Well, m22 mustang is not a m20 in my eyes…
Michal wrote:
Speaking of fuselage – do I remember correctly the current body was refered as “extra long” and origially designed to accomodate Porsche engine?
That’s correct. The fuselage was originally made ‘extra long’ to accommodate the relatively heavy PFM engine. That was useful later when they wanted to increase power to 270 HP or more with other engines.
Michal wrote:
Speaking of fuselage – do I remember correctly the current body was refered as “extra long” and origially designed to accomodate Porsche engine? So these are basically 3 lengths, only one currently in production…
Correct.
The “Short body” airplanes were the B, C, D and E models. The G, F, J, K models share the then “long body” until the “even longer” one came along with the PFM (L). That fusellage still gets used today for the Ovation and Acclaim.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
There are actually 4 lengths – one of them was for the pressurised Mustang which was about 20cm shorter than the current production models.
That is a totally different airplane, at least where the fusellage is concerned. Wing is from the C model, that is true, but the rest was modified massively. That airplane was well ahead of it’s time and featured a problematic engine, which is why it never got accepted by the market. If you can find one today however, it is still a quite powerful airplane… 200 kts @ FL240 with pressurized comfort… just beware of finding parts or even worse a new or overhauled engine…
LeSving wrote:
But why the tail? Only a handful of Mooney fanatics could possibly think that is a nice thing.
I imagine it is to keep it in the Mooney family tradition….just like the five vertical grill elements of a Jeep, or a BMW grill or…etc.
As a “Mooney fanatic” I think it looks great! 
although there may be a handful of people who would reject the airplane on the basis of its tail aesthetics alone!
AnthonyQ wrote:
there may be a handful of people who would reject the airplane on the basis of its tail aesthetics alone!
It’s not as much the tail aesthetics, as it is the aesthetics of the tail being plain wrong compared with the rest of the fuselage. It looks like the originally made a good looking tail, then an old senior Mooney fanatics erased it replaced it with a “Mooney” tail because it has to look like a Mooney. This is often done with cars also, but has the opposite effect in the end. The people who will eventually purchase this plane, will do it based on what it has to offer and the aesthetics, and couldn’t care less about any “Mooney-heritage”. For the Mooney fanatics, it will never be a real Mooney in any case (the aircraft is 100% Chinese). Being a two seater, the plane is meant to compete with C-152 and VLAs in Europe, and in the US? Maybe with the Rotax 915 it would be a nice VLA?
I also think it has a too little, too late feel to it. GA is heading in a very different direction than diesel powered certified two seaters. If it came 25 years ago maybe it would have a chance.
LeSving wrote:
I also think it has a too little, too late feel to it. GA is heading in a very different direction than diesel powered certified two seaters. If it came 25 years ago maybe it would have a chance.
I believe Mooney are looking further East (and further ahead) than Europe….
LeSving, I wonder how many Mooney fanatics you know to make such definitive statements. 99% of them don’t give a flying f*ck who the owner is as long as the factory is kept open and spares available. Do Cirrus fanatics / owners / customers care it’s 100% Chinese? I bet most of them don’t even know who the controlling shareholder is.
If you did mean to be accurate in your comparison it’s rather a competitor to the FFA AS202 which is a proper three seater trainer (not a 1.5 seater like the 152).
As to GA direction you are right – it’s headed straight into a ditch (in Europe it is already in it); in the US not just yet but they live with the illusion go-karts and cars are one and the same. Much as people try to ignore it, the numbers tell the raw story. As much excitement
about home-builts there is, as soon as the current cash & time rich baby boomer generation will fade it’ll go away as well. GA will come then to look like vintage car collecting / driving.
LeSving wrote:
The people who will eventually purchase this plane, will do it based on what it has to offer and the aesthetics, and couldn’t care less about any “Mooney-heritage”.
Well, I don’t know how you buy your planes or cars, but brand reckognition and the existing quite large community has a lot to do with what in the end is bought. When Mooney re-opened less than 2 years ago, a lot of folks predicted they would not sell a single plane. Well, they sold their whole production last year (which was how many they said they’d produce) and from what I hear there is a lot of interest in the new models, both the M10 and the M20Ultra.
LeSving wrote:
For the Mooney fanatics, it will never be a real Mooney in any case (the aircraft is 100% Chinese).
As Chinese as any Cirrus and any Continental engine…. you seem to forget that the Chinese own most of the US based GA makers these days.
LeSving wrote:
Being a two seater, the plane is meant to compete with C-152 and VLAs in Europe, and in the US
It is a certified 3 seater first of all. Then it will be fully certified to FAA and EASA specs with a G1000 suite which of course means it will be able to be flown IFR in Europe and elsewhere. Being a 3 seater with this kind of flight deck, I’d say it may well be quite attractive to flight schools who are looking to have an airplane which can take students from basic training right up to their IR with the same flight deck they will find again on most of the larger 4 seat series or even the twins like the DA42 which is hugely popular as a multi engine trainer in Europe. So I would think the airplanes the M10T will challenge here in Europe go well beyond the C152 or VLA’s, but right into the Piper Cadet, C172, DA40 trainer fleet. It can do everything these can only it can do it more economically and a lot faster.
The J model is simply the relatively simple answer to the demand to bring back an entry level traveller, but it can actually be more than that too, first of all it will allow schools to train on retracable gear, secondly it will make a quite interesting IR trainer platform for environments where high speed is required on approaches for instance, and thirdly it is the entry model the community has been screaming for. If the price is affordable in todays market, I would say the J is a very capable traveller for people who up to now are mostly flying with 2 seats occupied (which I consider is the larger group around) and want an airplane which can operate anywhere there is jet fuel available and with a very decent range. I see the J model as a challenger to the SR20 as well as holding attraction for people who currently fly vintage tourers like the vintage Mooneys, Piper Arrows, 172 RG and similar models and wish for a modern as well as very economical 150 kt traveller. None of the VLA’s I know of come even close to this kind of versatility.
Diesel :In China, one core market, there is practically no avgas. So that is reason enough to use those engines. In Europe, I’d rather take an M10 to Greece or a lot of other places where Avgas is expensive and rare than an Avgas plane. With 1000 NM range at 150 kts, the M10J will be able to do a lot more than most VLA’s or LSA’s for probably comparable cost.
Most of all: This airplane is so far pretty much one of a kind. Trainer and Travel version, fully G1000 / G700 (J) equipped, 3 seats, and priced according to Tom Bowen significantly under the current Ovation/Acclaim range and manufactured by a well known and respected manufacturer it can well be a very attractive option to consider rather than going for airplanes in a restricted class which have very limited usability especcially in Europe. I can see it challenging the trainer market as well as be attractive to people who want a fast, economical and IFR capable certified traveller.
Personally, I would say the “J” would fill most of my travel needs with 2+1 seat, 1000 NM range and 150 kts average cruise at a consumption of around 4-5 USG per hour. (considerering the DA40 figures with a heavier airplane which gives a consumption of 4-5 GPH, I’d think a below 1000 kg airplane may well use less).
For Mooney themselfs, the M10 is a managable project to offer an alternative or entry level airplane to the M20 series, which just got upgraded too. I have a feeling however that we shall in the future see a replacement for the M20 as well, or possibly a step up plane. But to go into a rather empty market segment is much more reasonable than trying to compete with their own products as well as the other well known brands in the 4-seat high performance segment. There, Mooney is more than adequately set up with the Ovation and the Acclaim.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
Do Cirrus fanatics / owners / customers care it’s 100% Chinese?
That’s the whole point. The current Cirrus owners got a Cirrus because of what the aircraft has to offer and the aesthetics. The tail of the new Mooney serves no purpose than to make it look ugly. The potential new owners of the new Mooney will also get it because of what it has to offer and the aesthetics. The new owners will not care who makes it or what “heritage” it is from, and old Mooney owners will never purchase this new one in any case.
It’s like the “new” Mini Cooper or the “new” VW beetle. People who buy them don’t buy them because they resembles old icons, they buy them because they have no connection to those old icons, but think they look cool (and they are good cars). For the real mini and beetle enthusiasts, those new cars are nothing but jokes, but they are cool looking jokes. The Money is a bad looking joke.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
As to GA direction you are right – it’s headed straight into a ditch
2 years ago, for Europe, i would have agreed with you. Even now, it is not in a good shape and there are a lot of hurdles.
However, we have seen some developments within EASA in recent years which make me think again and possibly see some optimism, at least from the regulatory side.
The CB-IR, ELA 1,2, GA roadmap e.t.c.are very hopeful signs. They also indicate that EASA have reckognized one of the massive problems GA faces and is trying to go in a different direction. The problem however is, that quite a lot of national CAA’s are fighting this, but I reckon this will eventually go away.
My feel is that EASA and others are starting to see that the escape to uncertified airplanes is not what is of anyone’s benefit but the result of overregulation and high workmanship cost. While the latter is not their problem, the former is. I do think that particularly in the trainer and school market, where requirements for trainers collide with the praxis of using uncertified VLA’s e.t.c. the market would actually welcome fully certified and capable training airplanes for the future. Which of course is where some manufacturers are aiming for, the M10T being one of those proposals.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
GA will come then to look like vintage car collecting / driving.
Mostly it already does.
I think we have a massive perception problem also with the manufacturers. Currently, far too many offerings are either way too expensive versions of old designs or way too expensive new designs which mostly are high performance airplanes rather than real challengers for Piper Warriors or Cessna 172s. As many of you here have said before, those airframes are not necessarily planes which attract youngsters, even though I’ve seen different, as they are also those planes which youngsters can afford.
Realistically however, people who shop in that segment will have to put up with 40-50 year old planes in the 50-100k price range. The high performance planes available will be on top of that. On the new market, there are the 250-350k 2 seaters followed by 600k-ridiculous high performance planes like the M20 or the SR22. In between there is nothing or not much.
That is where I can see a chance for planes like the M10. I have no idea how much it’s gonna cost but I reckon it should be probably closer to the 2 seater market than to the high performance models, as most of the effort going into this is on the focus of mass production and ecomomy, rather than the hand assembly still used on the M20. If the M10 is successful, I would not be surprised to see similar efforts from competitors, maybe a “baby Cirrus” or some others.
Clearly however, the price and the overregulation are still the main problem why aviation is taking such a beating here in Europe particularly.
