1980Mooney

"One was at 26 and the other was at 28." Maybe for longer spark/burn duration?

Yes I agree with you that is the "legal" answer. Yet in both cases of POH's on Normal Takeoff, landing gear are retracted before flaps........ How is the initial Climb during a Normal Takeoff different from the initial Climb during a Balked Landing/Go-Around?! Is the air around the plane, the lift of the wings or the physics of the plane any different between the 2 climbs?...No Is the recommended speed or rate of climb different?...No Is the attitude of the plane different?...No I don't understand the inconsistencies. Maybe more seasoned Mooney pilots can explain this. From a safety perspective, inconsistencies increase the chance of making a mistake. And here is another safety perspective. Problems with our landing gear systems are common topics on MS. There are many topics about the landing gear not retracting due to switch, solenoid or air-switch failures. They are unexpected events which can be startling while a pilot is under pressure of takeoff. If a pilot is going to be fiddle farting around/distracted during the initial climb cycling the gear switch, looking at the gear indicator light on the panel, looking down between the seats at the gear indicator window, or maybe pulling circuit breakers then they may not be fully focused on proper takeoff/climb. The pilot might even pull the power back intentially to keep the speed down for fear of exceeding "legal" gear retraction speed. These are times, especially at night or in marginal weather conditions, where there is a greater likelyhood of the pilot allowing the plane to lose speed or enter a banking turn that might become steep. I argue that it would be better to have flaps still deployed and out. It reduces the stall speed and gives an extra margin of safety so they don't stall the plane.

The problem is that Mooney has not been consistent on what they published in the M20J POH's as the "method recommended by the manufacturer". If you look at the M20J POH's in the Download section, you will find 1977 - 1984 POH says first "After establishing climb, Retract Flaps to 0 degrees" and then last "Retract Landing Gear" 1985 and later POH says after establishing climb, first Retract Flaps to "take-off position", then "Retract Landing Gear" and then last Retract flaps fully to 0 degrees. The change does not correspond to the standard installation of wing tips in 1981. The change does not correspond to the standard installation of "Take-off Flaps Preselect" switch in 1987. The change does not correspond to the standard GW increase to 2,900 lbs in 1991. I would argue that the M20J did not change materially yet the Factory guidance for Balked Landing did. So what should an owner do?

He is looking for 6041H53 (14 v)...not 6046H53 (28 v) He has one of the last 14 volt M20J's made in 1985. Ser no 24-1524

1979 Mooney M20J 201 for sale in Sweden - Winglist Accident Mooney M20J 201 SE-GXI, Friday 5 September 2025 SE-GXI - Mooney 201 [24-0844] - Flightradar24 UPDATE: Private plane crashes into lake in Norrtälje, Sweden, during exercise - Both pilots died - Aviation24.be Perhaps European MS members know more and can translate better. Sweden Volunteer Air Corp - Welcome to the Volunteer Air Corps - FFK - Volunteer Air Corps - FFK UPDATE: Private plane crashes into lake in Norrtälje, Sweden, during exercise – Both pilots died By André Orban -6 September 20250261 A Mooney M20J 201 single-engine propeller plane from Sweden’s Volunteer Air Corps crashed into Lake Limmaren near Norrtälje Airport (ESSN) on Friday afternoon during a training exercise. The aircraft registered SE-GXI, carrying two pilots, went into the water while attempting to land near a lakeside runway. The plane went down near the Görla airfield, just short of the runway. A major rescue effort involving helicopters, divers, emergency services, and police was launched, but both men on board, experienced pilots, could not be saved. The plane is reportedly almost fully submerged. Police have opened a criminal investigation into the cause of the crash and have begun questioning people who can provide information. Sweden’s Accident Investigation Authority will take part in the inquiry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 6 p.m., the two men who had been on board the plane were found. A few hours later, the police confirmed that both had died in connection with the crash. Relatives have been notified. "They were both very experienced pilots and appreciated members of FFK. Our thoughts now go to the relatives, friends and colleagues in the county," writes the Volunteer Air Corps on social media. "The runway is right on the beach, so instead of landing on the runway, the plane ended up in the water," said Ola Österling, press spokesperson at the police command center.

That is true - they have an ASTM production/manufacturing standard for what so far appears to be (by Swift's own admission/cautions) an inferior knock/detonation preventing fuel. How many remember when ethanol was first blended into unleaded gasoline? It had "ASTM" certification. It also damaged some hoses, elastomers, plastics and caused corrosion in older vehicles. Older lawnmowers and motorcycles suffered. Owners just had to take it on the chin. Swift's press release last week claims that ASTM cert was achieved " by the team from Swift Fuels working in collaboration with FAA and numerous OEMs from Lycoming, Continental Aerospace, Rotax, Textron Aviation, Piper, and others, plus testing laboratories and various aviation part suppliers." Well if they are working with Continental and Lycoming on the high-performance/ big-6's engines, then why aren't we hearing from them? In all this time, why don't they have test results on this "remaining 25% are more complicated" portion of the fleet? Either they have and the test results are dismal or they have rushed the certification out prior to testing. BTW - this "remaining 25% are more complicated" portion of the fleet probably consumes 45% of the Avgas.

I read that damage resulted in about 128 top overhauls of one form or another. That sounds pretty "bricked". And this was only because of the meticulous maintenance and recordkeeping of UND. Who knows how many other engines elsewhere were damaged that went unreported. The point is that there were unanticipated consequences regardless of ASTM D7547 certification. And Swift is already hedging whether 100R will work in the high performance portion of the fleet. They say that they will do about another 2 years of lab/test cell testing. And even then it may still have unintended consequences in the real world use. The first users will be guinea pigs regardless of ASTM approval. Maybe it will work and maybe it won't.

Isn't that the "acid test"? If you don't notice any difference in handling, trim, balance or performance then nothing has "materially" changed. These planes are handmade and yours is 36 years old. This is like having a flaw in the paintjob that you never noticed, but once someone draws your attention to it, you continually notice it and worry about how it looks all the time. I am with Matt on this....

Swift said 94UL was an ASTM approved "drop-in" fuel. Except it wasn't in the real world. Now they say 100R is an ASTM approved "drop in" fuel. Except it may not work in 25% of the fleet..... "and that's a fact". "The remaining 25% are more complicated. About 60% of that slice of the pie chart are what he calls “the 550s,” six-cylinder engines in singles and light twins that fill the gap between the engines that are quite happy on 94 UL and the ultra-high-performance boosted sixes that will be the toughest to fuel with unleaded. Testing will begin later this year on a Continental 550 and d’Acosta said it will take about 18 months." What good is ASTM if they don't even know if it will work reliably in the Continental and big Lycoming engines? - I mean Seriously?

I don't see how that could work. That solution means a pilot would need to reduce power just when he likely needs full power. For those of us back in the 60's and early 70's that used to experiment with distributor timing finding maximum spark advance on our manual transmission cars, when we heard it knocking, we could just let off the throttle or maybe downshift before going into full blown detonation. We could just pull over and stop - maybe fiddle with the timing advance some more. But with our plane, there are many times we need full power - take off, clearing an obstacle. That means the POH would need two (2) sets of performance charts/sections for Full Power and Reduced (Knocking/Detonation) Power. Putting a pilot in the position of trying to decide whether to destroy the engine vs attain a needed rate of climb seems like a formula for disaster. I bet the lawyers for everyone (airframe, engine and even the fuel suppliers) would stop it in its tracks. More likely they would mandate permanent engine modifications such as reduced compression (piston change), reduced timing, reduced max RPM, limited/reduced max boost

Every plane that uses Swift fuel is a guinea pig. Swift 94UL met ASTM D7547. Yet prolonged use by UND caused documented engine damage. UND Report Details Valve Issues Experienced With Swift Fuels 94UL - AVweb And Swift already admits that there are issues with 100R in high performance engines - big 6's and turbocharged.

The main point of the article is "The variation of flutter speed with true airspeed is more complex.". Forces from air molecules hitting our planes are well understood per the Ideal Gas Law - as altitude increases, pressure decreases, and air molecules decrease proportionately. And the forces from those air molecules hitting our planes decrease proportionally. That is why KIAS makes sense. But flutter is a function of the dynamic damping and harmonics of both the plane structure and the air. At higher altitude the dampening of the air is less and has a less predictable effect because of the harmonics of the air interacting with the structure. So determining the critical flutter speed is not easily predicable without actual flight testing with all these dynamic forces in action. Yes - exactly! It means that the Vans RV-10 has a much, much weaker wing and tail structure than the proven Mooney. Remember that Vans only started saying this when they woke up to the fact as more and more reports of RV break-ups. With N174BK everyone initially tried to dismiss it as a bird strike that caused it to break-up. NTSB found no evidence of a strike. The Mooney has stronger "chops" that are demonstrated every day. When leaving the teen's in my Missile modified J, I routinely hit over 200 KTAS. If you are interested in safety and are flying your family, then buy a Mooney. If not, then buy a homebuilt or experimental. Let's face it, they are generally lighter and may have better performance because something is left out (structure or safety margin) vs a certified. Aviation is a compromise. You can't get something for nothing.

This shows cabin light placement

This is a J

This might help. It’s a m20K. several headliner pics

Except our market is so small and probably most importantly our market is not growing - it is stagnant at best and probably shrinking. So no-one does enter. And the PE firms keep consolidating those still standing. PE is doing the same to the FBO's.

But isn't that the logic that Arcline Private Equity/Hartzell, Vance Capital/McFarlane, Tempest, etc or Extant Aerospace uses to "value price" (i.e. jack up prices) today? They look at it and say - "if $2K doesn't seem bad then let's raise it to $3 or $4 K.....It might smart a little but it keeps their $100K planes going another 25 years...."

I can see from your posts that you are a relatively new Mooney owner. "1. I assume this part is not correct - not supposed to be bent like this, correct?' and "When you start to articulate the seat upwards, the left side gets higher than the right side, it also leans from front left to back right." There are older posts here that highlight that heavy pilot/pax re: 300 lbs (even 200 lbs in turbulence) will damage the articulating seats. "2. Does anyone know the part number for this part?" A good place to start is the Illustrated Parts Catalog and the Service Manuals found in the Downloads Section (you can also find the M20J manuals free on the internet but MooneySpace Downloads is your best source). I think you find that is it #26 in the parts diagrams 140216-501 "Bellcrank Assembly" "3. Where is the best place to potentially source this? " At this point have to chuckle - not trying to be a smart ass but after all you did buy a Mooney. Mooney owners need to repair & rebuild and scrounge in many (most?) cases. Yes the Factory does make some parts but this is not one of them any longer. Articulated seats are one of the most sought after parts yet least available. In the post last year @LANCECASPER had a used pair for sale for $3,300 and wanted $1,500 for one base frame alone without cushions. You will not find them in at any aircraft salvage scrap yard - they are the first thing sold. They are made out of aluminum. LASAR used to rebuild them but that was more than 10 years ago before they sold and moved to Oregon. They would reinforce the aluminum. I don't think they do it now. One owner posted here that he made one out of 4130 steel tubing -"cut and drilled the tubing myself and had a local FAA repair station do the welding (exhaust overhaul shop). The only paper work was $75 for the welding job. Don't bother with the original aluminum parts they will break again. I have seen four of them broken" Your best bet is to have the seat disassembled and straighten/weld/repair/add doublers for likely cracks that you find.

Correct You can see it better in the pictures that @LANCECASPER posted when selling his seats Articulating Seat Frames or Complete Seats - SOLD - Avionics / Parts Classifieds - Mooneyspace.com - A community for Mooney aircraft owners and enthusiasts

Why isn't he using the old one as a template?

Since this was posted on the Modern Mooney forum, we have not heard from our J-bar pilots. I bet they would say that they are not wasting any time messing with flaps and that they want to get the gear up ASAP so that they don't have a wrestling match with the J-bar.

I think it means "Full 33 degree flaps reduced to take-off (I think it is 10 degrees on the Long Body), then raise Gear, and then reduce Take-off (10 degrees) to 0 degree Flaps". It has been discussed before and the consensus was that mid-body Mooney's don't climb very well with Full Flaps. Perhaps with more power in your Bravo it would not be as noticeable but still degraded.

You only need to fly to Oregon to save that $145.....

Complicating this discussion is the fact that prior to 1987 (24-3000), M20J's did not have a "take-off" preselect on the flaps. I think it is the same with the M20K but have not looked at all the wiring diagrams. Late J's & K's and Long Bodies have the takeoff preselect. The POH states that if balking a landing with full flaps deployed the pilot should Retract the flaps to "take-off" position before Retracting Landing Gear and then fully Retracting Flaps (from "take-off" position to 0 degrees). This means that the pilot has to look down at the indicator while toggling the flap switch and watch until it centers at the "take-off mark. This fumble farting around looking down can spell disaster when forced to execute a go-around while trying to land possibly in the clag or with an animal popping out on the runway. @PT20J and others are right that full flaps deployed while landing can provide maximum landing performance (except in some conditions like strong winds, etc) but the lack of take-off flap preselect on most "modern" Mid-Bodies creates a sub-optimal (I would argue unsafe) situation to be dancing "flaps, gear, flaps" during a forced go-around. I think it better in Mooney's without a "takeoff" flap preselect to compromise and set up to land with "take-off" 15-degree flaps. That way you are set up to go around without thinking about it - without having to fumble/bumble looking down at a hard to see indicator (especially at night) to raise from Full Flaps to the Take-off Flaps mark on the indicator before raising Landing Gear. If set up with "take-off" flaps, once you break out or know the runway is clear, you can throw in the remaining flaps with a single press of the flap actuator switch (and not having to look) if you think it is needed. Everything in aviation is a compromise. I have no idea why Mooney did not have a "take-off preselect" or a stepped flaps actuator (like all Cessna) all along. Just my 2 cents.