lbs usable even gives a small amount of baggage!

b) A couple of my regular routes go near super cheap fuel - 1200lbs usable means I can pickup full (Monroy LRT) fuel (730lbs) with two adults and long weekend bags

[carusoam]

The extra allowance would be really helpful when flying with a guest across the pond....  

Best regards,

-a-

[Mark Cline]

Has anyone heard any updates on the gross weight increase?  

[LANCECASPER]

4 hours ago, Mark Cline said:

Has anyone heard any updates on the gross weight increase?  

It was mentioned by @Jonny at MooneyMax in June, but it all takes money.

[jetdriven]

They won’t even certify the 2900 pound gross weight for the earlier model J airplanes. So I don’t see how this is going to affect anything older than an M20R

[Shadrach]

On 5/17/2021 at 9:40 AM, philiplane said:

I once saw, well, more than once saw, a Bravo owner load 750 pounds of people, plus overnight bags, and fly his monthly 3 hour trip. I don't want to do that W&B. 

He should have saved some money and gone with an F model. I can put 750lbs in the cabin, fly 4hrs and land with an hour of reserve.

[cbarry]

I visited with a gentlemen at MooneyMax and rumor has it that the gross weight increase includes a “newly” designed gear that may be retrofitted to the long bodies.  It sure sounded something like a version of the M22 gear (which does not have pucks)…

[triple8s]

Wasn’t  Mooney covertly working on this gross weight increase project a few years ago somewhere in a small town in middle Tennessee? Doing testing I think? 

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, triple8s said:

Wasn’t  Mooney covertly working on this gross weight increase project a few years ago somewhere in a small town in middle Tennessee? Doing testing I think? 

Consensus around here is that Mooney is operating the Factory Service Center, and making parts.  I would be surprised if there is any extra bandwidth or funds for any activity that includes the word "certification".

[Horis]

On 5/16/2021 at 10:59 AM, irishpilot said:

I've been keeping my ear to the ground about this announcement from Mooney since late last year. I called Mooney last month and they say "we're working on it" but no timeline released. Has anyone heard anything? I'm also on the Mooney forum but no updates from there either. A 400-500 lb useful load would be a real gamechanger for carrying 4x real humans, fuel and luggage. 

Good luck to us.  I just took a bunch of unnecessary weight out of mine in old avionics and wire but am not where I want to be.  I am going to tour the Mooney factory and will ask when I am there.

[Mark Cline]

2 minutes ago, Horis said:

Good luck to us.  I just took a bunch of unnecessary weight out of mine in old avionics and wire but am not where I want to be.  I am going to tour the Mooney factory and will ask when I am there.

Thanks!  Please let us know what you find.  

[alextstone]

The prototype exists. I've seen it. I wonder how many non refundable deposits for orders it would take to push it to the STC finish line? My WAG is that the mod would cost 60-80k for parts and labor for each install.

What do y'all think? Is my WAG in line with your opinion? 15-20 commitments? More?

Alex

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[Niko182]

6 minutes ago, alextstone said:

The prototype exists. I've seen it. I wonder how many non refundable deposits for orders it would take to push it to the STC finish line? My WAG is that the mod would cost 60-80k for parts and labor for each install.

What do y'all think? Is my WAG in line with your opinion? 15-20 commitments? More?

Alex

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
 

do you have any picture?