Mooney gone?

[MooneyDriver78]

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

How about this one, closer view:

Tom

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

How about this one, closer view:

Tom

The tip is a NACA 63-412. A bit thinner and a bit more camber than the root - so it ends up flatter.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Compare the curve near the root at the edge of the blue with the tip - you can see how the bottom is much more curved inboard...

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Now you’re going to make me look, next time out, I’ll take a straight edge to it.

So the camber change is to get the root to stall first before the tips?


Tom

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Now you’re going to make me look, next time out, I’ll take a straight edge to it.

So the camber change is to get the root to stall first before the tips?

Stall characteristics, room for gear, more room for spars, I would assume that a lot of things went into the decisions. But to be clear, I ain't no professional aircraft designer.

 

[FastEddieB]

So the camber change is to get the root to stall first before the tips?

I think I also spot a stall strip in that image.

 

[MBDiagMan]

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

what is my budget for this decision?

 

[Salty]

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

I just installed a Garmin GMU-11 in my mooney wing where you have to align it to within 2 degrees in all 3 axis. I can guarantee you that it aren't flat on the bottom. The back part is flat-ish, but if you look at the whole chord, it's not even close to flat.

 

[zaitcev]

Compare the curve near the root at the edge of the blue with the tip - you can see how the bottom is much more curved inboard...

You're looking at the spanwise washout in that photo, not at a change in curvature.

 

[david.h]

Mooney wings have washout, specifically with the root leading edge cuff being cambered "down" and more flat on the bottom than the wing tip. The tip does have a small bit of washout relative to the rest of the wing, but it is small. Older Mooney's had ailerons with top curvature and the bottom flat. That was changed to symmetrical ailerons back in the (lets say, not sure---) 70's? The difference in stall characteristics was made up in the aileron rigging. Modern Mooney ailerons are drooped a few degrees in the hangar and assume a close to trailing position in flight.

The airfoil is specifically designed to maintain laminar flow back to the spar and hopefully beyond on both surfaces at cruise speed. This is a design derived from the P-51 airfoil.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

This is a design derived from the P-51 airfoil.

Which has a very curvy bottom.

 

[GRG55]

...Perhaps, but the colloquial understanding has always been "piston piddle pack puddle jumper death trap"...

Well then Cirrus definitely is the "hands down leader in...piston piddle pack puddle jumper death trap with parachute...GA"

 

[flyingcheesehead]

But then, how many times has Mooney been through this?

How many times has Mooney closed and then reopened? 4 or 5 over their history?

Eleven. On average, once every six years.

But, they're also not going out of business. They still have 90 employees, they just stopped producing new airplanes. BTDT.

Cramped

Ugh. Quit. I'm 6'4" 300# and it's one of the most comfortable four-seaters I've flown. Of course, the Cirrus is reasonably comfortable too. I'd call this a wash.

The difference is that Cirrus is better at marketing than any other company in the industry, and Mooney can't market their way out of a wet paper bag.

This is a predictable outcome, IMO. Not having a parachute is the key issue.

Doubtful. Plenty of other airplanes sell well without chutes. It's marketing... And the fact that they only play in one segment: High performance piston single four-seaters. They're not selling any jets to subsidize the piston business.

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.

Mooney cabin is more comfortable than Diamond. I have a significant amount of time in both, and the Diamond has less room to stretch out (thanks to the center console/divider and low panel), and much harder seats. Diamond does have excellent headroom in the back seat, better than any other piston single IMO. Being composite, they were able to make that big bug/bubble shape so there isn't the usual taper right away behind the front seats.

I think I also spot a stall strip in that image.

Affirmative.

 

[MBDiagMan]

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.

This might be true for those who have enjoyed too many hamburgers and not enough exercise. My wife and I are not super trim, but not significantly overweight and we both fit really comfortably and I sit in an extremely comfortable flying position. If you are one who has controlled your food intake, I have doubts about whether or not you have ever flown a Mooney.

For all those sedentary hamburger eaters out there, the Cirrus may indeed be necessary.

 

[Grum.Man]

Let’s be honest, the parachute is what catapulted Cirrus to the front. They have done an effective job of updating their products to keep them fresh and relevant making people want to continue to upgrade. but yes, marketing has kept them there. Lots of advertising, lots of Cirrus service centers, huge booths at the flyins.

I don’t find a Mooney to be THAT bad however, it’s no where close to Cirrus comfortable. The Cirrus interior is much nicer and more luxury car appearing with a massive color choice.

 

[asicer]

Lots of advertising, lots of Cirrus service centers, huge booths at the flyins.

Bertorelli's blog had an interesting take on this. Would you drop a megabuck on a Mooney knowing that they've gone radio silent multiple times in the past and may stop returning your calls at some random point in the future?

 

[Shuswap BC]

Let’s be honest, the parachute is what catapulted Cirrus to the front. They have done an effective job of updating their products to keep them fresh and relevant making people want to continue to upgrade. but yes, marketing has kept them there. Lots of advertising, lots of Cirrus service centers, huge booths at the flyins.

I don’t find a Mooney to be THAT bad however, it’s no where close to Cirrus comfortable. The Cirrus interior is much nicer and more luxury car appearing with a massive color choice.

Actually when I was looking at planes, I considered them, the parachute was a negative thing, not a positive. They should have a delete option for it when ordering.

 

[steingar]

Let’s be honest, the parachute is what catapulted Cirrus to the front.

I suspect it has more to do with the glass fuselage and wings. They can get Mooney speeds and fuel burn with the gear welded down, something very attractive to pilots.

 

[Bonchie]

This might be true for those who have enjoyed too many hamburgers and not enough exercise. My wife and I are not super trim, but not significantly overweight and we both fit really comfortably and I sit in an extremely comfortable flying position. If you are one who has controlled your food intake, I have doubts about whether or not you have ever flown a Mooney.

For all those sedentary hamburger eaters out there, the Cirrus may indeed be necessary.

My avatar is a picture of me flying an M20J.

And I'm 5'9" 160.

Your post is typical though. I don't hate Mooney's. But to argue they are even close to a Cirrus (or a lot of other GA airplanes) in ergonomics puts you in a tiny minority. And remember, this a thread about why Mooney can't compete in today's market, so the direct comparisons are the entire point. It's not a myth or unfair to say that a large portion of the pilot community find them uncomfortable. Lots of people have issues with the seating position as well.

 

[FastEddieB]

This might be true for those who have enjoyed too many hamburgers and not enough exercise.

I’m 6’1” and around 180 lbs. Back when I flew and instructed in Mooneys I was likely around 165 lbs. And I’ve always been relatively fit. And yet, I never cared for the seating position in Mooneys. I find it too reclined, and especially don’t like the close proximity and overall height of the panel. It’s not horrible, just not to my tastes, and I much prefer the more upright seating in a Cirrus or Tiger or most other GA planes.

 

[GRG55]

Let’s be honest, the parachute is what catapulted Cirrus to the front. They have done an effective job of updating their products to keep them fresh and relevant making people want to continue to upgrade. but yes, marketing has kept them there. Lots of advertising, lots of Cirrus service centers, huge booths at the flyins.

I don’t find a Mooney to be THAT bad however, it’s no where close to Cirrus comfortable. The Cirrus interior is much nicer and more luxury car appearing with a massive color choice.

It's not just one thing, like the CAPS parachute system. That's definitely the most prominent differentiator for Cirrus, but as others have pointed out, there are many other factors.
Retractable speed without the complexity, risk and insurance premium of retractable gear.
Two passenger doors.
The feeling of more space and "modern" ergonomics with the side yoke and the "car like" interior.
The continuous improvement and upgrading of the product, including the airframe, the avionics suite and the fit/finish.
The full on marketing effort and personalized attention through the process of build, training and delivery to appeal to the high net worth target buyer.
And the continued development of an aspirational step-up series of airplanes all the way to a jet - most people buying the entry level SR20 will have no difficulty imagining themselves in the flight levels some day.

Since Cirrus delivered the first SR20 to a customer it has correctly anticipated and responded to where the new private-owned light GA aircraft market has been moving. New GA airplanes (that aren't obviously trainers) are luxury products that needs to be presented and marketed as such. Even Aviat, who sell about as basic a rag & tube airplane as you'll find, have figured that out.

 

[Pilawt]

How about this one, closer view:

Tom

Mooney M20F and M20G models (the first-generation "long body" models) built during the 1967 and 1968 model years had a "drooped" leading edge in the outer sections of the wings. In 1969 the droop was elimimated. None of the short-body Mooneys ever had it.

1967 M20F:


1975 M20F:

Stall characteristics, room for gear, more room for spars, I would assume that a lot of things went into the decisions. But to be clear, I ain't no professional aircraft designer.

As with the Comanche and Cherokee (and its derivatives), the primary reason for the "laminar-flow" wing in the Mooney is packaging. The maximum thickness of the airfoil, and therefore the main spar, is further aft, allowing the spar carry-through to be hidden under the rear seat. Likewise, when Cessna determined to introduce strutless high-wing models (210G, 177), they resorted to a "laminar" airfoil and moved the wing aft as far as aerodynamically possible, to keep the spar carry-through in the ceiling out of the way aft of the pilot's head.

The first Beech Bonanza prototype flew in 1945 with a "laminar-flow" airfoil, but the second prototype had the more conventional NACA 23000 airfoil which was adopted for production models. In 1961 Beech again tried a "laminar" airfoil on the experimental Model O35 Bonanza. Said Larry Ball in his book, Those Incomparable Bonanzas, "This model was never produced for a variety of reasons. Probably most important was the lack of any real gain in performance with the new wing."

 

[AGLyme]

I would love to see the study(s) in Mooney's file cabinets regarding the tail design. I was surprised that the newest Mooney carried the same straight tail design - forward. Wouldn't a "normal" swept tail configuration add several knots? And coming from a guy who owns a plane that, as one commercial pilot said over the radio recently, "looks like a bug", I would think that a swept tail would be more attractive to many. Just sayin'.

PS: I would love to own a Mooney one day if I ever decide to trade up to IFR/Complex.

 

[FastEddieB]

Wouldn't a "normal" swept tail configuration add several knots?

Don’t see why it would.

Swept surfaces have a place on planes capable of supersonic or transonic flight. Other than that I think it’s just for style and that it “looks fast”.

 

[Tantalum]

This is a predictable outcome, IMO. Not having a parachute is the key issue.

There's more to it than that though.. while the latest generation was extremely fast it also had pathetic payload capabilities to the point where you cannot buy it with air conditioning and FIKI together, the Garmin integration is also much more "out of the box" and less integrated

Unfortunately with the current competition if you're looking to spend seven or $800,000 there are better all-around options available.. outside of the niche buyer who wants to travel only alone or sometimes with his wife and either never flies in ice or never flies in hot weather

I seriously wish they would have gone ahead building that badass looking carbon trainer

 

[Salty]

Don’t see why it would.

Swept surfaces have a place on planes capable of supersonic or transonic flight. Other than that I think it’s just for style and that it “looks fast”.

What's more, it's cheap. The horizontal stabilizer is exactly the same construction as the vertical. They take 3 of them and make the empennage.

 

[Tantalum]

Let’s be honest, the parachute is what catapulted Cirrus to the front

Certainly part of it, but if that were the only thing we'd see soaring sales for the after market BRS kits if buyers strictly wanted a parachute. And I hear many people see the chute as a negative (cost, weight, etc.).. Putting a parachute in a Mooney won't give it Cirrus sales figures

@GRG55 post nailed it... it's the consistent marketing, modern package, good ergonomics, good performance (I can get 180 knots true out of 16 gph with four adults comfortably sitting in the plane) and a very customer centric training program and focus. And while they're aligning themselves as a "luxury" brand they're not doing it in a high brow off putting way. Mooney's marketing always felt sort of mean and elitist..

Outside of certain tasks like wanting to go really really fast, or dirt / grass strips and rugged ops, or needing to fill 6 seats or have the payload, the Cirrus really fits the bill quite well as a good all around compromise. What other single engine piston can fit four people, 60 gallons, climb to the flight levels with FIKI and AC, and approach 200 knots true (teens and high teens).. not many.. if any.. all with the "safety" of a parachute?

 

[Tantalum]

I would love to see the study(s) in Mooney's file cabinets regarding the tail design. I was surprised that the newest Mooney carried the same straight tail design - forward. Wouldn't a "normal" swept tail configuration add several knots? And coming from a guy who owns a plane that, as one commercial pilot said over the radio recently, "looks like a bug", I would think that a swept tail would be more attractive to many. Just sayin'.

PS: I would love to own a Mooney one day if I ever decide to trade up to IFR/Complex.

Sweeping is really only important as you get up into the mach 0.7 ish and higher region. Notice that all the turboprops have straight wings. The actual air molecules have no idea if the thing they're hitting is swept or not. Sweep is for handling shockwaves and other things like that

I did actually read somewhere that the Mooney tail design makes for a more yaw control during very high AoA ops.. as the relative air is hitting the rudder more perpendicular relative to the direction of travel.. vs a swept tail, which gives up a lot of that yaw control... crudely depicted below.. I have no idea if this is true or not, but that's what I've been told by a couple people

 

[steingar]

My biggest worry about Mooney is the longer they stay shut the more likely the work force is going to move on to other jobs. If and when they reopen there could be no one there who actually knows how to build the airplanes.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Well then Cirrus definitely is the "hands down leader in...piston piddle pack puddle jumper death trap with parachute...GA"

Or let's use one million US dollars per unit as the delimiter ...

 

[MBDiagMan]

I’m 6’1” and around 180 lbs. Back when I flew and instructed in Mooneys I was likely around 165 lbs. And I’ve always been relatively fit. And yet, I never cared for the seating position in Mooneys. I find it too reclined, and especially don’t like the close proximity and overall height of the panel. It’s not horrible, just not to my tastes, and I much prefer the more upright seating in a Cirrus or Tiger or most other GA planes.

It sounds as if you and I simply have different preferences. I feel the same way about the seating position in a 172 or 182 that you do in a Mooney. In these Cessnas I feel like the panel is buried at the end of a tunnel. The Mooney panel OTOH is right there where I can see and reach comfortably. We are actually getting somewhere here. If the seating position is simply a preference then the cramped part is not always the issue.

I’ll make you a deal. I won’t make you fly my Mooney if you won’t make me fly my son in laws 172 or my buddies 182.

It gets down to personal preference rather than the mythical cramped cockpit.

 

[MBDiagMan]

Sweeping is really only important as you get up into the mach 0.7 ish and higher region. Notice that all the turboprops have straight wings. The actual air molecules have no idea if the thing they're hitting is swept or not. Sweep is for handling shockwaves and other things like that

I did actually read somewhere that the Mooney tail design makes for a more yaw control during very high AoA ops.. as the relative air is hitting the rudder more perpendicular relative to the direction of travel.. vs a swept tail, which gives up a lot of that yaw control... crudely depicted below.. I have no idea if this is true or not, but that's what I've been told by a couple people
View attachment 79930

Yes, this is what Al Mooney was quoted as saying in The Al Mooney Story. He did not sell this very hard hour. I believe that it was mostly a trademark or design queue. Auto makers have them. The grills on many car brands carry a certain theme. BMW grills for example have a certain look that indicate the brand on sight.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

If you don’t have swept wings, why have a swept tail? seems to me they should go together.


Tom

 

[Tantalum]

Yes, this is what Al Mooney was quoted as saying in The Al Mooney Story. He did not sell this very hard hour. I believe that it was mostly a trademark or design queue. Auto makers have them. The grills on many car brands carry a certain theme. BMW grills for example have a certain look that indicate the brand on sight.

And you're probably right, an airplane touted for its speed has no real reason to be spending a lot of time in very high AOA regimes with heavy yaw input

Whoever becomes the next Bonanza or next Cirrus should make a backwards V tail.. put the wings right in the middle, have one door, and a parachute.. and make only the nose gear retractable, just to really rile everyone up

 

[N1120A]

AFAIK, part of the reason for the Mooney tail is also the way the trim works. The entire tail moves when you trim the airplane.

Actually when I was looking at planes, I considered them, the parachute was a negative thing, not a positive. They should have a delete option for it when ordering.

It is certificated with BRS. No choice.

I suspect it has more to do with the glass fuselage and wings. They can get Mooney speeds and fuel burn with the gear welded down, something very attractive to pilots.

They actually can't get Mooney speeds and fuel burn. They lose out by 15-20 knots and 1-2 GPH. The Mooney gear system is also basically the most fool proof and indestructible that exists.

 

[Tantalum]

The Mooney gear system is also basically the most fool proof and indestructible that exists.

Except for fixed gear

Mooney speeds

How many people actually fly their Mooney at "Mooney speeds" though..? Most of the people I talk to who fly them fly at around 50% power.. they get off on the whole fuel efficiency aspect of it.. "150 true at 9 gph!!"

Thing is, if you're dropping close to $1,000,000 on an airplane I don't really think the gallons per hour factors into most people's minds

 

[N1120A]

Except for fixed gear


How many people actually fly their Mooney at "Mooney speeds" though..? Most of the people I talk to who fly them fly at around 50% power.. they get off on the whole fuel efficiency aspect of it.. "150 true at 9 gph!!"

Thing is, if you're dropping close to $1,000,000 on an airplane I don't really think the gallons per hour factors into most people's minds

You can fly an Ovation 176 at 12.2 at non-oxygen altitudes. Or push it to 14.5 for 190. You're not doing that in a Cirrus.

 

[Tantalum]

You can fly an Ovation 176 at 12.2 at non-oxygen altitudes. Or push it to 14.5 for 190. You're not doing that in a Cirrus.

sure but I think the market has spoken that the extra two or three gallons an hour to go 190 knots in a Cirrus or worth it for the reasons @GRG55 noted.. it's not the perfect plane for everyone, but it seems at the current demand the Mooney can't survive

 

[Volzalum]

Thing is, if you're dropping close to $1,000,000 on an airplane I don't really think the gallons per hour factors into most people's minds

Which brings the circle back to nothing else can get the mooney speeds on the mooney fuel burn.

 

[Warmi]

Actually when I was looking at planes, I considered them, the parachute was a negative thing, not a positive. They should have a delete option for it when ordering.

They don’t offer cars without seat belts now , do they?