Anyone flown their M20B at gross

[sleepingsquirrel]

I wonder how many have flown an M20B model this close to gross and near the edge of the envelope. I understand that retracting the gear will give +536 inch pounds.

Any thoughts? I could drop 12 gallons of fuel with no problems. How should I expect her to fly?

[Hector]

Not sure how how close a "B" is to a "C" but I have flown my "C" right at max gross weight (4 people and a dog......don't ask) and other than a slow climb rate it did not feel much different at all. I will say that the rear seat passengers were light weights, but I added enough fuel to reach max gross weight because I needed it to reach my destination plus one hour reserve. I was pleasantly surprised that it handled quite well and the C.G. was not a problem just the weight.

[sleepingsquirrel]

Thanks!  I've heard that the B model is structurally the same and capable of C model gross and envelope performance. I've just never had to jockey front seat position to keep CG in limits. I have never given (moment for retracting the gear) a second thought. 

[Hank]

I've flown my C right at gross, 4 adults, flight gear and 34 gallons. Takeoff run was a little longer, but not bad. Limit flight time to spare the folks in the back, and rotate them every landing.

[carusoam]

Three engineers/pilots flew my C to SnF. Precision weight and balance. 52 gallon tanks.

1) Long T/O runs. Accelerate in ground effect, keep the climb rate moderated.

2) Slow climb rates.

3) higher stall speed.

4) Lots of momentum to slow down.

I don't recall making an adjustment in WnB for gear up vs gear down. Some things like the weight of oil are assumed. Only the front tire moves front to back. The critical time for stalls is during the T/O and landing phases, gear is down.  Wheel weight becomes more important if you are loaded at the back of the graph.

I use an app for WnB calculations to keep things within the limits.  It plots a line representing the fuel being burned off from start to empty.

The long standing challenge of the older birds is a lack of a POH.  Even the birds with a POH hide some WnB data within the graphs.  Seats move, some recline, these are significant for WnB.  

Do you have WnB calculations that include.  Front seats, back seats, luggage, hat rack and fuel?

Best regards,

-a-

 

 

[Bob_Belville]

Two considerations:

The original W/B,CG envelop no doubt had a certain designed safety factor built into it. I suppose the certification regs might identify something about that. Taking off 100 pounds over gross or with CG @ 49.5" will not automatically make your Mooney uncontrollable.

OTOH, your airplane is ~55 years old. Who knows what that might mean for that design safety factor. 

[Alan Fox]

The B is the same as the C with a few minor exceptions , The two biggest differences are the Gross weight on the B is about 100 less lbs , and the rudder travel is less in the B ,  Somewhere I have a letter from Bill Wheat on Mooney company letterhead that states that they are Identical ( I used the letter to get a field approval for my O&N bladder install on my B )  , I wouldn't sweat it as you have that 100 lb difference as a cushion before you even get to the C's gross weight.....

[stevesm20b]

The B has a gross wt of 2450 and the C has a gross wt of 2575. The B has the same airframe and engine as the C and other than the slightly less rudder travel of the B, they are the same airplane. So the B should perform better at gross wt than the C at gross wt. I have flown out of Big Bear (alt 6750) and Flagstaff (alt 7014) in the summertime with DA as high as 10,000ft with my B model.

[gsxrpilot]

I've flown my C at gross weight as well. No issues, just fly it gently. No abrupt or heavy banking or climbing. Fly it like you don't want to damage the cake sitting on top of all that extra baggage and people.

[sleepingsquirrel]

Thanks! I appreciate the advice. I knew this was a three place airplane!