Another thing I love about Mooney

[manoflamancha]

Speaking to a bank on financing for a used plane, they advised me that Mooney hold value quite well compared to most GA aircraft. Compared to depreciation on Cirrus, it is quite encouraging.

Plus for a high performance bird, nothing really beats a Mooney 252 or Bravo. Period. I looked at other models but for the cost comparison and resale value, the banker told me Mooney and Cessna hold value best especially 201J/252/Bravo, etc. and Cessna 182 models. Hopefully with the reboot in production, Mooney will eventually bring back the entry level 201J to compete with Cirrus and Cessna. That would be awesome.

[rocketman]

When you provide the best of all worlds, speed, performance, quality, safety, American made, working factory with support, style, sex appeal, uniqueness, strength, numerous available mods and upgrades, laminar flow wing, tubular structure, push pull rods for control surfaces, what's there not to hold their resale value!!! Forgot to mention Texas Pride too.

[flyboy0681]

 Hopefully with the reboot in production, Mooney will eventually bring back the entry level 201J to compete with Cirrus and Cessna. That would be awesome.

 

Don't get this discussion started again.

[manoflamancha]

Amen to that brother. I am looking at moving on either a nice 252 or Bravo. Prices are decent too for under 150K one can have the ultimate personal airliner. If I had kids and a large family then I'd need something like a Bonanza A36 or Cessna 210 pickup truck but its just me and a friend most of the time. I'd like to fly to Florida for a long weekend to scuba dive and sail the Caribbean and the Mooney works for a single guy!

[Houman]

I love my Rocket, but I wish it had maybe another 100 lbs of available weight to carry, I find it difficult when going with friends to stay within the W&B.

I have never flown it over weight, but a pilot friend was telling me that I should at least try once with 50 or 100 Lbs overweight to see how it reacts, but I'm too much by the book person to risk it...his thinking is that it is less worst to be overweight than not balanced...

I don't think either is such a good idea..

[manoflamancha]

Agree best to maintain decent W&B to avoid accidents. Yeah I'm ok with a Mooney being a 2 person airplane. Most of the time it's just me or a friend and being able to get places fast is what I want.

[FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC]

..."but a pilot friend was telling me that I should at least try once with 50 or 100 Lbs overweight to see how it reacts"

 

Please tell whoever that person is that I said he wasn't much of a friend and he's not much of a pilot either.

[chrisk]

..."but a pilot friend was telling me that I should at least try once with 50 or 100 Lbs overweight to see how it reacts"

 

Please tell whoever that person is that I said he wasn't much of a friend and he's not much of a pilot either.

 

First I fly under weight and in balance.  I don't want to be a test pilot. 

 

Second, there are situations where it is common to exceed the certified weight of a plane, yet the planes still fly. Examples are ferry flights to Hawaii.  I've read of a case where an extra 160 gallons of fuel was carried in a M20F, which is around a total of 1300 lbs of fuel + a pilot.  Presumably the plane took off on a cold day with a long runway.

 

Finally the FAA just encourages sport pilots to ignore weight limits by stupid regulations.   In sport aircraft, sea planes are allowed an additional 100 lbs of gross weight.  How many pilots of Flight Designs CTLs exceed the 1320 lbs weight limit because the same plane with floats has a 1420 weight limit?

[Bob_Belville]

My M20E, first produced in 1964(?) has a max gross of 2575#. Standard fuel capacity is 52 gallons.

The M20F, first produced in 1967(?) has a max gross of 2740#. Standard fuel capacity is 64 gallons.

 

Same engine, same wing, same gear, same empennage... different certification date.

While folks are reluctant to admit it in writing, I suppose that when the longer, heavier plane with more fuel capacity was certified the powers be, in order to keep from reducing full fuel useful load, simply looked more carefully at what a gross could be. While the roomier F cut into the E sales there was zero economic return on any work spent on increasing the E's gross. 

 

It might be illegal to choose carry a greater fuel reserve and taking off 100 overweight but I would contend it is not reckless.

 

 

Flame away. 

[Marauder]

My M20E, first produced in 1964(?) has a max gross of 2575#. Standard fuel capacity is 52 gallons.

The M20F, first produced in 1967(?) has a max gross of 2740#. Standard fuel capacity is 64 gallons.

Same engine, same wing, same gear, same empennage... different certification date.

While folks are reluctant to admit it in writing, I suppose that when the longer, heavier plane with more fuel capacity was certified the powers be, in order to keep from reducing full fuel useful load, simply looked more carefully at what a gross could be. While the roomier F cut into the E sales there was zero economic return on any work spent on increasing the E's gross.

It might be illegal to choose carry a greater fuel reserve and taking off 100 overweight but I would contend it is not reckless.

Flame away.

Hi Bob. No flames, just a little baking. Is it possible that the lower gross weight is also related to the CG calculations? With a shorter fuselage, is it possible that they didn't recertify the airframe because of a loading issue?

I know that there is a serial number break for the J increase gross weight planes. Is it just a certification paperwork problem or is there more to it? (Weren't the eligible Js made eligible due to landing gear changes -- may have made that up).

[Bob_Belville]

Hi Bob. No flames, just a little baking. Is it possible that the lower gross weight is also related to the CG calculations? With a shorter fuselage, is it possible that they didn't recertify the airframe because of a loading issue?

I know that there is a serial number break for the J increase gross weight planes. Is it just a certification paperwork problem or is there more to it? (Weren't the eligible Js made eligible due to landing gear changes -- may have made that up).

I don't think that consideration went into the calculus but certainly CG is important, With 4 adults of roughly the same size the CG for my E is right at the rear limit. But that would probably be true in M20 model through Js at least. 

 

For those who strain gnats, the CG moves with fuel burn. The fuel arm is 48.4 so CG moves aft if you start with aft CG and forward if your CG was forward of 48.4 on take off. Of course tall guys like you need to take into account which hole your seat is in. Old Wilbur is wagging his skull.

  

 

I've never owned a J but istm it might have been a tweak to the spar assembly that allowed them increase gross. Someone here will know.

[FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC]

^Urgggh!

 

^{Most would agree that as a plane ages it gains weight for various reasons. Insulation retains moisture, plane was NOT weighted at the factory but instead an average empty weight of all airplanes produced during that particular time frame was used for the purposes of the POH, etc. etc. etc. It doesn’t really matter the reason but assume the basic empty weight of your Mooney is 50 – 100 lbs. higher which would cause the resultant useful load to be 50 – 100 lbs. lower than what’s stated in your POH. This could be a real possibility and we all know it. Now let’s add to that a pilot exhibiting this mentality…}

 

^{"It might be illegal to choose to carry a greater fuel reserve and taking off 100 overweight but I would contend it is not reckless."}

 

^{So in my scenario while you might think your 100lbs overweight you might really actually be 200lbs overweight? Maybe more? Maybe less? How do you know for sure? What happens as a result? Do you think your affecting the CG any? Is your engine which hasn’t had an overhaul in 20 years still developing maximum rated HP on takeoff? What’s the density altitude going to be that day? Any obstacles at the end of the runway? Does your non-pilot friend or wife who happens to be flying with you while your doing this know about the risks your taking? Would you tell them? No? Why not? ...I'm just sayin}

[DonMuncy]

Bob,

Don't you know it is dangerous to talk logic about airplane limitations. I assume the ones who believe it is reckless to fly 10 lbs over gross, believe they will die if they drive 66 in a 65 mph zone.

[Bob_Belville]

Don, I not only expected flaming, I predicted it. There are so many variables... how much did the pilot have for lunch, is there cow s**t on his shoes... I once has a young "engineer" working for me who would measure the length and width of something with a tape measure record the values to 2 places, multiply and express the area to 4 decimal places. Nit pickers swallow a lot of camels. 

[Hank]

Bob, sounds like your helper never heard of significant digits. I'll bet he's in the camp of "measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with an axe."

I round my driving speed up to the next 5, then add 3-4 as the delta between indicated and GPS groundspeed using a free phone app. Seems I always get behind someone driving 42 mph to be sure to not break the 45 mph posted limit when I'm running late; makes me wish my Ranger was larger, older, heavier and more beat up so I could nudge them along a la Richard Petty on the interstate. :-)

[ArtVandelay]

How many of you ask your passengers how much they weigh and do full W&B calculation?

[Bob_Belville]

Hank, my "helper" had dropped out just short a degree in mechanical engineer from a prestigious New England university. He must have been out the day they covered precision. The guys in the tool room called him 2/16ths. And they had his drawing to explain the nickname.  

[Hank]

How many of you ask your passengers how much they weigh and do full W&B calculation?

I make educated guesses, and if it's close I may confirm. But I did a W&B spreadsheet when I first bought the plane for many load conditions: solo, 2guys, me & wife, me another guy wife in front, me another guy wife in back, etc, with various baggage amounts. Then I started adding fuel--20, 30, 40 and 50 gallons to cover takeoff and landings after various flight scenarios. Things that failed are in red. Makes for a quick review. (But then, I'm anal about some things, especially those that will keep me alive.)

Now I have a spreadsheet that figures it all for me and draws the graph, with lines for front pax, rear pax, cargo and fuel last so you can tell how much fuel is allowed. I've rarely been outside the envelope with full fuel.

What I don't do much is figure takeoff and landing distances. Learning and being based for seven years on a 3000' field with trees at each end, I know pretty much what she will and won't do, and I visit few places shorter but sometimes tighter (like 2770 x 40 when visiting Mom and Dad).

[Houman]

I personally ask people their weight, specially when I was flying as part of Bombardier Aeroclub, we wanted to be 150% safe, so if I didn't believe what weight they would tell me, I would find an excuse just before getting on the plane to have them step on the scale, I usually said it was for seating, which it was, but more importantly to be with in CG and gross weight.

I have not done any aeroclub flight with my mooney yet, it has a lower payload capacity than the beech Sundowner I was flying before but it has more fuel capacity..

I use the Foreflight W & B, it gives you the entire flight W & B profile, so to can make sure I'm within limit...

[FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC]

My passengers are almost always my family so I know how much they weigh.  I keep a scale in my hanger for luggage.

 

+ if flying over gross is not a big deal I wonder why Mooney didn't consider just increasing the useful load on these planes which would have allowed them to sell alot more.  Maybe there is a good reason the UL is what it is? I dont know... I'm just thinking out loud.

[Marauder]

I used to keep a cheap scale at the airport. Sometimes bags are a lot heavier than they feel. Also was a good deterrent to keep the mother-in-law out of the plane

[Bob_Belville]

My passengers are almost always my family so I know how much they weigh.

 

I wonder how many guys know what their wife/GF really weights? 

 

No one, certainly not me, is arguing W&B is not vital. I would argue that GW is not a magic number. An older plane with a tired engine should not be expected to perform up to the POH standards at certified GW. Just because we can put a number on a factor does not mean it is more important than those factors which are harder to quantify. We try to manage risks. Not just when flying but especially there. The more subtle factors may well be much more critical to a safe flight than GW at take off from a more than adequately long runway at the beginning of a long cross country. Go ahead, "Tithe the mint and cumin but do not neglect the "weightier" matters."

[aviatoreb]

I wonder how many guys know what their wife/GF really weights? 

 

No one, certainly not me, is arguing W&B is not vital. I would argue that GW is not a magic number. An older plane with a tired engine should not be expected to perform up to the POH standards at certified GW. Just because we can put a number on a factor does not mean it is more important than those factors which are harder to quantify. We try to manage risks. Not just when flying but especially there. The more subtle factors may well be much more critical to a safe flight than GW at take off from a more than adequately long runway at the beginning of a long cross country. Go ahead, "Tithe the mint and cumin but do not neglect the "weightier" matters."

 

And its not just about the engine/if the airplane can lift the weight.  I have a mega engine on the nose of N10933 and yeah I bet it could lift a lot.  But I'm not going to do it.  Its about the landing gear too.  I don't want to push the landing gear and risk a gear collapse.

[chrisk]

I wonder how many guys know what their wife/GF really weights? 

 

Ha!  I have no idea what my wife weighs.  But I am able to have her step on the scale with her luggage.  I then "estimate" what her luggage weighs as I pack the plane.  Even if I'm off by 10 lbs, the plane is well within CG limits. 

 

And I never have a discussion with my wife about how much under gross we are.  I always warn her that we have to be careful with weight and that we are close to the limit.  If she knew we were 50 lbs under gross, she would find another 49.9 lbs of junk to pack.

[manoflamancha]

I've always preferred dating thinner women under 150lbs. Makes for easier W&B calculations. With a Mooney, I can demand a thin non- obese woman without appearing superficial

If I had a Bonanza or 182 would not be so lucky.