Opinions on a M20J

http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AircraftVie...craft_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

"Jon Kraus" wrote in message
...
http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AircraftVie...craft_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

Great post !! Thanks!!

Jon

Julian Scarfe wrote:
"Jon Kraus" wrote in message
...

http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AircraftVie...craft_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" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AircraftVie...craft_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. :-)


I have a few thousand hours in an M20J, and I love the damned thing. If you
control your approach airspeed it'll stop without severe braking in less than a
1000 feet, but it's an airplane that has to be paid attention to.

It's very responsive -- controls are via push rods, you think the thought and
it does it.

Fuel tank caps take some getting used to, and if the FBO doesn't do it right
you'll be draining lots of water from the fuel (I've taken out what seems like
a pint of the stuff after a RON on a long trip -- not fun wearing a suit).

The worst thing about flying an M20J? The trip goes too fast. You get there too
soon, they are so much fun to fly.

It'll give you 150 knots at about 8 gph at altitude, so even if you insist on
landing with a 25% fuel reserve you'll have 6 hours or 900 no wind endurance.
The airplane can do that, but don't drink coffee, or the limitation will be PX
bladder endurance.

Lots of makes of airplanes have fans, and I'm a big fan of Mooneys.




Julian Scarfe

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

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

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)

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

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

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