What do you folks think about the new Mooney M10J?

FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
I just read the brochure of the new Mooney M10J and it looks quite impressive on paper. Mooney seems like it's going in the direction of the diesel engine. What is your thoughts on diesel engines in airplanes?

It looks to me that Mooney is trying to steal market share from Cirrus because they look fairly identical.
 
Of course Mooney is trying to steal Cirrus' market share, just like any other aircraft manufacturer that makes a piston single. Note that there are other new generation designs, like the Pipestrel Pantera, that also somewhat resemble a Cirrus. I'm sure it's a result of optimizing form and function.

There are quite a few threads on diesel engines floating around.
 
Not that impressed, for that price I could get a DHC-2, or if I wanted to go the other way a decked out Lancair or Glasair, or a Maule (way more fun), modded 210, etc

Or get a older mooney and put every mod on earth in it, full pearl paint, fine grain leather, full glass panel and still have a fuel and mx reserve you couldn't shake a stick at.


Just not my flavor I guess.
 
Last edited:
Funny looking tail, in this case a really funny looking tail.
 
Diesel. They don't sell that at airports. So does it burn jet A? If so, is it possible to misfuel it, nozzlewise?
 
Do they have a chute?
I think that was a big kicker for the Cirrus.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Do they have a chute?
I think that was a big kicker for the Cirrus.
Click to expand...

Yes, a lot of people like to discount the real world relevance of the BRS to new aircraft owners. But we all see how that turned out. The same thing with the Robinson platform.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Diesel. They don't sell that at airports. So does it burn jet A? If so, is it possible to misfuel it, nozzlewise?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's meant to run JetA. Now with the new ultra low sulphur Diesel fuel, there's not a significant difference.
 
James331 said:
Not that impressed, for that price I could get a DHC-2, or if I wanted to go the other way a decked out Lancair or Glasair, or a Maule (way more fun), modded 210, etc.
Click to expand...

What is the price? I haven't seen it published anywhere.
 
I know there are a lot of aluminum airplanes with airframe ADs, but there are fixes available. I just wonder if one of the composite planes ever has a major structural failure, will the FAA put a flight time/calendar limit on the airframe?
 
Based on their other new plane prices, Id betcha half mil.
 
I wonder how long the diesel engine will last. Diesel power sounds great, with higher efficiency and cheaper fuel, but if the engine is costly and it doesn't last long that will defeat the savings.
 
No offense, but my only thought in response to the question posed was: Yawn.

Probably has to do with remembering when Mooney put out exciting airplanes as they headed down the tubes... but the late model stuff on the covers of magazines in the 80s and 90s was the "OMG! That thing looks FAST! Love it love it love it!" stuff...

Now they're back and it's just: Yawn.
 
How much is it?4-500 grand? More? The jobs that supported buying a new bonanza, cessna, commanche 250, are gone! That was years ago! Good middle class jobs are not coming back anytime soon. I think they may sell a few and then fizzle out.
 
Diesel = overseas Where 100LL is ten bucks or non-existent.

Whatever happened to the 300h.p. RR turbine replacement for GA engines?

I got excited about it, then it fell off the radar .... :sad:
 
txflyer said:
Diesel = overseas Where 100LL is ten bucks or non-existent.

Whatever happened to the 300h.p. RR turbine replacement for GA engines?

I got excited about it, then it fell off the radar .... :sad:
Click to expand...

There are a few experimentals running Walters
 
Haven't most of the diesels had higher TBOs, in the 3,000-3,500 hour range?
 
LDJones said:
Haven't most of the diesels had higher TBOs, in the 3,000-3,500 hour range?
Click to expand...

Better with how the things end up having no support after the companies cease production :rofl:
 
Neal Howard said:
It sounds like likely vaporware to me.
Click to expand...

I doubt it, Chinese wouldn't have bought the company and then announced this plan soon after. I'm wondering if they'll be manufacturing here or end up moving the line over there.
 
txflyer said:
Diesel = overseas Where 100LL is ten bucks or non-existent.

Whatever happened to the 300h.p. RR turbine replacement for GA engines?

I got excited about it, then it fell off the radar .... :sad:
Click to expand...

Isn't it the one in the R-66?
 
Henning said:
Isn't it the one in the R-66?
Click to expand...


I google fu'd it and I think you are correct sir! Copied and pasted from the R-66 site:

Rolls-Royce RR300 300 shp turboshaft; derated to 270 shp for takeoff and 224 shp continuous

So where's mine to replace this tired old 470? :yesnod::confused:
 
In my opinion,

I'm going to give the company a break this time. They are just getting the company started with production and they are trying to get some sales to get the company moving. I'm not impressed with the design at all and it looks like one of my R/C airplanes.

Mooney's are known for having the fastest GA aircraft on the planet. They should continue that reputation.....I hope they do, maybe an Ovation 4?
 
James331 said:
Not that impressed, for that price I could get a DHC-2, or if I wanted to go the other way a decked out Lancair or Glasair, or a Maule (way more fun), modded 210, etc

Or get a older mooney and put every mod on earth in it, full pearl paint, fine grain leather, full glass panel and still have a fuel and mx reserve you couldn't shake a stick at.


Just not my flavor I guess.
Click to expand...

Please, everybody, let's not do the "For that much I could getta... " crap! This is a discussion about a brand new airplane. Comparisons to other brand new airplanes is reasonable, comparison to the used market is irrelevant. Everybody knows "You could getta...", it's pointless to bring it up. :rolleyes2:
 
Henning said:
Yes, it's meant to run JetA. Now with the new ultra low sulphur Diesel fuel, there's not a significant difference.
Click to expand...

It is supposed to do either Jet-A, or diesel. Of course the engine isn't even certified yet, so who knows for sure?
 
denverpilot said:
No offense, but my only thought in response to the question posed was: Yawn.

Probably has to do with remembering when Mooney put out exciting airplanes as they headed down the tubes... but the late model stuff on the covers of magazines in the 80s and 90s was the "OMG! That thing looks FAST! Love it love it love it!" stuff...

Now they're back and it's just: Yawn.
Click to expand...

This airplane has a specific mission and it's not to be the fastest, or carry the greatest load, or fly the furthest. So yeah, there is not a lot of OMG! involved here.

This plane is intended to be a trainer for the Chinese market. They plan to sell it everywhere and hope a few private owners will want one too, but first and foremost, it is a trainer.
 
Neal Howard said:
It sounds like likely vaporware to me.
Click to expand...

It's not vaporware. They are working with a design firm in Chino CA who is doing the work. There seems to be a lot of Chinese capital and commitment on this. I'm sure that next year they will start the certification process, no doubt with the fixed gear version first.

I personally have my doubts as to whether the retractable gear version will ever be a reality. We will see after they get the first one done. If they're smart, they will equip it with a higher HP motor so that students can get their complex and high performance endorsements in it. Maybe an IO-470 here state side!
 
Henning said:
I doubt it, Chinese wouldn't have bought the company and then announced this plan soon after. I'm wondering if they'll be manufacturing here or end up moving the line over there.
Click to expand...

Supposedly, production will be in Chino, CA, but how long that remains, who knows? Likely there will eventually be another production line in China and after that happens... ?
 
txflyer said:
I google fu'd it and I think you are correct sir! Copied and pasted from the R-66 site:

Rolls-Royce RR300 300 shp turboshaft; derated to 270 shp for takeoff and 224 shp continuous

So where's mine to replace this tired old 470? :yesnod::confused:
Click to expand...

Look up CD-350 from Continental, more HP and more fuel efficient.
 
txflyer said:
I google fu'd it and I think you are correct sir! Copied and pasted from the R-66 site:

Rolls-Royce RR300 300 shp turboshaft; derated to 270 shp for takeoff and 224 shp continuous

So where's mine to replace this tired old 470? :yesnod::confused:
Click to expand...

Fuel consumption of small turbines is bad, especially at low altitudes. I don't think you want it, a Jet-A burning recip is a better fit for our missions.
 
Just a general question for the Mooney owners, (Off topic).

Has maintenance changed since the take over? Has parts been harder to find?
 
FormerHangie said:
Fuel consumption of small turbines is bad, especially at low altitudes. I don't think you want it, a Jet-A burning recip is a better fit for our missions.
Click to expand...

Agreed. People that pine for turbo prop propulsion on their little piston planes are really just wanting to join the exclusive Jet-A club on the cheap. For the most part, turbo props really don't belong on any of our planes and the conversions that are out there, are questionable in my mind.
 
FloridaPilot said:
Just a general question for the Mooney owners, (Off topic).

Has maintenance changed since the take over? Has parts been harder to find?
Click to expand...

No. Parts are way easier now. They have money, so the factory has gone back into production of parts. Pretty much everything is either stocked, or can be made to order... and you'll actually get it too!!:)
 
Dav8or said:
Agreed. People that pine for turbo prop propulsion on their little piston planes are really just wanting to join the exclusive Jet-A club on the cheap. For the most part, turbo props really don't belong on any of our planes and the conversions that are out there, are questionable in my mind.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen a conversion on anything smaller than a Malibu that works out well operationally. There's a conversion available for the Baron, but I don't see people flocking to it. The Duke is the plane that really makes out with the turbine due to the costs of the TIO-541 rivaling turbine costs, with none the of the reliability. Even the Duke ends up with kind of short legs with PT-6s on it.
 
Henning said:
I haven't seen a conversion on anything smaller than a Malibu that works out well operationally. There's a conversion available for the Baron, but I don't see people flocking to it. The Duke is the plane that really makes out with the turbine due to the costs of the TIO-541 rivaling turbine costs, with none the of the reliability. Even the Duke ends up with kind of short legs with PT-6s on it.
Click to expand...


I've heard good things about the 210 swap.

IMO if you're flying FIKI, pressurised in the FLs and at night, I'd really want a turbine, plus the benifits of bleed air, low failure rate, smoothness, ceilings, performance in DA, etc, etc.

I've said it on other threads, if you need a cross country platform and a PA24,lancair, glasair or non pressurised 210 won't cut it, your mission ether needs a turbine (and matching pilot) or just book a airline ticket.
 
James331 said:
I've heard good things about the 210 swap.

IMO if you're flying FIKI, pressurised in the FLs and at night, I'd really want a turbine, plus the benifits of bleed air, low failure rate, smoothness, ceilings, performance in DA, etc, etc.

I've said it on other threads, if you need a cross country platform and a PA24,lancair, glasair or non pressurised 210 won't cut it, your mission ether needs a turbine (and matching pilot) or just book a airline ticket.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree that if you need pressurization, a turbine is the obvious choice. I prefer staying low for the view down there, so recips do fine for me, however, I really like having 2 engines on a traveling machine because I travel a fair bit at night and over hostile terrain, and can't afford an SR22, a 310 or Baron works well for me. I would however consider a Lancair 360 with BRS.

I still think the 421/414 platforms provide pretty good service though and for most private operations can fill the bill, especially for limited use. A trip a month to see grandma that turns into 9 trips a year type thing, they meet a sweet spot of cost and capability that gives them a fair edge over a turbine while having a much lower cost of entry. If Grandma lives 500-700 miles away, and you are buying 5 tickets at a time, unless you live in a well paired set of cities, your costs may rival or beat the airlines, and you can get a nice copy of a 421B for $250k.
 
Last edited:
I bought a new car with a diesel this year and can find no drawbacks - a 4500 pound sedan getting 45 MPG, beats a Prius all to hell.

I like the idea of a diesel in an airplane, but not $60k diesel engines that can't be overhauled. We are a mess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top