Jump to content

Mooney factory for sale


gdwinc

Recommended Posts

50 years ago there was the Meyers Interceptor 400, TC could I’m sure be easily purchased,and all the work is done, just start manufacturing. It is a Certified airplane, pressurized and may meet most realistic goals, but a Meyers is a heavy constructed aircraft as it’s fully 4130 tube out past  the landing gear,but it’s Hell for strong as  is one of the very few aircraft that’s never had an AD on the structure. Pics are of the piston D model at the Albany Ga plant

https://www.flyingmag.com/interceptor-400-barn-discovery/

http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepInterceptor400.html

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/november/01/will-the-interceptor-400-only-live-twice

31CC5534-0F58-4DE8-85B8-03ACD0A28654.jpeg

C2A10DD9-00FC-4697-85F3-88C7A3FD782F.jpeg

26931CAC-6F12-47B9-B610-3501BE9BBC5E.jpeg

Edited by A64Pilot
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Brandt said:


Opinions vary, for sure. And everyone is entitled to their own choice. But I don’t view transitioning from being a pilot to being a passenger of an unguided soon to be wreckage as much of a safety device. It appears to me that Cirrus tried to turn a fundamental problem into an asset via astute marketing. I’ll believe otherwise when the first Gulfstream or 737 sports a parachute.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Do you also feel that Garmin Autoland, Safe Glide, Electronic Stability and Protection, Emergency Descent Mode and Smart Rudder Bias are just astute marketing of "being a passenger of an unguided soon to be wreckage"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you also feel that Garmin Autoland, Safe Glide, Electronic Stability and Protection, Emergency Descent Mode and Smart Rudder Bias are just astute marketing of "being a passenger of an unguided soon to be wreckage"?

Great question. None of the items you reference make you a passenger in an unguided airplane. All preserve the airframe and I stand to be corrected but I believe can operate in a wider envelope. And none were a bandaid solution to a stall spin problem. So, no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, toto said:

Thanks for those links...  I was at the Mooney factory long ago and saw that aircraft ( Not sure if it was THAT exact aircraft)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Brandt said:


Opinions vary, for sure. And everyone is entitled to their own choice. But I don’t view transitioning from being a pilot to being a passenger of an unguided soon to be wreckage as much of a safety device. It appears to me that Cirrus tried to turn a fundamental problem into an asset via astute marketing. I’ll believe otherwise when the first Gulfstream or 737 sports a parachute.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You simply cannot look at the BRS through the lens of gulf streams and 737's.   For several reasons.

First off, the guys out flying around in the Cirrus, in large part, are not as experienced/capable or as highly trained as guys flying a 737 or Gulf stream.  There is also 2 pilots in each of those aircraft and both are IFR rated.

   So, for the Cirrus weekend warriors, the BRS is a safety measure for their more likely pilot error or momentary lack of judgement, inadvertent flight into IMC, ECT.

Secondly,  737's and Gulf streams have a LOT of redundancy.  I dont fly the 737, but I do I Fly the G650. So lets look at it.

  For starters along with REDUNDANT pilots,  we have 2 engines, which have multiple channels for the FADEC and faildown modes as well.  From there FLy by wire controls which make a flight control issue that would seriously compromise the safety of a flight almost non existent.  They also prevent over speed and stalls.  We have 3 Air data systems and a Standby ADS for a total of 4  as well as 3 IRS's all with backup batteries.  We have 4 large screens of which just 1 can provide sufficient data to fly safely AND  2 standby ADI's as well... So a loss of instruments is almost impossible.  We have QUADRUPLE redundant power sources (3 gens and a RAT) and even if all 4 somehow fail at the same time we still have 30 min of battery power for the instruments and flight controls to get on the ground.   I'm not going to go into the Hydraulics but they are triple redundant as well.

A few other considerations....

We are Pressurized with cabin alt warnings and quick don mask and an Emergency descent mode that will automatically execute a rapid descent if the aircraft  depressurizes.

Our windows are thick enough that a bird coming through is not likely.

 

Get the picture yet?  It is not even close to reasonable to compare the usefulness of a BRS in a small aircraft against that of a Gulfstream, or any other jet really.

 

So, when you look at the BRS in terms of WHO is flying WHAT sort of airplanes, they certainly seem to make sense, at least in my mind.  It is showing in Cirrus' safety record for sure.  In a perfect world were we all flew like pro pilots and planes didn't break, electronics didn't fail and no one had heart attacks or other incapacitation, then yea, a BRS would be pointless.

 

But, it aint a perfect world.

Edited by Austintatious
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, not at all. magnesium was one reason that had me shying from a Bo…

Good choice. Some v tails have an AL re-skin STC, but many of the later models don’t. Textron is out of mg skins and not real interested in producing more as their corrosion treatment can’t be done in the US due to environmental restrictions.

Their type club estimates 30 sets of skin/year is the market and has pony’d up $500K to anyone who can deliver a long-term solution. None of the big shops are taking it on and neither is Textron.

Meanwhile guys with serviceable sets are commanding a huge premium and anyone trying to sell an aftected Bo is taking a hit on offers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ChrisH said:

https://red-aircraft.com/product/ 

Certified in EU, designed into the https://www.ottoaviation.com/

400hp @ 143lbs Jet A / hr (~22g/hour). 

Bring back a redesigned M22, bolt one of these on it and hope that you have a UL load after putting a ~1,000 lb diesel up front. But, you'd have a screamer, I'd expect ~260kts+ up high. SETP speed, with piston economy. Be a good competitor to the Piper M500/600, Epic, TBM crowd (especially as fuel prices go up).

Well I love the idea of 400hp, but aren’t the dimensions for the A03 fairly large? Will it fit on a Mooney? Or is that why you’re saying to bring back the M22?

In addition, about Astron’s engine that I mentioned earlier, according to Motor Trend future versions of Astron’s engine will be able to produce 4,500hp while weighing only 250 lbs. (https://www.motortrend.com/features/might-new-concept-rotary-range-extender-fly-technologue/) I have no idea what the fuel consumption numbers would be for that, but regardless, a Mooney Acclaim equipped with that engine should reach a top speed of 610.71 knots. If we remove 10% for extra structural support, cabin space, etc, the top speed becomes 549.637 knots. :D I’m sold. Besides, if the new Mooney weighed 4,500 lbs at gross, that 1:1 thrust ratio would be nice. :D

Edited by TheAirplaneNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Great question. None of the items you reference make you a passenger in an unguided airplane. All preserve the airframe and I stand to be corrected but I believe can operate in a wider envelope. And none were a bandaid solution to a stall spin problem. So, no.


Old wives tale. The Cirrus doesn't have a spin problem. The Europeans didn't accept the chute as a replacement for spin testing, so Cirrus showed it could be recovered from a spin for them.

There are places where landing engine out is not safe. There are many pilots each year that try to land engine out and don't do it well, some to the point of fatalities.

The chute is merely another safety option.



Wayne


  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Brandt said:


Opinions vary, for sure. And everyone is entitled to their own choice. But I don’t view transitioning from being a pilot to being a passenger of an unguided soon to be wreckage as much of a safety device. It appears to me that Cirrus tried to turn a fundamental problem into an asset via astute marketing. I’ll believe otherwise when the first Gulfstream or 737 sports a parachute.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think that the market place has spoken loud and clear on Cirrus versus any other production high performance GA aircraft and has so for the last decade.  
 

As for a BRS system on a 737, I’d bet that it would have been appealing to the hundreds who perished on the two 737 Max crashes.

Clarence

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

I think that the market place has spoken loud and clear on Cirrus versus any other production high performance GA aircraft and has so for the last decade.  
 

As for a BRS system on a 737, I’d bet that it would have been appealing to the hundreds who perished on the two 737 Max crashes.

Clarence

Maybe give an individual parachute to a person on an airline that allows somebody with 250 hours into the right seat of a 737. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wayne Cease said:

 


Old wives tale. The Cirrus doesn't have a spin problem. The Europeans didn't accept the chute as a replacement for spin testing, so Cirrus showed it could be recovered from a spin for them.

There are places where landing engine out is not safe. There are many pilots each year that try to land engine out and don't do it well, some to the point of fatalities.

The chute is merely another safety option.



Wayne

 

 

 

49 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

I think that the market place has spoken loud and clear on Cirrus versus any other production high performance GA aircraft and has so for the last decade.  
 

As for a BRS system on a 737, I’d bet that it would have been appealing to the hundreds who perished on the two 737 Max crashes.

Clarence

The marketplace also spoke on pet rocks and gangsta rap.  Popular is not equal to good idea.  But I may just be hopelessly counterculture. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Brandt said:

 

The marketplace also spoke on pet rocks and gangsta rap.  Popular is not equal to good idea.  But I may just be hopelessly counterculture. 

 

Ah, so Cirrus had a plan to be successful, executed that plan, and became wildly successful...how is that NOT a good idea???  Seems like Mooney should have gone down a similar path; perhaps they were hopelessly counterculture:D

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Ah, so Cirrus had a plan to be successful, executed that plan, and became wildly successful...how is that NOT a good idea???  Seems like Mooney should have gone down a similar path; perhaps they were hopelessly counterculture:D

 

Think many are asking the very same question about social media right now, but I digress…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t pretend to be any kind of expert,but it’s my opinion that Cirrus sold mostly because it looks modern, where most everything else doesn’t, Cessna, Mooney etc are your Grandfathers airplanes, sure they may have full color big displays, but still aluminum riveted together, Plastic airplanes look cool and Modern and the Cirrus interior is very much like say a Lexus interior.

Mooney, Piper, Cessna etc are like trying to sell a 57 Chevy with new interior and maybe a big “infotainment” screen, but it’s still a 57 Chevy

Many years ago I read an article that Cirrus pulled their sales people from the RV world, they were after of course wealthy, but not real experienced pilots, us old experienced types don’t go so much for plastic and parachutes for example, but newer pilots (younger) do.

Don’t throw rocks at me because I’d love for someone to give each Cirrus, I’d sell it and buy an aluminum airplane, I got enough repairing composites in the Military. Aluminum is so much easier and more straightforward.

Edited by A64Pilot
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I don’t pretend to be any kind of expert,but it’s my opinion that Cirrus sold mostly because it looks modern, where most everything else doesn’t, Cessna, Mooney etc are your Grandfathers airplanes, sure they may have full color big displays, but still aluminum riveted together, Plastic airplanes look cool and Modern and the Cirrus interior is very much like say a Lexus interior.

Mooney, Piper, Cessna etc are like trying to sell a 57 Chevy with new interior and maybe a big “infotainment” screen, but it’s still a 57 Chevy

Many years ago I read an article that Cirrus pulled their sales people from the RV world, they were after of course wealthy, but not real experienced pilots, us old experienced types don’t go so much for plastic and parachutes for example, but newer pilots (younger) do.

Don’t throw rocks at me because I’d love for someone to give each Cirrus, I’d sell it and buy an aluminum airplane, I got enough repairing composites in the Military. Aluminum is so much easier and more straightforward.

Cirrus sold just under 350 SEP aircraft last year, and Cessna sold just under 300. Cirrus is clearly the leader in the composite space, but Cessna is no slouch. 

https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2020ShipmentReport-02242021.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, toto said:

Cirrus sold just under 350 SEP aircraft last year, and Cessna sold just under 300. Cirrus is clearly the leader in the composite space, but Cessna is no slouch. 

https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2020ShipmentReport-02242021.pdf

I contribute that to there are a lot of people out there like me that really don’t want a plastic airplane, However if I had new airplane money, I’d want a Complex airplane, I don’t believe there isn’t a speed increase when you suck the gear up into a airplane, Sure a Cirrus is fast, because it’s a big motor in a small airplane, I bet it would be faster with the gear up, and yes I’ve heard about the RV built with retracts and didn’t gain any speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Wayne Cease said:

 


I thought it would take some time to adjust to the side stick. At the end of the first flight I realized I wasn't even thinking of the difference at all. I love how my hand rests on the grip when my arm is on the armrest. Comfortable and a natural feeling position for me.



LOL.

That's why options are good. Glad you found one you like. Unfortunately you are in the minority in a niche market (general aviation).

Sad that some people have a negative view of a safety device.



Wayne

 

 

Most pilots vastly overestimate their ability to safely land off airport and exit an aircraft without dying

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, toto said:

Cirrus sold just under 350 SEP aircraft last year, and Cessna sold just under 300. Cirrus is clearly the leader in the composite space, but Cessna is no slouch. 

https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2020ShipmentReport-02242021.pdf

Let's use 2021 sales data from GAMA for the first half of the year.

In the first six months of 2021 Cirrus sold 172 SEP and Cessna/Beech sold 104.   In 2020 Cirrus sold 128 SEP in the first half and Cessna/Beech sold 114.  So Cirrus is pulling away with an increase of 34% over last year.  Cessna/Beech is falling behind rapidly with a decline of 10% in sales vs. last year.  Textron sold zero Bonanza's and Baron's in the first half of 2021 so it really is all Cessna. 74 of Cessna sales were 172's....70% of their sales going to trainers.

Aluminum continues to lose ground - but it is not just because they are aluminum - it is because the entire design and features are not competitive for the price

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I contribute that to there are a lot of people out there like me that really don’t want a plastic airplane, However if I had new airplane money, I’d want a Complex airplane, I don’t believe there isn’t a speed increase when you suck the gear up into a airplane, Sure a Cirrus is fast, because it’s a big motor in a small airplane, I bet it would be faster with the gear up, and yes I’ve heard about the RV built with retracts and didn’t gain any speed.

I understand the feeling that the aircraft would be faster with the gear up.  But, you have to remember, everything is a trade off.  Retractable gear adds weight and complexity.  Also, when a RG aircraft's gear is out, yea, there is a LOT of drag because of the open wells and un-faired tires/brakes.

When You commit to fixed gear, you save some weight and make the gear aerodynamic.  The loss of speed is negligible in the speed ranges these aircraft fly at... For a 300knot IAS jet that is a different story.

There is a youtube video of a guy who built an aircraft to break a speed record... it was fixed gear and faster than even a mooney rocket on 90 hp.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, philip_g said:

Most pilots vastly overestimate their ability to safely land off airport and exit an aircraft without dying

 

Many also wildly overestimate the likelihood of a pure mechanical failure (not fuel starvation) leading to a forced landing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

I understand the feeling that the aircraft would be faster with the gear up.  But, you have to remember, everything is a trade off.  Retractable gear adds weight and complexity.  Also, when a RG aircraft's gear is out, yea, there is a LOT of drag because of the open wells and un-faired tires/brakes.

When You commit to fixed gear, you save some weight and make the gear aerodynamic.  The loss of speed is negligible in the speed ranges these aircraft fly at... For a 300knot IAS jet that is a different story.

There is a youtube video of a guy who built an aircraft to break a speed record... it was fixed gear and faster than even a mooney rocket on 90 hp.

 

All true.  Also, having room inside the wing to hide the gear often requires a thicker wing.  Diamond ran into this with the DA50 retract design and ultimately had big blisters on the bottom of the wing to accommodate the wheels.  Thicker wing =more drag, and the drag associated with well-faired gear is very, very small.

-dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.