Opinions on a M20J

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

I tell you, once you get down into ground effect you just don't feel
the cross wind in the Mooney at all. Of course, I started my life
flying 800lbs Aeroncas so I'm used to really feeling wind.

-Robert

"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

"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

"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 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

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)

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:50:08 GMT, "Julian Scarfe"
wrote:

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.

Well, although the 'J' has the same wing, it has a longer body and a higher
MGW. But I don't know what that plus the clean up mods do for take off and
landing distances -- I don't have a POH for the 'J'. I think the stall
speed may be a few knots higher, so that could make a difference at the
margins.


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

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)

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)

I'm aware of that.
The previous poster seemed to imply that Mooney deliberately set the
limitation low. Can any other J owners corroborate the 11 kt
demonstrated x/w for a J??
My M20C demonstrated x/w: 15 kt
My club PA32R300 demonstrated x/w: 17 kt
The M20 definitely has less rudder.
In 600 hrs I have not had the opportunity to land my C with more than
20kt of crosswind. 30 kts approaches my threshold speed of 65 kt,
which to line-up would mean crabbing to nearly 30 deg.
I'm saying that 30 kt would give me pause.
Bob Miller

"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