Looking at Mooneys (M20E particularly)

[Candy man]

3 hours ago, bonal said:

The 100mph flap speed has never been a problem since I dont drop them until in the pattern.  There have been some occasions where I'm a bit impatient waiting to hit the 120mph gear speed though.  If the OP is looking short body I would not rule out a C as has been discussed many times here that the performance difference can be minimal in real world conditions having both increases your shopping options

Are the C's and E's really that close in performance? Is fuel capacity the same in both as well? I would love to hear from someone who's owned both.

[Bob_Belville]

I believe you'll find that both have the same gross weight (2575). Fuel tanks for both was 52 gallons though either model may have had mods allowing more fuel. There are a lot of mods that might have affected useful load but coming out of the factory the C would have been a little lighter and therefore have a slightly higher usable.

OTOH, the E has a 200 HP, fuel injected engine so the E should be able to win a cruse speed, climb rate, take off roll comparison.

But the differences are not huge and since we're talking about vintage planes there will likely be more important differences between individual planes than those inherent with the model.  

[KLRDMD]

On 3/22/2017 at 9:06 PM, mooniac15u said:

The manual gear has achieved something akin to cult status around here but it's really just a personal preference. 

If I could convert the electric gear in my 231 to manual gear I would do it in a minute !

[carusoam]

The guy in the left seat doesn't always make the decisions...

Teaching the right handed, non-pilot, right seater how to use the mechanical gear worked, sort of...

She really appreciates the electric gear.

Some decisions actually went my way... Go O!

I loved my all mechanical, normally aspirated, carbureted, Analog paneled, M20C.  It is a spectacular piece of engineering from the '60s with full factory support!

The M20R is the same, but only slightly more refined...

Best regards,

-a-

 

Edited March 24, 2017 by carusoam

[zaitcev]

9 hours ago, bonal said:

The 100mph flap speed has never been a problem since I dont drop them until in the pattern.

I'm just curious, are you instrument rated? I'm not, but I hear from some people that ATC sometimes gives so-called "slam dunk" clearances, where larger limits of electric flaps can be very helpful.

P.S. The C model may have a more permissive loading envelope than E, because the 180 hp engine is lighter. I have an E and it's unpleasantly difficult to load within the envelope.

Edited March 24, 2017 by zaitcev

[carusoam]

Putting out flaps for drag in the descent doesn't usually work because of their speed sensitivity.

Landing gear can work this way...

Speed brakes are good for this...

E descent in an O is done with both gear and brakes out...At gear legs extended speed.  Which is above flaps extended speed.

high speed, with all the resistance hanging out, really dissipates tons of energy!

Stuff I learned in transition training for the O.  Not a CFI myself...

My friend Bonal, is a happy VFR pilot.  I don't think I can change his mind... not this year anyway...   

The final segments of an instrument approach are often flown a 90kias, gear and T/O flaps down...  slow and stable leading to final approach.

Cruise descent is a full speed ahead affair. A slam dunk approach is trying to lose thousands of feet in a short distance without having to slow to approach speeds.  Mooney pilots will talk about the ability to go down or slow down but not both.  Doing both can be done, but at the cost of efficiency...

Best regards,

-a-

Edited March 24, 2017 by carusoam

[Bob_Belville]

Speed brakes are exactly what the doctor ordered when it is necessary to get down fast. No speed restriction and pure drag so more effective the higher the IAS. Mine are manual so I usually keep my hand on the lever while doing the slam dump a a reminder that the SBs are deployed. Once altitude is satisfactory I retract the brakes. 1500 ft/min is not difficult.  either Nancy nor I suffer particularly from ear issues which might be a caution when one needs to lose 7000' as fast as possible as we do coming into KMRN from the west IFR.  

[gsxrpilot]

9 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

If I could convert the electric gear in my 231 to manual gear I would do it in a minute !

I'm with you on this. A manual gear 252TSE would be just the ticket.

9 hours ago, carusoam said:

The guy in the left seat doesn't always make the decisions...

Teaching the right handed, non-pilot, right seater how to use the mechanical gear worked, sort of...

She really appreciates the electric gear.

I'm assuming you are referring to the incapacitation of the guy in the left seat? Is your right seater a pilot? My wife and copilot is not a pilot and therefore according to @mooneygirl it would be better to gear-up the plane. It won't bounce, and it isn't as likely to run off the end of the runway as there aren't any brakes on the right side.  My copilot is under orders to leave the gear up, regardless of instructions from ATC, in the event of my untimely demise.

[FloridaMan]

You can do this yourself prior to sending it out for a PPI, or supervise the A&P doing the inspection that this gets checked. Read this thread of this guy's horror story. This is one of the most important inspections that you can make and is one that can be commonly overlooked by who you hire to do your pre-purchase inspection. Gear biscuits can cost you over $1000 if they're old (I believe there's a date in the rubber). Mine were nearly 20 years old, but I didn't notice issue with them, but when it went into a MSC for annual, it was insisted that they be replaced. 

Also, you'll be very happy with your decision to get a Mooney. I was in disbelief for a while that I actually owned an airplane and 800 hours and four years later I still love my F, but I'm looking to upgrade now to a 305 Rocket. 

 

Edited March 24, 2017 by Antares

[Chocks]

The perfect Mooney would be a 2-Door 252 with electric trim, elec flaps, scissor brakes and a Johnson bar

 

Or an E the same way

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[MyNameIsNobody]

11 hours ago, zaitcev said:

I'm just curious, are you instrument rated? I'm not, but I hear from some people that ATC sometimes gives so-called "slam dunk" clearances, where larger limits of electric flaps can be very helpful.

P.S. The C model may have a more permissive loading envelope than E, because the 180 hp engine is lighter. I have an E and it's unpleasantly difficult to load within the envelope.

Today is a "Weird" Mooneyspace day.  What are you talking about regarding an E Model being "unpleasantly difficult to load within the envelope"?  I am not buying that at ALL.

Who would buy a Mooney and then not fly fast across country?  I don't understand the 9GPH settings?  Why not fly 5LOP, about 9.5-10GPH depending on altitude and GET THERE ALREADY?

Who would think of decending with the gear down in a Mooney?  Funny and weird.  Keep power in and pitch for 500.  Lessen pitch if getting up to 180 indicated.  Get back what you lost in climb....Go fast.  That is why you buy a Mooney...Speed and efficiency to get speed.

You putt putters make me laugh.  Go farther faster...or Putt Putt.

I would DEFINITELY take Johnson Bar in a J if it was possible to have it.  If you are to weak to properly work a J-Bar you should not be flying.  If adjusted properly and done properly raising gear is a non-event.  It does require not putting $%^& under it and looking for $%^&.  Not to difficult.

Edited March 24, 2017 by MyNameIsNobody

[MyNameIsNobody]

1 hour ago, "Chocks" said:

The perfect Mooney would be a 2-Door 252 with electric trim, elec flaps, scissor brakes and a Johnson bar

 

Or an E the same way

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

NOPE.  Hydraulic flaps are simple and effective.  Scissor/speed brakes.  NOT NECESSARY AT ALL in a M20E.  

Vintage systems in a Mooney if maintained and functioning (as they were designed-50 years will require some replacement of gaskets) is a beautiful thing that is NOT improved upon with Electric assist.

[mooniac15u]

When flying IFR you often don't get to determine your own descent profile.  You are often kept higher than you would like for longer than you would like and then asked to descend at the last minute.  Under those circumstances just pushing the nose over and picking up speed on the descent will not accomplish what you've been asked to do.  Increasing drag can help achieve the best angle of descent.

[takair]

11 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

Speed brakes are exactly what the doctor ordered when it is necessary to get down fast. No speed restriction and pure drag so more effective the higher the IAS. Mine are manual so I usually keep my hand on the lever while doing the slam dump a a reminder that the SBs are deployed. Once altitude is satisfactory I retract the brakes. 1500 ft/min is not difficult.  either Nancy nor I suffer particularly from ear issues which might be a caution when one needs to lose 7000' as fast as possible as we do coming into KMRN from the west IFR.  

Bob, I'm intrigued by your speed brakes!  I had never seen this version.  Do they pop out of the wings like the others or are these on the belly? Someone actually found a way to use that space by the gear handle! 

[takair]

16 hours ago, zaitcev said:

I'm just curious, are you instrument rated? I'm not, but I hear from some people that ATC sometimes gives so-called "slam dunk" clearances, where larger limits of electric flaps can be very helpful.

P.S. The C model may have a more permissive loading envelope than E, because the 180 hp engine is lighter. I have an E and it's unpleasantly difficult to load within the envelope.

I too am curious about your loading comment.  I almost always go out the top (overweight) before I go out of the envelope.  Have you checked your calculations. Have seen it before where someone has this issue only to find a math error 20 years ago...

[Bob_Belville]

1 hour ago, takair said:

Bob, I'm intrigued by your speed brakes!  I had never seen this version.  Do they pop out of the wings like the others or are these on the belly? Someone actually found a way to use that space by the gear handle! 

You need to get around more.

The speed brakes are Precise Flight, STC SA5708NM. The brakes themselves are probably exactly the same as the later electric operated version except the movement is direct mechanical linkage. Think Johnson Bar gear. I suspect that other than an annual lube if the mechanic noticed it there's nothing been done to the system which was installed in 1997.

[Hank]

3 hours ago, takair said:

I too am curious about your loading comment.  I almost always go out the top (overweight) before I go out of the envelope.  Have you checked your calculations. Have seen it before where someone has this issue only to find a math error 20 years ago...

I've never had a problem in my C, although once with four big guys I was fuel-limited to only 34 gallons. Otherwise, I typically run out of space before I do weight . . .

Edited March 25, 2017 by Hank

[gsxrpilot]

7 minutes ago, Hank said:

I've never HD a ,Padilla get pro lemon in my C, although once with four big guys I was fuel-limited to only 34 gallons. Otherwise, I typically run out of space before I do weight . . .

Hahahah... auto correct?   "HD a ,Padilla get pro lemon"

[andymccann]

3 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

Hahahah... auto correct?   "HD a ,Padilla get pro lemon"

Yeah, I was trying to work that one out too ; )

[gsxrpilot]

Back on the topic... I used to fly a Bonanza F33A. It was a nightmare to keep in CG. It had lots of UL, but as you burned off fuel, the CG would move and you'd be in trouble trying to land. Frankly the UL was UseLess not Useful Load.

Then I got an M20C. I flew it at gross weight all the time and couldn't figure out any way to get it out of CG. If I could get it in the door, we were fine.

Now I have a 252 and it's definitely UL challenged. If I fill the tanks, it's a two seater. But I've never had an issue with CG. Therefore it's easy to load. Just watch the max weight.

I like the W&B feature in ForeFlight as well as Aviation W&B app on my iPhone.  And that's all I know about that.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, gsxrpilot said:

Hahahah... auto correct?   "HD a ,Padilla get pro lemon"

Yeah, forgot to proofread it. Post corrected--"never had a problem in my C." This crazy new tablet adopted the Apple version, opt out on spelling changes, while my phone remains opt in (much nicer!).

[zaitcev]

5 hours ago, takair said:

I almost always go out the top (overweight) before I go out of the envelope.  Have you checked your calculations. Have seen it before where someone has this issue only to find a math error 20 years ago...

I think we can be (almost) certain that my calculations are good. However, the inputs are very much suspect. If you could share your empty CG and the stations that you use, it would be very helpful.

The ship's empty CG is 42.71" with 1695.4 lbs. What catches the eye immediately is that the weighting was done with full tanks, and the directly weighted CG was found at 43.59".

Fuel 48.43", front seat 39" (and that is with seats in rearmost positions - I'm 6'5" and I fly on the last available position hole). These are most vexing ones. Rear seat at 70.7" and baggage at 95.5" are empty.

Remember that the corners of the envelope are 42" at 2100 and 46.5" at 2575 lbs. So, for a pilot of 230 lbs, such as myself, and a passenger of 190lbs, we end at 41.98" - just in front of the front corner. Adding full fuel pushes us way out: 42.75" at 2427.4 lbs. Basically, the only way to carry a passenger in this M20E is to fly with 1/4 tanks and put 10 jugs of water in baggage compartment.

[carusoam]

That doesn't sound right.  Wait a minute... maybe it does...

Loading up my C with three guys going to SnF we were weight limited on the amount of fuel be loaded.  Each guy was about 200# and their baggage was about 20# each (from ancient memory, not to be trusted)

The balance would be near the back of the envelope.  

nobody was adding ballast to their short body Mooney.

Ballast or Charlie weights are a norm for the Long bodies.  The lead bricks are swapped out for equipment that gets added later.

Ks use their batteries for adjusting balance. A pair of batteries are mounted back in the tail.

As a friend, I would recommend checking your numbers for accuracy.  WnB can be pretty sensitive.  Especially when the front seaters start to weigh more than the FAA standard.

Where you might notice how well your WnB data works...  full up trim doesn't cause a stall (by design). My C would descend at final approach speed with full up trim.  Use logic when doing this. A mis-adjusted trim can cause an unexpected stall. 

People report putting 50# of tools (similar to your jugs) in the baggage compartment when flying solo to improve Cruise speed and control forces for smooth landings. Putting 400# in the front seat is certainly heavier than the standard FAA 350#.

Fuel is stored close to the center of lift.  It has much less of an effect from Full to empty.

I use a weight and balance app to graph the envelope and where I am as the fuel burns.  The holes in the seat rails are included in the calc.  Sliding back is nice while in Cruise. Where it is more important is during slow flight and the tail trim is working extra hard...

The other thing that is perplexing is the empty weight of your plane was calculated with full tanks.  This adds some quirkiness to your calculations.  Everybody's opinion of full tanks has variation.  More than people's opinion of empty tanks.

I think you may find that you can improve your calculations with proper empty weight.  Proper 'arms' for doing the calculations. Some POHs have this data. The 65C had its data on a piece of loose graph paper kept with the logs... modern mooney's also include the position of the seat back.  How is that for sensitivity...?

Then compare your results to the standard FAA passenger numbers.  

It is possible your real life numbers are making the standard WnB more of a challenge. We have altered The Who sits where to better balance things.

Best regards,

-a-

 

Edited March 25, 2017 by carusoam

[mooniac15u]

1 hour ago, zaitcev said:

I think we can be (almost) certain that my calculations are good. However, the inputs are very much suspect. If you could share your empty CG and the stations that you use, it would be very helpful.

The ship's empty CG is 42.71" with 1695.4 lbs. What catches the eye immediately is that the weighting was done with full tanks, and the directly weighted CG was found at 43.59".

Fuel 48.43", front seat 39" (and that is with seats in rearmost positions - I'm 6'5" and I fly on the last available position hole). These are most vexing ones. Rear seat at 70.7" and baggage at 95.5" are empty.

Remember that the corners of the envelope are 42" at 2100 and 46.5" at 2575 lbs. So, for a pilot of 230 lbs, such as myself, and a passenger of 190lbs, we end at 41.98" - just in front of the front corner. Adding full fuel pushes us way out: 42.75" at 2427.4 lbs. Basically, the only way to carry a passenger in this M20E is to fly with 1/4 tanks and put 10 jugs of water in baggage compartment.

There are a couple of problems with your numbers.  First, the TCDS lists the front seat rearmost position at 44.0" and the baggage area at 93".  That will change your calculations a little.  The bigger problem is with your empty weight.  If the plane was weighed/balanced with full fuel at 43.59" I don't think the empty CG is 42.71".  You can check this by taking the listed empty weight and CG and running your W&B calculation with just full fuel.  If the starting CG is correct it will come out to 43.59".  From a quick calculation I don't get that number. I think your empty CG should be closer to 43.2".

[mooniac15u]

After playing around with the calculations some more I'm wondering if the engine oil is what's throwing things off.  Are you including it at station -6.5" in your calculations?  I'm guessing maybe it wasn't subtracted from the full-fuel weight/CG when calculating your empty weight/CG.  If that's the case then perhaps it's being counted twice in the CG.