QUESTION: M20E Vs M20F

[KLRDMD]

1 hour ago, gsxrpilot said:

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

Like Paul, I've owned Mooneys with both manual and electric gear too. Given the preference, I'm going with manual gear every time. It is dead simple and reliable (and cheap).

[McMooney]

I do kdwh to keye multiple times per year, would think kdto to keye would be a one tanker.

I generally burn a bit less than 9 gals/hr on the trip @ 9500-11500(hot in texas) ROP.   

I'm def investing in the Monroy long range tanks, 88 gals in an e model is gonna be ridiculous range.

[Bob_Belville]

2 hours ago, Jpflysdfw said:

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

I am way past my 60s and still like my JBar Mooney. It really isn't about strength as much as technique. @mooneygirl, a slight wee thing, has a JBar E. She road right seat in my E to satisfy herself that she could lower the gear from there... no problem. she teaches a Right Seat Ready course for non-pilots companions who might have to land the plane sometime. 

[carusoam]

1 hour ago, McMooney said:

I do kdwh to keye multiple times per year, would think kdto to keye would be a one tanker.

I generally burn a bit less than 9 gals/hr on the trip @ 9500-11500(hot in texas) ROP.   

I'm def investing in the Monroy long range tanks, 88 gals in an e model is gonna be ridiculous range.

Follow John Paul’s guidance...

I believe he flew an M20E from California to Georgia, Coast to Coast, Without a fuel stop... 

It required a fair amount of sailing with preferable winds to make it happen...

Best regards

-a-

[Jpflysdfw]

2 hours ago, McMooney said:

I do kdwh to keye multiple times per year, would think kdto to keye would be a one tanker.

I generally burn a bit less than 9 gals/hr on the trip @ 9500-11500(hot in texas) ROP.   

I'm def investing in the Monroy long range tanks, 88 gals in an e model is gonna be ridiculous range.

 @McMooney  Interesting. Per FF, yours is few miles longer than my direct route KDTO KMQJ. That is notwithstanding whatever ATC might or might not do routing wise on an IFR flight. Was yours on VFR flights(IE GPS direct) or IFR with reserves?

[McMooney]

VFR, currently working on finishing my IFR. 

was playing with the long range numbers from the poh, worked great.

Until the wife found out about flight aware, i'd sometimes make a sneak stop at kdua.

[chrixxer]

13 hours ago, SantosDumont said:

Started thinking about a C210 with Tundra tires so I can just land on the dirt road next to their house. 

Aren't all 210s retract? Doubt anything but stock tires would fit. OTOH, have you considered a C195?

[chrixxer]

3 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

I am way past my 60s and still like my JBar Mooney. It really isn't about strength as much as technique.

Agreed. I'm far from an expert, but I've flown several J-bar Mooneys: An M20B, an M20C, my old M20E, and an M20F that had gone through a Mod Works (IIRC) conversion and featured, inter alia, inner gear doors. The B/C/E were delightfully light on the force required to swing the gear; I could do it, literally, with two fingers, as long as I was below 100 mph (retracting), and with just a nudge to get it locked down anywhere south of 120 mph (extending). The F ... Was another story. Even with considerable application of muscle, the gear would not go up unless you gave the aircraft the ol' "Mooney Bump." YMMV, and that F was unique... But properly rigged manual gear shouldn't require much strength to swing.

[Jpflysdfw]

3 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

I am way past my 60s and still like my JBar Mooney. It really isn't about strength as much as technique. @mooneygirl, a slight wee thing, has a JBar E. She road right seat in my E to satisfy herself that she could lower the gear from there... no problem. she teaches a Right Seat Ready course for non-pilots companions who might have to land the plane sometime. 

Bob, thanks for the testimony, comforting to know. 

10 minutes ago, chrixxer said:

Agreed. I'm far from an expert, but I've flown several J-bar Mooneys: An M20B, an M20C, my old M20E, and an M20F that had gone through a Mod Works (IIRC) conversion and featured, inter alia, inner gear doors. The B/C/E were delightfully light on the force required to swing the gear; I could do it, literally, with two fingers, as long as I was below 100 mph (retracting), and with just a nudge to get it locked down anywhere south of 120 mph (extending). The F ... Was another story. Even with considerable application of muscle, the gear would not go up unless you gave the aircraft the ol' "Mooney Bump." YMMV, and that F was unique... But properly rigged manual gear shouldn't require much strength to swing.

@chrixxer, two fingers.... wow, much less force than I would have ever imagined!!  It’s not intuitive that it would swing that easy. Yours and Bob’s input allay some unfounded concerns. Jeff

[gsxrpilot]

Best of luck with the search for your Mooney.  I'm not the one selling the F out in California and don't have any interest in the sale. I only point it out as one that might be a good candidate.  Regarding engine time, my experience as well as the research I've done tells me that the most important number on an engine is how much it gets flown. Engines that fly regularly seem to go way past TBO easily. Engines that don't fly seem to need premature overhauls. This is all anecdotal evidence but there's enough of it to get my attention. This engine and airplane are regularly flying and that means a lot to me.

My first choice in purchasing any airplane would be an engine that is between 500 and 1000 hours SMOH. My second choice would be one with a run out engine. My last choice would be an airplane with a fresh overhaul. But an engine that is flown regularly is bonus points towards any of these options.

 

[Bob_Belville]

5 years ago 3 of us took my E to Sun N Fun. At the 7:47 minute mark the Lakeland controller reminded everyone to lower gear and I put mine down. About the only way you'll know that is the red light above the GTN 750 goes out and the green light lights up. (JBar veterans will notice that I managed to unbuckle my seat belt swinging the Bar and spent a few seconds buckling up. I don't suppose that happens with wussy gear models very often.)  

 

[Jpflysdfw]

@Bob_Belville Bob, thanks.  I had seen that video on YouTube sometime back and even rewatching it where she called out xponder off and gear down, the gear lowering was imperceptible (at least to me).  Years of practice, I’m sure, but still very reassuring.

 @gsxrpilot Thanks Paul, ideally Im with you in option 1. While with a run out, I could ensure it got it rebuilt and broke in the way I wanted, it also means down time.  Everything is a trade off.  I went to see an E here locally a couple of weeks, with only a couple hundred hours SMOH.  The problem was between the 2006 annual and June 2018, it had 78hrs on the engine and some years with no hours.  While it’s always hangered, I wasn’t willing to roll the dice on something with that little use.  To your point, higher hours, consistent use and purposeful maintenance offer a much lower risk profile. 

[Cyril Gibb]

I may have missed a baggage comment in this thread, so apologies if I’m making a redundant comment.

Although it’s Very rare that I have any back seat passengers, we need the extra 10 inches for our stuff while we travel.  I only install the back seats for sightseeing passengers but leave the seats out almost always.  We travel with road bikes (wheels removed) and camping equipment.  No way we’d be able to stuff it all into a short body.

That may or may not be a consideration depending on what your plans are.

 

[bradp]

On 7/4/2018 at 5:39 PM, Skates97 said:

Here are the instructions that @piperpainter put together. I can't remember where I downloaded them from but I have had them on my computer for awhile in anticipation of someday...

I'm not sure I like Brian's mod- if you have anything in the baggage area with mass and you say, have a frontal impact, those cotter pins in shear will likely not hold nearly as well as a 1/4 in bolt in tension.  There's probably a better solution to get a fold down seat- you'd probably want that pin in shear though.

[Hank]

18 minutes ago, bradp said:

I'm not sure I like Brian's mod- if you have anything in the baggage area with mass and you say, have a frontal impact, those cotter pins in shear will likely not hold nearly as well as a 1/4 in bolt in tension.  There's probably a better solution to get a fold down seat- you'd probably want that pin in shear though.

My 1970 C has factory fold-down rear seats. Maybe someone parting out a plane or removing their interior can take pictures of both the structure in the wall and how the seat connects. Next time I take mine out, I'll try to remember to do that, but don't hold your breath on timing . . . . It was last out just after I bought it in '07, to replace the antenna coax while doing the WAAS upgrade, and I didn't know it was a concern to so many. It was also before MS, or at least before I found MS a year later.

[Skates97]

2 hours ago, bradp said:

I'm not sure I like Brian's mod- if you have anything in the baggage area with mass and you say, have a frontal impact, those cotter pins in shear will likely not hold nearly as well as a 1/4 in bolt in tension.  There's probably a better solution to get a fold down seat- you'd probably want that pin in shear though.

Someone else had one that they had done differently that I came across I think on the forums here but I can't remember where it was.

[Andy95W]

11 hours ago, bradp said:

I'm not sure I like Brian's mod- if you have anything in the baggage area with mass and you say, have a frontal impact, those cotter pins in shear will likely not hold nearly as well as a 1/4 in bolt in tension.  There's probably a better solution to get a fold down seat- you'd probably want that pin in shear though.

I agree with Brad.  It's a really interesting mod, but there were things I thought could be better.  Besides the point noted above, I also didn't like that the seat top prevents the pilot's seat from sliding all the way back, and I didn't want to mash my new interior.

The biggest issue I have with seat back removal is the difficulty of assembly with nuts/bolts/washers.  My solution was to install nutplates for the seat back.  At least now, to remove the seat back I just pull 4 bolts.

[Shadrach]

On 7/4/2018 at 2:38 AM, MyNameIsNobody said:

As U have described your mission the E is the faster plane and less money.  E wins.

The difference in speed between an E an and F is far less than the variations one might see between the same models. Sorry but 40lbs extra pounds of dry weight and 10” of fuselage just doesn't make that much of a difference. The MAPA numbers are below and they were all done on different days. The data are questioanable at best and yet still show almost no significant difference.  As far as block times go, you’ll hardly notice the differences between a C and an E much less an F and an E. What you get with an F is a plane that can actually seat 4 people reasonably with enough payload to go somewhere. If you don’t need the space and payload, their is no reason to get an F.  The idea that the climb and speed performance differences should be a consideration is a myth. Same day performance is near enough as makes no difference. 

Altitude	Ram Air	GPS Derived Cruise Speed KTAS
		M20E	M20F	M20C
10000	on	---	145.25	----
10000	off	145.5	144	139
7000	on	153.75	150.5	----
7000	off	149.5	147	143.5
4500	on	151.5	151.25	----
4500	off	149.25	148	146.75

 

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by Shadrach

[Andy95W]

And thanks to Ross' chart, I'm even more convinced that the M20C is the best of the bunch for kp$ (knots per $).

[gsxrpilot]

14 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Agreed.  

The trurh is we make the differences between any of the four cylinder M20 models out to be a much bigger deal than they are, including the J.  Piss on 20 extra horsepower.  You’ll have a hard time missing it.  And an extra 12 gallons of fuel and 10 inches cabin length only matter if your mission requires them.  

Pay a little more, get a little more.  It is literally as simple as that.  For most of us it really doesn’t make much difference.

Yep. The enjoyment from having a fully functional panel, autopilot, engine monitor, etc. will more than outweigh the benefits of 20 hp, 10", or 12 gal.

I wanted an E really bad. But buying a C with a 530W, Stec30/altitude, etc. was a much better decision than an E with Narcos, no GPS, and a Brittain or PC wing leveler. I never once regretted that decision.

[Shadrach]

10 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Agreed.  

The trurh is we make the differences between any of the four cylinder M20 models out to be a much bigger deal than they are, including the J.  Piss on 20 extra horsepower.  You’ll have a hard time missing it.  And an extra 12 gallons of fuel and 10 inches cabin length only matter if your mission requires them.  

Pay a little more, get a little more.  It is literally as simple as that.  For most of us it really doesn’t make much difference.

Jim

 

True enough. The one area that I think the injected angle valve wins is cylinder head temps and high altitude power. I  much prefer the injected engine above 10,000ft. The higher compression ratio and even fuel distribution make for an engine that makes power better in thin air. 15hp may not seem like much, but it makes a significant difference in climb above 10K.

Edited July 16, 2018 by Shadrach

[MBDiagMan]

Jpflysdfw,

I hangar in Mount Pleasant.  I am in the process of buying a beautifully restored F from Don Maxwell in Longview.  My  C is there now for swapping avionics between my C and the F.  Once they complete that process I will take delivery.  It will probably be several weeks since Oshkosh fell in the middle of the project.  After I take delivery I will be happy to give you a ride.

I will attach pictures of both my C which will be for sale and the F.  I injured my shoulder and can no longer manage the Johnson bar in the C.  It is a super nice plane, but the injury forces me to move on.  I am replacing the C with an even nicer F with all the J modifications.

[carusoam]

MBD,

Do tell... Has the F received a name yet?

Looking forward to see how this one gets a name...

Best regards,

-a-

[MBDiagMan]

No name yet.  The C was named after my Mom And my wife’s late Moms name, Joyce.  We are still working on a name for the F.

i am looking forward to taking the OP flying, but I am surprised that another North Texan hasn’t chimed in.  That said, I don’t know that many in the immediate DFW area.

Edited July 16, 2018 by MBDiagMan

[Jpflysdfw]

16 hours ago, MBDiagMan said:

i am looking forward to taking the OP flying, but I am surprised that another North Texan hasn’t chimed in.  That said, I don’t know that many in the immediate DFW area.

@MBDiagMan Thanks for the very generous offer and if we can make it work, I’ll sure take you up on it!  Now, having two Mooney....is that even allowed?  The burden you have to bear!  Seriously, congratulation on your F.  I recall it having  a modern GPS and a JPI as primary.  What are you swapping out of the C?  Btw, that’s a nice looking C model.