Maybe not with the TCM currently in the M20, but big bore doesn’t mean you can’t run mogas, or unleaded at least, just because it’s big bore. The IO-540 can do it, low compression, we had that in the Commander 114B. Also, Tecnam’s new P2012, the 9-seater they’re developing for Cape Air, is meant to run on unleaded. Switching out the engine should be a “simple” upgrade for the factory when they reintroduce the bird.
I’m all for restarting Mooney production. Cessna and Piper and Beech (piston) do the very same — continue to build stone aged designs with tooling written off decades ago and all that in very small quantities. You don’t need to sell many to keep a small operation going and you have the spare part business.
About the “technical advances”. The only real technical advance of a 2014 C182 compared to a 1978 C182 is that instead of 4 ashtrays there are 4 cup holders. You don’t need much innovation in this business and if you try, you most often deeply regret it afterwards.
At my airfield is the manufacturer for a well known motorglider (well, at least in Germany). Scheibe Falke (SF23). Their main job is servicing aircraft but every now and then they get an order and build one. A bit of innovation every now and then, like they certified it with the Turbo Rotax 914 which makes it a great aircraft for towing gliders. The tooling is very old, like the Mooneys but they have a sustainable business.
I guess 10 Mooneys are year would even be a business for a few silver aged guys…
I would note the 26G seats, airbags, fuel injection as modest but worthwhile safety advancements, in addition to safety advances in electrics and avionics. Both the 172 and the 1978 182 can be fitted with BRS.
Achim,
I would have no problem with that – only: If this concept would work, why did they go bancrupt the last time?
I am just sure: you cannot run such an operation for 10 planes/year. The overhead coast is way too big. And imagien what kind of deal you get from the suppliers when you order 10 G1000 systems … (imagine the deal Cirrus gets)
If this would work, it would have worked. But it ever worked :-)
Threw in this link from waaaay back in the year of 2008. Mooney had some ideas, but the world decided it wanted its money back on worthless homes, so nothing became of it. It’s a derivative of the R66 engine, and I don’t even know if RR continued with the work. Still, it would be interesting to know exactly what mooney had in store for this powerplant..
The work on the RR500 is on hold. It was the usual turbine bulls**t stories we’ve heard for the last 50 years from these companies who are only interested in upholding the status quo and protecting their military contracts. The RR500 is a an Allison 250-C20 with new paint, that’s all it is. Developed in the 50’s. The “new” Honeywell H80 is the Walter M601, developed in the 50’s by the Czech’s and Russians. The PT6 was developed in the 50’s as well. So was the Garrett.
Here’s the bottom line: there has been no new turboprop engine developed for the small to medium size airfleet in over 50 years time. So next time these companies wax lyrical about their huge innovation (and why that obviously must be accompanied by a huge price), great R&D, efficiencies etc – take it with a gargantuan grain of salt.
Haha! Well said, Adam! 
Yeah yeah, we all know that – thought I’d get that sort of response…
There is a huge difference between the original Allison, RR300 and RR500. The latter two are painted metallic, blue and green respectively. That takes some engineering work…
Anyway, the interesting bit here was Mooney’s alleged involvement as an airframe for the engine and what that could have been.
My hanger neighbor is the CEO of one of the 3 largest turbine makers. He told me the total market for small turbines (that means the bigger Citations and such) is so small that there is absolutely no way to fund any new development. Everybody in the industry knows that a modern development would be hugely better compared to the PT6 etc. we have today but it is not worthwhile to pursue. In addition to that the companies are so busy fulfilling demand on airline turbines that there is just no interest. Their order books are filled for years to come.
It’s an interesting world. These billion dollar companies are so afraid of the risk that they never do anything on their own but always in joint-ventures. They sell the turbines at a loss and live off maintenance. One interesting bit of information was that they absolutely love the aviation boom in the desert states because turbines have a much reduced maintenance interval under these conditions. A turbofan operated in Dubai is a cashcow whereas one operated in the UK isn’t.
The sad thing is that the only way for us to get some real good new stuff is the outbreak of another major war. In absence of that, maybe the drones.
There is nothing in todays world with 5-axis CNC machines and blisk compressors that say that this should have to be any more expensive to manufacture than a piston powered engine. They used to be made manually on mills and lathes – so I don’t buy for a second all that talk. Or the precision they claim they need – today’s CNC machines can deliver much higher precision at a fraction of the cost compared to any manually produced one.
If they dropped the price to what a new piston powered engine costs (which I’m sure they can now that both the R&D and certification costs have been paid for for 50 years), they would see just how much demand there is for it. The reason there’s no demand is that they charge $500K for the damn thing! I hope an Elon Musk comes along with some disruptive technology one day and puts them all out of business. Good riddance.
