Mooney Turboprop. . .

[DoctorEvil]

I saw THIS and thought of Y'all. . .

With Mooney being up for sale (again) and the general consensus saying a new J at a competitive price would be a good seller and potential saviour of the company, along with the needed reduction in assembly cost, a turboprop long-body (Ovation replacement) with a 200hp TP200TP up front could be a game changer if they could turn it into a new entry model.

Then maybe a bells-and-whistles Acclaim style flagship with a higher horsepower variant of the powerplant up front could be an option.

Hopefully some new owners of Mooney can do something positive like this.  I know Mooney did start a turboprop program a few years back, based on the RollsRoyce RR500 powerplant, but the cost of the TurbAero Talon mentioned here is only ~$80k installed!

New Mooney factory owners - where can we order :-]

 

Just the ramblings of a dreamer obviously

Edited November 11, 2021 by DoctorEvil

[toto]

Kinda strange. They put a picture of a Mooney on a page about the new engine, but it looks like a standard cowl and probably has nothing to do with the certification effort. 

I’m all for anything that improves the brand, especially if it translates into sales and longevity for the company. But it does feel like getting a turbine Mooney in the foreseeable future will mean buying a TBM.

[tgardnerh]

My quick reading of their page and the wiki pages for the cessna caravan and the pt-6 engine looks like they're claiming about 10% less fuel burn per horsepower than whats flying a caravan, but in a smaller lighter package.
That seems a little... optimistic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[flyboy0681]

For the past decade, every time the demise of the Mooney company has been mentioned on these pages, I could always count on two subjects being discussed ad nauseam... placing a turbine up front and re-introducing the J model. Now I don't claim to know much about the manufacturing costs of light aircraft, but I would guess that neither solution would result in a per unit cost anywhere near the sweet spot for a complex GA aircraft, which I would place at around $450k.

But don't let me get in the way of pie in the sky ideas.

 

 

[aviatoreb]

26 minutes ago, flyboy0681 said:

For the past decade, every time the demise of the Mooney company has been mentioned on these pages, I could always count on two subjects being discussed ad nauseam... placing a turbine up front and re-introducing the J model. Now I don't claim to know much about the manufacturing costs of light aircraft, but I would guess that neither solution would result in a per unit cost anywhere near the sweet spot for a complex GA aircraft, which I would place at around $450k.

But don't let me get in the way of pie in the sky ideas.

 

 

I agree - but its 3 topics.  In order, 1) a BRS Mooney, 2) a turboprop Mooney, 3) a J-level performance and J-level cost (if such were even possible).  The reason it keeps coming up is if someone could actually do that, then it would be a game changer for sure.  I doubt they could.  I would love to be proved wrong.  Substitute a diesel in number 2 and it would be for sure an exciting plane for its range and fuel burn.  The eps diesel has a lot of power so it would be fast.  But 2) whether diesel or turbo prop interferes with 3 - which is already unrealistic for cost.  I would be excited by 2 turbo prop for reliability reasons.  then substitute 1 with an auto land and I would be happy.  Wait - I think I just described a tbm 330.  Except 3) cost.  10x the cost.

[Aerodon]

The challenge with a turboprop option is finding a good engine. It's hard to make a small efficient turbine because of the diameters, speeds, blade efficiency and circumferential losses.  I think the RR250 is too small, even the higher powered versions of 450hp will lose too much power with altitude to keep up with a turbocharged piston?  Have a look at the Grob 120TP  for performance with this engine.  They do not publish speeds higher than 10,000ft, but I suspect it drops off quite quickly?

https://grob-aircraft.com/en/g-120tp.html

I don't know if there is an engine/gearbox for propellers for the RR300.  The RR500 looked very promising, but it never made it into production.

Here's a clean sheet design with potential:

https://www.hillhelicopters.com/gt50-engine

Then the market for non-pressurized TP's is very small.  How many Bonanza conversions are there?  The P210 looks like a better option?

 

Aerodon

[Schllc]

I’m pretty sure the market for a non pressurized turboprop would be incredibly strong if there was one out there that was efficient, affordable, and had adequate UL.

It’s the build it and they will come approach, but there have been so many unfulfilled promises in the past by startups, its kind of hard for anyone to put faith into development. 
 

Maybe the technology(money) just isn’t available to accomplish the “big three”, but if it were to happen, I’d bet every nickel I had the market would suck them up. 
 

While I’d love nothing more to see it on a Mooney, If anyone could do it today, it would probably be cirrus. 

[ChrisH]

Take a look at the Extra EA-500, it used the RR250. It's a great looking plane, discontinued due to lack of market interest. Critical altitude was ~16k if I recall correctly. 

Took a lot of fuel to make mooney speeds, pressurized 6 seat cabin was nice.

 

Chris.

[TheAirplaneNerd]

On 11/11/2021 at 10:11 AM, Aerodon said:

Here's a clean sheet design with potential:

https://www.hillhelicopters.com/gt50-engine

I believe that clean sheet designs are the future (as long as they can get the money to fund certification and production).

However, I think this engine will be the future (once again, as long as they can fund certification and production).

https://www.astronaerospace.com
 

Gotta love the power to weight ratio, and it would be nice if they mentioned fuel consumption…

[N201MKTurbo]

I’ve been involved in aviation for about 40 years. For that entire time, every few years, someone was developing a new small turbine that was going to revolutionize general aviation. A couple of them even had working models. Where are they all now? 
 

If the likes Of P&W, RR, GE and Honeywell can’t build a viable small turbine, what makes you think that some small startup with wet behind the ears engineers can figure out how to do it? If the business was there, the companies with 80 years of turbine experience and huge buildings full of engineers would be all over it.

[Geoff]

2 hours ago, ChrisH said:

Take a look at the Extra EA-500, it used the RR250. It's a great looking plane, discontinued due to lack of market interest. Critical altitude was ~16k if I recall correctly. 

Took a lot of fuel to make mooney speeds, pressurized 6 seat cabin was nice.

 

Chris.

I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder on that one...

[Hank]

2 hours ago, Geoff said:

I think beauty is in the eye of the beerholder on that one...

FTFY . . . .

[Parker_Woodruff]

On 11/11/2021 at 9:14 AM, flyboy0681 said:

Now I don't claim to know much about the manufacturing costs of light aircraft, but I would guess that neither solution would result in a per unit cost anywhere near the sweet spot for a complex GA aircraft, which I would place at around $450k.

But don't let me get in the way of pie in the sky ideas.

 

 

The only one with economies of scale near close enough for this is Cirrus.  And their base SR20 is right around $450K.  This aircraft also performs about the same as an M20J, but has a better useful load and a parachute.

Then look how many people buy the SR22 instead of the SR20.  And I've got a strong inclination almost all of the SR20s are purchased for training fleets rather than a GA traveler.  It looks like they're on pace for 70 SR20s this year.

https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2021ShipmentReportQ2.pdf

In short, I don't see a market for a $450K M20J.

Edit: 2021 price list for the SR20 shows a base price of $494,900

[carusoam]

So…

To review my favorite subject…

1) Factory built…

2) Four seater…

3) Turbine…

4) Pressurized if able…

5) Skip the pie in the sky part… because none of us have enough years left…

6) Look at what’s similar in the market today… or even close…

 

7) I think one MSer has come across the solution that was available back in the day….  Lancair… IVPT….
… And the few who have gone with Brand P’s slightly larger, Rocket engineering powered bird…. PA46T

8) The only thing missing… is that factory built aspect…. So not really available…

9) Unfortunately Mooney has not been able to produce what it has designed already…. A really good plane….. as far as new designs go, the three seat M10…. Still on the shelf needing further refinements….

10) Chances of going more unique, upscale, specialized…. Or pressurized…. How do you feel about experimental? Or six seats?

11) the turbine engine that fits the Lancair was from Eastern Europe…. Now owned by GE.  Still in production, just comes with a lot more overhead….

12) Looking at Parker’s numbers for current four seat sales prices….  Two things can improve that… bigger market and increased competition….

13) Do your part… get more people flying fast and efficiently….   

 

Best regards,

-a-

[Jerry 5TJ]

8 hours ago, carusoam said:

Skip the pie in the sky part… because none of us have enough years left…

Fly what you can get now.  Dream whatever you wish.  

[Browncbr1]

I don't know why no one else seems to think a FADEC controlled turbo diesel burning JetA is the the future for piston powered planes.  California is about to forbid the sale of 100LL all together..  Turbines are too expensive for most owners.  Diesels provide a retrofit path for aging piston fleet to have a way out of the politics of 100LL without the distribution issues of 100UL.  JetA is cheaper and more widely distributed also.  After years of government trying to unsuccessfully get the industry to develop 100UL, I don't get why there is no incentive for engine manufactures to come up with a diesel power plant that can replace 100LL burners.

[toto]

19 minutes ago, Browncbr1 said:

I don't know why no one else seems to think a FADEC controlled turbo diesel burning JetA is the the future for piston powered planes.  California is about to forbid the sale of 100LL all together..  Turbines are too expensive for most owners.  Diesels provide a retrofit path for aging piston fleet to have a way out of the politics of 100LL without the distribution issues of 100UL.  JetA is cheaper and more widely distributed also.  After years of government trying to unsuccessfully get the industry to develop 100UL, I don't get why there is no incentive for engine manufactures to come up with a diesel power plant that can replace 100LL burners.

Is it still the case that a diesel engine can’t be overhauled? I’m way out of my depth on diesel aircraft engines, but I remember raising an eyebrow at some point when I read that you have to throw away the engine and replace it with a new one at some mx interval. 

[N201MKTurbo]

30 minutes ago, Browncbr1 said:

I don't know why no one else seems to think a FADEC controlled turbo diesel burning JetA is the the future for piston powered planes.  California is about to forbid the sale of 100LL all together..  Turbines are too expensive for most owners.  Diesels provide a retrofit path for aging piston fleet to have a way out of the politics of 100LL without the distribution issues of 100UL.  JetA is cheaper and more widely distributed also.  After years of government trying to unsuccessfully get the industry to develop 100UL, I don't get why there is no incentive for engine manufactures to come up with a diesel power plant that can replace 100LL burners.

I didn’t know there was a diesel option for any Mooney. Do you know something I don’t? 

[N201MKTurbo]

12 minutes ago, toto said:

Is it still the case that a diesel engine can’t be overhauled? I’m way out of my depth on diesel aircraft engines, but I remember raising an eyebrow at some point when I read that you have to throw away the engine and replace it with a new one at some mx interval. 

I don’t think it is a diesel thing. The diesel engines that are converted auto engines fall into this category. I think it stems from the fact that a auto crate motor is cheaper than an overhaul.

One thing that worries me with these auto engines is continued availability. It seems that auto engines these days are manufactured for about 10 years. What happens when that auto crate motor is no longer available? 

[Raptor05121]

On 11/11/2021 at 10:14 AM, flyboy0681 said:

For the past decade, every time the demise of the Mooney company has been mentioned on these pages, I could always count on two subjects being discussed ad nauseam... placing a turbine up front and re-introducing the J model. Now I don't claim to know much about the manufacturing costs of light aircraft, but I would guess that neither solution would result in a per unit cost anywhere near the sweet spot for a complex GA aircraft, which I would place at around $450k.

 

The guys at Mooney have always said the cost to produce a J would be roughly the same as the cost to produce an Ovation. Same cost to build the airframe, same avionics, and the engine is not much cheaper. Whats the list on a regular Ovation, 650k? Lets cut 50k out for the hypothetical mid body J, would you buy a 4-banger M20J for 600k or a 6-banger Ovation that can do the same thing the J does and more for 650k?

[Austintatious]

I have a never seen any GA aircraft that started as a piston model be converted to a turbo prop model and it be a good thing.

Typically very little speed is gained and it is done so at a great cost to range.   Turbines simply do not become sensible until getting into heavier aircraft.

I would rather see a Turbo diesel on the front of a mooney.  That would GREATLY extend range and maintain the speed while providing for cheaper fuel and more energy out of the same volume of fuel.

[Austintatious]

Maybe this engine will pan out https://www.astronaerospace.com/

 

How would you like a 800 HP motor that weighs 200 lbs ?

[N201MKTurbo]

3 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

Maybe this engine will pan out https://www.astronaerospace.com/

 

How would you like a 800 HP motor that weighs 200 lbs ?

I have 5 SolidWorks guys at work who could make a better looking cartoon than that....

[Austintatious]

13 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I have 5 SolidWorks guys at work who could make a better looking cartoon than that....

thats wonderful... but what do you think of the engine design?

[toto]

3 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

The guys at Mooney have always said the cost to produce a J would be roughly the same as the cost to produce an Ovation. Same cost to build the airframe, same avionics, and the engine is not much cheaper. Whats the list on a regular Ovation, 650k? Lets cut 50k out for the hypothetical mid body J, would you buy a 4-banger M20J for 600k or a 6-banger Ovation that can do the same thing the J does and more for 650k?

Idk, I bought a J because I wanted a four banger. Even if they were the same price, the lower fuel burn and cheaper mx (especially at overhaul time) were compelling factors for me. It’s not a foregone conclusion that a six is always better or that paying more money for more cylinders is always the right decision.