If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Kraus wrote: 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. If Vref says $113k, it's probably worth about $102k. This is based on my experience with Vref, not with Mooneys. George Patterson If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people he gives it to. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Any opinions on the Garmin GNS 480 ! ! ! | RonLee | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | January 18th 05 12:33 PM |
Opinions on Cessna 340, 414 and 421 | john szpara | Owning | 55 | April 2nd 04 09:08 PM |
Opinions wanted | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 65 | January 21st 04 04:15 AM |
OPINIONS: THE SOLUTION | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 4 | January 7th 04 10:43 PM |
Rallye/Koliber AD's and opinions | R. Wubben | Owning | 2 | October 16th 03 05:39 AM |