Opinions on a M20J

[Jon Kraus]

http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AircraftView.jsp?aircraft_id=84399

I flew this yesterday and it was nice (but what the hell do I know) He
is asking 105k but Vref says it is worth $113k. That seemed high but
again what do I know. Any Mooney owners out there want to give an
opinion on the M20J? Thanks in advance.

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
Student airplane purchaser

[Julian Scarfe]

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AircraftView.jsp?aircraft_id=84399
>
> I flew this yesterday and it was nice (but what the hell do I know) He
> is asking 105k but Vref says it is worth $113k. That seemed high but
> again what do I know. Any Mooney owners out there want to give an
> opinion on the M20J? Thanks in advance.

If you're in the market for a fast, fuel-efficient single-engined tourer,
there are 4 reasons not to buy a Mooney:

1) It doesn't haul as much payload over short ranges as some comparable
tourers. On ours, one the IFR equipment was on board, it was 480 lb with
full fuel, which means 670 lb with half fuel. Of course half-fuel still
keeps you in the air for 3 hours at 160 KTAS. By the time you get to longer
range missions, it matters less because the others have to carry more weight
in fuel. If most of your missions are two up, no problem.

2) It doesn't like rough surfaces. In my part of the world there are a much
greater proportion of grass runways than in the US. I've landed on grass,
it's OK, but I'd be very reluctant to base a Mooney at a grass field as I'd
be worried about the prop the whole time. If you don't intend to operate on
grass, it's not an issue.

3) Its landing distance is greater than many compatible tourers: because the
airframe is clean, it floats. So for short fields it tends to be the
landing distance that is limiting. I wouldn't want to operate a M20J
regularly out of much less than 2700 ft as you don't have much safety margin
at less than that. If you have that and don't visit short strips very
often, no problem.

4) Its crosswind performance is ugly, particularly for take-offs. The
undercarriage uses rubber disks for its springs, and the wing is very low to
the ground. Hence any bumps and you lose any side force from the wheels,
and you have a lot of lift relatively early in the take-off roll. If you
operate an M20J from a single runway airport in a windy part of the world,
this may be an issue. If you only rarely have to deal with 20 knot
crosswinds, no problem.

If none of those things bother you, just buy the aircraft and spend 12
years, like me, enjoying 160 knots on 10 gallons per hour and trying to
figure out why anyone would buy anything else. :-)

Julian Scarfe

[Jon Kraus]

Great post !! Thanks!!

Jon

Julian Scarfe wrote:
> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AircraftView.jsp?aircraft_id=84399
>>
>>I flew this yesterday and it was nice (but what the hell do I know) He
>>is asking 105k but Vref says it is worth $113k. That seemed high but
>>again what do I know. Any Mooney owners out there want to give an
>>opinion on the M20J? Thanks in advance.
>
>
> If you're in the market for a fast, fuel-efficient single-engined tourer,
> there are 4 reasons not to buy a Mooney:
>
> 1) It doesn't haul as much payload over short ranges as some comparable
> tourers. On ours, one the IFR equipment was on board, it was 480 lb with
> full fuel, which means 670 lb with half fuel. Of course half-fuel still
> keeps you in the air for 3 hours at 160 KTAS. By the time you get to longer
> range missions, it matters less because the others have to carry more weight
> in fuel. If most of your missions are two up, no problem.
>
> 2) It doesn't like rough surfaces. In my part of the world there are a much
> greater proportion of grass runways than in the US. I've landed on grass,
> it's OK, but I'd be very reluctant to base a Mooney at a grass field as I'd
> be worried about the prop the whole time. If you don't intend to operate on
> grass, it's not an issue.
>
> 3) Its landing distance is greater than many compatible tourers: because the
> airframe is clean, it floats. So for short fields it tends to be the
> landing distance that is limiting. I wouldn't want to operate a M20J
> regularly out of much less than 2700 ft as you don't have much safety margin
> at less than that. If you have that and don't visit short strips very
> often, no problem.
>
> 4) Its crosswind performance is ugly, particularly for take-offs. The
> undercarriage uses rubber disks for its springs, and the wing is very low to
> the ground. Hence any bumps and you lose any side force from the wheels,
> and you have a lot of lift relatively early in the take-off roll. If you
> operate an M20J from a single runway airport in a windy part of the world,
> this may be an issue. If you only rarely have to deal with 20 knot
> crosswinds, no problem.
>
> If none of those things bother you, just buy the aircraft and spend 12
> years, like me, enjoying 160 knots on 10 gallons per hour and trying to
> figure out why anyone would buy anything else. :-)
>
> Julian Scarfe
>
>

[Ken Reed]

> I flew this yesterday and it was nice (but what the hell do I know) He
> is asking 105k but Vref says it is worth $113k. That seemed high but
> again what do I know. Any Mooney owners out there want to give an
> opinion on the M20J?

You've looked at two Mooneys now. If you are serious about getting one,
you really must join the Mooney list. You'll get more good information
there than anywhere else:

<http://www.aviating.com/mooney/subscribe.html>

At minimum, read Bob Kromer's flight test reports on the various Mooney
models:

<http://www.mooneypilots.com/flight_test_reports.html>

The 'J' will have newer avionics than the 'C' you looked at previously,
it also cruises faster and burns more fuel. Plan on 10-15 kts difference
in cruise speed between the 'C' and 'J', one gallon per hour more in
fuel burn in the 'J' and 50% or more in operating costs, considering
both fixed and variable costs. Of course the purchase price of a 'J' is
twice what a 'C' is.

Personally, I chose to buy 100% of a 'C' model Mooney rather than 50% of
a 'J'. You're looking at the same money up front and ongoing expenses
either way.
---
Ken Reed
http://www.dentalzzz.com

[Jon Kraus]

Ken,
I jsut subscribed to the Mooney list. Guess there is no turning back
now... :-) Thanks.

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL
Student airplane owner

Ken Reed wrote:

>> I flew this yesterday and it was nice (but what the hell do I know) He
>> is asking 105k but Vref says it is worth $113k. That seemed high but
>> again what do I know. Any Mooney owners out there want to give an
>> opinion on the M20J?
>
>
> You've looked at two Mooneys now. If you are serious about getting one,
> you really must join the Mooney list. You'll get more good information
> there than anywhere else:
>
> <http://www.aviating.com/mooney/subscribe.html>
>
> At minimum, read Bob Kromer's flight test reports on the various Mooney
> models:
>
> <http://www.mooneypilots.com/flight_test_reports.html>
>
> The 'J' will have newer avionics than the 'C' you looked at previously,
> it also cruises faster and burns more fuel. Plan on 10-15 kts difference
> in cruise speed between the 'C' and 'J', one gallon per hour more in
> fuel burn in the 'J' and 50% or more in operating costs, considering
> both fixed and variable costs. Of course the purchase price of a 'J' is
> twice what a 'C' is.
>
> Personally, I chose to buy 100% of a 'C' model Mooney rather than 50% of
> a 'J'. You're looking at the same money up front and ongoing expenses
> either way.
> ---
> Ken Reed
> http://www.dentalzzz.com

[Thomas Borchert]

Julian,

> but I'd be very reluctant to base a Mooney at a grass field as I'd
> be worried about the prop the whole time.
>

And the gear doors.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Julian Scarfe]

> > but I'd be very reluctant to base a Mooney at a grass field as I'd
> > be worried about the prop the whole time.


"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...

> And the gear doors.

Yeah but gear doors are cheaper... :-) I've bent both :-(

Julian

[Jon Kraus]

Ken,
I just subscribed to the Mooney list. Guess there is no turning back
now... :-) Thanks.

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL
Student airplane owner

Ken Reed wrote:

>> I flew this yesterday and it was nice (but what the hell do I know) He
>> is asking 105k but Vref says it is worth $113k. That seemed high but
>> again what do I know. Any Mooney owners out there want to give an
>> opinion on the M20J?
>
>
> You've looked at two Mooneys now. If you are serious about getting one,
> you really must join the Mooney list. You'll get more good information
> there than anywhere else:
>
> <http://www.aviating.com/mooney/subscribe.html>
>
> At minimum, read Bob Kromer's flight test reports on the various Mooney
> models:
>
> <http://www.mooneypilots.com/flight_test_reports.html>
>
> The 'J' will have newer avionics than the 'C' you looked at previously,
> it also cruises faster and burns more fuel. Plan on 10-15 kts difference
> in cruise speed between the 'C' and 'J', one gallon per hour more in
> fuel burn in the 'J' and 50% or more in operating costs, considering
> both fixed and variable costs. Of course the purchase price of a 'J' is
> twice what a 'C' is.
>
> Personally, I chose to buy 100% of a 'C' model Mooney rather than 50% of
> a 'J'. You're looking at the same money up front and ongoing expenses
> either way.
> ---
> Ken Reed
> http://www.dentalzzz.com

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 17:17:07 GMT, "Julian Scarfe" >
wrote:

Julian,

I'll take issue with you on items 3 and 4.

>3) Its landing distance is greater than many compatible tourers: because the
>airframe is clean, it floats. So for short fields it tends to be the
>landing distance that is limiting. I wouldn't want to operate a M20J
>regularly out of much less than 2700 ft as you don't have much safety margin
>at less than that. If you have that and don't visit short strips very
>often, no problem.

Usually, the only reason it floats is because folk come in at well over
1.3Vso. I would have no hesitation about being based at a 2,000' strip (at
sea level). Going into KBGR regularly, I rarely have a problem turning off
at the first taxiway (1100') and I'm usually off the ground from my home
base in about 1000', without using short-field technique.

>
>4) Its crosswind performance is ugly, particularly for take-offs. The
>undercarriage uses rubber disks for its springs, and the wing is very low to
>the ground. Hence any bumps and you lose any side force from the wheels,
>and you have a lot of lift relatively early in the take-off roll. If you
>operate an M20J from a single runway airport in a windy part of the world,
>this may be an issue. If you only rarely have to deal with 20 knot
>crosswinds, no problem.

Again, I think this is a technique issue, both on takeoff and landing.

I do agree with you about rough field operation. There just isn't the
clearance that other a/c have.


--ron

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
>I do agree with you about rough field operation. There just isn't the
>clearance that other a/c have.

And beware those who say the 3-bladed prop has more clearance -- it's the
same diameter.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Robert M. Gary]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message >...
> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AircraftView.jsp?aircraft_id=84399
> >
> > I flew this yesterday and it was nice (but what the hell do I know) He
> > is asking 105k but Vref says it is worth $113k. That seemed high but
> > again what do I know. Any Mooney owners out there want to give an
> > opinion on the M20J? Thanks in advance.
>
> If you're in the market for a fast, fuel-efficient single-engined tourer,
> there are 4 reasons not to buy a Mooney:
>
> 1) It doesn't haul as much payload over short ranges as some comparable
> tourers. On ours, one the IFR equipment was on board, it was 480 lb with
> full fuel, which means 670 lb with half fuel. Of course half-fuel still
> keeps you in the air for 3 hours at 160 KTAS. By the time you get to longer
> range missions, it matters less because the others have to carry more weight
> in fuel. If most of your missions are two up, no problem.

The useful load in a 201 will be right around 1000 lbs. Don't hold the
fact that the plane carries 7 hours of gas against it. I never fill
mine to the top.

>
> 2) It doesn't like rough surfaces. In my part of the world there are a much
> greater proportion of grass runways than in the US. I've landed on grass,
> it's OK, but I'd be very reluctant to base a Mooney at a grass field as I'd
> be worried about the prop the whole time. If you don't intend to operate on
> grass, it's not an issue.

Grass may not be very good (unless its very short). However, I've
landed my Mooney on the beach many times in Mexico.

>
> 3) Its landing distance is greater than many compatible tourers: because the
> airframe is clean, it floats. So for short fields it tends to be the
> landing distance that is limiting. I wouldn't want to operate a M20J
> regularly out of much less than 2700 ft as you don't have much safety margin
> at less than that. If you have that and don't visit short strips very
> often, no problem.

Sounds like you are coming in too fast. My home field has about 2000
feet of landing runway (4000 available for take off). Even fully
loaded, it isn't too hard to stop in 1000 feet. Shoft final speed
should be around 70 mph.

>
> 4) Its crosswind performance is ugly, particularly for take-offs. The
> undercarriage uses rubber disks for its springs, and the wing is very low to
> the ground. Hence any bumps and you lose any side force from the wheels,
> and you have a lot of lift relatively early in the take-off roll. If you
> operate an M20J from a single runway airport in a windy part of the world,
> this may be an issue. If you only rarely have to deal with 20 knot
> crosswinds, no problem.

I fly around the Southwest. Take off and landing with 25-30 knots of
cross wind is no problem. The plane sit so low that you don't even
feel the cross wind in the flare.


>
> If none of those things bother you, just buy the aircraft and spend 12
> years, like me, enjoying 160 knots on 10 gallons per hour and trying to
> figure out why anyone would buy anything else. :-)

The 201 is great. If you don't mind going 10 knots slower you can buy
an F model Mooney for about 1/2 the price. The laster F's have the
same panel, etc as the 201, just w/o the speed mods.

-Robert, Mooney owner and Mooney CFI

[Robert M. Gary]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> Julian,
>
> > but I'd be very reluctant to base a Mooney at a grass field as I'd
> > be worried about the prop the whole time.
> >
>
> And the gear doors.

The lower gear doors come off easily. Mooney owners that fly
in-and-out of grass often take them off. Figure a loss of about 2
knots in cruise.

[Steven Barnes]

> > > http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AircraftView.jsp?aircraft_id=84399
> > >
> > > I flew this yesterday and it was nice (but what the hell do I know) He
> > > is asking 105k but Vref says it is worth $113k. That seemed high but
> > > again what do I know. Any Mooney owners out there want to give an
> > > opinion on the M20J? Thanks in advance.
> >
> > If you're in the market for a fast, fuel-efficient single-engined
tourer,
> > there are 4 reasons not to buy a Mooney:
> >
> > 1) It doesn't haul as much payload over short ranges as some comparable
> > tourers. On ours, one the IFR equipment was on board, it was 480 lb
with
> > full fuel, which means 670 lb with half fuel. Of course half-fuel still
> > keeps you in the air for 3 hours at 160 KTAS. By the time you get to
longer
> > range missions, it matters less because the others have to carry more
weight
> > in fuel. If most of your missions are two up, no problem.
>
> The useful load in a 201 will be right around 1000 lbs. Don't hold the
> fact that the plane carries 7 hours of gas against it. I never fill
> mine to the top.
[snip]

Doesn't leaving the tanks partially empty cause problems with condensation
or something along those lines?

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jon Kraus wrote:
>
> I flew this yesterday and it was nice (but what the hell do I know) He
> is asking 105k but Vref says it is worth $113k.

If Vref says $113k, it's probably worth about $102k. This is based on my experience
with Vref, not with Mooneys.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Newps]

Steven Barnes wrote:

>
> Doesn't leaving the tanks partially empty cause problems with condensation
> or something along those lines?

Maybe, but who wants to have full tanks all the time?

[Steven Barnes]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steven Barnes wrote:
>
> >
> > Doesn't leaving the tanks partially empty cause problems with
condensation
> > or something along those lines?
>
> Maybe, but who wants to have full tanks all the time?
>

I co-own with 2 other people. So, it's our policy to top-off after each
flight, so the next guy doesn't get stuck with it. Plus the fact I've heard
partially filled tanks can allow condensation. Water & rust in my fuel is no
fun.

Our club has a 182 with long range tanks. I can't understand that. With full
fuel in each plane, I can carry more payload than the 182.

[Julian Scarfe]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...

> I'll take issue with you on items 3 and 4.

With the principle (comparative to similar types) or the numbers?

> >3) Its landing distance is greater than many compatible tourers: because
the
> >airframe is clean, it floats. So for short fields it tends to be the
> >landing distance that is limiting. I wouldn't want to operate a M20J
> >regularly out of much less than 2700 ft as you don't have much safety
margin
> >at less than that. If you have that and don't visit short strips very
> >often, no problem.
>
> Usually, the only reason it floats is because folk come in at well over
> 1.3Vso.

Yeah but that's the same with every aircraft type.

> I would have no hesitation about being based at a 2,000' strip (at
> sea level).

Maybe something got lost in translation. All our runways are measured in
metres. I
agree 2700 ft (about 820 m) is quite conservative. 2000 ft feels short.
The book gross performance is 1550 ft, which is about 2200 ft with the
recommended safety factor.

> Going into KBGR regularly, I rarely have a problem turning off
> at the first taxiway (1100') and I'm usually off the ground from my home
> base in about 1000', without using short-field technique.

Touching down at the end, that seems about right. If you're landing it in
1100 ft from 50 ft then I'd like to see it... ;-)

> >4) Its crosswind performance is ugly, particularly for take-offs. The
> >undercarriage uses rubber disks for its springs, and the wing is very low
to
> >the ground. Hence any bumps and you lose any side force from the wheels,
> >and you have a lot of lift relatively early in the take-off roll. If you
> >operate an M20J from a single runway airport in a windy part of the
world,
> >this may be an issue. If you only rarely have to deal with 20 knot
> >crosswinds, no problem.
>
> Again, I think this is a technique issue, both on takeoff and landing.

Never had a serious issue on landing. But there are physical limits for
take-off for any aircraft. I never like the idea of spending much time on
one wheel for a take-off, so I start to get nervous when I can't keep both
tyres on the runway below rotation speed.

I don't know what else you fly, Ron, but aircraft like the TB20, the PA28s
and most light twins seem to handle crosswind take-offs with rather more
comfort.

Julian

[Thomas Borchert]

Steven,

> Doesn't leaving the tanks partially empty cause problems with condensation
> or something along those lines?
>

NO! That is another of the many OWTs in aviation (old wive's tales). Cessna
did extensive experiments in a clima chamber. They could NOT produce any
noticable amount of water in a fuel tank no matter what they did to the
temperature. There are only two ways to get water in your tanks:

1. it's coming in with the fuel from the truck or depot tank.

2. it's been raining and your fuel caps leak.

In any case, there are very, very few GA single engine planes where you
don't have to constantly work with the fuel vs. payload trade-off. Always
filling the tanks robs you of a lot of the potential the average GA plane
has. Or your cheat and fly overweight - which is not the smart alternative.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Steven,

> With full
> fuel in each plane, I can carry more payload than the 182.
>

Then your tanks are too small. Think about it: What you want is to be
able to have a choice between going with a lot of people/stuff for
short/medium distances or a long way with just you and someone else on
board.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Julian Scarfe]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...

> > 4) Its crosswind performance is ugly, particularly for take-offs. The
> > undercarriage uses rubber disks for its springs, and the wing is very
low to
> > the ground. Hence any bumps and you lose any side force from the
wheels,
> > and you have a lot of lift relatively early in the take-off roll. If you
> > operate an M20J from a single runway airport in a windy part of the
world,
> > this may be an issue. If you only rarely have to deal with 20 knot
> > crosswinds, no problem.
>
> I fly around the Southwest. Take off and landing with 25-30 knots of
> cross wind is no problem.

That does surprise me. I'm coming to the conclusion that either:

a) you measure knots differently :-)
b) you accept different levels of risk
or
c) you have a technique that I will never master

I'm quite happy to accept that it's (c), but would still offer the caution
about xwind performance to a prospective M20J purchaser.

While many manufacturers choose to demonstrate 20 or 25 kt for
certification, Mooney gave the M20J the bare minimum 11 kt (0.2 Vso) max
demonstrated crosswind component. That suggests to me that crosswind
performance was not high on the list of selling features.

Julian

[Dan Luke]

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:

> >Doesn't leaving the tanks partially empty cause problems with
> >condensation or something along those lines?

> NO! That is another of the many OWTs in aviation
> (old wive's tales). Cessna did extensive experiments in
> a clima chamber. They could NOT produce any noticable
> amount of water in a fuel tank no matter what they did to the
> temperature.

Right. Obvious, if you think about it:

How much water is there in 10 gallons of air? In extremely wet
conditions (saturated air at 20 deg. C) there are only 14.7 g/kg of
water in the air. A cubic foot of air at SLP weighs about 34 grams at
20 C, 10 gallons is 13.37 cu. ft., so that gives about 455 g. of air and
about 7 g. of water.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 06:53:15 GMT, "Julian Scarfe" >
wrote:

>I don't know what else you fly, Ron, but aircraft like the TB20, the PA28s
>and most light twins seem to handle crosswind take-offs with rather more
>comfort.

Sorry about that. I did some reinstallation and my signature got changed.
But I've got over 2,500 hours in a Mooney M20E. And I presently fly out of
a single runway airport with occasionally strong, gusty crosswinds. I've
not had a problem with crosswind takeoffs, either. Just hold the nose
down, aileron into the wind, and pop-off when ready to fly. Obviously on a
paved strip.

And if you are talking about a 2,000' (610m) runway with trees to the end,
then yes, I would not want to be based there, given a choice. But, at
least here in the US, I don't believe I've ever seen a paved, short runway
where the 50' obstacle was at the beginning of the runway.

Grass is another story. I've been into Lubec airport (65B) which is 2024'
(617m), grass, with trees right to the end. Landing was not much of a
problem. But takeoff was close to the trees, even at 150 lbs under MGW.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Newps]

Steven Barnes wrote:

>>
>
>
> I co-own with 2 other people. So, it's our policy to top-off after each
> flight, so the next guy doesn't get stuck with it. Plus the fact I've heard
> partially filled tanks can allow condensation. Water & rust in my fuel is no
> fun.

If you want the reduced performance of carrying all that fuel then that
is a decision you have to make.


>
> Our club has a 182 with long range tanks. I can't understand that. With full
> fuel in each plane, I can carry more payload than the 182.

Apples and oranges. My 182 has the long range tanks too, 84 gallons.
With full tanks I have 650 pounds left over. I can fly for 11+ hours
with that fuel, although I can't imagine doing that. It's all about
options. For my normal flying around here I usually have 30-40 gallons
in the plane. If I'm going more than a couple hundred miles I'll fill
it up.

[[email protected]]

On 5-Sep-2004, Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > Doesn't leaving the tanks partially empty cause problems with
> > condensation
> > or something along those lines?
> >
>
> NO! That is another of the many OWTs in aviation (old wive's tales).
> Cessna
> did extensive experiments in a clima chamber. They could NOT produce any
> noticable amount of water in a fuel tank no matter what they did to the
> temperature. There are only two ways to get water in your tanks:
>
> 1. it's coming in with the fuel from the truck or depot tank.
>
> 2. it's been raining and your fuel caps leak.


Actually, there is a third way. and that is the condensation referred to.
Here is how it works:

Through its vent(s), the tank is open to the outside atmosphere. If the air
is humid, that puts water vapor in the tank. If the air cools, the water
vapor will condense (just like it does on outside surfaces, i.e. dew). Some
of the condensed water on the inside walls of the tank will drip into the
fuel. The cycle can be repeated for many warming/cooling cycles if the
plane is not flown for a while. Result: some water in the fuel. That is
the reason why we drain the sumps before flight.

HOWEVER: Despite the actual, albeit minimal, risk of water in the fuel,
there are overwhelming reasons for generally leaving less than full tanks on
most airplanes. The primary one is that usually when you return from a trip
you have no idea of the cabin load that will be needed for the next trip.
This is particularly true if the airplane is shared by multiple pilots.
With our Arrow, for example, if we topped the tanks (72 gal) between uses we
would be leaving an airplane with the ability to carry only 2 or 3 people.
What happens if the next user (we have 3 co-owners) wants to carry 4?. So
we leave the tanks filled to a total of 50 gal (usable), for which Piper
conveniently provided an indicator tab in each tank. That leaves a shade
under 700 lbs useful load, i.e. a 4-place airplane (that still has well over
500 nm range with 1 hr reserve.) If a user wants more range and has a
lighter load, he simply adds fuel before takeoff.
--
-Elliott Drucker

[Bob Miller]

> > I fly around the Southwest. Take off and landing with 25-30 knots of
> > cross wind is no problem.
>
> That does surprise me. I'm coming to the conclusion that either:
>
> a) you measure knots differently :-)
> b) you accept different levels of risk
> or
> c) you have a technique that I will never master
>
> I'm quite happy to accept that it's (c), but would still offer the caution
> about xwind performance to a prospective M20J purchaser.
>
> While many manufacturers choose to demonstrate 20 or 25 kt for
> certification, Mooney gave the M20J the bare minimum 11 kt (0.2 Vso) max
> demonstrated crosswind component. That suggests to me that crosswind
> performance was not high on the list of selling features.

Those numbers didn't sound right so I checked my 1965 M20C (short
rudder) manual which lists a demonstrated crosswind of 15 kt (17 mph).
I bet the M20J is higher than that. I have landed in up to 20 kt
with not much rudder left. 25-30 kt, well, that's a lot. Could it be
done, I bet. I'll be happy to try it in your airplane; I just don't
like the thought of having to file an insurance claim for a prop
strike and the associated downtime.
Bob Miller

[Bob Miller]

> >3) Its landing distance is greater than many compatible tourers: because the
> >airframe is clean, it floats. So for short fields it tends to be the
> >landing distance that is limiting. I wouldn't want to operate a M20J
> >regularly out of much less than 2700 ft as you don't have much safety margin
> >at less than that. If you have that and don't visit short strips very
> >often, no problem.
>
> Usually, the only reason it floats is because folk come in at well over
> 1.3Vso. I would have no hesitation about being based at a 2,000' strip (at
> sea level). Going into KBGR regularly, I rarely have a problem turning off
> at the first taxiway (1100') and I'm usually off the ground from my home
> base in about 1000', without using short-field technique.

Shoot, anybody that bases their mooney at a field longer than 1500' is
a sissy...(just kidding) seriously, however, you can make a 1000' turn
pretty easily in my M20C (it stalls at 50 kt, mid-weight approach at
65 kt). However, it's nice basing at a long runway for those windy,
low ceiling icy nights :-)

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> And if you are talking about a 2,000' (610m) runway with trees to the end,
> then yes, I would not want to be based there, given a choice. But, at
> least here in the US, I don't believe I've ever seen a paved, short runway
> where the 50' obstacle was at the beginning of the runway.

I'm struggling to think of one myself.

However, I have seen many paved runways with 100-150' obstacles not very far
from the runway (500-1000' perhaps). These are roughly equivalent to a 50'
obstacle right at the runway.

Here's one of the "easier" examples of the above:
http://www.airnav.com/airport/W10

Pete

[Robert M. Gary]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message >...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > > 4) Its crosswind performance is ugly, particularly for take-offs. The
> > > undercarriage uses rubber disks for its springs, and the wing is very
> low to
> > > the ground. Hence any bumps and you lose any side force from the
> wheels,
> > > and you have a lot of lift relatively early in the take-off roll. If you
> > > operate an M20J from a single runway airport in a windy part of the
> world,
> > > this may be an issue. If you only rarely have to deal with 20 knot
> > > crosswinds, no problem.
> >
> > I fly around the Southwest. Take off and landing with 25-30 knots of
> > cross wind is no problem.
>
> That does surprise me. I'm coming to the conclusion that either:
>
> a) you measure knots differently :-)
> b) you accept different levels of risk
> or
> c) you have a technique that I will never master
>
> I'm quite happy to accept that it's (c), but would still offer the caution
> about xwind performance to a prospective M20J purchaser.

I tell you, once you get down into ground effect you just don't feel
the cross wind in the Mooney at all. Of course, I started my life
flying 800lbs Aeroncas so I'm used to really feeling wind. :)

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

"Steven Barnes" > wrote in message >...
> Doesn't leaving the tanks partially empty cause problems with condensation
> or something along those lines?

The only time I've ever found water in my tanks was when an IA didn't
properly adjust the caps after replacing the O-rings. As a general
rule, my partner and I agree to never leave the plane with more than
15 gals per side. Sometimes we leave it will much less. My theory is
that if your flight is so full of danger that you need to land with 3
hours of fuel, you probably should consider not going. We also have an
on-board fuel computer. The performance of a Mooney with 30 gals of
gas is WAY better than a Mooney with 64 gals. Putting 64 gals of gas
in a Mooney is like using a Corvette to pull your boat. It just makes
it slow. We use a stick to measure the tanks, I've never found the
computer to be off by more than 0.2 gals.

-Robert

[PInc972390]

>I fly around the Southwest. Take off and landing with 25-30 knots of
>cross wind is no problem. The plane sit so low that you don't even
>feel the cross wind in the flare.
>

I landed a C - Model Mooney in a 52 knot quartering headwind in Gage OK. It was
not easy but didn't make palms sweat. A 40 knot wind in a Cessna is about the
same.

In the panhandle of TX - OK the windsock is made out of a log chain. This is
the reason you need a Bellanca if you are going to fly a single in the wind.

[Julian Scarfe]

"Bob Miller" > wrote in message
m...

> Those numbers didn't sound right so I checked my 1965 M20C (short
> rudder) manual which lists a demonstrated crosswind of 15 kt (17 mph).
> I bet the M20J is higher than that.

No I promise you, it's 11 knots (at least it was on our 1982 M20J). That
doesn't necessarily mean that the M20J has less capability, just that Mooney
didn't certify it to that capability.

Julian Scarfe

[Julian Scarfe]

> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 06:53:15 GMT, "Julian Scarfe" >
> wrote:
>
> >I don't know what else you fly, Ron, but aircraft like the TB20, the
PA28s
> >and most light twins seem to handle crosswind take-offs with rather more
> >comfort.

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sorry about that. I did some reinstallation and my signature got changed.
> But I've got over 2,500 hours in a Mooney M20E. And I presently fly out
of
> a single runway airport with occasionally strong, gusty crosswinds. I've
> not had a problem with crosswind takeoffs, either. Just hold the nose
> down, aileron into the wind, and pop-off when ready to fly. Obviously on
a
> paved strip.

Well, I was looking to see if the M20J and M20E had any differences that
would explain our difference in perception, but I'm not sure there is any.
The M20J was cleaned up by Lo Presti to the tune of about 20 knots, but
isn't it the same wing set at the same height above the ground? I've
described the issue I had in other posts, so I won't repeat it. While I
don't have your time on the aircraft, I did accumulate more than 500 hours.

> And if you are talking about a 2,000' (610m) runway with trees to the end,
> then yes, I would not want to be based there, given a choice. But, at
> least here in the US, I don't believe I've ever seen a paved, short runway
> where the 50' obstacle was at the beginning of the runway.
>
> Grass is another story. I've been into Lubec airport (65B) which is 2024'
> (617m), grass, with trees right to the end. Landing was not much of a
> problem. But takeoff was close to the trees, even at 150 lbs under MGW.

I had a co-owner/partner in the Mooney group who is much braver than I was
with shorter strips. I'll check to see what he regards as "short". ;-)

Julian

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 10:37:16 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>> [...]
>> And if you are talking about a 2,000' (610m) runway with trees to the end,
>> then yes, I would not want to be based there, given a choice. But, at
>> least here in the US, I don't believe I've ever seen a paved, short runway
>> where the 50' obstacle was at the beginning of the runway.
>
>I'm struggling to think of one myself.
>
>However, I have seen many paved runways with 100-150' obstacles not very far
>from the runway (500-1000' perhaps). These are roughly equivalent to a 50'
>obstacle right at the runway.
>
>Here's one of the "easier" examples of the above:
>http://www.airnav.com/airport/W10
>
>Pete
>

Well they are certainly rare. Even the example you cite really doesn't
cause a big problem, if I do the math correctly.

It shows a 100' tree 800' from the end of one runway. But the runway is
2400 (732 m). So to touch down with 2000' remaining requires about a 6°
glide slope -- something that is certainly doable, with practice, in a
Mooney. Definitely not for a new owner, or even for an old owner that
hasn't flown much recently :-).

I note that despite the tree, there are 28 single and 2 twin engine
aircraft based at that field, and 39 operations per day!


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:50:08 GMT, "Julian Scarfe" >
wrote:

>Well, I was looking to see if the M20J and M20E had any differences that
>would explain our difference in perception, but I'm not sure there is any.
>The M20J was cleaned up by Lo Presti to the tune of about 20 knots, but
>isn't it the same wing set at the same height above the ground? I've
>described the issue I had in other posts, so I won't repeat it. While I
>don't have your time on the aircraft, I did accumulate more than 500 hours.

Well, although the 'J' has the same wing, it has a longer body and a higher
MGW. But I don't know what that plus the clean up mods do for take off and
landing distances -- I don't have a POH for the 'J'. I think the stall
speed may be a few knots higher, so that could make a difference at the
margins.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 6 Sep 2004 10:28:08 -0700, (Bob Miller) wrote:

>Those numbers didn't sound right so I checked my 1965 M20C (short
>rudder) manual which lists a demonstrated crosswind of 15 kt (17 mph).
> I bet the M20J is higher than that. I have landed in up to 20 kt
>with not much rudder left. 25-30 kt, well, that's a lot. Could it be
>done, I bet. I'll be happy to try it in your airplane; I just don't
>like the thought of having to file an insurance claim for a prop
>strike and the associated downtime.

Bob,

Let me emphasize, in case you aren't aware, that the "demonstrated"
crosswind component in our a/c is NOT a limitation. It usually reflects
ONLY the test flight done on the first day when the crosswind exceeded that
required by the regulations (which is some percentage of the stall speed -
I don't recall the exact number).

I know a 'C' can handle a 25 kt direct crosswind.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[PInc972390]

>I can't understand that. With full
>fuel in each plane, I can carry more payload than the 182.
>

84 gallons of fuel weigh more than 44 gallons. Seems like my 182 had a useful
load of 587 pounds with full fuel. Not much useful but could go a long way.

[PInc972390]

>I know a 'C' can handle a 25 kt direct crosswind.

I know a 150 with a student pilot in the dark that handled a 25 knot direct
crosswind on Dec 24, 1980 in Canadian TX.

Tried to kiss the ground but too many grassburrs.

[Bob Miller]

> Bob,
>
> Let me emphasize, in case you aren't aware, that the "demonstrated"
> crosswind component in our a/c is NOT a limitation. It usually reflects
> ONLY the test flight done on the first day when the crosswind exceeded that
> required by the regulations (which is some percentage of the stall speed -
> I don't recall the exact number).
>
> I know a 'C' can handle a 25 kt direct crosswind.
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

I'm aware of that.
The previous poster seemed to imply that Mooney deliberately set the
limitation low. Can any other J owners corroborate the 11 kt
demonstrated x/w for a J??
My M20C demonstrated x/w: 15 kt
My club PA32R300 demonstrated x/w: 17 kt
The M20 definitely has less rudder.
In 600 hrs I have not had the opportunity to land my C with more than
20kt of crosswind. 30 kts approaches my threshold speed of 65 kt,
which to line-up would mean crabbing to nearly 30 deg.
I'm saying that 30 kt would give me pause.
Bob Miller

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> It shows a 100' tree 800' from the end of one runway. But the runway is
> 2400 (732 m). So to touch down with 2000' remaining requires about a 6°
> glide slope -- something that is certainly doable, with practice, in a
> Mooney.

"With practice". No one should land at that airport without being confident
in their short field techniques, and many pilots are not.

If Julian said that the Mooney simply couldn't be landed on a 2000' runway
with a 50' obstacle, then I missed it. IMHO, the point is that even though
it's doable, it requires even more careful attention to technique than many
other airplanes would.

> Definitely not for a new owner, or even for an old owner that
> hasn't flown much recently :-).

Exactly. :)

> I note that despite the tree, there are 28 single and 2 twin engine
> aircraft based at that field, and 39 operations per day!

Well, the word "tree" in the A/FD description is misleading. What there
actually is, is an entire forest of mature Douglas Fir. I'm actually a bit
skeptical of the 100' height, as mature Douglas Fir is generally at least
that high, and the forest north of the airport is on a hill above the
airport.

Anyway, even with those caveats, I'm not saying you couldn't land a Mooney
there. A person flying by the numbers, using proper technique, should be
fine. It's just no place to be sloppy.

Pete

[Jack Allison]

Hey Jon...keep up the posts re: your buying adventure. I'll be
interested to see what you finally wind up with and what the journey was
like. I'm hoping to eventually head down the ownership path. At this
point, I'm only familiar flying Cessna hardware but am definitely
interested in what you're leaning toward in the Mooney arena. Something
about 160 kts and 10 gph that just sounds like something for
nothing...er, sort of.

Nice looking plane, by the way.
--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, IA Student

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Julian Scarfe]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...

> Anyway, even with those caveats, I'm not saying you couldn't land a Mooney
> there. A person flying by the numbers, using proper technique, should be
> fine. It's just no place to be sloppy.

I think that's the key. I implied in my original post that the M20J
requires more landing distance than comparable tourers. On reflection in
the light of others' posts, and perusal of some numbers, I think that's
misleading. The issue is that it's much less forgiving of any imprecision
in technique. Given that we're all human, I still think that's a good
reason to think hard about whether you want to base a Mooney at a relatively
short field.

Julian

[Julian Scarfe]

"Bob Miller" > wrote in message
...

> The previous poster seemed to imply that Mooney deliberately set the
> limitation low. Can any other J owners corroborate the 11 kt
> demonstrated x/w for a J??

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X26176&key=1

Julian

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 6 Sep 2004 19:55:58 -0700, (Bob Miller) wrote:

>The previous poster seemed to imply that Mooney deliberately set the
>limitation low.

I'm not aware that Julian posted anything about Mooney setting a
*limitation* on crosswind performance, deliberately or otherwise.

He did post that they chose to *demonstrate* crosswind performance at a
certain speed. But Part 23 only requires that this demonstration be done
at 0.2 Vso or greater. Vso in the 'J' is 54 KIAS. So anything over 10.8
Kts 90° crosswind component meets the requirements of Part 23.

As I said, the usual reason for that is because that's what was available
when the schedule called for performing this part of the flight test.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Thomas Borchert]

> That is
> the reason why we drain the sumps before flight.
>

Well, for me, it's not. Again, the amount of water aquired through
condensation is so minimal as to be non-existent. However, draining
will rid you of any water, no matter where it comes from.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jon Kraus]

Right now we are looking at a '79 M20J. I flew it Saturday adn it was
very nince. The owner has taken good care of the plane. My partner is
going to fly it Wednesday to get his impression. He will probably like
it. He is the one that sent me the ad. I'll keep you posted.

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
Student airplane owner

Jack Allison wrote:
> Hey Jon...keep up the posts re: your buying adventure. I'll be
> interested to see what you finally wind up with and what the journey was
> like. I'm hoping to eventually head down the ownership path. At this
> point, I'm only familiar flying Cessna hardware but am definitely
> interested in what you're leaning toward in the Mooney arena. Something
> about 160 kts and 10 gph that just sounds like something for
> nothing...er, sort of.
>
> Nice looking plane, by the way.

[Bob Miller]

>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X26176&key=1
>
Thank you.

[Michael]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote
> If you're in the market for a fast, fuel-efficient single-engined tourer,
> there are 4 reasons not to buy a Mooney:

Actually, there is one you missed. Cabin room.

If you're a stick (tall and thin) and you like the sportscar position
(legs stretched out in front of you, stuck into a narrow channel) you
may well enjoy a Mooney. If you are shaped more typically, like to
sit upright, and want room between you and the front seat passenger -
think again.

The late model Mooneys are not so bad (the Ovation is almost
comfortable - almost) but I have some time in a K model Mooney and it
is by far the most tight and uncomfortable aircraft I have ever flown,
not excluding the gliders.

Of course I am what might be called gravitationally enhanced, so the
best advice I can give is this - decide how long your longest trips
are going to be, and sit in one for that long. Then make your
decision.

Michael

[Robert M. Gary]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message >...
> "Bob Miller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > The previous poster seemed to imply that Mooney deliberately set the
> > limitation low. Can any other J owners corroborate the 11 kt
> > demonstrated x/w for a J??
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X26176&key=1

That's a pretty common mistake in cross winds. Once you touch down in
a strong cross wind, the ailerons should be turned all the way to the
stops against the wind. When I teach cross wind landings I teach that
you never want to expose your belly to the wind (metaphor only). You
need to keep that upwind wing down.

-Robert

[Al Gerharter]

You'll love it. They are fine aircraft. I've operated in and out of 1500'
fields, at lightweight.
The last time I few one, they were still using MPH on the airspeed, and we
would shoot for 63 across the fence.

The large tanks, and low burn can combine to give interesting results.
Here in fog country, I live in Oregon, the extra fuel sounds reasonable when
airports all over start going 0-0. Catch the winds just right, and you can
go a very long way above most of the weather. I once flew a Mooney 20K
x-country in about 8 hrs. Ok, it was turbocharged, and yes, I did carry a
little extra gas, but 104 gallons from San Francisco to Washington DC in one
afternoon is hard to beat.

Can't say that I've ever had the opportunity to try out Mooney's extreme
crosswind, as we generally have a pretty good choice of runways. But I have
operated it in well over 30 knots. The low profile and stiff legs make it
feel very stable on the ground in a high wind.

I lost an engine in one, at night, over mountains, and 30nm from the
airport, and made it to the airport. (Ok, before you start, yes it was MY
fault. I left the ram air door open and then flew into very thin clouds. I
could see the moon, and I was at eleven thousand. United was at 370, also in
it, and could also see the moon. Ice crystals built up on the fuel injection
air inlet tubes, and shut off the fuel to the engine. I closed the door, and
leaned the mixture trying to find the right spot. As I got lower, Some of
the ice melted, fuel started, and I used power to extend my final to the
airport. Ok, standby, flame proof suit on, go ahead, I'm ready.)

Al Gerharter CFIAMI *

*Long time Mooney Lover







"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AircraftView.jsp?aircraft_id=84399
>
> I flew this yesterday and it was nice (but what the hell do I know) He is
> asking 105k but Vref says it is worth $113k. That seemed high but again
> what do I know. Any Mooney owners out there want to give an opinion on
> the M20J? Thanks in advance.
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student airplane purchaser
>

[Robert M. Gary]

Jon Kraus > wrote in message >...
> Right now we are looking at a '79 M20J. I flew it Saturday adn it was
> very nince. The owner has taken good care of the plane. My partner is
> going to fly it Wednesday to get his impression. He will probably like
> it. He is the one that sent me the ad. I'll keep you posted.

One interesting thing about Mooneys is that they all fly at different
speeds. Some are faster than others. As with all planes they all came
out of the factory with wings that are a little different (the effect
of hand building). Its not unusual for one Mooney to be 10 knots
different than the one that came out of the factory after it. One was
to tell if you have a fast straight wing is to stall the plane with an
experience CFI. Some Mooneys will roll inverted. These are the slower
ones. Some will stall straight ahead. These are the faster ones. Make
sure you try it with and w/o flaps. Under no situation should you ever
attempt to spin your Mooney.

-Robert, CFI Mooney owner.

[PInc972390]

>One was
>to tell if you have a fast straight wing is to stall the plane with an
>experience CFI. Some Mooneys will roll inverted. These are the slower
>ones. Some will stall straight ahead. These are the faster ones. Make
>sure you try it with and w/o flaps. Under no situation should you ev

You left out to never look at the tail of a Mooney when you stall it. Know what
I mean?????

[Julian Scarfe]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...

> Its not unusual for one Mooney to be 10 knots
> different than the one that came out of the factory after it. One was
> to tell if you have a fast straight wing is to stall the plane with an
> experience CFI. Some Mooneys will roll inverted. These are the slower
> ones. Some will stall straight ahead. These are the faster ones.

Any reason why he shouldn't just measure the cruise speed? It sounds more
omnfortable and more reliable?

Julian

[Robert M. Gary]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message >...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > Its not unusual for one Mooney to be 10 knots
> > different than the one that came out of the factory after it. One was
> > to tell if you have a fast straight wing is to stall the plane with an
> > experience CFI. Some Mooneys will roll inverted. These are the slower
> > ones. Some will stall straight ahead. These are the faster ones.
>
> Any reason why he shouldn't just measure the cruise speed? It sounds more
> omnfortable and more reliable?

You would have to fly a lot of Mooneys to notice the difference.

-Robert

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> > Any reason why he shouldn't just measure the cruise speed? It sounds
more
> > omnfortable and more reliable?
>
> You would have to fly a lot of Mooneys to notice the difference.

Huh? You would have to fly a lot of Mooneys to notice a 10 knot difference?

Why is that?

[J. Severyn]

"Ken Reed" > wrote in message
k.net...
> > I flew this yesterday and it was nice (but what the hell do I know) He
> > is asking 105k but Vref says it is worth $113k. That seemed high but
> > again what do I know. Any Mooney owners out there want to give an
> > opinion on the M20J?
>
> You've looked at two Mooneys now. If you are serious about getting one,
> you really must join the Mooney list. You'll get more good information
> there than anywhere else:
>
> <http://www.aviating.com/mooney/subscribe.html>
>
> At minimum, read Bob Kromer's flight test reports on the various Mooney
> models:
>
> <http://www.mooneypilots.com/flight_test_reports.html>
> snip
> ---
> Ken Reed
> http://www.dentalzzz.com

You folk are a wealth of information on Mooneys. I'm overwhelmed. I took
the advice above and subscribed to the 3 Mooney lists (Mooney, Mooney-tech
and MooneyWC) but I cannot keep up with all the email. (although I'm still
interested in trading in my Cessna for a Mooney in the near future!!!)

Is the server at www.aviating.com off the air....because I cannot call up
the pages to "unsubscribe"?

Thanks,
J. Severyn

[Robert M. Gary]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> om...
> > > Any reason why he shouldn't just measure the cruise speed? It sounds
> more
> > > omnfortable and more reliable?
> >
> > You would have to fly a lot of Mooneys to notice the difference.
>
> Huh? You would have to fly a lot of Mooneys to notice a 10 knot difference?
>
> Why is that?

Because 10 knots is the extream. Smaller differences would be harder
to tell. Its just easier to go up and stall it. You wouldn't want to
own a plane that you never stalled anyway.

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> Because 10 knots is the extream. Smaller differences would be harder
> to tell. Its just easier to go up and stall it. You wouldn't want to
> own a plane that you never stalled anyway.

You claimed that "the extream [sic]" is "not unusual". Seems like the "not
unusual" case of a 10 knot difference would be easy to notice.

As for smaller differences, if you can't tell the difference, then why would
you care? I know for my own flights, a 2-3 knot difference in speed is
irrelevant. Winds aloft always is a much more significant factor.

IMHO, it might not be a bad idea to stall a prospective purchase anyway,
just to see what the airplane's "manners" are. But I fail to see how
stalling the airplane is a superior method to checking cruise speed than
simply checking the cruise speed directly.

Pete

[Robert M. Gary]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...

> IMHO, it might not be a bad idea to stall a prospective purchase anyway,
> just to see what the airplane's "manners" are. But I fail to see how
> stalling the airplane is a superior method to checking cruise speed than
> simply checking the cruise speed directly.

Its faster. I think your making too much of this. Mooney pilots always
try to compare how fast their Mooney is. If you want a fast one (and
most Mooney pilots do, otherwise they'd buy an Arrow) you want to
determine how fast your is. Running a 4 course range with a GPS takes
a good 15 minutes. Stalling take about 2 minutes.

-Robert

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> Its faster.

It is? Seems to me that, in not much more time than it takes to climb to an
appropriate altitude, do the proper clearing turns, configure for slow
flight and stall the airplane, you could just as easily have flown a
standard square course, using a GPS to monitor your progress, and calculated
the exact cruising speed.

> I think your making too much of this.

If I am, then you started it. :)

> Mooney pilots always
> try to compare how fast their Mooney is.

If they are, they are being silly. After all, it's not like most Mooneys
are the fastest thing around...they just happen to go fast on less power.

But if they insist on being silly, I can't imagine that they'd use stall
characteristics as a way of comparing how fast their Mooney is to another.

I can just see the conversation now:
"How fast is your Mooney?"
"Well, I get a roll rate of 1 degree per second during the stall"
"Oh really? I only get a roll rate of half a degree per second during the
stall"
"Damn...your Mooney IS faster than mine".

> If you want a fast one (and
> most Mooney pilots do, otherwise they'd buy an Arrow) you want to
> determine how fast your is.

Okay. That seems obviously true.

> Running a 4 course range with a GPS takes
> a good 15 minutes. Stalling take about 2 minutes.

15 minutes? Uh, right. And only 2 minutes for the stall? Uh, right
(again). But even if that were so, you're talking a time investment of only
13 minutes more, and at the end, you have an actual number that is the
actual speed of the airplane, rather than some vague information about stall
behavior.

Sorry Robert, I'm just not buying it. I know, you'll say "well, I don't
care if you buy it", and that's fine too. And I think it's wise to stall
the airport before buying it, just because that could turn up some other
less desirable issues with the plane. But to determine cruise speed by
stalling it? That just seems silly to me.

Pete

[Paul Sengupta]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> And I think it's wise to stall
> the airport before buying it, just because that could turn up some other
> less desirable issues with the plane. But to determine cruise speed by
> stalling it? That just seems silly to me.

It seems to me that what you're trying to do is to determine if
the plane is rigged correctly. The question is "is it on the good
side or the bad side of the equation?". The consequences of it
being on the bad side are poor stall characteristics and lower
speed/less efficiency. So rather than just looking for one that
goes faster, you're looking for "a good one".

Paul

[Peter Duniho]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
> [...] So rather than just looking for one that
> goes faster, you're looking for "a good one".

Which is fine. But since there are things that could hurt cruise speed
without affecting the stall, it just makes no sense to rely on stalling
behavior to "know" the cruise speed (even if you could actually determine
the actual cruise speed by stalling the airplane, which you can't).

If you care about cruise speed, you need to actually measure cruise speed.
As Julian already said, doing so is the reliable way to determine cruise
speed.

Pete

[Jeff Meininger]

> If you care about cruise speed, you need to actually measure cruise speed.
> As Julian already said, doing so is the reliable way to determine cruise
> speed.

I have a stupid n00b question to add to this thread. Mooney #1
was tested on a cool, dry day in Colorado at a density altitude of
8500' using the GPS square course method. Mooney #2 was tested
on a hot, humid day in Texas at a density altitude of 8500' using
the same method and power settings. Can the results of these two
tests be used to accurately compare speed down to a single knot?

I'm guessing the answer is "yes". Whatever the answer, though, it
seems that measuring cruise speed would still be the best way to
measure cruise speed.

[Robert M. Gary]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...] So rather than just looking for one that
> > goes faster, you're looking for "a good one".
>
> Which is fine. But since there are things that could hurt cruise speed
> without affecting the stall, it just makes no sense to rely on stalling
> behavior to "know" the cruise speed (even if you could actually determine
> the actual cruise speed by stalling the airplane, which you can't).
>
> If you care about cruise speed, you need to actually measure cruise speed.
> As Julian already said, doing so is the reliable way to determine cruise
> speed.

I think you are envisioning a situation where you are presented with 6
Mooneys on the ramp with your choice to buy. Of course in that
situation you can fly each and compare the price. But if you are
traveling 100 miles out to test fly a Mooney before buying it, I just
don't see how you are going to determine if it is well rigged and fast
just on its own. Unless you have several Mooneys ready to fly to
compare you just can't use a 4 course speed test. Stalling it will
give you a good idea of its rigged right (90% of the speed differences
between Mooneys).

From my experiences buying airplanes for personal use I can say that
you spend a lot of tired hours flying around the country looking at
planes that you are told are great only to find them a piece of crap.
Once you do find one that is good, you want to start spending money on
it (inspection, offers, etc). If you want to travel around teh country
test flying a dozen or so planes you'll end up putting in a lot of
time off work as well as a lot of money moving around.
I've considered buying a little Aeronca to knock around in as a second
airplane. I've already spent almost as much as the Vref of an Aeronca
traveling around for an Aeronca and have not yet found one that is
both airworthy and priced less than 150% of Vref. You can burn through
cash very, very, very fast just searching and inspecting planes.

-Robert