Opinions on a M20J

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)

"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

Paul,

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).

But your's is not a 10gph, 160 KTAS, IFR travelling machine, is it? ;-)

Best regards

Kai Glaesner

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.

"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

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)

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.

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

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 :-)

"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