Mooney Stigmas

[MBDiagMan]

But always remember "you wear a Mooney."  I have heard this from several people all of which answered the question were either grossly overweight or when asked if they ever sat in one they answered "no."

[Bob_Belville]

49 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

1495 lbs.

Yeah but you need about 500 of that for extra 100LL. <grin>

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

Yeah but you need about 500 of that for extra 100LL. <grin>

Actually mine will carry 780 lbs of fuel, but I seldom do.

Clarence

[Bob_Belville]

3 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Actually mine will carry 780 lbs of fuel, but I seldom do.

Clarence

Sounds about right, double what a standard 200 hp M20J carries so endurance would be similar. But you win on range due to speed advantage. Does an Ovation match the 400's cruise speed? I'm sure you win climb.

[Guest]

Just now, Bob_Belville said:

Sounds about right, double what a standard 200 hp M20J carries so endurance would be similar. But you win on range due to speed advantage. Does an Ovation match the 400's cruise speed? I'm sure you win climb.

Down low the extra power easily out runs an Ovation, in all facets, takeoff run, climb speed or climb rate and cruise speed, up higher it gets closer due to the cleaner Ovation airframe, but it still can't keep up in either payload or cruise speed.

Clarence

[201er]

What do you mean a Mooney is tight as hell? I've been flying one all these years and never knew!

[Bartman]

I have discovered the size of my cabin in my Mooney is inversely proportional to the number of football and basketball games I watch.  But she always has more room and sometimes carries more people in the summer. 

[aviatoreb]

45 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Down low the extra power easily out runs an Ovation, in all facets, takeoff run, climb speed or climb rate and cruise speed, up higher it gets closer due to the cleaner Ovation airframe, but it still can't keep up in either payload or cruise speed.

Clarence

I bet you have fantastic range if you dial back to a conservative fuel flow (LOP?).  What's the farthest low power range you figure?

[bonal]

A 400 had Better out perform with as much hp as that very cool 8 cylinder makes. I really like the cargo door on the Mooney as stated it makes loading a breeze. But the other comparison is purchase price and Mooney C E and F's give the most performance for the entry cost. There are lots of factors that determine a mission and for the money I would like to know what other make even comes close to a (early) Mooney 

[aviatoreb]

I would love to see an ovation with an 8 cylinder on the nose.

[Guitarmaster]

I would love to see an ovation with an 8 cylinder on the nose.

It would have to be an "XL" for Extra Long Body!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[gsxrpilot]

I knew before I looked at the first 252, that they were all UL challenged. And while UL is important to me as I take up more than my share of it in the left seat, it's also the reality of the 252. So as I was shopping for one, I was comparing the UL on each one to the installed equipment. The one I bought, has a middle of the road UL, but has had equipment added over the last 20 years and nothing ever removed. So I figure that by removing the out dated and obsolete equipment from the plane, freshening up the panel, and possibly even removing the vacuum system, I could add a few pounds to the UL. And then, with an Encore upgrade, I should be in a very respectable 1050 to 1150 UL range.

At that point, I'm still in a 252, and still only filling two seats on most flights. Now I can fill the tanks, climb into the flight levels and really go places, quite economically.

[carusoam]

2 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Down low the extra power easily out runs an Ovation, in all facets, takeoff run, climb speed or climb rate and cruise speed, up higher it gets closer due to the cleaner Ovation airframe, but it still can't keep up in either payload or cruise speed.

Clarence

310hp Ovation...

T/O run measured at 800' or so using chuck Chavit's app...

Climb rate 2000+ fpm with Byron onboard...

Cruising around with 100+ gallons onboard, running LOP, at 12+ gph... 165 kts...  ROP 15+ gph 175 kts.

The next plane for Stinky Pants is a TN'd Mooney.  Wait for the backseaters to have arms and legs.

Go Acclaim!

Best regard,

-a-

[Skates97]

2 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

This is true.  The amount of people who have said to me Mooneys are small and then asked if they have sat in one have said no.  So I sit them  in mine and they go "oh wow it's so big inside".  

A guy I was chatting to at a fly in last week said they were small as well, never sat in one and was HUGE in width like extended seatbelt huge. He flew a 182 himself, just himself apparently. 

I have a friend a few hangars down with a Viking. After I got my plane he came down to see it. He had the exact same reaction you described when he climbed in saying how roomy it was.

[Shadrach]

4 hours ago, carusoam said:

310hp Ovation...

T/O run measured at 800' or so using chuck Chavit's app...

Climb rate 2000+ fpm with Byron onboard...

Cruising around with 100+ gallons onboard, running LOP, at 12+ gph... 165 kts...  ROP 15+ gph 175 kts.

The next plane for Stinky Pants is a TN'd Mooney.  Wait for the backseaters to have arms and legs.

Go Acclaim!

Best regard,

-a-

Anthony, those numbers seem on the low side compared to the aviation media.  Also, there is an Ovation II owner on this board that I compared notes with via PM. They claim 175KTS AT 12GPH LOP.

How is it the Plane and Pilot got 192kts and 189kts in their test? 

Flying mag claims that the latest Ovation (300hp) will do 197KTAS if you leave the prop knob forward and are willing to burn the gas.

The Mooney Pilot tested and the Ovation 2 (280hp) do 189kts at 8500ft

 

What I find intersting is that Clarence seems to have access to the fastest Comanches on the planet. They seem to all exceed even the International Comanche Societys performance numbers. 

Clarence says the 250 will do 165KTAS. The Comanche Society says balls to the wall it will hit 157KTAS (on 14gph)

Im not sure where his 400 tops out, but clearly if it's faster than an Ovation it must be near 200KTAS.

The Comanche Society says the 400 is a 185kt machine if you're willing to accept the 23gph fuel burn (this would likely seems downright efficient to a Baron owner) 

About the only thing I can clearly deduce from all of this is that no one can say for sure what the performance of any aircraft is until they see it for themselves as the numbers are all over the place.

 

[Bob_Belville]

27 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Anthony, those numbers seem on the low side compared to the aviation media.  Also, there is an Ovation II owner on this board that I compared notes with via PM. They claim 175KTS AT 12GPH LOP.

How is it the Plane and Pilot got 192kts and 189kts in their test? 

Flying mag claims that the latest Ovation (300hp) will do 197KTAS if you leave the prop knob forward and are willing to burn the gas.

The Mooney Pilot tested and the Ovation 2 (280hp) do 189kts at 8500ft

 

What I find intersting is that Clarence seems to have access to the fastest Comanches on the planet. They seem to all exceed even the International Comanche Societys performance numbers. 

Clarence says the 250 will do 165KTAS. The Comanche Society says balls to the wall it will hit 157KTAS (on 14gph)

Im not sure where his 400 tops out, but clearly if it's faster than an Ovation it must be near 200KTAS.

The Comanche Society says the 400 is a 185kt machine if you're willing to accept the 23gph fuel burn (this would likely seems downright efficient to a Baron owner) 

About the only I can clearly deduce is from all of this is that no one can say for sure what the performance of any aircraft is until they see it for themselves as the numbers are all over the place.

 

Clarence flies in Canadian dollars. And everybody knows performance increases as temperature decreases.

[carusoam]

Ross,

I was using numbers that I use in everyday type of flying... often at 10,500 and 11,500' seats and tanks full up... (young guns in the back)

I'm sure I could get a few knots higher speed at 7500', 2700 rpm and a few more gph...

These are Off the top of my head, nobody calling me out, kind of numbers...  

The two blade should have faster cruise, but may not benefit in the T/O ground roll contest...

The NA climb to 10k' contest is calling.  Bring your F!  201er and Alan can join in the contest.  

Best regards,

-a-

 

 

Edited March 5, 2017 by carusoam

[Guest]

I do look after some fast models of the Comanche, as well as some fast Mooney's.  There was only one 201 which could match my buddy's 250, it was a 1984 which I delivered on many occasions to a MS member.  If I took off first in the 201 he had to run flat out to close the distance, at normal cruise power it was an even match.  

The best my 400 has done is 195-199 KTAS as shown on my Aspen with a fuel burn of 20 GPG as shown on my EDM 830, my goal is to see 200 regularly.  Both are the result of endless hours of work and much money spent on parts and mods.   The best speed I've ever had was 240 MPH indicated at 2500' all of the knobs were against the panel, 2650 RPM, 30" Hg and 38 GPH.

Looking at Flightaware TAS filing speeds shows that speeds are all over the place.  Many airplanes are not rigged as well as they once were, and other owners can't or don't spend money on good maintenance.  

Published numbers for airplanes are generally based stock airframes, speed mods, better propellers etc. we're not around back when they were published.

We can debate the merits of either brand, both airframes are great in my opinion and experience.  I take my Comanche places I've also taken my E model, but I would not take an Ovation.  Mooney's are without a doubt efficient, but they do have their share of unique issues, corrosion being at the top of the heap.  This forum has had more than sad tale of serious corrosion found in wing spars or steel tubes.  Luckily the owners who have shared their story have the financial means to repair the issues. Comanches at present seem to have avoided this problem so far.

Clarence

[Alan Fox]

On ‎3‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 4:32 PM, 201er said:

The real test is who can go 750nm quickest 

The Commanche , I have never seen a Mooney with tip tanks...

[Alan Fox]

7 hours ago, bonal said:

A 400 had Better out perform with as much hp as that very cool 8 cylinder makes. I really like the cargo door on the Mooney as stated it makes loading a breeze. But the other comparison is purchase price and Mooney C E and F's give the most performance for the entry cost. There are lots of factors that determine a mission and for the money I would like to know what other make even comes close to a (early) Mooney 

An early Bonanza

[Guest]

Some interesting numbers from the Ovation, Acclaim and 252 ads on Controller I've averaged the filing speeds for those I could find.

Ovation: 166KTAS, Mooney says max. 197, long range 170

Acclaim: 198 KTAS, Mooney says max 242, long range 175

252: 170 KTS

From Mooneypilots.com

C model: max 146

E model: max 149

F model: max 148

I'd say "don't drink the Kool Aid"

Clarence

[Alan Fox]

11 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Out of around 7000 Bonanzas manufactured by 1960, 24 are currently for sale on Trade-A-Plane. They are quickly becoming uneconomical to repair for the masses, just as are vintage Mooneys such as this one.  It is a harsh reality. FWIW, I am a big fan of the early Bo.

There are so many parts mules , that with the exception of the Ruddervators  , there are used parts galore , Same with the Mooneys , Problem with the Mooneys is corrosion is really becoming prevalent in the older airframes......

[Shadrach]

41 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Some interesting numbers from the Ovation, Acclaim and 252 ads on Controller I've averaged the filing speeds for those I could find.

Ovation: 166KTAS, Mooney says max. 197, long range 170

Acclaim: 198 KTAS, Mooney says max 242, long range 175

252: 170 KTS

From Mooneypilots.com

C model: max 146

E model: max 149

F model: max 148

I'd say "don't drink the Kool Aid"

Clarence

But...but...there are so many flavors available in this thread. 

[Danb]

And they forget the poor Bravo, like the stepchild 

[KLRDMD]

5 hours ago, Shadrach said:

The Comanche Society says the 400 is a 185kt machine if you're willing to accept the 23gph fuel burn (this would likely seems downright efficient to a Baron owner) 

Why do you say that ? I got 185 KTAS on 24 GPH in my Baron and many others I know get the same numbers.