Pilot side door

[larrynimmo]

First time for me to see one…what a great looking plane!

[cliffy]

A lot of engineering money went into that project. I was at the unveiling in Fredericksburg TX.

Didn't quite save the company though which I blame on the marketing focus they had at the time. AND the fact that the first article had a God awful paint job design. Unfortunately their marketing was abysmal.  I think if they had just looked at Cirrus and emulated what they did they might have done all right. 

With that they also brought out the composite fuselage skin shell fwd 

Made things a lot easier to build because they had access to the fuselage up until they wrapped it with the composite shell. 

[1980Mooney]

58 minutes ago, cliffy said:

A lot of engineering money went into that project. I was at the unveiling in Fredericksburg TX.

Didn't quite save the company though which I blame on the marketing focus they had at the time. AND the fact that the first article had a God awful paint job design. Unfortunately their marketing was abysmal.  I think if they had just looked at Cirrus and emulated what they did they might have done all right. 

With that they also brought out the composite fuselage skin shell fwd 

Made things a lot easier to build because they had access to the fuselage up until they wrapped it with the composite shell. 

All that engineering and they didn't bother to widen the cabin a couple inches.  What a waste.  So what if they sacrificed one or two knots.  They truly did not understand marketing or what the paying market wants (in addition to Useful Load)

Edited February 21, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[Fly Boomer]

Bound by type certificate?

[A64Pilot]

You think adding a door is intensive and expensive? Merely widen the fuselage by a few. Start of course by building all new jigs and the structural substantiation alone is not trivial.

Adding useful load can also be tough, I know I took a design from 6,000 lb gross to 10,500 lbs gross, if the aircraft can handle it adding a 1000 isn’t really any tougher than adding 100 meaning any significant increase is tough, you have to prove everything can handle the extra load, it’s not just a stall speed exercise, but I suspect that’s a tough nut for the big motor Mooney’s.

[cliffy]

They had to do structural analysis big time just to change a few pieces of steel tubing in the "cage"

Recertification of the cage was a big drag on finances even for this "small" change. 

All above in A64Pilot applies BIG TIME to widen the cockpit area. Given the sales volume it was not something financially possible.

The FAAs certification process is a byzantine and arcane process perpetuated by a bureaucracy very recalcitrant to change.

hat seems like a small simple change in a part quickly becomes a monster in the room when working with the FAA. 

[GeneralT001]

Meh....the one door on the copilots side helps make a Mooney a Mooney.

[A64Pilot]

I don’t like composites usually, OK when not structural, but can be a real bear to repair if they are, Aluminum is old school, very well known and easy to repair. Composite wing tips and cowlings I can live with

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, cliffy said:

They had to do structural analysis big time just to change a few pieces of steel tubing in the "cage"

Recertification of the cage was a big drag on finances even for this "small" change. 

All above in A64Pilot applies BIG TIME to widen the cockpit area. Given the sales volume it was not something financially possible.

The FAAs certification process is a byzantine and arcane process perpetuated by a bureaucracy very recalcitrant to change.

hat seems like a small simple change in a part quickly becomes a monster in the room when working with the FAA. 

 

3 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

You think adding a door is intensive and expensive? Merely widen the fuselage by a few. Start of course by building all new jigs and the structural substantiation alone is not trivial.

Adding useful load can also be tough, I know I took a design from 6,000 lb gross to 10,500 lbs gross, if the aircraft can handle it adding a 1000 isn’t really any tougher than adding 100 meaning any significant increase is tough, you have to prove everything can handle the extra load, it’s not just a stall speed exercise, but I suspect that’s a tough nut for the big motor Mooney’s.

You just made the point that they should have widened the fuselage while they were at it.  They had to go through all the structural substantiation of the "cage" regardless.  They probably did 60%-70% of the work.  They drained their finances on the failed trainer M10T - what they did with the Ultra was "penny wise and dollar foolish".  A small incremental investment of time and money in the Ultra would have yielded a bigger return.  Instead, we have the remnants of a company that will likely never build another plane.

[A64Pilot]

No I didn’t, it’s very likely that a door can be substantiated by analysis, and won’t trip rest flights but when you go widening the fuselage while it can be done by analysis, it’s probably beyond any small manufacturer to do so, you have pull one, which means developing a test procedure / plan, test articles, full sets of new drawings as the fuselage has changed, new drawings for all parts, parts manuals, many new parts as most if not all tubes change, to say nothing of new jigs to build this wider fuselage.

That’s a major change and will most likely trip a full recertification test flights etc.

It’s actually pretty much a new airplane, I know as I’ve turned single seat crop dusters into dual seat, and dual control aircraft.

Then as you are pretty much rectifying an aircraft the FAA has the right to draw you into FAR 23 for anything that in their opinion will materially improve safety, which is pretty much anything they want to.

Very often trying to build an improved airplane is the death knell of a small manufacturer, often the improved airplane ends up with significantly reduced performance and or useful load, the widening of the fuselage may have cost more than a kt or two.

Mooney has traded hands several times, either they are all stupid, or this stuff is harder than you suppose.

Edited February 21, 2022 by A64Pilot

[cliffy]

Widening the fuselage also entails changes to the aerodynamics of the entire airframe hence a full set of flight tests would be required.

[1980Mooney]

39 minutes ago, cliffy said:

Widening the fuselage also entails changes to the aerodynamics of the entire airframe hence a full set of flight tests would be required.

I suspect you are right and that is true.  When Rocket Engineering was a tiny start-up with meager funds back in the 90's they had to do a full set of flight tests when they crammed the TSIO-520 in the K to produce the Rocket and when they crammed the big IO-550 in the front of the J to produce the Missile. 

But Short Term Thinking dictates doing as little as possible.  If Mooney wasn't willing to make the incremental effort and incremental investment at that time of adding a door then they never will. The cost to do it now will be much much higher - starting from scratch, no material engineering staff, And the available funds were pissed away on the failed trainer M10T.  Current management seems to be focused on flipping the company with the online broker of last resort.  Not a surprise that Mooney is no longer in the plane making business.

Edited February 21, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[1980Mooney]

5 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

No I didn’t, it’s very likely that a door can be substantiated by analysis, and won’t trip rest flights but when you go widening the fuselage while it can be done by analysis, it’s probably beyond any small manufacturer to do so, you have pull one, which means developing a test procedure / plan, test articles, full sets of new drawings as the fuselage has changed, new drawings for all parts, parts manuals, many new parts as most if not all tubes change, to say nothing of new jigs to build this wider fuselage.

That’s a major change and will most likely trip a full recertification test flights etc.

It’s actually pretty much a new airplane, I know as I’ve turned single seat crop dusters into dual seat, and dual control aircraft.

Then as you are pretty much rectifying an aircraft the FAA has the right to draw you into FAR 23 for anything that in their opinion will materially improve safety, which is pretty much anything they want to.

Very often trying to build an improved airplane is the death knell of a small manufacturer, often the improved airplane ends up with significantly reduced performance and or useful load, the widening of the fuselage may have cost more than a kt or two.

Mooney has traded hands several times, either they are all stupid, or this stuff is harder than you suppose.

Perhaps it is all perspective but I don't call the Mooney Corp. of 2013-2019 "small".  Yes today they are small.  But between 2013-2019 the Chinese owners admitted to infusing $150 million capital into Mooney (per AvWeb ref. Company statements).  A newly opened engineering and test facility in Chino CA had 80 employees by 2017 with plans to go to 150.  $50 million was invested in the M10T trainer.  They had developed " test procedure / plan, test articles, full sets of new drawings, test flights etc." for the M10T - they were in the business of developing planes.

https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/mooney-m10t-aircraft/

But that all came crashing down.  They laid off everyone (80) in CA and closed the facility.  In 2019 they laid off 229 in Kerrville.  

Between 2013 and 2019 Mooney could have made further investment in their flagship M20 line but besides the door, they didn't.  It wasn't due to lack of funds or knowhow - it was done by choice.  Widening the cabin or increasing the UL would have been truly incremental for their technical, engineering, development, testing and certification skills during that period.  Today, with each passing day of silence from Mooney Corp or their management, it looks hopeless.

https://www.avweb.com/air-shows-events/mooney-consolidates-in-kerrville/

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/industry-news/mooney-again-will-it-ever-thrive/

https://www.avweb.com/insider/mooneys-last-act/

 

Edited February 22, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[Schllc]

I can tell you that the pilot side door is grossly over rated. 
the larger size door is nice, and I would have been tickled to just make the existing door the size of the ultra door. It took me months to stop entering from the passenger side after buying.  It’s just another set of hardware to break, and another door to leak air and make noise  

I agree that the money would have been much better spent on increasing  UL.

My understanding is that all the existing flight data supports more Legal UL, but the pucks can’t take the drop test. Adding 2-300 pounds of UL, a larger passenger door, and better marketing would have been timed perfectly for this run up of GA. 

It’s real easy to say what should have happened now, but I’m not the only one who thinks the landing gear was where the focus should have been... 

[LANCECASPER]

I agree. Greater Useful Load should have been their number one focus. It would have opened up other opportunities: perhaps a parachute option to give Cirrus owners a faster aircraft upgrade option, ability to have TKS, A/C and long range tanks all on the same airplane.

I doubt seriously that in any 10 year period that they ever lost a handful of sales over not having two doors. However, the announcement of two doors nearly two years before the airplane was available for sale was one of the stupidest blunders ever in the company's history. And that's saying a lot because there have been a lot of blunders. Announcing it before it was available cost them who knows how many sales since it gave people who were sitting on the fence a perfectly valid reason to put off their decision. They cooled off on a Mooney and either didn't buy anything or bought something else. Not showing the company's new ownership any meaningful sales and return on their investment was a big piece of the puzzle in them cutting their losses and pulling out, I'm sure.

[A64Pilot]

I’d bet lunch Mooney tried building a Diesel powered trainer, because the Chinese with their money wanted it for the Chinese market. The Chinese are known for getting US manufacturers to design and build for this mythical huge Chinese market, that has never existed, but they convince people it will, any day now.

I was in aircraft manufacturing for a number of years, one thing I can tell you for sure is “Beware of Chinese bearing gifts”

Don’t try to make that racist, it’s not. Very often your not really dealing with a Chinese business, but the Government, and they are slick.

We had our Chinese experience, not with them buying into the business, but with a 24 airplane contract, convinced the owner that there would be a continued yearly purchase, all he needed to do was prime the pump. In short they took the fool to the bank

[A64Pilot]

Ithink Mooney’s problem manufacturing is pretty simple, it shares a similarity with the Meyers 200.

It’s a complex (meaning labor intensive, complex and therefore expensive airframe to build.)

A plastic airframe is much less expensive to build.

On edit, Mooney’s near term future in my opinion is structuring itself as a parts manufacturing company to support the existing fleet.

Properly organized, there is money in that, probably not enough to maintain a large production facility with significant office staff, but it can be a good living for a few.

Edited February 22, 2022 by A64Pilot

[cliffy]

Speaking of landing gear-

They had at the time of the composite shell design actually told me they had run numbers

for a fixed gear version and found that with proper design they would only lose about 2-3 MPH.

A low drag fixed gear could have been also developed.

[1980Mooney]

34 minutes ago, cliffy said:

Speaking of landing gear-

They had at the time of the composite shell design actually told me they had run numbers

for a fixed gear version and found that with proper design they would only lose about 2-3 MPH.

A low drag fixed gear could have been also developed.

Yes but all the Mooney purists would lose their minds. They would say it looks too much like a Cirrus. After all we enjoy enduring gear up landings, paying higher insurance rates, paying higher annuals to swing gear, replace no-back springs, replace Lord Disks, lubricate, repair nose gear truss bearings, repair bent nose gear truss from excessive tow bar turning and to have a wide turning radius. 

[steingar]

What gets me about the M10 was the utter lack of out of the box thinking.  Yeah, AvGas is rare in China.  Car gas is plentiful, and most GA engines run just fine on it.  Buy back the TC for the Mooney Mite and spend the 70 million tooling up to make it.  Now you have a trainer you can sell for trainer money and it burns car gas.

I think the folks who bought Mooney thought there was going to be a big Chinese market. I can't blame them, China is a huge country and I think there's sufficient wealth disparity to drive a small GA boom.  I think something was supposed to happen to open up the skies from the authorities that didn't materialize.  No Chinese market, no real sense in owning a money-losing airplane company.

[A64Pilot]

China could easily be a GA market that would dwarf anything that ever happened here. Lord knows they have the population and a lot of the worlds money.

Except I can’t imagine the current Government would be happy with swarms of the populace roaming around free and unrestrained.

More likely I think is a base of aviators to fly biz jets and or fleets of Airliners.

Although they really do have a need/ use for fleets of crop dusters

 

This for instance is what I mean by beware of the Chinese, the Z10 wasn’t even mentioned to P&W. they were led to believe that the Chinese were going to be building massive numbers of civilian helicopters and wanted to power them with P&W engines, however that’s  not what happened.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/business/global/arms-contractor-pleads-guilty-on-china-exports.html

Edited February 22, 2022 by A64Pilot

[cliffy]

How many pilots would jump from a suckm-up to a bolted down airplane of the same make and forget which they were in? 

[hais]

7 hours ago, cliffy said:

Speaking of landing gear-

They had at the time of the composite shell design actually told me they had run numbers

for a fixed gear version and found that with proper design they would only lose about 2-3 MPH.

A low drag fixed gear could have been also developed.

Heresy! You better run! 

[A64Pilot]

16 hours ago, cliffy said:

How many pilots would jump from a suckm-up to a bolted down airplane of the same make and forget which they were in? 

I don’t believe you could build a fixed gear Mooney and only lose a knot or two if gear were the only difference.

Yes you can build a Mooney sized airplane with fixed gear and only lose a few kts , but you do so by making the aircraft less draggy so that the total drag is about the same.

In other words a Cirrus airframe is less draggy than ours, by quite a bit. The fuselage shape behind the wing of a Mooney is actually quite draggy, narrowing it down to a wasp shape is way less draggy for instance.

Some of those LSA’s that look like an egg with a helicopter tail boom are actually pretty low drag.

I’m one of the old types, I want a complex airplane, one that you control RPM and retract the gear, what needs fixing is putting a pilot in charge of mixture, that's just plain dumb.

But as an example, Mooney gear are WAY more expensive than Cirrus’s fixed gear as is the 4130 tube steel fuselage is way more expensive than popping composite fuselages out of a mold like a boat hull.

Read the last paragraph of this article to see how few people can build as many Cirrus fuselages as they do.

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/fuselage-skins-redesign-streamlines-production

Going to pre-peg saves them a whole lot, prior method (wet layup) required a lot of skill as you manually lay down each layer, wet it out and squeeze out any excess resin, apply a vacuum bag etc. But still way less expensive than welded tube steel.

Pre-peg is pre impregnated with resin and the layup is already there, just lay the prepeg in the mold and ideally a male mold goes into the female squeezing the prepeg and they are steam heated to cure the resin, wait a short while and out pops a fuselage half. 

‘I don’t know if Cirrus uses steam heated molds or not, but if they do it’s ridiculously fast, way way faster than hand fitting fuselage tubes and welding them up. then of course comes the outer skin which has to be hand fit because a welded tube fuselage can’t hold the tolerances required to make it so that the skins don’t have to be hand fit.

So you have a hand built custom airframe with all of the inspections steps and skill required to manufacture compared to one that lends itself to automation and requires way less skilled laborers

Edited February 23, 2022 by A64Pilot

[cliffy]

What I am passing along is what I was told by one of the top managers at Mooney at the time     Not a low level worker but right from the top.