A Mooney is too small

[jkhirsch]

Everyone should sell their Mooney.

 

[bradp]

Try that CG arm in a Bo... 

[201er]

Try that in an E

[flight2000]

My old M20E would have been way out the back end of the CG envelope (just guessing the two in the back are a minimum of 230 each)...no way I would have gotten those big boys back there.

My current E33A Bo on the other hand would have had no such issues....but that's not my typical mission either.

Just sayin...

Cheers,

Brian

[flight2000]

Thanks Jim.  I learned a lot about Bonanza's in my research and just like Mooney's they have a lot of unfounded OWT's that still hang out there.  We have a few members here that hang out on BeechTalk to help control those rumors, just like I still hang out here... 

Cheers,

Brian

[Seth]

The M20F is a great machine.  Some of the best useful loads in the Mooney M20 line.  

-Seth

[jkhirsch]

Once I put a lightweight starter in there my useful load will be really close to 1100 lbs...I see a scale in the near-ish future.

[Danb]

JK just keep the cool air flowing on them

[jkhirsch]

At this point I suppose I have to make a reasonable endorsement of the B-Kool, I did not purchase it, but my flying compatriot did and it worked as well as could be expected.

[kris_adams]

Oh yeah, I missed that until you pointed it out.  If we have another summer like this one I think I'll be purchasing one as well.

[StevenL757]

With 1007 pounds useful load (with TKS), my Ovation could handle it standing on its head.

LoL.  :-)

[flight2000]

7 minutes ago, StevenL757 said:

With 1007 pounds useful load (with TKS), my Ovation could handle it standing on its head.

LoL.  :-)

No way you're doing that with full fuel on board.....

Brian

Edited September 21, 2016 by flight2000

[mike_elliott]

1 hour ago, Danb said:

JK just keep the cool air flowing on them

That's one of Bob Steven's B-Kool units, and the big guy (Sasa) goes 250#. Jeff, you will be over 1100 once you put in modern avionics also! Nice flying F...

[StevenL757]

31 minutes ago, flight2000 said:

No way you're doing that with full fuel on board.....

Brian

Yeah - no kidding...those are big boys!  :-)

[Joe Zuffoletto]

Yep, the OP follows my CG loading rule of thumb: Heaviest passenger sits up front unless one of the passengers is a hot blonde.

[StevenL757]

Yoooooou betcha.  ;-)

[Guest]

You can fit almost anything in the back seat as long as you don't plan on flying, remember the picture of the short body with 5 on board?  It crashed if I recall correctly.  

Clarence

[JimColeman1]

Haha, nice! Love seeing these pics! I've done hours of research and I'm narrowing it down to the M20F, which is what it looks like you have, yeah?

I've heard conflicting specs. Would you mind telling me what type of full fuel payload your M20F can handle, and what you're seeing for cruise speeds and fuel burn per hour? Thanks!

 

Jim

[Marauder]

Haha, nice! Love seeing these pics! I've done hours of research and I'm narrowing it down to the M20F, which is what it looks like you have, yeah?

I've heard conflicting specs. Would you mind telling me what type of full fuel payload your M20F can handle, and what you're seeing for cruise speeds and fuel burn per hour? Thanks!

 

Jim

The conflicting reports are due to mods. Most Fs with the wet wings will have 64 gallon useable. Some like mine will have the bladders taking it down to 54 gallons useable. You can get a bladder add-on to take it back up to 64.

I flight plan 150 KTAS at 10 GPH. I have a number of mods which include the 201 windshield, lower cowl enclosure, gap seals, etc.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JimColeman1]

Great info, thanks for chiming in. If you had it to do over again, would you get the same mods? Are some more valuable than others given the boost in speed vs cost? Also, with your 54 gallons of useable fuel, what kind of payload are you looking at?

 

[Hoeschen]

My 68 M20C has a 1051 lb useful load. That's 200 lbs more than my 56 182, 20 knots faster, 4 gph less.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Browncbr1]

12 minutes ago, JimColeman1 said:

Great info, thanks for chiming in. If you had it to do over again, would you get the same mods? Are some more valuable than others given the boost in speed vs cost? Also, with your 54 gallons of useable fuel, what kind of payload are you looking at?

 

The speeds that different people post are also vastly different power settings.  (Not just mods like windshield).   My stock 67 F gets 138knts true at gross running the engine easy at 23/23  0-25LOP at 7000.  With just me and fuel to the tabs, 147ktas..  I plan 135kts because I climb at about 105kts and I don't go crazy descending fast..   The fuel burn in cruise is right at 7gph like this.     Useful load is 1040lbs and 64gal (656lbs payload with full fuel).   More range than I care to go. 

[FBCK]

Odd, but my two seats in the back have a placard the states, 170lbs per seat.

[Bob_Belville]

5 minutes ago, FBCK said:

Odd, but my two seats in the back have a placard the states, 170lbs per seat.

What model? I have never heard of that restriction and wonder if it is backed up by your operating manual/

[FBCK]

Its a 1981 231, the seats can be put forward and recline (not a bench), I believe it was an STC addition making the seats similar to later 231s.