Product idea for Mooney International

[Shadrach]

4 minutes ago, bmcconnaha said:

i stated i had sourced a used one for now in one of my previous replies.  Its better than the one i have for now.  i do like that parts manual better than the J one i have.  that diagram is much better detailed on the gear doors.  

I find that a lot of the newer manuals both MX and POH could use some serious editing.  Signal to noise ratio is worse not better...

[bmcconnaha]

20 minutes ago, EricJ said:

No doubt, it's an issue everywhere and getting worse as the A&P shortage gets worse.    This is one of the big reasons I went to A&P school, which is obviously also not an option for everybody.   And I admit that I look longingly at experimental category airplanes as well, for all the same reasons.   If I had space somewhere to do it I'd probably be building an RV-10 right now.

 

its not just parts prices that make me want to go experimental on my next airplane (most likely a lancair ES, or RV10).  I really enjoy working on my airplanes, and believe i would like the building process.  but, coming back to the parts pricing... one of the reasons i bought a Mooney over a Comanche was the fact parts were still available.  My best pal has a comanche, and i believe his airplane is better supported in a lot of ways (which is crazy, they have been out of production for 50 years).  i see the parts he purchases from places like webco, and they seem considerably less expensive than buying mooney parts.  

[cliffy]

These discussions have always intrigued me  here on MS

In reality what we have here is trying to resurrect a legacy aircraft line 

What we have are hard limitations to same

We also have a diminishing fleet of Mooneys due to losing several each week to sliding on its belly or smoking holes

Think about this for a minute- we have an airframe design that is basically 60 YEARS old!

Who of us is still driving a 1964 Chevy or even a 1980 Chevy? Who is asking Chevy to resurrect those "airframes"

The design is also frozen by the TC 

In order to change the TC it takes A LOT OF MONEY! Just look at what the process was for just adding a door!

I was there in Fredricksburg when they debuted the door and in talking to them they said it was way more work than they estimated

And that was just for a door! And that was the factory doing it!

We all love our esoteric world of Mooneys BUT the market just isn't there The costs involved bring most of the "mods"

into plastic airplane range and like it or not they have a parachute. THAT item DOES sell airplanes.  

What we are is a niche group of airplane owners trying to hang onto an antique airplane line as long as possible before we are dragged 

kicking and screaming into the 21st century in what we like for air transportation and we have to give up on the Model T we love. 

I have some other Mooney thoughts which I will start a new thread on.

[bmcconnaha]

8 minutes ago, cliffy said:

These discussions have always intrigued me  here on MS

In reality what we have here is trying to resurrect a legacy aircraft line 

What we have are hard limitations to same

We also have a diminishing fleet of Mooneys due to losing several each week to sliding on its belly or smoking holes

Think about this for a minute- we have an airframe design that is basically 60 YEARS old!

Who of us is still driving a 1964 Chevy or even a 1980 Chevy? Who is asking Chevy to resurrect those "airframes"

The design is also frozen by the TC 

In order to change the TC it takes A LOT OF MONEY! Just look at what the process was for just adding a door!

I was there in Fredricksburg when they debuted the door and in talking to them they said it was way more work than they estimated

And that was just for a door! And that was the factory doing it!

We all love our esoteric world of Mooneys BUT the market just isn't there The costs involved bring most of the "mods"

into plastic airplane range and like it or not they have a parachute. THAT item DOES sell airplanes.  

What we are is a niche group of airplane owners trying to hang onto an antique airplane line as long as possible before we are dragged 

kicking and screaming into the 21st century in what we like for air transportation and we have to give up on the Model T we love. 

I have some other Mooney thoughts which I will start a new thread on.

that hurts to see our airplanes and antique in the same paragraph, LOL

[Shadrach]

40 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

If your hypothesis is correct then the biggest strategic mistake that Mooney made was discontinuing the K in 1998.  They should have continued to refine it.  Maybe add a second door.  With the advances in avionics it would have lost weight while gaining capability and usefulness.  The last K, the Encore had a GW of 3,130 lbs.   If it existed (and IF COSTS WERE UNDER CONTROL) an evolved and enhanced M20K Encore would occupy a unique sweet spot in the market providing affordability, value, performance and efficiency.

A similar case could probably be made for the J if it had remained in production evolved and enhanced....,  and if costs were under control.

Indeed, A lightweight K would be close to ideal, though I would prefer a TN set up to a boosted engine.  

[bmcconnaha]

9 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Indeed, A lightweight K would be close to ideal, though I would prefer a TN set up to a boosted engine.  

tornado ally sells a turbonormalized setup for a 390 in a cessna cardinal, i could only imagine that setup on a J after reading what it did on a cardinal.  

[KSMooniac]

38 minutes ago, bmcconnaha said:

tornado ally sells a turbonormalized setup for a 390 in a cessna cardinal, i could only imagine that setup on a J after reading what it did on a cardinal.  

Did they update that system to the 390?  It was originally done for the IO-360-A3B6D (same as most J's), and I don't believe they've sold many.  15 years ago I inquired about them porting it over to the M20J and they were not interested since we're known collectively as a group of cheap bastards.    That is close to the truth... The M20 Turbos STC kit sold less than ~35 units I believe, and that was over 15 years before they folded.  There is not a lot of demand, unfortunately.  It is a transformational upgrade, though, and sooner or later I'll install one on my J.

[Shadrach]

On 9/30/2022 at 12:09 PM, cliffy said:

Think about this for a minute- we have an airframe design that is basically 60 YEARS old!

Who of us is still driving a 1964 Chevy or even a 1980 Chevy? Who is asking Chevy to resurrect those "airframes"

The design is also frozen by the TC In order to change the TC it takes A LOT OF MONEY! Just look at what the process was for just adding a door!

 The original Porsche 911 was introduced in 1964. For 34 years that same basic design and architecture endured with parts 70%+ parts compatibility.  They made major changes in 1999 and those major changes have now been refined for 23 years. It remains an icon because of its history not in spite of it. 

Perhaps the TC is the major challenge, but Mooney marketed 4 versions of the same basic airframe on the same TC with power ranging from 150 to 300hp, metal to wood construction and MGWs ranging from 2450 to 3368lbs.  Beech made very different versions of the Debonair/Bonanza line under the same TC producing 4 and 6 plc airplanes with MGW from 2900 to 3650lbs and vastly different tail structures.  

There airfoil design is not Mooney's problem. The problem for the last several decades has been the R&D required to refine the airframe groups in ways that allows manufacturing at low volumes for a reasonable cost. They managed to completely reengineer the wings and tail structure from wood to metal in just five years after the TC was approved.  

The idea that the legacy structure could not be refined to utilize modern manufacturing methods is not true, it's just that they started too late and delivered too little. 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, bmcconnaha said:

tornado ally sells a turbonormalized setup for a 390 in a cessna cardinal, i could only imagine that setup on a J after reading what it did on a cardinal.  

I would call that ideal for the airframe. Good performance down low, less heat, highly efficient at altitude.

[bmcconnaha]

57 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

Did they update that system to the 390?  It was originally done for the IO-360-A3B6D (same as most J's), and I don't believe they've sold many.  15 years ago I inquired about them porting it over to the M20J and they were not interested since we're known collectively as a group of cheap bastards.    That is close to the truth... The M20 Turbos STC kit sold less than ~35 units I believe, and that was over 15 years before they folded.  There is not a lot of demand, unfortunately.  It is a transformational upgrade, though, and sooner or later I'll install one on my J.

they did.  i would buy it tomorrow if it was available for the J 360/390.  

[bmcconnaha]

5 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

"What Mooney needs to do is disassemble the airframe just enough to warrant removing the data plate.  the data plate off the air frame. Then they could just “zero time” the factory rebuilt airframe when it’s reassembled."

• And you have just highlighted why that will never happen.  "Zero time" and "new data plate" means the 18 year General Aviation liability clock starts over.  Mooney Corp would be subject to liability on planes that are roughly 40+ (or 50+ if your idea includes early Mid bodies) until they are roughly 60-70 years old.  

i wish they did what i wanted.  two door airplanes sold as prepunched kits someone could assemble on their own, experimental.  

[Shadrach]

52 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

Did they update that system to the 390?  It was originally done for the IO-360-A3B6D (same as most J's), and I don't believe they've sold many.  15 years ago I inquired about them porting it over to the M20J and they were not interested since we're known collectively as a group of cheap bastards.    That is close to the truth... The M20 Turbos STC kit sold less than ~35 units I believe, and that was over 15 years before they folded.  There is not a lot of demand, unfortunately.  It is a transformational upgrade, though, and sooner or later I'll install one on my J.

I have replaced turbos before but not on airplanes.  I have helped install aftermarket turbos but not on airplanes. The TAT blower is not proprietary, I believe that it is an off the shelf Garrett unit?...  If being cheap means I find it ridiculous that the STC, plumbing and blower cost more than an engine overhaul ($46K), then I guess I am a CB.  There is nothing unique about an aircraft turbo other than the ridiculous pricing.  My BMW Diesel runs a Garrett GT2260V.  I could have a new replacement delivered to my door for about $1100.

[cliffy]

Your BMW doesn't need the FAA approvals for manufacture or production  OR have the liability incurred that an airplane unit does. 

You just can't take the "same" unit from a BMW shelf and put it on an airplane

Likewise there are 10,000 BMWs per 1 Mooney to market to. Numbers in production do make a difference

[ArtVandelay]

The M20 Turbos STC kit sold less than ~35 units I believe, and that was over 15 years before they folded.  There is not a lot of demand, unfortunately.  It is a transformational upgrade, though, and sooner or later I'll install one on my J.

Didn’t it require cowling changes and 100s of hours to do installation?

The equipment costs are only half of the price.

[Shadrach]

48 minutes ago, cliffy said:

Your BMW doesn't need the FAA approvals for manufacture or production  OR have the liability incurred that an airplane unit does. 

You just can't take the "same" unit from a BMW shelf and put it on an airplane

Likewise there are 10,000 BMWs per 1 Mooney to market to. Numbers in production do make a difference

No but it did have to meet TUV approval which is not an easy feat. The FAA approval process is the primary problem.  It stifles even the smallest of innovation.  I do not believe the physical components of the TAT system are where the cost lies. The turbo is likely an off the shelf unit that costs little more than the one for my BMW.  The cost is in the certification process. Which is super efficient and works really well. It's why things are thriving...  Adding an additional airframe to an STC for a similar airframe/engine combo should be a streamlined process.  I am guessing that in reality it's a goat rope.  It's also why I will likely finish out my flying years with an experimental.  

[bmcconnaha]

2 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

 

Tornado Alley is GAMI - Braley and Roehl.  Those guys are "the sharpest tools in the shed" - if there was a cost effective way 

agreed.  i had an IO550 with a TAT system on it.  it was so balanced... ran 75LOP everywhere in cruise at 14.7 GPH.  i was a fan.  

[A64Pilot]

On 9/30/2022 at 2:05 PM, 1980Mooney said:

"What Mooney needs to do is disassemble the airframe just enough to warrant removing the data plate.  the data plate off the air frame. Then they could just “zero time” the factory rebuilt airframe when it’s reassembled."

• And you have just highlighted why that will never happen.  "Zero time" and "new data plate" means the 18 year General Aviation liability clock starts over.  Mooney Corp would be subject to liability on planes that are roughly 40+ (or 50+ if your idea includes early Mid bodies) until they are roughly 60-70 years old.  

In truth both Maule and Mooney are lawsuit proof, I’m certain Mooney has no liability insurence and in fact their assets are not worth enough to whet the appetite of a product liability law firm, all you would get most likely is the type certificate, and that’s worth essentially nothing at all.

Evety couple of years a bizjet full of Lawyers land in Moultrie Ga and go over to Spence field where Maule is, they always leave in a day or two and are never heard from again, reason is there is no insurence and Maule’s assets aren’t enough to get them interested.

Small firms like Maule and Mooney can’t afford the insurence, it’s prohibitively expensive and unless your making really good money it just can’t be in the budget.

Guy that ran over my Son and left him to die, I could easily have won a civil lawsuit, but he had nothing, State had pulled his drivers license for non payment of child support, think my Son would have seen anything? Whole lot of people and companies are judgement proof.

[Will.iam]

19 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

In truth both Maule and Mooney are lawsuit proof, I’m certain Mooney has no liability insurence and in fact their assets are not worth enough to whet the appetite of a product liability law firm, all you would get most likely is the type certificate, and that’s worth essentially nothing at all.

Evety couple of years a bizjet full of Lawyers land in Moultrie Ga and go over to Spence field where Maule is, they always leave in a day or two and are never heard from again, reason is there is no insurence and Maule’s assets aren’t enough to get them interested.

Small firms like Maule and Mooney can’t afford the insurence, it’s prohibitively expensive and unless your making really good money it just can’t be in the budget.

Guy that ran over my Son and left him to die, I could easily have won a civil lawsuit, but he had nothing, State had pulled his drivers license for non payment of child support, think my Son would have seen anything? Whole lot of people and companies are judgement proof.

Damn at least involuntary manslaughter would have put him behind bars so he could not do it again to someone else.