Al Mooneys last project plane photo?

[Tommooney]

HI friends:

Recently due to $30Mil runway rebuild at OXR I had to relocate for 3 months 5 miles to CMA in SoCal. I noticed next to my tie down spot this plane I have seen sitting here for decades. Then I remembered something and went back to " The Al Mooney Story " by Gordon Baxter 1985. In the end chapter in letters, Al writes about working for Eagle Bill Taylor at Avtek in Camarillo on the Avtek 400 which is what is printed on this plane. Is this the plane? On wikipedia, Al is listed as the designer ? The book says Roy LoPreistis son also worked on it with Al.

It has no engines and props are fake attached.

Except....the tail is on backwards?

You can touch it at the CMA self serve pumps. It will probably just waste away. too bad its not in some air museum with a printed history. A Confederate Air Force museum is next door....

 

 

Avtek 400A

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

Jump to navigationJump to search

This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (April 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Avtek 400A
Prototype At KCMA in 2019
Role	Business aircraft
Manufacturer	Avtek
Designer	Al Mooney
First flight	September 17, 1984
Number built	1

The Avtek 400A was an American prototype turboprop-powered business aircraft developed in the early 1980s. It was of unusual and distinctive configuration: a low-wing monoplane with two pusher engines mounted above the wings, and a large canard mounted atop the forward fuselage. The aircraft's sleek, futuristic design earned it a guest appearance on the Airwolf TV series as the X-400, the plane used by the villain Lou Stappleford in the episode Eagles.

The Avtek's structure made extensive use of advanced composite materials throughout.

In 1998, Avtek declared bankruptcy without the prototype having completed the testing required for US FAA type certification. The company's assets were purchased by AvtekAir, who as of 2004 planned to revive the project under the designation AvtekAir 9000T.

Contents

• 1Specifications (Avtek 400A pre-production prototype)
• 2See also
• 3References
• 4Further reading
• 5External links

Specifications (Avtek 400A pre-production prototype)[edit]

Data from Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1988-89^[1]

General characteristics

• Crew: 1
• Capacity: 5-9 passengers
• Length: 39 ft 4 in (11.99 m)
• Wingspan: 35 ft 0 in (10.67 m)
• Height: 11 ft 5 in (3.47 m)
• Wing area: 144 sq ft (13.4 m²) inc. foreplane
• Airfoil: Avtek 12
• Empty weight: 3,779 lb (1,714 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 6,499 lb (2,948 kg)
• Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-3L turboprop, 680 hp (507 kW) LH rotation
• Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-3R turboprop, 680 hp (507 kW) RH rotation
• Propellers: 4-bladed Hartzell constant-speed fully feathering pusher propellers, 6 ft 4 in (1.93 m) diameter

Performance

• Maximum speed: 255 kn (293 mph, 472 km/h)
• Cruise speed: 297 kn (342 mph, 550 km/h) at 10,000 ft (3,000 m)

364 kn (674 km/h; 419 mph) at 22,000 ft (6,700 m)

338 kn (626 km/h; 389 mph) at 41,000 ft (12,000 m)

• Stall speed: 83 kn (96 mph, 154 km/h)
• Range: 1,038 nmi (1,194 mi, 1,922 km) with NBAA/IFR reserves
• Service ceiling: 42,490 ft (12,950 m)
• Rate of climb: 4,630 ft/min (23.52 m/s)

See also[edit]

Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era

• AAC Angel
• AASI Jetcruzer
• Beechcraft Starship
• Embraer/FMA CBA 123 Vector
• OMAC Laser 300
• Piaggio P.180 Avanti

References[edit]

1. ^ John W.R. Taylor, ed. (1988). Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1988-89. London: Jane's Information Group. ISBN 0-7106-0867-5.

Further reading[edit]

• Taylor, Michael J. H. (1989). Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation. London: Studio Editions. p. 916.

External links[edit]

• AvtekAir company website
• luftfahrt-archiv.de
• aerofiles.com

Categories: 

• Avtek aircraft
• Abandoned civil aircraft projects of the United States
• 1980s United States business aircraft
• Canard aircraft
• Low-wing aircraft
• Twin-engined pusher aircraft
• Twin-engined turboprop aircraft
• Aircraft first flown in 1984

 

[N201MKTurbo]

I’ve walked around that plane at Camarillo a few times. I remember when Flying mag did stories about it. It is cool to see something like that, but you are right, it should be in a museum somewhere.  

[carusoam]

Ask @Speed Merchant if he is familiar…

-a-

 

its been mentioned, but not discussed very much… 

You may find that even Al Mooney couldn’t get the weight of composites down fast enough…

 

+1 for the Al Mooney Museum….   We were close once….  Ask @MooneyMitch

[carusoam]

This is beautiful!

Al could see how air flow over the lead wing disrupts the airflow behind and below the canard…  right where the main wing needs nice smooth airflow… for max efficiency of producing lift…

So… The canard has been raised pretty high…

Lesson proved by Raptor Peter…

PP thoughts only, not a design engineer…

best regards,

-a-

Tom’s pic with gravitas…

 

[carusoam]

Avtek has also been mentioned in discussions regarding Al’s designs…

-a-

[MooneyMitch]

1 hour ago, carusoam said:

Ask @Speed Merchant if he is familiar…

-a-

 

its been mentioned, but not discussed very much… 

You may find that even Al Mooney couldn’t get the weight of composites down fast enough…

 

+1 for the Al Mooney Museum….   We were close once….  Ask @MooneyMitch

I seriously doubt we will ever see the much hoped for Mooney Museum. 

[Blue on Top]

NO!!! on both airplanes.

Canards AND composite airplanes are inefficient ... economically, weight and aerodynamics.

As for the 201, it would cost about $50K less than an Ovation.  Still want to bring it back?   The 201 didn't come with air conditioning, leather seats or a G1000NXi.  Still want one?

[1964-M20E]

6 hours ago, Blue on Top said:

NO!!! on both airplanes.

Canards AND composite airplanes are inefficient ... economically, weight and aerodynamics.

As for the 201, it would cost about $50K less than an Ovation.  Still want to bring it back?   The 201 didn't come with air conditioning, leather seats or a G1000NXi.  Still want one?

without the garmin 1000 sure then it would probably be 150k less. 

[mike_elliott]

If Mooney wasnt able to make the Acclaim profitably for 800K, and you took 50K out to put in a less expensive IO390 and 50K out to put in less expensive Garmin toys and 10K out to cheapen it up on the inside and 20K out to leave it bare aluminum, Would you buy an underpowered Ovation for 650K that has 0 time engine and needs paint? Would Mooney want to start losing money making them in this configuration?

[Speed Merchant]

19 hours ago, carusoam said:

Ask @Speed Merchant if he is familiar…

-a-

 

its been mentioned, but not discussed very much… 

You may find that even Al Mooney couldn’t get the weight of composites down fast enough…

 

+1 for the Al Mooney Museum….   We were close once….  Ask @MooneyMitch

Yes I am familiar with it. My brother Jim was Al's protege. Sort of a cool design. I visited them at Camarillo a couple of times. Jim and Al used to drink bourbon and smoke cigars after work. Al was a great guy. They had alot of fun working together. Jim learned a lot from Al. Jim showed Al about CAD design and computers. Like a lot of great planes this one ran short of funding .

[Tommooney]

Well, i guess am parked next to Al's last plane instead of INSIDE MY HANGAR AT OXR ( due to govt runway rebuild ) , dang, in front of the self serve pump at Camarillo airport. So for the next three months I have time and sit in front of the plane and fuel pump and ask pilots if they know the story: Mooney,  

Come by and visit. Please.....:)

 

Tom Harris

KCMA

M20R

N1029M

8905-300-6621

[Will.iam]

20 hours ago, Blue on Top said:

NO!!! on both airplanes.

Canards AND composite airplanes are inefficient ... economically, weight and aerodynamics.

As for the 201, it would cost about $50K less than an Ovation.  Still want to bring it back?   The 201 didn't come with air conditioning, leather seats or a G1000NXi.  Still want one?

Can you expand on why canards are more  inefficient than standard airplane designs? 
i thought with both horizontal stab and wing lifting was more  efficient than a conventional configuration when the stab is flying down against the wings trying to fly up.  

[Bob - S50]

1 hour ago, Will.iam said:

Can you expand on why canards are more  inefficient than standard airplane designs? 

I'll take a stab at it.  For stability you always want the front surface to stall before the aft surface.  That means you will get maximum lift out of the front surface and less than max out of the rear.  With a canard you are getting max performance out of the small surface and less than optimum out of the big wing.  With a conventional configuration you max out the big wing and sacrifice a little on the aft wing.

[Blue on Top]

@Will.iam:  @Bob - S50 gave a great reason.  I also like the "stab" pun, too!  Now we'll get a little more into it.

Downwash from the canard also affects the main wing (lowering the main wing local angle of attack) ... but only over the span of the canard.  In other words, the angle of incidence of the inboard section of the main wing needs to be higher than the outboard section of the main wing.  BUT, the downwash from the canard varies with the amount of lift being produced.  Therefore the main wing inboard section needs to have a variable incidence angle with the outboard section incidence angle remaining the same.  So we compromise ... with a fixed angle of incidence for the whole main wing.  As a result in cruise, the Starship inboard wing has roughly 1000 lbs. of down force!

Putting flaps on a canard design just makes all the above even more complicated ... as was learned on the Starship.

Yes, the same is true with an aft tail configuration, but the whole stabilizer is in the same downwash of the main wing.  With a fixed stabilizer, we design for minimum cruise drag to set the horizontal stabilizer angle of incidence.  On our Mooney aircraft, we trim the stabilizer to the best angle of incidence.

Oh, and those pusher propellers ... they have no prayer of being efficient being downstream of the canard, fuselage, main wing, nacelle, exhaust, etc.

Edited August 16, 2021 by Blue on Top

[Will.iam]

thanks for the explanation 

 

[Shadrach]

4 hours ago, Blue on Top said:

@Will.iam:  @Bob - S50 gave a great reason.  I also like the "stab" pun, too!  Now we'll get a little more into it.

Downwash from the canard also affects the main wing (lowering the main wing local angle of attack) ... but only over the span of the canard.  In other words, the angle of incidence of the inboard section of the main wing needs to be higher than the outboard section of the main wing.  BUT, the downwash from the canard varies with the amount of lift being produced.  Therefore the main wing inboard section needs to have a variable incidence angle with the outboard section incidence angle remaining the same.  So we compromise ... with a fixed angle of incidence for the whole main wing.  As a result in cruise, the Starship inboard wing has roughly 1000 lbs. of down force!

Putting flaps on a canard design just makes all the above even more complicated ... as was learned on the Starship.

Yes, the same is true with an aft tail configuration, but the whole stabilizer is in the same downwash of the main wing.  With a fixed stabilizer, we design for minimum cruise drag to set the horizontal stabilizer angle of incidence.  On our Mooney aircraft, we trim the stabilizer to the best angle of incidence.

Oh, and those pusher propellers ... they have no prayer of being efficient being downstream of the canard, fuselage, main wing, nacelle, exhaust, etc.

All of this makes sense. So why would someone like Burt Rutan be so focused on Canard designs?  

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

All of this makes sense. So why would someone like Burt Rutan be so focused on Canard designs?  

They've been used successfully by many manufacturers, including Piaggio, Saab, Dassault, BAE, Sukhoi, Tupolev, North American, etc., etc.

[Blue on Top]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

All of this makes sense. So why would someone like Burt Rutan be so focused on Canard designs?  

I don't think he does as much now.  Investors buy dreams.

Look at Uber Elevate (no longer owned by Uber ... hint, hint).  Any good engineer or physicist will say it takes much more power to vertically lift any weight with multiple, small diameter rotors than a helicopter, ... and helicopters are not known for being efficient.  Helicopters need a power (thrust) to gross weight ratio of about 1:1.1 or 1.2.  In other words, a 1000 lbs. helicopter needs to produce 1100 to 1200 lbs. of thrust to lift off.  An airplane is typically 30% or less. 

Aerodynamics have not changed since the beginning of airflow, but our knowledge of how fluid flow works has ... especially in the last 30 years.  Here are a couple topics close to home (the Mooney heart).  Fixing landing gear on a Mooney would cost 7-8 knots, maximum, not 20-25 between the M20C and M20D models, and the useful load would increase 100 lbs. or so.  Great tradeoff in my opinion ... especially with insurance rates figured in.  Mooney airplanes could be widened 8"-9" (similar to a Cirrus) with very little drag penalty (4-5 knots or less).  People don't want to believe the real data.

[BKlott]

If I was living out there, I might be tempted to give it a good bath just for the hell of it.

[1964-M20E]

On 8/16/2021 at 5:12 PM, Blue on Top said:

I don't think he does as much now.  Investors buy dreams.

Look at Uber Elevate (no longer owned by Uber ... hint, hint).  Any good engineer or physicist will say it takes much more power to vertically lift any weight with multiple, small diameter rotors than a helicopter, ... and helicopters are not known for being efficient.  Helicopters need a power (thrust) to gross weight ratio of about 1:1.1 or 1.2.  In other words, a 1000 lbs. helicopter needs to produce 1100 to 1200 lbs. of thrust to lift off.  An airplane is typically 30% or less. 

Aerodynamics have not changed since the beginning of airflow, but our knowledge of how fluid flow works has ... especially in the last 30 years.  Here are a couple topics close to home (the Mooney heart).  Fixing landing gear on a Mooney would cost 7-8 knots, maximum, not 20-25 between the M20C and M20D models, and the useful load would increase 100 lbs. or so.  Great tradeoff in my opinion ... especially with insurance rates figured in.  Mooney airplanes could be widened 8"-9" (similar to a Cirrus) with very little drag penalty (4-5 knots or less).  People don't want to believe the real data.

4-6" wider cabin on the Mooney would be nice don really need 8" or more.  Adding 3" more between the firewall and the engine for maintenance would be great  I do still like retract gear.  I think it just looks better.  Yes if the gear was designed to be hanging out in the wind it would be slicker and less draggy therefore not as big of a penalty we get with the gear down.

[thinwing]

Interesting design..the biggest problem i see with this aircraft is that it is just to F***ing ugly....