Lame Duck Airplanes

Jaybird180 said:
According to the tech, there are still only 4 employees there.
Click to expand...

I think the tech doesn't know what he's talking about. I don't think they were ever down to 4 employees. The August 2012 issue of the Mooney Flyer has an article that puts the number at 11 employees, and it was written by a former Mooney VP, who I'd expect to be better connected to the factory than a random tech at an MSC.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Hypothetical, same scenario as OP:

Assume the 201 needs tank reseal, gear servicing, F/w fwd OH, airframe in otherwise high condition, airplane nearly gifted to me.

What's a likely investment?
Click to expand...

Jaybird,

You buyin' this thing? If you want a Mooney, I've got one that doesn't need a tank reseal, doesn't need gear servicing, doesn't need an overhaul, and has under 1500 TTAF. Also has great avionics (incl. IFR GPS, HSI, A/P, flight director, stormscope, engine monitor, fuel flow, etc), paint and interior. And oxygen. And speed brakes. And you can fly it right now.

I'm not gonna gift it to ya though. ;)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Jaybird,

You buyin' this thing? If you want a Mooney, I've got one that doesn't need a tank reseal, doesn't need gear servicing, doesn't need an overhaul, and has under 1500 TTAF. Also has great avionics (incl. IFR GPS, HSI, A/P, flight director, stormscope, engine monitor, fuel flow, etc), paint and interior. And oxygen. And speed brakes. And you can fly it right now.

I'm not gonna gift it to ya though. ;)
Click to expand...

Can't sell a modern plane without glass though, and oh yeah, they don't want to pay extra for it.:dunno:
 
Henning said:
Can't sell a modern plane without glass though, and oh yeah, they don't want to pay extra for it.:dunno:
Click to expand...

Can't sell an old plane with it either, huh? ;)

I'd love to have glass in it. There's 3 Ovations at my field, and one of them has the G1000 and FIKI. Highly drool-worthy.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I think the tech doesn't know what he's talking about. I don't think they were ever down to 4 employees. The August 2012 issue of the Mooney Flyer has an article that puts the number at 11 employees, and it was written by a former Mooney VP, who I'd expect to be better connected to the factory than a random tech at an MSC.
Click to expand...

He was referring to the factory, not the office workers. But again, he only says that he talks with them on a regular basis (over the phone I imagine).
 
Jaybird180 said:
:confused:
I heard the factory got new ownership, but per discussion with a tech at the local MSC they are not in production. I don't know the truth either way.
Click to expand...

According to my sis-in-law (lives in Kerrville), they have been hiring and the local community at least *believes* production is resuming.

Their "hiring" page says they are hiring
> Aircraft Assemblers
> Sheetmetal Fabricators
> Upholstery/Seamstress
> Engineering Administrative Assistant
> Sustaining Design Engineer
> Tool Fabricator

http://www.mooney.com/who-we-are/careers/

Sounds encouraging...

flyingcheesehead said:
Spike, what engine do you have? What HP?
Click to expand...

IO520, 285HP.

flyingcheesehead said:
For what I normally plan in the Mooney (I don't go over 10K unless I'm going at least a couple hundred miles):

IO-550G, 280hp@2500RPM
Cruise power setting: 23" or WOT, 2200 RPM, 12.2gph LOP (less if up high)
175 KTAS at 9000 feet, losing about 1-1.5 knots per 1000 feet in either direction from there. I plan on 170 knots and 13gph (to cover climb fuel). FWIW, in a full-power climb I'll burn 25 gph on the takeoff roll, going down to 18 gph at 10,000 feet.

It'll go 10 knots faster, and cost another 5 gph to do so (not to mention probably an early overhaul if I was doing that much at all). Totally not worth it.
Click to expand...

Those are great numbers, compelling testimony of what a carefully-detailed aircraft of small-ish frontal area can do. There's a reason why you need the spoilers!

I can fly ROP, and get to 178 knots or so (lower cruise altitudes), probably 170 or so up high, for an extra 5 GPH or so. Usually not worth it and (of course) on a long trip, the lower fuel burn makes the "slower" speed faster, by eliminating a fuel stop.

By the way, the "285 HP" from a 520 is probably not nearly as good as the "280 HP" from your 550 - the 550 is just a great motor, and when I finally go overhaul, I'll likely upgrade to a 550 myself. I am told (by folks who should know) that the HP ratings on the 550 are much more conservatively-calculated than on the 520.

Lastly, while more fuel is used, you should not expect that the engine would be meaningfully harmed by running at higher power, as long as you are doing so at settings which are appropriate for the engine - and don't create excessive CHT. Have you attended the APS? The good scientists at Ada have advanced understanding of these remarkable engines a great deal.
 
SCCutler said:
By the way, the "285 HP" from a 520 is probably not nearly as good as the "280 HP" from your 550 - the 550 is just a great motor, and when I finally go overhaul, I'll likely upgrade to a 550 myself. I am told (by folks who should know) that the HP ratings on the 550 are much more conservatively-calculated than on the 520.
Click to expand...

Interesting... I wonder why that is. I also wonder what the HP ratings are based on - I figured there was testing as well as calculation.

FWIW, this model of the IO-550 gets its 280 vs. the 310 you often see on a 550 by being restricted to 2500 RPM. Because of that, I don't pull the prop back shortly after takeoff, I keep it full 'til cruise.

Lastly, while more fuel is used, you should not expect that the engine would be meaningfully harmed by running at higher power, as long as you are doing so at settings which are appropriate for the engine - and don't create excessive CHT. Have you attended the APS? The good scientists at Ada have advanced understanding of these remarkable engines a great deal.
Click to expand...

Haven't attended APS. Have, however, read every last one of Deakin's articles, most of them multiple times... To get the higher power and that last 10 knots, I have to go ROP and higher RPM. The latter will likely only increase wear slightly, but the former makes me a bit nervous about the "red box". I'm at or close to 75% power and it gets somewhat larger there. My normal setting is 65% LOP.

I also have one of the old Insight 602 engine monitors, which doesn't have great resolution (25ºF) so I'm pretty careful to keep CHT's down in the 325-350 zone. I'm not sure I trust the probes to be accurate yet, either. Might do the boiling-water test at the next annual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top