Krister,
well, a 60 year old design, you are talking of the oldest short body Mooneys like the one I fly.
This is a 1965 M20C, 180 hp O360-A1D, 140-150 kts at 7-9 GPH, 600 NM range.
This is a M20J of 1980 or so. Longer cabin, Lo Presti speed optimized. There is 15 years of development between these two airframes. 200 hp IO360. 160-170 kt @ 10 gph, range over 1100 NM. Still to the present day one of the most efficient airplanes around. It’s turbo brother, the 231 had 190 kt @ around 1000 NM range.
If you compare this with the current line up, calling that the original 1960ties design is a bit off the truth I believe.
This is the current cell, used in the Ovation and Acclaim, as well as in the Eagle, which was the last entry level Mooney produced.
This is what it looks like from the inside.
Now we are talking a 190 kt, 2400 NM range airplane (Ovation) or a 240 kt 1800 NM range one (Acclaim.)
But it is interesting to know that the current cell had it’s origin in a forgotten version: The M20L, equipped with Porsche’s aircraft engine. It took me a while to find a test report of sorts, but according to some paper sniplets I found, this airplane with 217 hp power had a cruise speed of about 165 kts at 9 gph.
Which of course means, if you were to equip the Ovation cell with an IO390 and take into account the aerodynamic clean up the cell has since undergone, you’d end up with a 160-170 kt airplane with a MOGAS and UL91 capable engine. Or take the SMA 305 with 227 hp currently in development with Cessna and get something very interesting indeed.
That is what I mean with going back to the roots of Mooney: Produce the best speed and range per available power.
I sold my M20J more then a year ago and believe the J is a fantastic and efficient aircraft! It is a very stable platform you and it handles turbulence well…
The new owner used to have an RV7 (180 Hp IO360 CS prop) and claims not to see much difference in speed performance. At 7000 ft 160 Kts TAS is very well achievable on 36-38 L/Hr..
From my experience it performs the best btw 5 and 8 Ft even you can fly LOP, above that altitude the 200HP start to get asthmatic….and with LOP your TAS even goes more down..Above 8 I went ROP to get some power back …
I wish I could afford a 252 Turbo with all the inter-cooler stuff, that’s a serious traveling machine for two people …For a two seater plus baggage the Mooney’s are great airplanes…
The wing is critical and needs good Pilot control, previous glider pilot skills help seriously when transitioning from Cessna’s and the lot.. 
I did a major overhaul on it and can conform confirm the wing is incredibly build strong the spar is one piece…(I transported the aircraft in a huge truck from Germany to Hungary where it was overhauled.like a D check.. 
..
My kids and wife found the back seat a bit claustrophobic …Grass handling an prop ground clearing (two blader) are to be taken with the highest prudence. This are the three reasons I wanted to go for a Bonanza (grass handling and back seat comfort) and last but not least above 8000 Ft the Bo has still a bit more breath with 285 Hp’s
I transitioned from my Motorglider a Taifun 17E to a Mooney and learned the hard way on 520 Meter RWY in Merzbruck (EDKA) Germany with Westflug. If you can land there with a Mooney you can let it down on any 600 Meter RWY..
One thing I would like to mention from 78 onward the M20’s had a good cockpit layout with a master caution panel and logical set=up of the gear handle (like in the airlines), this is not the case in the Bonanza’s…
http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/000758075L.html
I never said the Mooney was a 60 year old design (although it is), I said it had 40 year old technology. I meant the airframe and engine. Naturally they would stick a G1000 in there. I did however say that some companies continue to produce 60 year old designs, C172 for instance, and the current PA28 is also such a derivative even if they made some modifications in the mid 70-ies, like with the Mooney. New wing and longer body.
In contrast the Panthera is more modern than the M20x, or would you say it isn’t? Not trying to bad mouth the Mooney, just questioning if it is wise to keep producing 40 year old technology, or worse, 60 year old technology?
You can’t compare a composite design with a metal design…..both have there strengths and weaknesses…
That the Panthera will be 40Kts faster I need to see first…I believe the Mooney is a very good design and can be even more optimized… Take a 737 it’s still going even the new ones have components and parts that was designed 60 years ago…..
I owned a composite airframe and a metal one and repairing and maintenance on a composite airframe is much more complex then a straight forward alum-design.. Look at the price of modern gliders …..Composite structures can only work economically if they can be produced in hi-volume automated way lowering the cost..
With the Mooney the production is already in place…if they make the profit numbers work is another question….a new ovation is not cheap..!!! Maybe selling hi-numbers to China may help..?
When lightning strikes I prefer to be in a metal can, the chute may not deploy…
Krister, some people prefer metal over plastic….some people prefer reliable known technology when they are staking their life on it….some people prefer Mooneys…..some don’t…
I agree with previous posts that the offering should include 200HP version alongside the Acclaim/Ovation….unlike an Arrow or TB10 a 200HP Mooney is a very fast machine….my M20J has 3" rudder extensions so no need to sit close to the panel….seating feels like a PA28…unlike a pre-GT TB I can wear a head-set and not hit the roof….end of
I am trying to understand what major breakthrough in sub sonic aerodynamic design has occurred in the last 40 years – boundary layer control around the 1950’s, although Coanda discussed this in the early 20th century? Useful in a Buccaneer, Blackburn, not Lake.
The 172 SP is a good example of good compromise in aerodynamics, and they have added safety features (26 g seats, air bags, Garmin 1000, fuel injection) which bring it up to date. It is also built like a brick s**thouse, hence still being bought around the world. Not sure what aerodynamic innovation would improve it. (Sportsman stol wing cuff, bush wheels and stronger nose fork?)
Material innovation and engine technology has given us the carbon cub, aerodynamic design largely left alone.
The M20J remains the standard for mass production GA efficiency, and yes, new engine technology would be an interesting innovation, but am not sure you could squeeze more aerodynamic efficiency out of it in a cost effective way.
This is what it looks like from the inside.
Yeah, but still an S-Tec 55 …
With the Mooney the production is already in place
My understanding (is it correct?) is that Mooney never had much tooling. The planes were essentially handmade, by a large workforce.
The only plane I know of which got anywhere near getting “tooled up” was the Socata TB series. I saw loads of press tools in their factory. Plus they CNC milled the larger metal parts, on huge CNC machines.
The metal content of a GA airframe (the hull) is maybe $1000 in purchase cost of the raw material.
When lightning strikes I prefer to be in a metal can, the chute may not deploy
It is a requirement that any ICAO certified IFR aircraft has bonded structures so any composite parts need a metal mesh inside them. Otherwise, a strike could melt the control linkage(s) and this has happened in gliders.
The next problem below that is static interference with avionics. I have heard, first hand from pilots, face to face, stories of the whole panel going blank and staying blank, or just rebooting. This was on DA40s and SR22s. Nothing recent but clearly it was an issue which didn’t exactly make the press. One chap on here could tell a story… whether he wants to or not is up to him. That issue is very difficult to counter, because even a small area of composite will charge up from the droplets hitting the outside surface, and it can flash over to e.g. a wiring harness on the inside of it.
One can solve the static problem (not the lightning problem, due to the far higher current) by a conductive coating on the inside (an old trick for scraping in under the EMC compliance limits under the EU “CE” regs ) but some of the good and effective coatings (silver) are very expensive and you have to make a contact with it, via a terminal of some sort. Zinc coatings are OK and a lot cheaper. However I have never seen coatings used in GA.
The above incidentally is why I think much of the non-CofA fleet in Europe will never get IFR certification – to the contrary of what some are claiming is just around the corner.
I think, given the above hassles, the main advantage of composites in IFR light GA is the ability to cheaply make compound (3D) surfaces. With metal, they have to be either beaten (silly-slow) or pressed (very expensive tooling, say $50k for a 50×50cm component).
I am trying to understand what major breakthrough in sub sonic aerodynamic design has occurred in the last 40 years
I have sat in the Panthera and it is fairly compact but OK. Whatever aerodynamic advantage they have is IMHO due to a small cockpit cross-sectional area, plus sorting out lots of small details. For example each big VHF antenna is worth about 0.5-1kt, each little one maybe 0.2kt, and a well equipped plane is like the roof of the NSA and loses maybe 5kt through all that crap. If you do a new plastic design then you can hide a lot of these in the airframe e.g. GPS ones can be flush, the VHF ones can be in the vertical stabiliser. If you sell a plane with just a GPS and no DME/ADF (as I believe they will) then you save a bit there. Also flush rivets are expensive to do in thin material, so few people bother because on most of the airframe it doesn’t help much.
This particular one has the Stec 55, the “current” one has the G700. I believe this model (took the pic from planecheck) is an early Acclaim which still had the Stec, like early Cirrus have.
Actually, I am looking at getting an AP installed in mine (M20C) and the 55x is the only one which is STC’d with a Flight Director for retrofit…. what is the issue with it? I am genuinely interested to hear, as I don’t want to spend a lot of money and buy a dog.
The Panthera is great, so are the Cirrus designs and others. I do not have any intention of wishing to creating a monopoly market, far from it, that is why I personally welcome any player in that market. It is going to help us customers in the end to have competition.
My understanding (is it correct?) is that Mooney never had much tooling. The planes were essentially handmade, by a large workforce.
My understanding was that it was a combination of both. The result is an increadible strong cabin as well as wing. So far, only one airframe ever had an in flight breakup and that was in the center of a TS. I’ve seen multiple examples of Mooneys which were massively mishandled and survived. That, i guess, is Mooney’s major safety feature.
The STec is ok – it is just not a digital A/P. I was only wondering about a G1000 without a GFC700…
