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.

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

"Steven Barnes" wrote in message om...
Doesn't leaving the tanks partially empty cause problems with condensation
or something along those lines?

The only time I've ever found water in my tanks was when an IA didn't
properly adjust the caps after replacing the O-rings. As a general
rule, my partner and I agree to never leave the plane with more than
15 gals per side. Sometimes we leave it will much less. My theory is
that if your flight is so full of danger that you need to land with 3
hours of fuel, you probably should consider not going. We also have an
on-board fuel computer. The performance of a Mooney with 30 gals of
gas is WAY better than a Mooney with 64 gals. Putting 64 gals of gas
in a Mooney is like using a Corvette to pull your boat. It just makes
it slow. We use a stick to measure the tanks, I've never found the
computer to be off by more than 0.2 gals.

-Robert

"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

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

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
m...

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.

No I promise you, it's 11 knots (at least it was on our 1982 M20J). That
doesn't necessarily mean that the M20J has less capability, just that Mooney
didn't certify it to that capability.

Julian Scarfe

On 6 Sep 2004 10:28:08 -0700, (Bob Miller) wrote:

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,

Let me emphasize, in case you aren't aware, that the "demonstrated"
crosswind component in our a/c is NOT a limitation. It usually reflects
ONLY the test flight done on the first day when the crosswind exceeded that
required by the regulations (which is some percentage of the stall speed -
I don't recall the exact number).

I know a 'C' can handle a 25 kt direct crosswind.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)