Opinions on a M20J

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.

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

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/

"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

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.


What Mooney jocks learn pretty quickly is that landing the thing is a bit
diferent than say a 182. It's clean, so going from 1.3Vso to stall takes more
distance than in an aiplane that isn't as aerodynamically clean. It has a very
low wing, so if you get into ground effect going just a little faster than you
should, you'll have increased the needed landing distance a lot. Knowing the
airplane well means you'll learn to get the airspeed way down coming over the
fence, and you'll start your flare a little higher to avoid ground effect for a
while longer. Just be aware of things like that and making the turnoff that's a
thousand feet from the threshold isn't a big deal.

W/R/T xwinds -- the M20J has lots of rudder authority. I've landed in some
pretty bad ones, I don't know the actual number, and had rudder left over at
touchdown. You'll not want to make a full flap full stall landing, but getting
a beep out of the stall warning before touchdown is possible, even in a
crosswind.

As for taking off in a crosswind, I'm not sure what technique is being used for
rolling along on one wheel, but in my airplane I keep it on the ground -- all
three wheels -- until I have the airspeed I want for liftoff in a crosswind,
and then I lift it off. There's nothing to be gained by having the yoke back,
even on a short field, until you can lift off. The only exception I can think
of is if the field is soft. I've never been on a soft short field in my
Mooney, but then again I fly mostly in the eastern US, getting on the other
side of the Mississippi only once every couple of years.

"AJW" wrote in message
...

What Mooney jocks learn pretty quickly is that landing the thing is a bit
diferent than say a 182. It's clean, so going from 1.3Vso to stall takes
more
distance than in an aiplane that isn't as aerodynamically clean. It has a
very
low wing, so if you get into ground effect going just a little faster than
you
should, you'll have increased the needed landing distance a lot.

Agreed. While I'm not an instructor, I have sat in the right seat while at
least 4 different pilots got to know the Mooney. That makes 5 pilots I know
of who learned about the need for precise speed control the looooong way.

As for taking off in a crosswind, I'm not sure what technique is being
used for
rolling along on one wheel, but in my airplane I keep it on the ground --
all
three wheels -- until I have the airspeed I want for liftoff in a
crosswind,
and then I lift it off. There's nothing to be gained by having the yoke
back,
even on a short field, until you can lift off.

Well that's what I do too. The problem seems to be that at about 45 to 50
kt, the wing, low and clean, starts producing substantial lift, taking the
weight off the wheels. At that sort of speed, the side force on the
fuselage from a strong crosswind can get to the level at which the wheels
can't maintain enough grip on the runway to resist. In flight (and for
landing) it's easy -- you just stick the upwind wing down. But unless
you're prepared to do that on take-off, you (I) can't stop the thing moving
sideways, particularly if the runway is wet, or uneven.

Aerodynamics dictates that this limit must exist, and it certainly kicks in
earlier than full rudder travel on the M20J. But it may differ for
different circumstances, and I'm sure that careful handling and lots of
practice allows you to get closer to the absolute limit.

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.

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)

"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

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" 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