QUESTION: M20E Vs M20F

[McMooney]

just thought about it, if you are only 5'8, due to the way you sit in a mooney, you'll easily be able to fit 4 passengers in an m20e,

the person in the backseat probably won't even touch the pilots seat.

[Jpflysdfw]

5 minutes ago, McMooney said:

just thought about it, if you are only 5'8, due to the way you sit in a mooney, you'll easily be able to fit 4 passengers in an m20e,

the person in the backseat probably won't even touch the pilots seat.

Some of us refer to that as vertical challenged!   The E is sounding better and better....

[MyNameIsNobody]

22 hours ago, Jpflysdfw said:

Some of us refer to that as vertical challenged!   The E is sounding better and better....

I am 5’ll and my kids flew when they were in high school.  They were 5’ 4”.  No issues with room, more a weight issue as they grew.  You are at a space premium with a 5’8” frame.

Edited July 7, 2018 by MyNameIsNobody

[chrixxer]

The "E" is the hot-rod of the bunch.  200HP and the short-body.  The "F" is 10" longer (mid-body),  MUCH more comfortable in the rear seats and sports a bigger baggage pit.  The "F" is about five knots slower, but more pitch stable.  Mine is a GREAT IFR platform.  What the Tiger is to sport, the Mooney is to speed, stability and efficiency.   
The systems of the Mooney are about as simple as it gets for a complex airplane.  In addition, it is IMHO the strongest single-engine airplane out there.  One-piece spar and a rollcage makes it hard to beat for safety.  

All of this. Exactly. And I can speak firsthand to the tank-like construction of the fuselage. Seeing the Acclaims/Ovations on the assembly line at Kerrville was also very impressive.

I've now logged some hours in a Nanchang CJ6A. If I want another "hot rod," I think that's where those dollars will go (looking at fractional ownership; Mooney for "getting there," Chinese trainer for "play" the Mooney can never match (rolling into an inverted dive at the tutelage of a retired F-15/F-5 "aggressor" pilot - one hangar row over - is a taste that's hard to forget...).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chrixxer]

no shotgun panel). My thought is the F probably provides 90%+ of the J benefit at a nice $ discount

FYI, the shotgun panel went away in '69 for the C/E/F. This is the stock layout in my '69 (it's not a perfect rectangular "T" but it's close enough).



The J has a lot of tweaks the F could benefit from; those you listed, plus a stronger gear motor (if you get an electric gear F - I miss the J-Bar on my E, but electric is fine - get the 40:1 conversion if not already done) ... (Read more: http://donmaxwell.com/publications/MAPA_TEXT/Dukes%20ITT%20landing%20gear/dukes__itt_landing_gear_actuato.htm )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

The E has been called the retirement Mooney...

1) the economics are great.

2) Short Body. No kids following you around anymore. But, plenty of space for an extra pair of people on short flights...

3) IO360. 200hp, fuel injected fully capable of running LOP for great economics....

4) Fully customizable, as desired...

See Bob’s M20E...

 

The J is well known for being the modernized/aerodynamicized F.

1) economics are good.

2) the back seats cost a lot if not getting used.

 

The Ovation is what you get if you are prone to purchasing based on a feeling...

1) The cost of the annual inspection isn’t much more than on a C...

2) Performance is far better than the C...

3) with the right headset, you can’t hear the backseaters...  

 

Selecting the right body length and power plant based on the economics of retirement seems to be sensible... I bought my plane long before I expected to retire...

We have had a few people retire and continue to fly... one, into their 80s around MS.  He is cruising the nicest M20J...

Best regards,

-a-

[kellym]

On 7/2/2018 at 4:10 PM, Hank said:

It's not just weight, it's also wing loading and control pushrods instead of cables . . . .

My C does my wife and I quite well, and my 6' 200 lb self took 3 adult male pax up the NC coast to Kitty Hawk. Doing W&B, I was limited to 34 gals (of 52), which is still enough for almost 4 hours flight, or 3 hours plus IFR reserves. Two of my wife's cousins were >200 (yes, I asked when we were talking about going). I have pictures on the desktop, not on my phone any more. 

Having owned an E for about 18 years..........great 2 place airplane. Much prefer the manual Johnson bar models, both for simplicity and reliability. It will cost less to maintain. Yes, it takes a little getting used to...but you can't mistake where the gear is, and you can operate the flaps at anytime without fearing mistaking for the gear.

The E is faster and will use a bit less fuel than the F. The 52 gallon tanks are plenty...have flown up to 4 hours IFR and wouldn't want to be in the air more than that unless having to go  to alternate.  If you manage your power and mixture properly you have a bit more than 5 hours with that 52 gal.  The best advice is find the best E or F you can, both in basic maintenance and condition as well as the avionics you need. You will pay much less to get what you want up front than adding it later. The useful load isn't much different between the 2 models, as the E is lighter on empty wt, and you are carrying less fuel to go same distance.

[chrixxer]

you can operate the flaps at anytime without fearing mistaking for the gear.
The E is faster and will use a bit less fuel than the F. [...] The useful load isn't much different between the 2 models, as the E is lighter on empty wt, and you are carrying less fuel to go same distance.

You really can't mistake the gear selector (round; top part of the panel; pull out to switch between two positions) and the flap control (flat; on the power quadrant to the right of the mixture control; hold to activate).

My F and my E have (had) identical fuel burns and the F is only marginally slower (3-5 kts); I can definitely cover significantly more ground in the 64 gallon F vs the 52 gallon E. Empty weights were about ~70 lbs apart in the real world (1625.4 E, 1695.5 F, similarly equipped) but the max weight is height with the F (2575 vs. 2740); 100 lbs more in the F (full fuel usable, 638 E, 661 F, but the F has tabs allowing you to easily operate with 50 gallons, for 745 usable with roughly the same range.

I made it from LA to Eugene with three rescue dogs fighting a headwind, landed with >13 gallons on board after 6 hours en route. That's a trip I never could have done in the E. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CMF3RM


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jpflysdfw]

Thanks to all for the feedback.  In general, all inputs appear highly consistent.  Overall, I’d say I’m still slightly biased towards the F, if nothing else for the fuel margin.  However, not biased so much that if a really nice E came along I’d pass on it.   In the end, the sound advice from several was that both are great airplanes and if I can find one that’s been well maintained and with modern avionics, I likely can’t go wrong.  Now, if I can just find one that fits that description..life will be good!! Jeff

[kellym]

4 minutes ago, Jpflysdfw said:

Thanks to all for the feedback.  In general, all inputs appear highly consistent.  Overall, I’d say I’m still slightly biased towards the F, if nothing else for the fuel margin.  However, not biased so much that if a really nice E came along I’d pass on it.   In the end, the sound advice from several was that both are great airplanes and if I can find one that’s been well maintained and with modern avionics, I likely can’t go wrong.  Now, if I can just find one that fits that description..life will be good!! Jeff

Unless you have a real ability to sit for more than 4 hours without much ability to move around, and have a hollow leg, the fuel really isn't an issue. If you really want to do extra long legs, there is an STC to raise the E capacity to 80 gallons, for well over 7 hours at 75%. With those extra gal one owner managed San Diego to Savannah non-stop. If I were in the market I would consider 1965 to 1968 E with manual gear or 1967 F with manual gear.

 

[Marauder]

Thanks to all for the feedback.  In general, all inputs appear highly consistent.  Overall, I’d say I’m still slightly biased towards the F, if nothing else for the fuel margin.  However, not biased so much that if a really nice E came along I’d pass on it.   In the end, the sound advice from several was that both are great airplanes and if I can find one that’s been well maintained and with modern avionics, I likely can’t go wrong.  Now, if I can just find one that fits that description..life will be good!! Jeff

There are some decent Fs out there that have been upgraded and well maintained. If this is your retirement airplane, don’t be afraid to invest in a solid airframe and build on it. Alan Fox has an F with a lot of speed mods on it but needs some TLC on the avionics and an updated interior would help.

I bought my F in 1991, did minor upgrades (GEM, digital clock, fuel totalizer) for the first 7 years. Added an STEC 60-2 in 1998 and in 2012 did a major avionics upgrade. Since then, been doing updates (LEDs all the way around, WX-500) and some upgrades (JPI 830 to 900 with CiES senders). Last year I did the interior and once I can get a SabreCowl on her, will give her a new paint job.

I actually enjoy planning and doing the upgrades. Instead of throwing $35k at a golf club membership, I’m spending on something I enjoy being part of the process. I think LanceC and Cruiser are in this mode as well.

2013:




2017:



Interior:

From a pile of plastic.





To something you’re not ashamed to fly people around in.









It’s not a race... I guess this is the same feeling people who are addicted to cosmetic surgery feel like.

Once you make your buying decision, we can help you spend your money.

[chrixxer]

17 minutes ago, Marauder said:

 

 

Is that the "spatial interior"? PIREP?

[Marauder]

 

That is the Spatial Designs interior. I have a thread out there somewhere with more details. I like the Jaegar panels. The ability to pop them in and out is really nice. Especially for a guy who has an avionics addition.

 

The part I don’t like as much is the reused upper plastic parts. Bruce and I talked about this at length. The plastic repair he does works to clean it up but you’re still dealing with 40+ year old plastic. It will (and in my case has) begin cracking again. The answer is to wrap it. Plane Plastic parts are available but there is a lot of trimming to make the piece fit. I think they use a mold made off of the parts. They are thicker than the original but also have a lot of excess to trim, including any holes that need to be made.

 

The pros;

 

- easy to remove, easy to reinstall

- modern looking

- colors from SEM can match almost anything

- replaces the grill vents with Wemac style

- pockets, pockets, pockets!

 

The cons;

 

- reused plastic that will crack again

- some finishing work still needs to be done

- carpet and seats are not part of the interior, you need to get that done separately.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[chrixxer]

8 minutes ago, Marauder said:

 

That is the Spatial Designs interior. I have a thread out there somewhere with more details. I like the Jaegar panels. The ability to pop them in and out is really nice. Especially for a guy who has an avionics addition.

 

The part I don’t like as much is the reused upper plastic parts. Bruce and I talked about this at length. The plastic repair he does works to clean it up but you’re still dealing with 40+ year old plastic. It will (and in my case has) begin cracking again. The answer is to wrap it. Plane Plastic parts are available but there is a lot of trimming to make the piece fit. I think they use a mold made off of the parts. They are thicker than the original but also have a lot of excess to trim, including any holes that need to be made.

 

The pros;

 

- easy to remove, easy to reinstall

- modern looking

- colors from SEM can match almost anything

- replaces the grill vents with Wemac style

- pockets, pockets, pockets!

 

The cons;

 

- reused plastic that will crack again

- some finishing work still needs to be done

- carpet and seats are not part of the interior, you need to get that done separately.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Have redone interior, including carpets, seats, and plastics. Just looking for more shoulder room (the redone seats sit higher, I think that's the rub - no pun intended). (I'm 6'2" and it's almost all torso, 32" inseam.)

 

[SantosDumont]

I have 100 GAL Monroy tanks on my 67F. Running LOP on 8 GAL /hr I can cruise for a loooong time.  Longest I’ve ever done is about 5 hrs.   Nice to have the option to go somewhere and back and not have to refuel though.  Only other model I’ve been in is a C model and that was too small for me.  

I’m currently stuffing 3 boys ages 6,8,10 in the back seat of the F.  Will probably need to upgrade or partner into something bigger in the near future, but for now we’re able to endure 90 min trips. 

[chrixxer]

Just now, SantosDumont said:

something bigger in the near future

I see you in a Cessna 310R ... The Bonanza's CG gets all screwy as you burn fuel, if you fill the seats, and without tip tanks, the usable load sucks (only 18 lbs more than an an F!).

[Marauder]

Have redone interior, including carpets, seats, and plastics. Just looking for more shoulder room (the redone seats sit higher, I think that's the rub - no pun intended). (I'm 6'2" and it's almost all torso, 32" inseam.)
 

You’ll get a little more elbow room (I’m 6’4”) but not shoulder room. When I had my seats redone, they went a little crazy with the memory foam. I am sitting higher than before. Fortunately my fat arse compresses the foam within the first 5 minutes and Pappa Bear is happy again. If they used more rigid foam, have it reduced or replaced.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[SantosDumont]

18 minutes ago, chrixxer said:

I see you in a Cessna 310R ... The Bonanza's CG gets all screwy as you burn fuel, if you fill the seats, and without tip tanks, the usable load sucks (only 18 lbs more than an an F!).

Inlaws decided to move to the middle of nowhere AZ. Started thinking about a C210 with Tundra tires so I can just land on the dirt road next to their house. 

[gsxrpilot]

7 hours ago, Jpflysdfw said:

 Now, if I can just find one that fits that description..life will be good!! Jeff

Found it.

 

 

[Jpflysdfw]

7 hours ago, kellym said:

Unless you have a real ability to sit for more than 4 hours without much ability to move around, and have a hollow leg, the fuel really isn't an issue. If you really want to do extra long legs, there is an STC to raise the E capacity to 80 gallons, for well over 7 hours at 75%. With those extra gal one owner managed San Diego to Savannah non-stop. If I were in the market I would consider 1965 to 1968 E with manual gear or 1967 F with manual gear.

 

@kellym Thanks and I know your logic is absolutely sound.  For most of what I’ll do, 52gal would be perfectly fine.  One of my “missions” is a North Dallas (Denton) to North side of Indianapolis (about 700nm). In a perfect world, I’d like the option to go straight through (presuming my bladder cooperates).  While it’s not a deal breaker, it is an objective, though one I may have to yield on. Curious, I’ve heard pros/cons on manual Vs electric gear. You seem to be decidedly manual, can you share your thoughts? Jeff

[Browncbr1]

I’m a jbar guy. When I bought my F, I specifically shopped only 67 F models because of the less failure prone gear, higher useful and bigger cabin to handle growing kids.   The F nearly doesn’t need altitude hold.  After flying other Beechcraft singles and twins, I have grown to more fully appreaciate the exceptional stability of the F in IMC, particularly roll stability.   

I’ve said before, if I were single without kids, I would have probably looked for a well equipped E.  A little faster and lower acquisition cost.  

My oem F usually flies at 143-147ktas PEAK-25LOP on 7.8-8.0gph between 7-10k ft at gross.  

[gsxrpilot]

27 minutes ago, Jpflysdfw said:

Curious, I’ve heard pros/cons on manual Vs electric gear. You seem to be decidedly manual, can you share your thoughts? Jeff

I've had both. I flew an M20C with manual gear and now an M20K 252 with electric gear. I also prefer the manual gear, but it's not a deal breaker. 

Manual gear is just so simple. You don't have or need any backup gear extension mechanism. You don't need the lights, horn, or other gear "down and locked" indicator. It's almost as if you can reach down and give the gear a tug with your hand and KNOW it's down and locked. It's simple (cheap) to maintain as well.

The electric gear is nice for the higher gear extension speed. But you're relying on "third party" indicators to be working correctly to tell you if the gear is up or down. You can't really "test it yourself". You need a light, to tell you. And if the light isn't working, is it a problem with the gear or the light. The motors are expensive to replace/repair if they break. It's just a more complex/expensive system to maintain.

Don't be afraid of electric gear. I've never had a problem with mine. It works well. There are three different gear indicators to tell me if the gear is down. And one of them, the window in the floor is pretty fool proof. There's still a light, but if it burns out during a flight, use a flashlight. It's a very robust system and there are more Mooneys flying with electric gear than manual gear. 

But all things being equal... the one thing from my M20C that I wish I had in the M20K, is the manual gear.

 

[kellym]

20 minutes ago, Jpflysdfw said:

@kellym Thanks and I know your logic is absolutely sound.  For most of what I’ll do, 52gal would be perfectly fine.  One of my “missions” is a North Dallas (Denton) to North side of Indianapolis (about 700nm). In a perfect world, I’d like the option to go straight through (presuming my bladder cooperates).  While it’s not a deal breaker, it is an objective, though one I may have to yield on. Curious, I’ve heard pros/cons on manual Vs electric gear. You seem to be decidedly manual, can you share your thoughts? Jeff

On manual gear.....no motor or actuator to maintain. So simple and sturdy that no backup system was required. All that normally has to be maintained is lubrication of the rod ends and verifying the spring pre-load settings are in tolerance. (I never saw any change unless a part in the system was replaced). Yes, one has to carefully examine the Johnson bar itself at annual to ensure that no corrosion has taken place. Did I mention there is no motor, no actuator, no backspring or cable to be maintained, lubricated or replaced. No gears to fail. The only key component that needs to be changed, if it is original, is the J-Bar lock socket in the panel. LASAR has an improved PMA replacement for under $400 last I checked, that takes about an hour to do the replacement.

Operationally, as long as you raise the gear before accelerating past 85 mph, the force to operate is low. If you lower gear at max speed, 120 mph, the air forces provide almost all of the effort needed. Being all mechanical, once you understand how to use the momentum of the gear to help you, you can raise or lower the gear faster than any motor. My old Mooney had exactly one gear up in 50 years and over 6000 hours, by a new owner with less than 6 months experience.  After repairs, only a Mooney specialist would spot the fact that it had been repaired.  As soon as you get burned into brain that the J bar shows the gear is down and locked whenever it is locked vertically in the panel, it is easy to incorporate a firm tug on the handle while on final to ensure it really is locked and that is very reassuring.

My other preference is due to the fact I experience an actual mechanical failure of gear in a Cardinal RG during my commercial training. It gives you an appreciation of the need to completely understand the gear system and how it works when you are flying around with a gear that won't move from the in transit position.

[Jpflysdfw]

1 hour ago, gsxrpilot said:

Found it.

   @gsxrpilot Thanks Paul, I did see that ad and it looks like a really nice F! I’ve been trying to keep my search volume east of the Rockies, for easier logistics and it has 1600 on both the engine and prop.  I know, lots of folks dismiss TBO hours as a suggestion and it doesn’t seem anyone really pays attention to the 12yr TBO guidance.  Honestly, I’m not sure where I stand on this and need to get a conviction in my own mind.  All things being equal, I’d like a <1000 SMOH but even that can be a crap shoot.  It is definitely one I need to give some careful consideration to.  Also, thanks to both you and @kellym for the manual gear perspective.  I do like the simplicity of “do it yourself” My only reservation is I expect this will be my last airplane and having never actuated a manual gear, I’ve contemplated how difficult it will be in 10yrs when I’m in my mid 60’s.  Am curious what others have experienced.  The older I get, the more I notice my body is betraying me!! Jeff

 

 

[KLRDMD]

7 hours ago, SantosDumont said:

Inlaws decided to move to the middle of nowhere AZ. Started thinking about a C210 with Tundra tires so I can just land on the dirt road next to their house. 

Seems the tundra tires would mean you fly with the gear down the whole time, no way those big suckers are going to tuck up into the wheel wells. If the dirt is well maintained, any number of retractable gear airplanes will do just fine there. Cessna gear does tend to be a bit less "robust" than others, though.