AvWeb article on ongoing M10 work:
http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/New-Age-Manufacturing-at-Mooney-224138-1.html
From 3500 down to 350 parts.
I do not even think that it is very relevant that a Proof of Concept has flown. ANYTHING with wings, an engine and the right CG will fly. A barn door will fly if you mount an IO-550 :-) Things become interesting with certification and a production prototype usually. There’s really been so many “PoC” nobody has even heard about again …
Flight Design C4, Tecnam V1, Pipistrel Panthera, Stemme S6, Cirrus SR22, Cirrus SF—50, Diamond D-Jet … and all promised performances that proved hard to keep.
I meant wide-spread advertising indicating they had a product available, when the plane had yet to get airborne in any prototype form. For sure meeting performance goals is yet another thing! Remember the Piper Jet? A few years ago when they were developing it, a prototype landed at my base and a group of us strolled over while they were putting it in a hangar. The crew were very friendly and we discussed the ongoing test program – there was (in simple terms) a lot of fundamental development still to be done.
In print:
Mooney International opened the week of Sun ’n Fun with a press conference and public showing of a full-size mockup of its clean sheet M10T model.
Read more at http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/pistons/mooney-displays-new-m10-model#4QeeQiMPEusFwMzH.99
It is a mockup.
That’s what I figured but I hadn’t seen it in print. Somehow the press (on the receiving end of advertising revenues) would like it to be real, but it appears to me they had a California styling studio build a mock-up and that’s it.
The first two prototypes (one for the T and one for the J) are being built currently, first flight is expected later this year, certification in 2017.
I wouldn’t even want to project a date for certification until the design and construction of the prototype is done, and the plane has flown.
Re the Mooney I can’t recall any previous aircraft being displayed at shows and widely advertised for months that had never actually flown. Is that still the case or has it made its first flight yet?
It is a mockup. The first two prototypes (one for the T and one for the J) are being built currently, first flight is expected later this year, certification in 2017. I did talk to them in Fridrichshafen and they said there may be a chance for the first proof of concept airframe to fly within a few months from now. I would expect that to be the T.
In terms of performance, we will see. I don’t think the projected data are overambitious, looking at similar designs and the engines used. 140 kts cruise for the fixed gear version and 160 kts for the retracable one, sound feasible.
My main concern is weight. What will the payload be, particularly for the J. I do hope they create an aircraft which can really deliver on that regard and features sufficient payload. Particularly in the training market, full fuel, full seats and gear is important.
Also pricing will be very important.
“Re the Mooney I can’t recall any previous aircraft being displayed at shows and widely advertised for months that had never actually flown. Is that still the case or has it made its first flight yet?”
Like say the Cirrus SR20? Or shudder the TB20?
I can’t recall any previous aircraft being displayed at shows and widely advertised for months that had never actually flown.
Flight Design C4, Tecnam V1, Pipistrel Panthera, Stemme S6, Cirrus SR22, Cirrus SF—50, Diamond D-Jet … and all promised performances that proved hard to keep.
When I started in this business the shock load inspection requirements were written by engineers, common sense and experience being used to implement them.
Now the shock load requirements are written by lawyers and implemented ( at the insistence of the lawyers) without any reference to common sense or experience.
It is pretty hard to be sure unless it is a 2B prop and the blade(s) didn’t touch the ground.
If there has been any damage to the prop, even with a non-running engine (e.g. a gear collapse in the hangar), the least you need to do is NDT the engine mounting frame (a 3-day job because the engine has to come out). Obviously a visual check of the firewall for distortion. Change the bolts (both ends of the mtg frame).
The attitudes to shock load inspection have changed over the years. When I had mine in 2002, a CAA engineer (a LAME) had the authority to countermand (avoid) a shock load inspection provided the engine did not stop rotating during the incident, and provided the crack flange runout was within limits – regardless of the damage to the prop. This, totally unsurprisingly, was over the years found to be careless – too many crank breakages and crankcase cracks. Obviously I did not go for this… it was a brand new plane! Now, any contact between even a stationary prop which damages the prop is a shock load inspection (Lyco). In simple and obvious engineering terms, the absolute min one should do is the mtg frame NDT and the flange runout, plus a dye pen check of the stressed parts of the crackcase and that is even with a non-running engine prop strike. Anything less is just a death wish, IMHO, when you look at how much metal there is in the relevant structures.
