AndyFromCB

ParkerW, You are right and I'm sure I'll change my mind sooner rather than later on selling the arrow. The M20M will be just fine for about 95% of our trips (just me and my girlfriend) loaded with about 70gallons of fuel we will right on or under gross and be able to make it to our favorite trips which are KCBF-KAPA, KCBF-KCOS, KCBF-KCYS, KCBF-KMDW. On the KCBF-KJAC trip, we will simply have to make a fuel stop, not that big of a deal. My calculation is 70gal - 15gal for ground and cruise climb, = 55 left, about 40NM covered, 55 / 16 = 3.5 hours, 2.5 hours * 175knots = 430NM, 40 free NM on descent. I know I can realistically get 175kt at 12,000 on less than 16 per hour in a Bravo, still landing with more than 45 minutes of fuel...

Quote: carusoam AstelM, So you are asking... (1) How far overweight you can fly a Bravo? (2) how much ice you can fly a FIKI Bravo through? Overweight and picking up ice, are you feeling lucky? Best regards, -a-

As to keeping two airplanes, I'm less worried about the cost and more worried about the fact that the arrow might suffer from not being used enough. We only fly with all 4 seats filled twice a year at most, the rest of the time them Bravo will do for our Colorado and/or Wyoming runs. Don't really want to sell the arrow in the current market condition especiialy since it's one of the best Arrows in the country equipped as good as the Bravo I'm purchasing. 430W, S-TEC Autopilot, GPSS, WX-500, XM Weather, standby horizon and vacuum system, JPI 730 and every speed mod available, maintained to perfection. I might be looking for a partner and/or dry lease for that aircraft. If anyone knows anyone looking in western Iowa/eastern NE, I might be interested. The primary reason for the Bravo is not speed but the ability to punch thru an icing layer on the way up and down. Still have no desire to fly in frontal icing where I have to climb thru 18K of ice but around here in Iowa all the time we have a 3000 feet of icing to get to the sunshine on top.

Quote: KSMooniac This is why I was asking. I see one like that at my airport all the time, taking off with 2 big guys up, 2 women and all the gear they can fit in there. I don't know if it has AC but he has TKS. So they are easily pushing 400lb over gross and the plane takes off and still climbs better than my arrow.

Thanks for the Bo idea but I already have a full fuel, 4 seat aircraft. My arrow, 1070 useful - 300 of fuel, honest 140kt machine at 10gph. The Mooney is being bought as a my personal machine. To all you panicking here, I was just simply asking a question because of the Monroy aero tanks installed in the Mooney seem like a weird idea and the previous owner has flown it topped off a few times, so we have a 945 useful load - 56lb of TKS flue - 720 of fuel leaves only 169lb. So if my 6'2 big butt tops of the tanks I'm 90lb over gross, throw in a flight bag and some lunch. Just wondering. Relax.

On my arrow they ate about 3kt of speeds at cruise, their claims that they don't affect cruise are false, so with a mooney, I would say 4.5knots would be a good bet on lost cruise speed but then how much time is lost stopping to refuel.

VGs on a Mooney M20R/M20M give you exactly 4.5kt lower stall speed at current gross, I know, I flown a M20 Eagle with VGs at full gross in Driggs, ID. And were are talking about microaero VGs not specifically optimized to the specific airframe. In any case, I'll put them on my Bravo and do some serious before and after tests. They did wonders to my Arrow.

I beg to differ, even with the later gross weight models, the strength is there to twice meet the Normal Category and then some. The book stall speed is already 2knots below 61, VGs would lower it another 5 or so knots. I know, I've put them on every airplane I've ever flow, 5knots is a given. There is your 600lb of gross weight increase. Quit dicking around with downrated engines and originally certify with full 310hp like everyone else did, the VGs on the rudder would have helped there too. If Midwest Mooney can do, how come Mooney can't. 310hp * 13 lb = 4030lb. Borrow an engine mount/landing gear from Beech. I'm sure patents have expired long time ago. And this is coming from guy who loves Mooneys more than any other brand and can finally afford one.

Basically, my mission profile calls for between 3% to 5% overgross on take off, zero on landing. In a Bravo, it should be a non-event from what I gathered. Most older airplanes are usually 50 to 100 heavier than what the W&B says vs putting the airplane on the scale anyways. I know that because I've seen so many "less than 1lb, no W&B" entries from mechanics it's almost funny. Funny thing is if Mooney would have just for once in its company's life hired an engineer (that's a problem with a lot of american and european companies, too many lawyers around not enough engineers), all it had to do what put some vortex generators on a bravo and redesign the gear a bit and it could have created a full fuel and 4 seats bravo and it would still be in business. Oh yeah, and not dropped the TBM design...

Well, On a J, it's different tube thickness in the fuselage. That's why it only applies to certain serial numbers. Andy

When you're refering to wing tanks, I assume you mean landing loads. What if one was always under the 3200 limit for landings? In my situation, it would require 30 gallons or less in the tanks with full TKS tank?

Hello, As soon new to be owner of a M20M, I have a question to all who have flown a Bravo. Let's see, M20K 2900lb/210hp equals to 13.8lb/hp. 270hp * 13.8 = 3728lb. I'm fully aware that sounds alike a lot, but TAT A36 does 4000lb on 300hp, a Lance I used to fly had a 3600lb gross weight and I know many times where it was 200lb overgross with 6 big guys and full fuel in it. I performed W&B and center of gravity wise, it's fine. We all know the spar and the tail won't even notice the difference. So hypethically speaking, how is the bravo at about 200lb overgross on take off? I assume one could hardly tell the difference?