if you didn't have a mooney, what would you have?

[Jerry 5TJ]

If I were to move from my current Mooney steed, well, maybe another P46T.    There's something about the smell of JetA in the morning....and it really is turbine-smooth. 

 

 

[DaV8or]

18 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Not much in the way of damage to the field. It looks like maybe he pancaked it.

Could be. My understanding from questioning Lancair and Glasair pilots is, you can fly an approach at a normal 1.3 over stall speed and the sink rate something super crazy, like  an elevator going down out of control. So technically the airplane isn't stalled but it goes down almost like it is. This is why these pilots perform a normal landing way, way over stall speed and come in like jet. I'm told it is possible to do a low speed landing but it is tricky, uncomfortable and plants pretty hard when you do, so nobody ever does it.

It could be that this guy tried a low speed landing for the first time in the dirt because he had a very understandable fear of setting it down with a normal approach in the dirt at 100mph. This whole scenario is why I have pretty much Xed this type of plane off my potential replacement list for the Mooney.

[Seth]

Just now, DaV8or said:

Could be. My understanding from questioning Lancair and Glasair pilots is, you can fly an approach at a normal 1.3 over stall speed and the sink rate something super crazy, like  an elevator going down out of control. So technically the airplane isn't stalled but it goes down almost like it is. This is why these pilots perform a normal landing way, way over stall speed and come in like jet. I'm told it is possible to do a low speed landing but it is tricky, uncomfortable and plants pretty hard when you do, so nobody ever does it.

It could be that this guy tried a low speed landing for the first time in the dirt because he had a very understandable fear of setting it down with a normal approach in the dirt at 100mph. This whole scenario is why I have pretty much Xed this type of plane off my potential replacement list for the Mooney.

Didn't realize this.  Good to know.

 

-Seth

[bonal]

That's the one thing I love about a 150 is an incredible low stall speed into,a headwind those 40 degree Fowler flaps with a big flair just before wheels touch and it can land almost like a helicopter. 

[M20F]

16 hours ago, Bravoman said:

Do you think Beech is better quality overall than Mooney? I know Beech is very good but I have been impressed with my Mooney( it is the only Mooney I have ever flown in much less owned). I think the Mooney has real good fit and finish plus that roll cage which is pretty unique. I have also heard that a Mooney airframe has never failed in flight. Your comment may be broader than what I am addressing but I think that for a little airplane the Mooney is very well put together

 

I think Bonanza's particularly the older models are exceptionally well made, easy to fly, easy to get in out of, comfortable and spacious, and just all around great airplanes.  They are very expensive to buy for that reason, parts are expensive, and their fuel burn per NM is not comparable to a Mooney.  For me a F is a more practical option especially with the RayJay and I had better luck finding the plane I own then a Comanche or Bonaza in similar condition.  

[Alan Fox]

20 hours ago, Bravoman said:

Do you think Beech is better quality overall than Mooney? I know Beech is very good but I have been impressed with my Mooney( it is the only Mooney I have ever flown in much less owned). I think the Mooney has real good fit and finish plus that roll cage which is pretty unique. I have also heard that a Mooney airframe has never failed in flight. Your comment may be broader than what I am addressing but I think that for a little airplane the Mooney is very well put together

 

Time for the Mooney guys to gang up on me........The fit and finish on a Mooney is hands down better than a Piper or a Cessna , but not even close to a Beech , All airframes have failed in flight , its just the weight vs strength thing ,  The cage is a throwback to fabric covered aircraft , it is not stronger than a Monocoque , and is SUBSTANTIALLY heavier , Basically , when they redesigned the aircraft for 1961 they were too cheap to redesign the fuselage into a Monocoque..   If they had done this with the longbody , It would be 80 or so lbs lighter .....

[DonMuncy]

36 minutes ago, n74795 said:

Time for the Mooney guys to gang up on me........The fit and finish on a Mooney is hands down better than a Piper or a Cessna , but not even close to a Beech , All airframes have failed in flight , its just the weight vs strength thing ,  The cage is a throwback to fabric covered aircraft , it is not stronger than a Monocoque , and is SUBSTANTIALLY heavier , Basically , when they redesigned the aircraft for 1961 they were too cheap to redesign the fuselage into a Monocoque..   If they had done this with the longbody , It would be 80 or so lbs lighter .....

Get the pitchforks and torches.

 

[DaV8or]

49 minutes ago, n74795 said:

Time for the Mooney guys to gang up on me........The fit and finish on a Mooney is hands down better than a Piper or a Cessna , but not even close to a Beech , All airframes have failed in flight , its just the weight vs strength thing ,  The cage is a throwback to fabric covered aircraft , it is not stronger than a Monocoque , and is SUBSTANTIALLY heavier , Basically , when they redesigned the aircraft for 1961 they were too cheap to redesign the fuselage into a Monocoque..   If they had done this with the longbody , It would be 80 or so lbs lighter .....

This is so true. The steel cage is just a left over the days of attaching wood wings to aluminum fuselage. When they "aluminized" the M20A to be the M20B, they were under a deadline and to get it done quick, they left the fuselage much like it was. However the Mooney marketing department has played up the the steel "safety cage" since nearly day one.

It seems to have afforded some protection in crashes that other planes may have failed. How much stronger than a properly designed all aluminum design, or composite design, is tough to say. In the mean time, the M20 takes the weight penalty and the marketing department makes the best of it. Many who have lived through Mooney crashes swear by it and I have to say, that's pretty good testimony. 

[aviatoreb]

Cessna 182 KATMAI KING

[Shadrach]

12 hours ago, n74795 said:

Time for the Mooney guys to gang up on me........The fit and finish on a Mooney is hands down better than a Piper or a Cessna , but not even close to a Beech , All airframes have failed in flight , its just the weight vs strength thing ,  The cage is a throwback to fabric covered aircraft , it is not stronger than a Monocoque , and is SUBSTANTIALLY heavier , Basically , when they redesigned the aircraft for 1961 they were too cheap to redesign the fuselage into a Monocoque..   If they had done this with the longbody , It would be 80 or so lbs lighter .....

Fit and finish notwithstanding. I accept that you "believe" the steel cage was cost saving measure. Whether it was or not is purely speculation. There were several monocoque airframes on the market when the mooney was "metalized", techniques and practices were well understood. It would not have been daunting nor extremely expensive to design the airframe completely out of aluminum. Every design is a series of compromises. I personally prefer having steel around me. I have seen Mooney fuselages balled up around the steel cage leaving the pax compartment intact. I do like Beech aircraft and agree that the cabin fit and finish was far superior on all Beech models, in terms of airframe build quality, I think the quality difference is minimal, just different philosophies.

Re: in flight break ups - it is true that almost every GA aircraft made in any significan quantity has come apart in the air. The early wooden Mooneys had a pretty lousy record. However, the all metal Mooneys have a far better record then Bonazas when it comes to staying in one piece. They also have a much better record of avoiding CFIT, though no one knows why. 

[Hank]

I like the steel safety cage.

Regarding low CFIT rates, the Vintage birds have full time PC systems, which helps a lot. Later planes tend to have nice autopilots. All Mooneys have what B & C pilots call "heavy control forces," which probably makes our planes harder to upset from the outside. So we spend less time on aircraft control, giving us more time for other things like navigation, looking out the windows where we're going, etc. That's my 2¢

[kmyfm20s]

It has been a bad year for Beech aircraft crash statistics. As far as quality both seem well above P and C and not far from each other. I have been involved in off road racing and its laughable the comparison in roll cages between plane and cars. I will say that the car cages are meant to be reused whereas I think our planes where intended to be one shot Jonny's, just a hunch.  Even though the Mooney roll cages are punie in comparison the crash photos I have seen leads me to believe they did provide significant additional protection.