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.

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
Student airplane purchaser

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :-)

Julian Scarfe

Great post !! Thanks!!

Jon

Julian Scarfe wrote:
"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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :-)

Julian Scarfe

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.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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.


"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

And the gear doors.

Yeah but gear doors are cheaper... :-) I've bent both :-(

Julian

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.

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 17:17:07 GMT, "Julian Scarfe"
wrote:

Julian,

I'll take issue with you on items 3 and 4.

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.


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.

I do agree with you about rough field operation. There just isn't the
clearance that other a/c have.


--ron

In article ,
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
I do agree with you about rough field operation. There just isn't the
clearance that other a/c have.

And beware those who say the 3-bladed prop has more clearance -- it's the
same diameter.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

"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

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)