Wing development.

[mccdeuce]

So I have been scouring the internet as I plan my retirement project. (At least 5 years from now….)

Does anyone know how the wing changed over the years from the A to a J? Other than adding gear doors, winglets and the such. More interested in the aerodynamics of it. Is the airfoil the same? Overall length? 
 

or recommended places to research?

[N201MKTurbo]

I think the only aerodynamic change was putting a twist in the wing. They stopped doing it. I think the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.

The biggest changes were in the fuel tanks. There were some minor changes, but not aerodynamic.

[Andy95W]

A few years ago, I had to buy new aileron pushrods for my 1964 M20C.  They were exactly the same as for the brand-newest M20TN.

[KSMooniac]

The airfoils are listed in the TC, and have not changed from the original design.

[Igor_U]

As stated wing structure and airfoils are the same. Early planes had a wingspan of 35' while in mid 80-s wingspan grew to 36' by adding composite wingtips.

 

[201Steve]

28 minutes ago, Igor_U said:

As stated wing structure and airfoils are the same. Early planes had a wingspan of 35' while in mid 80-s wingspan grew to 36' by adding composite wingtips.

 

“Does anyone know how the wing changed over the years from the A to a J? Other than adding gear doors, winglets and the such.”

[stevesm20b]

The A model had a wood wing. The B model was the first to have the metal wing.

[hammdo]

I think the M21A should have a composite wing based on the M20A..

Mr. Wheat would’ve probably agreed…

-Don

[1980Mooney]

In 1967 Mooney introduced a "twisted" wing on the M20F.  It lasted one year.  I can't find any pictures showing profile comparison but in a MS thread that points out that the 201 M20J wing tips will not fit on a 1967 wing::

"A very clever greybeard at our local Mooney agent, that is a sheet metal expert and does magic with rebuilding just about any wreck, explained and actually physically demonstrated to me why the wingtip could not work. It does not have anything to do with altering the flight characteristics of the airplane or the wing, or anything along those lines. The leading edge on the twisted wing and that of the new style wingtip just don't match. Holding the tip to the wing, it fits perfectly all the way from the back up to about 8 inches from the leading egde. From here on, the shape of the wing is different to that of the tip and the leading edges don't match. The wings' being substantially lower."

and

"The washout helps improve control as the wing stalls, beginning at the root.  The ailerons are the last part of the wing to stall.  It could be seen as beneficial if flying too slow and get into an accelerated stall turning base to final, but I think the real world benefit wasn't really there.  Some argue it costs a couple ktas.  It's the only thing on my 67F that I don't care for, (for aesthetics), but not a big deal"

 

Edited February 3, 2023 by 1980Mooney

[A64Pilot]

Wing washout keeps the stall inboard as the outboard sections are lower angle of attack, but it’s less efficient, most efficient is no washout, but it’s much safer especially for an aircraft maneuvering close to the ground nibbling at a stall to have washout, but that's not a Mooney’s mission.

As crop dusters are nibbling at stall at every turn when heavily loaded the Thrush has 1.5 degree washout ensuring a stall will start inboard even if your a little out of trim (it’s natural for a pilot to step on the rudder to tighten a turn, we shouldn’t but most just instinctively do, bad habit)

The Air Tractor has little if any washout, and got a reputation of killing pilots in the turn, so Air Tractor drivers use flaps in the turn, this washes out the wing, but of course increases drag, thereby negating the advantage of no wash out. Flaps as they increase the angle of attack, wash out a wing.

It’s my opinion that Mooney’s don’t have very gentle stalls, no aircraft with stall strips do, so they tried increasing the washout, which increased drag, slightly slowing the aircraft. Mooney’s niche is good speed with less fuel burn, so they quickly decided it wasn’t worth it.

It boils down to TANSTASFL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain't_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch

[EricJ]

3 hours ago, hammdo said:

I think the M21A should have a composite wing based on the M20A..

Mr. Wheat would’ve probably agreed…

-Don

The wood wings on old Mooneys are composite.   They are covered in plywood laminates.

[hammdo]

Exactly… it was tounge n cheek ;o) thus the M21A…

-Don

[mccdeuce]

This is all perfect information - and what I thought but could not find any details on so thank you.

what I plan to study over the next few years is maybe your M21A…. I want to use an M20A composite wing to build a modern composite wing for a J fuselage. (Yes I know it will not be cheap) 

[DonMuncy]

5 minutes ago, mccdeuce said:

This is all perfect information - and what I thought but could not find any details on so thank you.

what I plan to study over the next few years is maybe your M21A…. I want to use an M20A composite wing to build a modern composite wing for a J fuselage. (Yes I know it will not be cheap) 

That kind of a project is pretty unusual. What is your end goal? A fun experimental plane for your own enjoyment? An STC for existing J owners? ...?

 

[Culver LFA]

18 minutes ago, mccdeuce said:

This is all perfect information - and what I thought but could not find any details on so thank you.

what I plan to study over the next few years is maybe your M21A…. I want to use an M20A composite wing to build a modern composite wing for a J fuselage. (Yes I know it will not be cheap) 

A friend of mine and I have been, over a few beers, talking about putting a M20 wing on a RV10.  We think it would be good to give up the shorter takeoff/landing roll for a faster cross country machine.

[KSMooniac]

13 minutes ago, Culver LFA said:

A friend of mine and I have been, over a few beers, talking about putting a M20 wing on a RV10.  We think it would be good to give up the shorter takeoff/landing roll for a faster cross country machine.

Mooney missed a great opportunity when they developed the Ultra models to widen the cabin.  It wouldn't have been much extra work, and with enough aero refinement might not have even reduced the top speed either.  Such a change combined with the new landing gear +MGW increase would have made the U and V relevant in the market again, IMO.  

[Fly Boomer]

11 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

Mooney missed a great opportunity when they developed the Ultra models to widen the cabin.  It wouldn't have been much extra work, and with enough aero refinement might not have even reduced the top speed either.  Such a change combined with the new landing gear +MGW increase would have made the U and V relevant in the market again, IMO.  

No parachute.

[EricJ]

38 minutes ago, Culver LFA said:

A friend of mine and I have been, over a few beers, talking about putting a M20 wing on a RV10.  We think it would be good to give up the shorter takeoff/landing roll for a faster cross country machine.

There's a derelict M20 dash model (the one before the M20A) at my airport.   It got moved outside many years ago, apparently after the wing was mostly restored, but it's been sitting out in the AZ sun for a long time and now is just starting to show some degradation.   If somebody doesn't do something with it soon it's gonna be a loss.   It might be a good starting point for something like that.

[KSMooniac]

1 hour ago, Fly Boomer said:

No parachute.

Also that, even though I hate the airframe chutes.  They sell planes, so they ought to be an option on a revised M20.

[Fly Boomer]

1 minute ago, KSMooniac said:

Also that, even though I hate the airframe chutes.  They sell planes, so they ought to be an option on a revised M20.

There are a bunch of things about the "parachute plane" that give them a near monopoly.  Our useful load is already iffy in many cases -- I don't know what the parachute weighs, but even without all the other goodies on the plastic plane, the parachute alone could be enough to make a Mooney with parachute impractical.  I'm happy with what I have, but I think it's just too late to engineer any serious competition given what we have to work with.

[hammdo]

Tie the parachute to the steel frame, seems doable but, probably adds 60 lbs or so I’m guessing…

-Don

[mccdeuce]

3 hours ago, DonMuncy said:

That kind of a project is pretty unusual. What is your end goal? A fun experimental plane for your own enjoyment? An STC for existing J owners? ...?

 

A fun experimental airplane. The Mooney is a perfect airplane for me and the family. But I want a different engine, one not designed in 1940. I want avionics that are current without costing more just to have a piece of paper that goes with them. 

2 hours ago, Culver LFA said:

A friend of mine and I have been, over a few beers, talking about putting a M20 wing on a RV10.  We think it would be good to give up the shorter takeoff/landing roll for a faster cross country machine.

Interesting. To me - having the fuselage is more important than the wing. I really like the roll cage of the Mooney. 

[KSMooniac]

On 2/3/2023 at 3:08 PM, Fly Boomer said:

There are a bunch of things about the "parachute plane" that give them a near monopoly.  Our useful load is already iffy in many cases -- I don't know what the parachute weighs, but even without all the other goodies on the plastic plane, the parachute alone could be enough to make a Mooney with parachute impractical.  I'm happy with what I have, but I think it's just too late to engineer any serious competition given what we have to work with.

You are substantially correct.  For an M20-size plane, the chute would be in the ballpark of 80 lbs or so, plus whatever parasitic weight that would have to be added to integrate it, such as frangible covers for the risers and the rocket/canopy/etc.  It's just not practical for our planes with the current weight limits.  If I were given the task to modernize the M20, I would change the new Ultra shell to make it wider, add the retrofit oleo gear, and reduce some structural weight of the wing.  A longbody M20 with a 3600 lb MGW and 2200-2300 lb empty weight AND more shoulder room would be a much easier sale today.  And an optional chute for those so inclined...

[carusoam]

27 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

You are substantially correct.  For an M20-size plane, the chute would be in the ballpark of 80 lbs or so, plus whatever parasitic weight that would have to be added to integrate it, such as frangible covers for the risers and the rocket/canopy/etc.  It's just not practical for our planes with the current weight limits.  If I were given the task to modernize the M20, I would change the new Ultra shell to make it wider, add the retrofit oleo gear, and reduce some structural weight of the wing.  A longbody M20 with a 3600 lb MGW and 2200-2300 lb empty weight AND more shoulder room would be a much easier sale today.  And an optional chute for those so inclined...

We should go make a presentation to Jonny…. 

Including how to update an older Mooney to a composite roofed Mooney…

Starting with the O1s and Bravos….   

Then work the angle of increased MGTW for the M20Js…

More power, new legs, more MGTW, + parachute option… parachute option may require adding a steel tube hoop for balance while under the canopy…

May sound silly at first…

But, the right person with Mike Patey style engineering skills… (aka KS Mooniac)

Could make it happen…

PP thoughts only, not a seer of the future…

May need to fire up the Power Point skills.  

Best regards,

-a-

 

[jetdriven]

You might as will be design a whole new plane this point and there's already one in that market segment that sells hundreds per year.
 

At least that money for the M10J was well spent.