Opinions on a M20J

"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, 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

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 :-)

"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

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?

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.

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" 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 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