State your Useful Load/Full Fuel payload/max no reserve range

[Guest]

And his mooney is an M18!

-a-

I accidentally posted the numbers for my Comanche! The Comanche is said to have been copied from a Mooney while visiting Piper.

The Mite is under restoration, but some basic numbers for it: 500 pound empty, 850 pound gross, 12 gallons of fuel, 120 mph cruise.

Clarence

[podair]

1967 M20F
Useful: 941bs
Fuel capacity: 64gals useable (384lbs)
FF Payload: 557bs
NR Range: 980nm

 

I have no idea why my empty weight is so high on my M20F, 816kg (1799lb). It is a perfectly stock 1967 M20F Executive , albeit with a 3 blade Hartzell prop and pretty well equipped in 1990s avionics (STEC ap , KNS80 , Garmin 155XL, Collins ADF). Anyway, suits me fine, I routinely fly from a 2000ft grass strip in summer with full tanks and bags, 2 adults 2 kids, no issues at all. Usual cruise is 33 litres per hour / 9000ft approx / 145kt TAS/ 2500rpm wot just tad lean of peak.

[RJBrown]

Rocket

1050 legal useful at 3200# gross still climbs over 1000fpm at 3600#

101 gal fuel

74% 200kts 20gph 1000 still air range. For flight planning at 12000'

By the book 74% 20ghp 24000' 225kts gives 1100 range climbing from Denver.

Backed off to 55%to extend range max range At 24000' 208kts 15 gph 1385 range.

Fuel flow and altitude both affect range greatly.

East bound up high with a tailwind you could travel over 2000 kts. While westbound down low into the wind you might not make 800.

J like everyone else 1000 usefull 64 gal 900 range.

Gross 2900# climbs like crap. Takes 30+ min to get from 5880' to cross Corona pass at 12500'

Every flight in the J was such a dissapointment that I sold it at a loss.

I will be planeless untill the house and hanger on Pegasus Airpark are completed.

The speed, climb, range, payload and flexibility of a Rocket are amazing. When the hanger is finished I will put another Rocket in it.

[AndyFromCB]

I find this thread most interesting... I note from the posts above that even the "high power" Mooneys still have really crappy useful load capability with full fuel. Yes I see they have double the fuel capacity compared to my 48 gallon B model, but even at that, the passenger carrying ability on the newer models is really lousy. I am quite suprised! 

 

My "B" has what I thought was a really anemic useful load at 625 Lbs., but that seems to be better than some on this thread.  What I would like to know is how do other moonies perform at gross weight?  My bird just doesn't want to climb loaded down.

 

I flew my family from Mississippi to Utah last year in a M20B during the dead of winter. Three people and 30 lbs of bags in the back.  Airplane loaded to 35 lbs under gross. Temperature at Santa Fe during a morning departure was 26 degrees F.   Airport altitude 6350 feet MSL.  Density altitude = 5,600 feet.

 

Santa Fe has a LONG runway, and yet I used up the best part of 1/2 of the runway just to get airborne from runway 02, which has a 1% uphill grade. Climbing out was slow and tedious.  I guess we were climbing out at 120MPH and only acheived 400-500 FPM.  Really scary considering that I could not climb fast enough to the north and had to turn around to the South to continue climbing.  Finally got to 9,500 feet, but I was doing as little as 300-400 FPM in the process.

 

Does this seem about right at gross on a cold day?  I would expect better, but this was the first (and last) time I have ever flown anywhere near gross weight.  Do other mooneys get the same lousy performance near gross as I do?

 

That sounds about right at gross weight. My Arrow was even worst, I'd get 300fpm getting out of Denver at gross but the DA was closer to 10,000. Are you leaning for take offs?

[AndyFromCB]

1989 Bravo

U/L 1,006 lbs.

Max fuel: 106 gal.

Payload w/full fuel: 389 lbs. (using 5.82 lb/gal for 100 LL )

Usable fuel: 100 gal.

17,500' 15.5 gph 190KTAS (economy cruise)

Range w/o reserves but allowing for ground covered in climb: ~1145 nm

 

What's your power setting and TIT for 190 nm/h for 15.5gph? 

[Bob - S50]

I find this thread most interesting... I note from the posts above that even the "high power" Mooneys still have really crappy useful load capability with full fuel. Yes I see they have double the fuel capacity compared to my 48 gallon B model, but even at that, the passenger carrying ability on the newer models is really lousy. I am quite suprised! 

I don't find the useful load to be that crappy.  Every time I look, it comes out pretty favorable vs other types of aircraft.  While the Bonanza or 182RG can carry more weight, they also burn more fuel.  That means to fly the same distance, they have to carry more fuel which brings their true useable payload down closer to ours.  And after all, it isn't about how far you can carry a tank of fuel, it is how much you can carry from point A to point B.

 

Besides, if I'm going to put 4 people in the plane, I'm not sure all of them will want to sit there that long.  While I may only have a full fuel payload of 587 pounds, if I limit myself to 4 hours of cruise and leave 9.3 gallons behind I can carry 646#.  Three hour limit and I can carry 700 pounds.  Two hours of cruise and it becomes 754 pounds.  And that is all with a 10 gallon reserve and 2 gallons of contingency fuel.  And in reality, all those number should be 8 or 9 pounds higher because I will have burned off that much fuel during STTO.  Rather than limit myself to 2740, I'm willing to start up weighing 2749 and be down to the limit when I get airborne.

 

Bob

[Joe Zuffoletto]

I find this thread most interesting... I note from the posts above that even the "high power" Mooneys still have really crappy useful load capability with full fuel. Yes I see they have double the fuel capacity compared to my 48 gallon B model, but even at that, the passenger carrying ability on the newer models is really lousy. I am quite suprised!

 

Yes and no. If I need to carry people or cargo I fill the Acclaim to 30 gallons per side, which gives me 524 lbs. to spread around the cabin and a range of 660nm. I've flown 3 grown men from Denver to Albuquerque in the flight levels, so the Acclaim will carry a decent load of humans a fair distance if you really need it to.

 

Having said that, that's not my normal mission. 95% of my flights are me, my petite wife and two carry-on bags. With this load I can fill the tanks and go anywhere we want really fast, which is why I chose the Acclaim.

 

Santa Fe has a LONG runway, and yet I used up the best part of 1/2 of the runway just to get airborne from runway 02, which has a 1% uphill grade. Climbing out was slow and tedious.  I guess we were climbing out at 120MPH and only acheived 400-500 FPM.  Really scary considering that I could not climb fast enough to the north and had to turn around to the South to continue climbing.  Finally got to 9,500 feet, but I was doing as little as 300-400 FPM in the process.

 

The climb performance you cite in Santa Fe at near gross is about what I would expect from a normally-aspirated engine at that altitude. The Acclaim will climb Vy at about 1000fpm fully loaded out of Santa Fe, then about 700fpm once I reach 10,000' MSL. But that's obviously with a turbo and a few more horses.

[Glenn]

1967 M20F

Useful: 1017 lbs

Fuel: 64 Gal (384 lbs)

FF Payload: 633

NR Range: 834 NM

Range with 1 hour reserve: 650

[FlyDave]

What's your power setting and TIT for 190 nm/h for 15.5gph? 

27"/2200 - see attached pic (not much help from a tailwind going east on that flight)

TIT around 1575. At this power setting #4 is my hottest cylinder. at 29"/2400 #1 is my hottest cylinder.

[Shadrach]

Useful: 1500 lbs.

Fuel Capacity:130 gallons

Load with full fuel: 720 lbs.

Endurance: 7.2 hours

TAS: 190 @ 18gph

Range:1375 nm, better if I slow down

Clarence

Clarence, That has got to be the most impressive Mite I've ever heard of! Where do you all of that fuel/payload!!!

[Seth]

1983 M20J Missile 300

Useful load:  1068 lbs

Fuel Capacity:  98 gallons (588)

FF Payload:  480

Range w/no reserve in no wind:  1411 NM, however, I could probably cut power more and get it closer to 1500 (I got 1411 from 170 knots at 11.8 gph).

 

I usually do not fly with full tanks - with 64 gallons (mains full) my useufl load is:  784 (1168-384).

 

-Seth

[Shadrach]

I find this thread most interesting... I note from the posts above that even the "high power" Mooneys still have really crappy useful load capability with full fuel. Yes I see they have double the fuel capacity compared to my 48 gallon B model, but even at that, the passenger carrying ability on the newer models is really lousy. I am quite suprised! 

 

My "B" has what I thought was a really anemic useful load at 625 Lbs., but that seems to be better than some on this thread.  What I would like to know is how do other moonies perform at gross weight?  My bird just doesn't want to climb loaded down.

 

I flew my family from Mississippi to Utah last year in a M20B during the dead of winter. Three people and 30 lbs of bags in the back.  Airplane loaded to 35 lbs under gross. Temperature at Santa Fe during a morning departure was 26 degrees F.   Airport altitude 6350 feet MSL.  Density altitude = 5,600 feet.

 

Santa Fe has a LONG runway, and yet I used up the best part of 1/2 of the runway just to get airborne from runway 02, which has a 1% uphill grade. Climbing out was slow and tedious.  I guess we were climbing out at 120MPH and only acheived 400-500 FPM.  Really scary considering that I could not climb fast enough to the north and had to turn around to the South to continue climbing.  Finally got to 9,500 feet, but I was doing as little as 300-400 FPM in the process.

 

Does this seem about right at gross on a cold day?  I would expect better, but this was the first (and last) time I have ever flown anywhere near gross weight.  Do other mooneys get the same lousy performance near gross as I do?

 

 

I don't think it's lousy at all. Compare my numbers to N74795's S35, he's go 100 more pounds of FF payload than my 200HP Mooney. For trips shorter than max range, I'd bet the numbers are even closer. The numbers are all over the place by model, but indeed there are some decent load haulers in the group.  My F will take 800lbs in the cabin and go 500NM with reserves.  That is far from crappy in the world of GA singles, especially 200hp or less GA singles...  The reason for this thread was to see if these AC are really as lousy at hauling loads as folks tend to say they are.  I think the answer is yes and no. If you want to fly really fast and really far, don't plan on taking a lot along. If you want to go reasonably fast and do 500 to 600NM legs, you can put a fair amount of stuff in them.  Some birds are best suited for one or the other. Some are more able to play both roles... Tom's (Cruiser) plane for example, has a lot of flexibility from the numbers I see. 

[AndyFromCB]

27"/2200 - see attached pic (not much help from a tailwind going east on that flight)

TIT around 1575. At this power setting #4 is my hottest cylinder. at 29"/2400 #1 is my hottest cylinder.

 

I need to run at about 27/2300 and 16gph to see 190 at that altitude. You must not have TKS. Mine seems to rob about 5knots at all altitudes vs the book numbers.

 

I also see your alternator load is just as misbalanced as mine ;-)

 

There is no rhyme or reason to the way our lycomings operate. Mine is like that too. #1 always on climb, alternating between #1 and #4 depending on power settings. The good news other than breakin, I've never seen more than 400 even climbing on the hotest days.

[FlyDave]

I need to run at about 27/2300 and 16gph to see 190 at that altitude. You must not have TKS. Mine seems to rob about 5knots at all altitudes vs the book numbers.

 

I also see your alternator load is just as misbalanced as mine ;-)

 

There is no rhyme or reason to the way our lycomings operate. Mine is like that too. #1 always on climb, alternating between #1 and #4 depending on power settings. The good news other than breakin, I've never seen more than 400 even climbing on the hotest days.

 

No, no TKS

[Buster1]

1969 V35A

 

Useful Load:  1213

Full Fuel:       80 Gal

FF Payload:   733

NR Range:     977nm (13.5gph/165kgs)

[EDNR-Cruiser]

1966 M20F Executive (quite heavily modded and upgraded)

Empty:        1833 lbs (last weight check: Oct. 2013)
Full fuel:          64 gal
Useful load:   907 lbs
FF payload:   530 lbs
NR range:     1200 NM (eco. power FL15 --- 10:10h endurance)
                    1000 NM (cruise FL10 --- 6:36h endurance)

[Guest]

Clarence, That has got to be the most impressive Mite I've ever heard of! Where do you all of that fuel/payload!!!

I put the Mite in the baggage compartment of the Comanche. You've surely seen a motor coach pulling a Smart car?

Clarence

[fluffysheap]

1980 M20K 231 (with intercooler, wastegate, GAMIjectors)

Useful: 875

Fuel capacity: It says 72 in the book, but it's actually about 69

FF Payload: 460 (but it climbs out of Denver at 900FPM at full gross weight, and 700FPM all the way up to FL230)

Max range still air/no reserve: 1050NM (170KTS @10GPH/FL210).  Could go farther if I went slower, but that's my usual cruise.

[Z W]

1982 M20K with 262 conversion (252 Engine)

Useful Load: 875 lbs

Fuel Capacity: 105 gallons

Full Fuel Payload: 266 lbs (works for me and more luggage than I normally pack)

Max Range: 1,598 NM, no wind, no reserve, at high speed cruise (175 KTAS, 11.5 GPH, 20 LOP, 9.1 hours); Better if I slow it down and/or fly higher than 10,000 ft.

 

Climbs at 1000 FPM to at least FL180 at max gross.  

 

Almost never are the 105 gallon tanks full.  I've topped them off probably 2 or 3 times.  But I think, on the right day, I could fly from California to Hawaii without a ferry tank.  And if I ever get to do an Alaska trip, it will be a piece of cake, from a fuel planning perspective  .