Mooney gone?

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Not having a parachute is the key issue.

No, the key issue is the serious design flaw with the airfoil. As you can see below, the airfoil on a Mooney is curved on the bottom as well as the top. And, as every pilot is taught, a curved surface works like the cross section of a venturi and creates suction - and in this case - anti-lift. As a result, Mooneys must have serious performance issues because we all know that the aerodynamic theory taught by our flight instructors must be true.

 

[Bill Greenwood]

If purchase price is important, a Mooney 201 is a really good airplane. You can get a decent one for $100k, and it will cruise at 150 155 knots. One big safety factor is it holds 64 gallons of fuel and lean for cruise it burns less than 10 gal per hour. If you run out of fuel in a 201 you either didn't fill the tanks or have an awfully long range bladder! And it is easy to fly, if you land approach at 70k and not 90. Its ok for short fields and it has as service ceiling of 17,800 ft and it will go there.
The Cirrus parachute is GREAT, but as for as the rest of the plane I prefer a Mooney. One thing I really liked about mine was it had the airline style throttle quadrant with levers for throttle, prop, mixture instead of those clumsy screw vernier controls. And yes I have flown with Vernier ones and still never liked it.

I now fly a Bonanza which I like, a little more comfortable than the Mooney, but more expensive and the Cont engine is nowhere near as reliable as the Lycoming. I have not flown one of the later model Mooneys, I'd like to, I know they are fast, over 200k.

 

[steingar]

I'm not so certain Cirrus is as successful as folks here are making it out to be. It has also gone through a series of owners, though they sell more aircraft than Mooney. Still, if you loose money on each unit you can't make it up in volume.

 

[Clip4]

Mooney closing (again) is no surprise. What will be a surprise is if they ever reopen.

 

[BarryCooper]

I was in Kerrville in Sept and FBO told me Mooney had recently gone from 200 employees to 17....

 

[JOhnH]

No, the key issue is the serious design flaw with the airfoil. As you can see below, the airfoil on a Mooney is curved on the bottom as well as the top. And, as every pilot is taught, a curved surface works like the cross section of a venturi and creates suction - and in this case - anti-lift. As a result, Mooneys must have serious performance issues because we all know that the aerodynamic theory taught by our flight instructors must be true. View attachment 79685

Would that be the same aerodynamic theory that says bumble bees can't fly?

 

[MBDiagMan]

Yeah except the Cirrus doesn’t go fast without lots more power.

 

[MBDiagMan]

I’m curious what you would buy. Mooney and Cirrus seem to occupy the same “go-fast” niche.

If I were buying new I would not buy either. My comments had to do with the under six figure used market.

 

[AA5Bman]

If I were buying new I would not buy either. My comments had to do with the under six figure used market.

I got that part - I wanted to know what new airplane you *would* buy.

 

[zaitcev]

Not surprising. Cirrus is pretty much the only relevant manufacturer making single engine pistons.

Diamond is trying to remain relevant in that space with SF50. Sadly the D-jet failed.

 

[zaitcev]

One thing I really liked about mine was it had the airline style throttle quadrant with levers for throttle, prop, mixture instead of those clumsy screw vernier controls.

Ewwwwww. My 1969 Mooney has the quadrant and I hate it. The contortions I have to make with my wrists are quite annoying. I am very glad that modern Mooneys switched to vernier controls. Not that it saved them as we can see.

This is mine:



This is an Ultra that I fit-check at TX Acft Expo:

 

[zaitcev]

Would that be the same aerodynamic theory that says bumble bees can't fly?

The funny thing is, many airplanes have "negative" flaps that create a double-convex airfoil in cruise. That's basically the only way to go fast, at least under the speed of sound.

 

[pigpenracing]

What'd you get??? 206?

I would make them build me a brand new 185

 

[Bill]

Ewwwwww. My 1969 Mooney has the quadrant and I hate it. The contortions I have to make with my wrists are quite annoying. I am quite glad that modern Mooneys switched to vernier controls. Not that it saved them as we can see.

View attachment 79692

View attachment 79693

Yeah, I've flown in 201's with the quatrant, and it's a real knee banger. Give me the vernier knobs anyday...

 

[Shuswap BC]

What did you buy?

Have a 2020 172 on order, loaded it up, and looking forward to its arrival next year. If you have not flown a new 172, get a demo ride somewhere, its not like the old ones. Autopilot, air conditioning, comfy seats, 180 hp, what used to be long range tanks is now standard, quieter, garmin 1000, terrain and traffic, basically the dream panel. They upped the gross weight and the cruise is faster than the old ones to. I have never had a new plane, it is about time I did, and order it how I wanted to. My neighbor will service it for me right in my own hangar, he does many planes here already, and he owns his own 172, and there are several more here at the airpark. Someday I will buy another float plane, time their annuals so both are not down at the same time, and in the winter just park the float plane for several months. I miss having a float plane.

 

[jordane93]

Diamond is trying to remain relevant in that space with SF50. Sadly the D-jet failed.

I’ve never even heard of the D jet. When did they announce that?

 

[ktup-flyer]

I’ve never even heard of the D jet. When did they announce that?

10-15yrs ago

 

[FastEddieB]

Yeah except the Cirrus doesn’t go fast without lots more power.

Stipulated for the most part, but I think it belies how incredibly efficient a Cirrus can be.

1) I could get 160+ kts at 17,500’ on less than 10 gph.

2) My Tiger got me from S FL to N GA in 5 hours @ 10 gph. My SR22 could make the same flight in 3.5 hours @ 13.5 gph. So, significantly faster on less fuel.

Mooneys are remarkably efficient in their own right - I’d hate to see them fold.

 

[mryan75]

What upcoming recession? Who told you that?

True, we've never had a recession following a massive, top-heavy tax cut!

 

[Mtns2Skies]

Keep it out of the spin zone, both of you. @mryan75 @JOhnH

 

[zaitcev]

10-15yrs ago

That's about right. The article in Flying Magazine, "Diamond was first to announce development of a single-engine jet, and the airplane is a delight to fly", was published on November 19, 2019. They took the prototype for a spin. But the jet bankrupted the company.

 

[ktup-flyer]

That's about right. The article in Flying Magazine, "Diamond was first to announce development of a single-engine jet, and the airplane is a delight to fly", was published on November 19, 2019. They took the prototype for a spin. But the jet bankrupted the company.

They're doing really well now. The DA-50 and 62 are awesome.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

They're doing really well now. The DA-50 and 62 are awesome.

But the 62 isn't a big seller. The DA-50 with 300 hp diesel up front could be a serious Cirrus disruptor. A DA-82 with two of them and a pressurized cabin at the same price as the 62, and they'd have my interest.

 

[ktup-flyer]

But the 62 isn't a big seller. The DA-50 with 300 hp diesel up front could be a serious Cirrus disruptor. A DA-82 with two of them and a pressurized cabin at the same price as the 62, and they'd have my interest.

15 DA-62s sold in QI and QII, so not bad. 48 DA40s and 35 DA42s. The DA50 has a shot to be a game changer

 

[ktup-flyer]

All you need to know

 

[Bill Greenwood]

Yeah, all the famous fighters have screw in controls, don't they? Now there's the ME109 about 30,000 built, and 23,000 Spitfires and bout 11,000 P-51s, don't know how many P-40s etc, What none of them, not one of them have screw in throttle, prop or mixture? You mean if they want to advance the throttle they just push the handle forward, don't have to turn any screw or push in any knob to release? If Vernier controls are the ultimate then surely all the hot jets, F-86, F-18, F-16 have them don't they? What none of them,either? And the photo you posted of the older "69 type quadrant is not the same as the one in my "77. I never had to distort my wrist in any way, I just pushed or pulled on the knob at the end of the lever.
Well if not these planes, how about the airliners, the big jets? Surely they must have screw in controls? How about the 737s , I think they may be the most of a type built. So do you push the little button or screw with the knob when you want to go in one of those? Not them, either? Who would have thought it?

 

[flyer770]

Pretty well every single plane you listed there has more room in the cockpit than your average GA plane.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

Yeah, all the famous fighters have screw in controls, don't they? Now there's the ME109 about 30,000 built, and 23,000 Spitfires and bout 11,000 P-51s, don't know how many P-40s etc, What none of them, not one of them have screw in throttle, prop or mixture? You mean if they want to advance the throttle they just push the handle forward, don't have to turn any screw or push in any knob to release? If Vernier controls are the ultimate then surely all the hot jets, F-86, F-18, F-16 have them don't they? What none of them,either? And the photo you posted of the older "69 type quadrant is not the same as the one in my "77. I never had to distort my wrist in any way, I just pushed or pulled on the knob at the end of the lever.
Well if not these planes, how about the airliners, the big jets? Surely they must have screw in controls? How about the 737s , I think they may be the most of a type built. So do you push the little button or screw with the knob when you want to go in one of those? Not them, either? Who would have thought it?

High-wing.

 

[GRG55]

No, the key issue is the serious design flaw with the airfoil. As you can see below, the airfoil on a Mooney is curved on the bottom as well as the top. And, as every pilot is taught, a curved surface works like the cross section of a venturi and creates suction - and in this case - anti-lift. As a result, Mooneys must have serious performance issues because we all know that the aerodynamic theory taught by our flight instructors must be true. View attachment 79685

Ordinarily this would be a serious problem. However, Mooney overcame this aerodynamic deficiency by riveting the tail on backwards and, voila, everything good.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

High-wing.

Keep it outta Spin Zone dude. Warned.

 

[FastEddieB]

No, the key issue is the serious design flaw with the airfoil. As you can see below, the airfoil on a Mooney is curved on the bottom as well as the top.

I did not know that, and it strikes me as peculiar.

When comparing the Citabria to the Decathalon, my rap was, “On the Decathalon with it’s symmetrical airfoil, the good news is it flies as well upside-down as it does right-side up. The bad news is it doesn’t fly right-side up as well as it might.”

My logic is, with a symmetrical airfoil one must fly with a slightly higher AOA than a conventional airfoil for any given flight condition - other than inverted, of course. As such, induced drag would necessarily be higher.

Anything wrong with that logic, and the conclusion that a Mooney would be a few knots faster with a conventional airfoil?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I did not know that, and it strikes me as peculiar.

Actually, more typical than peculiar. Any theory about lift that tells you that wings have a curved top and a flat bottom, or that a wing works like a cross section of a venturi, or that it's Newton on the bottom, Bernoulli on top, or Bernoulli has something to do with curves and/or distances is what you call a fairy tale and has very little to do with how a wing actually generates lift.

Anything wrong with that logic, and the conclusion that a Mooney would be a few knots faster with a conventional airfoil?

Everything wrong. The Mooney has a very conventional (as in real life, not in cartoon fairy tale) airfoil.

There are two big things in an airfoil design - the mid-line curve (half way between top and bottom) which defines the camber. In general, the more camber the more lift, but that comes at the expense of drag at lower angles of attack. Since the Mooney was designed for speed and not for bush country STOL operation, an airfoil with minimum camber was chosen.

The other part of the airfoil design is the thickness distribution - which is a symmetrical shape once you remove the camber. Thicker typically has a little more drag, but makes more room for structure. Typically, an airplane without struts will have a thicker shape because the load on the spar is much higher and the extra room lets you design a much lighter structure. Putting that thicker shape on a modest camber line gives you the more curve on the bottom.

The thickness distribution, camber line, and resultant airfoil at the wing root (from top to bottom) are shown here:


Compare to, for example, a Cessna 182 (below). The Cessna has more camber and a thinner section - but which aircraft is faster?

 

[FastEddieB]

Food for thought. That’s what I love about this forum.

 

[AA5Bman]

I think of Cirrus as the hands down leader in GA right now - and they are - but seeing that Diamond is selling 90 or 100 planes really makes you wonder. Mooney couldn’t pull off but 6 planes in a year? How is that even possible?

My gut reaction is it has a lot to do with growing Americans and the size of the cabin compared to Diamond and Cirrus. Then the parachute - maybe? Then retracts, although I could see this as a positive as well as a negative. I’d say pricing, but they’re all insanely expensive. I’ve heard some pretty awful things about the friendliness of their sales reps at Osh and lackluster presence at those types of shows (all secondhand, fwiw).

They’re great planes as far as I can tell - seems strange they couldn’t eek out even a few more sales.

 

[GRG55]

I think of Cirrus as the hands down leader in GA right now - and they are - but seeing that Diamond is selling 90 or 100 planes really makes you wonder. Mooney couldn’t pull off but 6 planes in a year?

Plastic vs metal. Simple as that...

BTW, GA is a large market. So Cirrus being the "hands down leader" is a specious statement. Cessna has Cirrus beat hands down. And I expect Gulfstream is far more profitable than Cirrus.

AOPA's definition of GA is:
"General aviation is all civilian flying except scheduled passenger airline service."

 

[Bonchie]

I think of Cirrus as the hands down leader in GA right now - and they are - but seeing that Diamond is selling 90 or 100 planes really makes you wonder. Mooney couldn’t pull off but 6 planes in a year? How is that even possible?

My gut reaction is it has a lot to do with growing Americans and the size of the cabin compared to Diamond and Cirrus. Then the parachute - maybe? Then retracts, although I could see this as a positive as well as a negative. I’d say pricing, but they’re all insanely expensive. I’ve heard some pretty awful things about the friendliness of their sales reps at Osh and lackluster presence at those types of shows (all secondhand, fwiw).

They’re great planes as far as I can tell - seems strange they couldn’t eek out even a few more sales.

Because contrary to what owners of them will swear, they are cramp, uncomfortable planes compared to a Cirrus.

Even the pilot's seating position is contentious.

 

[hindsight2020]

They’re great planes as far as I can tell - seems strange they couldn’t eek out even a few more sales.

It's only strange if one insists on looking at this from the eyes of a fanboi, arguing about 10 knots difference in cruise speed as if its consequential to a million dollar sale. It isn't. That market is a lot more pax centric. And the market spoke. Blaming ergonomic complaints on median population weight is a red herring. Speaking with my squadronmate who went dutch on a ridiculously overpriced Bravo, talking all day about how he made it 1000nm in 5 hours, proceeds to begrudgingly admit he has to fiddle-f--- with the seat after hour 3 in order to regain mobility on his knees.

AOPA's definition of GA is:
"General aviation is all civilian flying except scheduled passenger airline service."

Perhaps, but the colloquial understanding has always been "piston piddle pack puddle jumper death trap". In Latin America we use the term "avioneta" exclusively to describe these spam cans. No direct translation, but if there was one it would be "airplanette". And that's not gonna change for the masses. On a more personal level, I don't particularly think it's useful to lump us with part 91 turbine.

Because contrary to what owners of them will swear, they are cramp, uncomfortable planes compared to a Cirrus.

Even with the pilot's seating position is contentious.

Bingo.

 

[FormerHangie]

Plastic vs metal. Simple as that...

BTW, GA is a large market. So Cirrus being the "hands down leader" is a specious statement. Cessna has Cirrus beat hands down. And I expect Gulfstream is far more profitable than Cirrus.

AOPA's definition of GA is:
"General aviation is all civilian flying except scheduled passenger airline service."

https://gama.aero/facts-and-statistics/quarterly-shipments-and-billings/

Depends on what criteria you use. If you look at total shipments of all GA aircraft, Cirrus sells the most units by a narrow margin over Cessna. Add in Beechcraft and Textron sells more units than Cirrus, thanks to their strong Citation and Caravan sales. If you're only looking at airplanes that might reasonably be owner flown, then Cirrus rules the roost, with Piper second. Cessna delivered 66 piston singles in the first half of this year while Cirrus delivered 203 and Piper delivered 89 singles, 17 Seminoles, and 14 single engine turboprops.

Looking at billings for all of general aviation, Gulfstream is the largest company and not by a small amount.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

No, the key issue is the serious design flaw with the airfoil. As you can see below, the airfoil on a Mooney is curved on the bottom as well as the top. And, as every pilot is taught, a curved surface works like the cross section of a venturi and creates suction - and in this case - anti-lift. As a result, Mooneys must have serious performance issues because we all know that the aerodynamic theory taught by our flight instructors must be true. View attachment 79685

I don’t where you got your diagram, but the Mooney wing airfoil is basically flat on the bottom side, anyone who has spent time removing the zillions of screws for the inspection plates can tell you this.


Tom

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I don’t where you got your diagram, but the Mooney wing airfoil is basically flat on the bottom side, anyone who has spent time removing the zillions of screws for the inspection plates can tell you this.


Tom

This looks a lot like the NACA 63-215 I posted. (The tip is a NACA 64-412 )

Tip airfoil: