chrisk Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 This last weekend I went to visit a friend and flew a 1967 M20F. It's not the first time I have flown this plane, but the first time since I purchased my M20K about 2 years ago. I couldn't help but compare the M20F to my M20K. Well, the K is definitely faster, but the F gets off the ground much faster, has much less nose up on a go around with flaps, and it floats less on landing. The bottom line is that I would be thrilled to own either plane. Unfortunately, over the course of the weekend, the M20F developed an engine problem and we had to quit flying. The prop would not cycle, likely an internal engine problem due to a recent overhaul. -The mechanic connected air pressure to the prop control, and it would not cycle. You could also hear the air leak in the oil fill. So, we switched planes to a 177, and I got a little bit of spin training. --Wow, I almost had to change my underwear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Why would a k float more? All I can think is that you are consistently a little too fast in the k vs its actual stall speed vs how fast you were flaring in the f vs its actual stall speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Pleisse Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Chris....there are few out there and likely few good ones, but why not have the best of both? A Rayjay Turbo Normalized Executive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisk Posted October 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Why would a k float more? All I can think is that you are consistently a little too fast in the k vs its actual stall speed vs how fast you were flaring in the f vs its actual stall speed. It could be my speeds, but I usually land with the stall horn on. It could have been the temperature too, as I was up north. I'll have to check the landing distances in the POH for both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 It could be my speeds, but I usually land with the stall horn on. It could have been the temperature too, as I was up north. I'll have to check the landing distances in the POH for both. If you have stall horn blaring you are probably pretty darn close to on speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisk Posted October 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 Why would a k float more? All I can think is that you are consistently a little too fast in the k vs its actual stall speed vs how fast you were flaring in the f vs its actual stall speed. I looked up the landing distance for the M20F at sea level and gross weight, the distance is 1785 feet. For my 231, it is 2275. A very noticeable ~500 feet (30%) longer for the K. And the F has more useful load with full fuel. I'm now convinced I would be happy with any Mooney! Well almost any Mooney. I'm not sure about an unconverted D, but I could convert it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 Chris, you don't need to worry about converting a D model. There's only three (3) unconverted D's left flying. My stall born squalls every landing before the tires touch, except when the wind is very gusty or strong across the runway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 I looked up the landing distance for the M20F at sea level and gross weight, the distance is 1785 feet. For my 231, it is 2275. A very noticeable ~500 feet (30%) longer for the K. And the F has more useful load with full fuel. I'm now convinced I would be happy with any Mooney! Well almost any Mooney. I'm not sure about an unconverted D, but I could convert it. But that's a different issue possibly. I don't know the M20F tables, but it is lighter, so I suspect that it has a lower stall speed so a full stall landing will be at a slower speed, meaning a shorter roll out vs a full stall landing of the heavier M20K which will be at a higher speed so a longer roll out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seth Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 The F is also more draggy than the K. So it slows down better and is less slippery. It is also lighter with a less heavy engine and thus has less momentum to stop on landing or start on takeoff. The E gets off the runway probably the quickest due to it's even lighter weight/less mass. -Seth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaMan Posted October 24, 2014 Report Share Posted October 24, 2014 The F is also more draggy than the K. So it slows down better and is less slippery. It is also lighter with a less heavy engine and thus has less momentum to stop on landing or start on takeoff. The E gets off the runway probably the quickest due to it's even lighter weight/less mass. -Seth Mine doesn't like to slow down. http://mooneyspace.com/gallery/image/33968-img-2111/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantom Posted October 24, 2014 Report Share Posted October 24, 2014 So how many of you K owners are willing to swap, even up, for E's...if you can find an E owner who's willing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSMooniac Posted October 24, 2014 Report Share Posted October 24, 2014 It most definitely has to do with the weight differential... K's are heavier than F's and thus have higher stall speeds, higher approach speeds, more mass to slow on landing, etc. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
63C Posted October 24, 2014 Report Share Posted October 24, 2014 Mine doesn't like to slow down. Wow!It looks great! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lood Posted October 25, 2014 Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 A friend of mine used to own a 1981 M20K and I liked it a lot. It was way more efficient than my F and at around 8500ft and 26" MP, it normally cruised around 160 - 165kts, burning a mere 9.6 gal/hr. Can't remember what rpm setting he used. It was extremely quiet inside, to such an extent that he never owned headsets, but it was certainly way more cramped than my F ito shoulder room inside the cockpit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.