jeanpen Posted February 26, 2014 Report Posted February 26, 2014 Good Day Everybody, Can someone explains which year M20J MTOW increased from 2700 lbs to 2900 lbs and what were the changes to the aircraft that allowed this increase? Many Thanks jean.penninckx@gmail.com Quote
carusoam Posted February 26, 2014 Report Posted February 26, 2014 Welcome aboard Jean, Find the search buton at the top of your screen and remember to click the forum button. There is plenty of detail around the topic you are asking. Best regards, -a- Quote
aaronk25 Posted February 26, 2014 Report Posted February 26, 2014 The 2700lb weight is really 2,740lbs and not sure exactly but somewhere in mid to upper 80's? They change the airspeed indicator to show a kt higher stall speed and added a small weight to somewhere in the rear or the plane. Also a thicker tubing was added but that doesn't appear to be a "safety" issue as it was done to simplify manufacturing between the models. For example the 300hp missle conversion has the same tubing thickness as early j"s but they got a gross weight increase. It doesn't make much sense to me as why the early Js can't get the increase as there pretty much the same plane and if they still have the dual mags they have 25 degrees of timing vs later separate mags that have 10 degrees. That said id rather have separate mags. About 3-5kts in cruise speed difference in timing but I think the later Js are cleaner which probably makes the speed difference a wash. I do think the early Js get off the runway quicker with the added timing. Maybe someone else can chime in to fill the gaps. Aaron Quote
jetdriven Posted February 26, 2014 Report Posted February 26, 2014 I lined up behind a friend's 1978 201 with the dual mag engine and he ran off and left our 22.5 degree A3B6 pretty dramatically on the runway and climb to 1000'. It took me ten miles to get beside him and he even had to back off in cruise a bit for me to catch up. The Rocket STC is a 3200lb gross weight with no airframe changes to a stock 231, and the Missile is a 3200lb gross weight for the M20J. Quote
carusoam Posted February 26, 2014 Report Posted February 26, 2014 Aaron, Did you mis-type, or did I miss something... 25 vs 10 deg of timing? 25 vs 20? How's the sunshine down there??? -a- Quote
PTK Posted February 26, 2014 Report Posted February 26, 2014 The J gross weight increase is allowed on some serial numbers with the same engine as all the rest. The difference is tube thickness from mid late 80's, (24-1686 thru 24-3217.) The fact that the Missile goes to a whopping 3200# gross with earlier J's is a little confusing to say the least! Perhaps it's the IO550? Quote
jetdriven Posted February 26, 2014 Report Posted February 26, 2014 +1, I think it was a marketing thing as well. The wing is good for 12 G's and it has been dropped from ten feet onto a hard concrete floor with no damage. I am usually against busting limits in the POH but if someone wanted to operate their M20J with 2900 lbs gross weight and use the later model performance charts (and stall speeds), I could understand. Its the same plane except the rudder balance weight and the supposedly thicker steel fuselage tubing, which isnt strong enough for 2900 lbs on a 201 but works fine for a 3200 LB M20J Missile. 4 Quote
AndyFromCB Posted February 27, 2014 Report Posted February 27, 2014 +1, I think it was a marketing thing as well. The wing is good for 12 G's and it has been dropped from ten feet onto a hard concrete floor with no damage. I am usually against busting limits in the POH but if someone wanted to operate their M20J with 2900 lbs gross weight and use the later model performance charts (and stall speeds), I could understand. Its the same plane except the rudder balance weight and the supposedly thicker steel fuselage tubing, which isnt strong enough for 2900 lbs on a 201 but works fine for a 3200 LB M20J Missile. You must be going senile ;-) That doesn't sound like they guy who busted my chops two years ago for flying my Bravo under the if it fits it will fly rule. 14.5lb/hp is going to make for a pretty anemic climb rate at 2900lb especially on a hot/high day. But on a cold day, close to sea level, I don't see why not. Like I said before, it all depends. My Bravo has busted MTOW multiple times on take off from Iowa heading west. I have always felt that at 13lb/hp at 3500lb I can live with only 1000fpm climb rate. But I postponed a take off and whined, screamed and cried when they over filled me in Denver on a 89 degree day. Made them unload fuel. The wing on any mooney is not the limiting factor. It's the damn landing gear, or rather, lack thereof. Quote
M016576 Posted February 27, 2014 Report Posted February 27, 2014 You must be going senile ;-) That doesn't sound like they guy who busted my chops two years ago for flying my Bravo under the if it fits it will fly rule. 14.5lb/hp is going to make for a pretty anemic climb rate at 2900lb especially on a hot/high day. But on a cold day, close to sea level, I don't see why not. Like I said before, it all depends. My Bravo has busted MTOW multiple times on take off from Iowa heading west. I have always felt that at 13lb/hp at 3500lb I can live with only 1000fpm climb rate. But I postponed a take off and whined, screamed and cried when they over filled me in Denver on a 89 degree day. Made them unload fuel. The wing on any mooney is not the limiting factor. It's the damn landing gear, or rather, lack thereof. The landing gear is pretty over engineered. As is the wing, like Jetdriven said. You can really plant this airplane and it doesn't seem to care, break or sag. ... Not that I've ever done that... Just that I've... Uhhh... Seen other guys do it... Yeah, that's it.., And that's coming from a former carrier pilot.... Personally- I really like the puck system on these light aircraft. Beats the hell out of finding a flat oleo out in the boondocks.... Quote
jetdriven Posted February 27, 2014 Report Posted February 27, 2014 My last client in an Acclaim was pretty upset that the MSC that replaced his shock discs a year ago just replaced them again because they said they were below limits. They really should have upgraded the discs on the long bodies. Quote
AndyFromCB Posted February 27, 2014 Report Posted February 27, 2014 The landing gear is pretty over engineered. As is the wing, like Jetdriven said. You can really plant this airplane and it doesn't seem to care, break or sag. ... Not that I've ever done that... Just that I've... Uhhh... Seen other guys do it... Yeah, that's it.., And that's coming from a former carrier pilot.... Personally- I really like the puck system on these light aircraft. Beats the hell out of finding a flat oleo out in the boondocks.... Want to see an over engineered landing gear system, take a look a Bonanza. Same gear used all the way up 6200lb in PBaron. The reason for the insanely low gross weight on long bodies is that they will not pass a drop test at higher gross weights, hence the landing weight of 3200lb. It is and always has been a weak point of a Mooney. There is only so much dampening that can happen by using a rubber biscuit in this configuration. About an inch on travel. If mooney is serious about getting back into business, they will have to address this otherwise nobody in their right mind will buy a new 700K 850lb useful Ovation vs 700K 1350lb useful Cirrus. If you look at the sales numbers last year, Cirrus sold close to 300 aircraft. If I was in the market for new 4 seater and had 700K to blow, Mooney would not even be on my list. Quote
fantom Posted February 27, 2014 Report Posted February 27, 2014 Do you really think that the factory, when it was still producing bloated J models with 950 pound useful loads even with the gross weight increase...... Bloated???? Really???? While I think there is some validity to your theory, I suspect you're suffering from 'legal' useful load envy. I I I I V .....beats me??? 1 Quote
fantom Posted February 27, 2014 Report Posted February 27, 2014 988 lbs after some reworks Now if I could only shave about 30 lbs from the bloated pilot. Quote
mike_elliott Posted February 27, 2014 Report Posted February 27, 2014 That's great! Better than most, I bet. Yeah, I think that Dr. Dubin really brought that point home well at the Mooney Summit earlier this month here in Panama City Beach. It is way better for us to shed the extra weight that most of us carry around than it is to try to extract a few pounds from our airplanes. Jim yea, The next Mooney Summit will be a bit easier to cater! No more Bob's Chicken Skewers, or those great crab cakes, Out with the cheese and shrimp quesadilla's, the stuffed mushrooms are gone also. I think we will keep the planked Salmon and fruit, and then just go to sams club and buy 10 bags of spring mix Ah, but then I suspect Continental Motors Group will destroy all my healthy intentions Saturday night with another sinfully delicious meal... Oh well, maybe we will have Ron set up a Mooney Summit Mini marathon to the airport! 1 1 Quote
aaronk25 Posted February 27, 2014 Report Posted February 27, 2014 Aaron, Did you mis-type, or did I miss something... 25 vs 10 deg of timing? 25 vs 20? How's the sunshine down there??? -a- Ah you caught me it was a typo......darn free tequila....... 2 Quote
M016576 Posted February 27, 2014 Report Posted February 27, 2014 Want to see an over engineered landing gear system, take a look a Bonanza. Same gear used all the way up 6200lb in PBaron. The reason for the insanely low gross weight on long bodies is that they will not pass a drop test at higher gross weights, hence the landing weight of 3200lb. It is and always has been a weak point of a Mooney. There is only so much dampening that can happen by using a rubber biscuit in this configuration. About an inch on travel. If mooney is serious about getting back into business, they will have to address this otherwise nobody in their right mind will buy a new 700K 850lb useful Ovation vs 700K 1350lb useful Cirrus. If you look at the sales numbers last year, Cirrus sold close to 300 aircraft. If I was in the market for new 4 seater and had 700K to blow, Mooney would not even be on my list. That's valid... But if I had 700K, my plane would be used... And have a turbine. Quote
PTK Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 I had a conversation a couple years ago with the legend himself, Mr. Bill Wheat, about this apparent double standard between the 2740# J a the 3200# Missile on the same airplane. Interestingly Mooney engineers would never approve such a conversion. But the FAA didn't care! Furthermore different FAA field facilities feel differently! It was an STC obtained by Rocket Engineering from the FAA in Seattle. Mooney obtained their TC's from the FAA in Dallas. Three lessons: 1. The FAA trumps the manufacturer, 2. Can pick and choose which FAA office you go to get an STC approved, 3. There doesn't have to be agreement between or among different FAA facilities! 1 Quote
Marauder Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 2. Can pick and choose which FAA office you go to get an STC approved, 3. There doesn't have to be agreement between or among different FAA facilities! If you ever moved a plane from an area covered by one FSDO to another, you know this is true. Quote
carusoam Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 If I had a low GW J and a runout engine.... Plan A: Get 300hp IO550(A), K cowel, and Missile STC, get extra MGTW for free! Feather the prop on long descents because I could... Where is Seth today? Plan B: Get an O and forgo the whole feathering thing... Best regards, -a- Quote
fantom Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 I had a conversation a couple years ago with the legend himself, Mr. Bill Wheat, about this apparent double standard between the 2740# J a the 3200# Missile on the same airplane. By that faulty logic, a Mite and an Acclaim are the same airplance also. Someone is using what they think they heard as an over rationalization to fly over gross, I suspect.....'apparent double standard'. Be careful cause the mean ol' FAA is watching. Quote
WardHolbrook Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 Interesting topic, but I'm wondering where this is leading? Are we advocating that it’s OK to operate early Js “a bit” over gross here? What about if 2900 lbs isn't quite enough? IS it OK to rationalize 3200 lbs? What if that isn't quite enough? How much is too much? Where do you draw the line? This discussion isn't limited to Mooneys, King Air 200s come from the factory with a max certificated gross weight of 12,500 lbs, but the military operates them at 14,000+ lbs and you can buy an STC that raises the max weight on the civilian models to well above 12,500 lbs and requires a King Air 200 type rating for the pilot. Is a King Air 200 pilot justified in flying a stock KA-200 at more than 12,500 lbs because other identical aircraft can? Just about every corporate jet I've flown have had max gross weight increases over the years. Is a pilot justified to simply ignore the provisions of the STC? There are other, totally arbitrary, factors that can enter into the equation as well. The main reason the King Air 200 was limited to 12500 lbs was to simply to avoid the need of a civilian type rating. Early Cessna 340s were limited to 5990 lbs to keep them out of a higher federal excise tax tax bracket which went into effect at 6000 lbs. And IIRC, there were also several singles that limited out at 2490 lbs to avoid an excise tax category came into play at 2500 lbs. There are also limits on weight on some larger singles because they must comply with a 61 knot max stall speed and once you've done all of the aerodynamic tricks, the only other thing left is to limit weight. Other things are arbitrarily limited as well. For example, MU-2s were limited on the amount of torque you could pull by the certification requirement to keep Vmc to "less than 100 kcas". When you start messing around with maximum allowable weights you get into all sorts of other areas as well. A long time ago, most aircraft manufacturers adopted the principle of "loading flexibility” - in other words, Mooney, Piper, Cessna, Beech and just about every other aircraft manufacturer make aircraft that have seats than can be used if topped off with fuel. In other words, it doesn't matter whether you're flying a business jet (or airliner) or a Cessna 172, you are probably only able to fill all of your seats or fill your fuel tanks, but not both at the same time (legally). I’ve got PIC time in over 105 different makes and models of aircraft, from gliders to jets, and I can count on one hand the number of them that you could honestly load up and go without regard to loading. Loading Flexibility is a legitimate approach; but history has shown us time and time again that there are many of us out there who have no idea of how the concept works. Silly pilots, many of us still think that if we've got 4 seats we ought to be able to top off the tanks, load up all the seats, and go. However, if you're willing to ignore your airplane's limitations, legalities, and insurance ramifications involved, you pretty much can because there is nothing magical about that max gross weight number – the airplane will continue to fly. 5 Quote
PTK Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 By that faulty logic, a Mite and an Acclaim are the same airplance also. Someone is using what they think they heard as an over rationalization to fly over gross, I suspect.....'apparent double standard'. Be careful cause the mean ol' FAA is watching. Are you hallucinating? Who is advocating flying over gross?? As per your usual mo you're fabricating accusations to stir up "conversation." By doing so you're doing yourself and this forum a major disservice. You clearly misunderstood...again! All I said was that in a conversation with Mr. Wheat I learned how this STC was obtained. It was an entity other than Mooney who obtained it from an FAA facility different from where Mooney got the TC. I also learned that if asked Mooney would not approve the mod. i.e. Mooney requires the beefed up tubes for a smaller gw increase in some sn's. I never operate my airplane over gross! On the contrary I feel that I'm very strict! Do some pilots? I suspect some probably do. Not very smart at all. We have plenty of examples of what the consequences can be. 1 Quote
fantom Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 You clearly misunderstood...again! Should be expected given your usually convoluted posts...... Quote
aaronk25 Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 I could also understand someone wanting to do that too and I am a bit more "understanding" of the issue however I also apply the same common sense to the other extreme. When we leave Playa Del Carmen tomorrow my J will weigh no more than 2,550lbs. and I will leave in AM (for Cancun) as it 2000ft P.O.S. runway with a traffic intersection and buildings in one direction or take a 15kt tail wind for clear departure. Moral of the story is I believe a good thought out plan where your not "selling yourself" that it will work is a good plan and I had zero doubt in my plan leaving New Orleans, but it took a little "understanding" as I wanted the extra fuel load and a sea level take off with long runways leaves a lot of room for understanding.... Quote
M016576 Posted March 1, 2014 Report Posted March 1, 2014 If I had a low GW J and a runout engine.... Plan A: Get 300hp IO550(A), K cowel, and Missile STC, get extra MGTW for free! Feather the prop on long descents because I could... Where is Seth today? Plan B: Get an O and forgo the whole feathering thing... Best regards, -a- Don't forget me! I'm in a missile now too... Oh, I was looking through the missile STC paperwork the other day, and their is a list of parts that pertain to the landing gear that were replaced. As I understood it before, nothing changed with the fuselage and gear, but the STC paperwork says different. I don't have the logs/STC paperwork here right now, as it's at a shop with my missile for some avionics updates, but once I get them back (a week or two), I'll post the party's changes. Honestly, I don't know if these new parts are a big deal or not; they might be totally irrelevant to gear strength. I'll post the list when I get my logs back. Also, the original STC had the gross weight at 2900': the bump up to 3200 came a few years later (also according to the missile STC paperwork). Quote
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.