How come Mooney didn't make twin engine planes?

[mrjones30]

I noticed that Mooney didn't make twin engine airplanes. I compared some specs between a single engine aircraft and a dual engine and some of the specs are the same, (I thought range would be a factor but that isn't necessarily the case). What would be the advantages of getting a twin over a single?

 

 

Thank you

[Cruiser]

they made one.

[FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC]

Quote: mrjones30

 What would be the advantages of getting a twin over and single?

You might be able to convince your non-pilot friends their safer hence relieving their fear of failing out of the sky

[TonyPynes]

Not my post

[ChrisH]

Mooney and Aerostar were at one point under the same ownership, guess that makes the Aerostar a Mooney twin

[aviatoreb]

Quote: 201-FLYER

[WardHolbrook]

They also had a relationship with Mitsubishi in the early days of the MU-2.

 

[aviatoreb]

Aerostar, Mitsubishi, or TBM relationships all begot nice but dramatically different airplanes even if perhaps a thread of common heratige - that M-22 is the only true twin version of our beloved M20s.    Looks like the same frame and mostly the same wings with two engines instead of one on the nose.  And you gotta love that unmistakable tail.

[WardHolbrook]

Actually, here is my favorite Mooney M-20 varient...

 

[WardHolbrook]

Actually, here is my favorite Mooney M-20 varient...

How much fun would this one be? Two seats, sticks, a sliding canopy and aerobatic.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: WardHolbrook

Actually, here is my favorite Mooney M-20 varient...

How much fun would this one be? Two seats, sticks, a sliding canopy and aerobatic.

[Piloto]

In the early days of aviation the reason for adding a second engine was to increase useful load rather than for safety. Early engines were not as powerful so the only way to increase power was by adding engines. If you look at history: the attempts to go from NY to Paris on twins failed but Lindbergh did it on a single. Amelia Earhart crossed the Atlantic on a single but crashed over the Pacific on a twin. Piston twins have twice the possibility of an engine failure over a single. Pisto twin engine failure on take-off is a killer. Twins use three times more fuel than single. Notice that Piper or Cessna has not come up with a new piston twin for decades. The big Cessna Caravan hauler is a single.

José

[jetdriven]

Piston twins use ~twice the fuel as a single, and on a per mile basis, its actually around 80% more. A36 goes 165 TAS and 14 GPH.  BE58 goes 190 TAS and 25 GPH.   They are marginally faster, and statistically, more likelly to have a fatal accident than a single.  So, you pay  much, much more, to go slightly faster, make your wife feel better about having "that second engine", and more likely to kill her than in a single.  Makes perfect sense. 

[WardHolbrook]

There are some caveats associated with the operation of singles and twins. The big caveat when it comes to singles is that when the engine quits on you, you will be landing shortly. Hopefully, as a result of dumb luck or good judgment, you will be VFR over survivable terrain because you'll be “up close and personal” with it shortly.

The big caveat when it comes to flying a twin is that when an engine quits on you, you had better have made the required investment in training and have the prerequisite level of skill to avoid turning the airplane into little more than a lawn dart. A properly flown twin operated by a proficient pilot within its limitations is inherently safer than a single; but that's the kicker - most aren't. I'd guess that the majority of the non-professional light twin drivers and many of the "pros" would be safer in a single. It takes a lot of effort to gain the necessary proficiency and even more to maintain it. That's dang tough to when your recurrent training involves little more than a flight review with a CFI every couple of years and you’re only flying a 100 - 200 hours a year. That is simply not enough and the accident record proves it. Our airline and corporate jet brothers fly up to about 1000 hours a year and they get recurrent every 6 months. I guess we really are better than they are, because evidently we don't need as much recurrent training as they do.

In my mind, the issue boils down to knowledge, skill, discipline, and judgement. You need to have a thorough understanding of what the airplane you're flying is capable of and not capable of doing in any given set of conditions. You also need to know how to achieve maximum performance. You need to have the skill and proficiency necessary to achieve that performance level. Finally, you need to have the discipline to avoid flying your light twin in those conditions/situations where the outcome would be questionable or worse. A review of the accident records clearly demonstrates the folly of those light twin pilots who fail to do what is required to achieve and then maintain the required levels of knowledge, skill and proficiency to fly their airplane.

[M20F]

Quote: WardHolbrook

A properly flown twin operated by a proficient pilot within its limitations is inherently safer than a single; but that's the kicker - most aren't.

I was going to post something to this effect but Ward beat me to it and couldn't agree more.

[jbs007]

Quote: M20F