Opinions on a M20J

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/

"AJW" wrote in message
...
Lots of makes of airplanes have fans

Mine's got a big fan in the front.

Was useful to keep the canopy open and stick my head out of the
side while taxying on a warm day like today (UK).

Paul

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message ...
"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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

"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.

"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

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)