which model is the best F,J,K or M

[PT20J]

On 1/3/2019 at 11:07 AM, Shadrach said:

@Antares The rudder/aileron interconnect would not counteract the tendency for the rearward yawing wing to drop, it would exacerbate it.  A Left rudder input pulls nose left/pushes tail right. This means a decrease in relative airflow over the left wing and an increase over the right wing. Left wing drops, right wing rises.   Some rudimentary RC aircraft only have rudder control and do not have ailerons. They roll in a turn just like any other aircraft except that you can tell that yaw is the initial input.

The Mooney has some interesting design aspects to the aileron/rudder control system. The ailerons are relatively wide cord and short span and the aileron control system doesn't have a lot of mechanical advantage. This could lead to two undesirable characteristics: high control forces and too much adverse yaw. The first is mitigated by the beveled trailing edges on the ailerons which is a neat aerodynamic trick to reduce the hinge moment. The adverse yaw is mitigated by the rudder/aileron interconnect springs: Left rudder will induce a slight left roll and vice versa.

The interconnect also increases the dihedral effect which improves lateral stability and reduces the tendency for spiral divergence. Many years ago I performed the following experiment in a 1978 M20J: Set up at 5000' on a calm day, trimmed clean at 90 KIAS. Hands off pressed slight rudder to initiate a bank. Nose dropped, airspeed increased, bank increased, airplane descended. As airspeed increased, nose rose and airspeed decreased. The airplane completed two to three (don't remember exactly) cycles of this phugoid oscillation and settled into a stable 45-deg banked descending turn at a constant airspeed. It did not end up in the ever tightening, airspeed increasing, descent rate increasing graveyard spiral. I haven't tried this with my '94 J, but would expect the same results. 

Skip

[Shadrach]

9 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

Pretty happy with my K today. We drew a straight line from Durango to Austin, never mind the mountains. 4 hours flat, 46 gal. We might or might not have been hauling a full "F" load as well 

What’s an F load in a K? I think my full fuel (64g) payload is higher than the useful load ofmost Ks?

[gsxrpilot]

No, @Shadrach knows what I'm talking about. 252K's converted to Encore's will carry a bit more weight. I've heard rumors of 252's masquerading as Encores for UL purposes. I'll just say we were heavy and carrying max fuel on the departure out of Durango. The 252 didn't seem to notice it as it climbed very quickly in the cold air to cruising altitude high enough to go direct and disregard the mountains.

[johncuyle]

6 hours ago, Shadrach said:

What’s an F load in a K? I think my full fuel (64g) payload is higher than the useful load ofmost Ks?

I've never seen a Mooney with a 1300 pound UL.

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, johncuyle said:

I've never seen a Mooney with a 1300 pound UL.

http://www.audriesaircraftanalysis.com/mooney-m22-mustang-pressurized/

 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, johncuyle said:

I've never seen a Mooney with a 1300 pound UL.

You’re right. My F is 240 short of 1300lbs. My reference to “Most Ks” was a good natured jab at Paul’s plane, which is far nicer than mine, but carries significantly less.

[M016576]

5 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

To continue Paul’s Encore gross weight analogy, what would your F’s useful load be if you used the late J model’s 2900 pound gross weight, Ross?  

Just sayin’ ...

Jim

 

 

Or a missile’s 3200 max gross.... 

[Shadrach]

5 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

To continue Paul’s Encore gross weight analogy, what would your F’s useful load be if you used the late J model’s 2900 pound gross weight, Ross?  

Just sayin’ ...

Jim

 

 

1219lbs to be exact. A fuel fuel payload of 835lbs.  It would be a genuine 4 place aircraft with a 900nm range with ample reserves.

[Shadrach]

4 minutes ago, M016576 said:

Or a missile’s 3200 max gross.... 

I think it would fly fine at that weight Nov-March. August temps where I live would not be fun.

[KLRDMD]

5 hours ago, Shadrach said:

1219lbs to be exact. A fuel fuel payload of 835lbs.  It would be a genuine 4 place aircraft with a 900nm range with ample reserves.

That's called a Bonanza 

[Shadrach]

50 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

That's called a Bonanza 

I wouldn’t want to sit in a M20F or an A36 for 900nm non-stop. If I ever upgrade, it’ll likely be to a pressurized oil burner.

Edited January 7, 2019 by Shadrach

[ArtVandelay]

1219lbs to be exact. A fuel fuel payload of 835lbs.  It would be a genuine 4 place aircraft with a 900nm range with ample reserves.

Where did the Js extra empty weight come from ? They added 50lbs somewhere.


Tom

[FloridaMan]

3 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

Where did the Js extra empty weight come from ? They added 50lbs somewhere.


Tom

My thoughts too. @cujet and I had a discussion about the UL of the 2900# J. I remember he made a comment about "yeah, it's exactly the same, except they may have added or used a different type of rivet that increased the strength of the airframe". 

[smccray]

11 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I wouldn’t want to sit in a M20F or an A36 for 900nm non-stop. If I ever upgrade, it’ll likely be to a pressurized oil burner.

My A36 is more comfortable on long flights than my J was.  We did NJ to Dallas with one very quick stop in TN then back in the plane to Dallas.  6.5 hrs flight time, 180 knots ground speed the whole way.  When we landed I wasn't stiff at all.  From my experience with my Mooney I was expecting to be a little more uncomfortable, but getting out of the plane was really no big deal.  Has a cost though- fuel burn is higher in the Bo.

The seating position is just different.  Ultimately the preference between planes is just personal preference.  Me?  I would hesitate to make a 900 mi trip in the Mooney.  In the Bo I would make that flight.  5 hrs is a long time to sit in any airplane, but there is a difference.

[DonMuncy]

49 minutes ago, smccray said:

My A36 is more comfortable on long flights than my J was.  We did NJ to Dallas with one very quick stop in TN then back in the plane to Dallas.  6.5 hrs flight time, 180 knots ground speed the whole way.  When we landed I wasn't stiff at all.  From my experience with my Mooney I was expecting to be a little more uncomfortable, but getting out of the plane was really no big deal.  Has a cost though- fuel burn is higher in the Bo.

The seating position is just different.  Ultimately the preference between planes is just personal preference.  Me?  I would hesitate to make a 900 mi trip in the Mooney.  In the Bo I would make that flight.  5 hrs is a long time to sit in any airplane, but there is a difference.

Get out the pitchforks and torches.  

[smccray]

2 minutes ago, DonMuncy said:

Get out the pitchforks and torches.  

I'm expecting it :).  

[Oldguy]

1 hour ago, FloridaMan said:

My thoughts too. @cujet and I had a discussion about the UL of the 2900# J. I remember he made a comment about "yeah, it's exactly the same, except they may have added or used a different type of rivet that increased the strength of the airframe". 

I have done some research on this, and the only change I can find is there was a single piece of the tubular steel frame where a thicker piece was used starting at the same time the weight was increased.

The update kit was available starting with SN 1686 and included a new airspeed indicator, POH updates, and a retrofit drawing. Requirements were to check the rudder balance to insure it was within the limits set in SB 20-252.

[KLRDMD]

1 hour ago, smccray said:

My A36 is more comfortable on long flights than my J was.  We did NJ to Dallas with one very quick stop in TN then back in the plane to Dallas.  6.5 hrs flight time, 180 knots ground speed the whole way.  When we landed I wasn't stiff at all.  From my experience with my Mooney I was expecting to be a little more uncomfortable, but getting out of the plane was really no big deal.  Has a cost though- fuel burn is higher in the Bo. The seating position is just different.  Ultimately the preference between planes is just personal preference.  Me?  I would hesitate to make a 900 mi trip in the Mooney.  In the Bo I would make that flight.  5 hrs is a long time to sit in any airplane, but there is a difference.

Saturday I did a flight review for a guy in a 1970 Bonanza V35. I got out of that airplane, did the flight review paperwork and immediately got into a 1999 Mooney Ovation to do a flight review for him. I gotta tell ya, the Bonanza was more comfortable and with 1000% better visibility. I felt like I was in a bunker in the Mooney with very little visibility coming right out of the Bonanza. I've been a Mooney guy for decades and have little Bonanza time but that was a dramatic difference. They're within 5HP of one another (IO-520 at 285 HP in the Bonanza and IO-550 at 280 HP in this Ovation) so fuel burn will be essentially identical. The Mooney may be a couple of knots faster in cruise but the Bonanza has about 200 lb more useful load and got off the runway in a noticeably shorter distance than the Mooney.

Gotta look into this Bonanza thing. I have a bunch of Baron time but not much Bonanza time.

[Shadrach]

13 hours ago, smccray said:

My A36 is more comfortable on long flights than my J was.  We did NJ to Dallas with one very quick stop in TN then back in the plane to Dallas.  6.5 hrs flight time, 180 knots ground speed the whole way.  When we landed I wasn't stiff at all.  From my experience with my Mooney I was expecting to be a little more uncomfortable, but getting out of the plane was really no big deal.  Has a cost though- fuel burn is higher in the Bo.

The seating position is just different.  Ultimately the preference between planes is just personal preference.  Me?  I would hesitate to make a 900 mi trip in the Mooney.  In the Bo I would make that flight.  5 hrs is a long time to sit in any airplane, but there is a difference.

Comfort is subjective. I don't find either plane uncomfortable. I simply don't care to sit in any airplane more than about 4 hours, especially a GA single.  My A36 experience is limited to the right seat, but I did do two cross countries in it.  It was 160+kt airplane on about 15gph as the owner ran it.  It was faster than my F over the 420NM trip that I made in it (twice), but not by an appreciable margin (you'd not know the difference unless you were doing the math).  I am sure folks can do better than that with more thoughtful leaning.  I did like the fact that it swallowed my mountain bike and luggage for the three folks on board with no trouble (something no Mooney will do). Delight to fly 

Edited January 8, 2019 by Shadrach

[KLRDMD]

7 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

My A36 experience is limited to the right seat, but I did do two cross countries in it.  It was 160+kt airplane on about 15gph as the owner ran it.  It was faster than my F over the 420NM trip that I made in it (twice), but not by an appreciable margin (you'd not know the difference unless you were doing the math).  I am sure folks can do better than that with more thoughtful leaning. 

A better comparison to a Mooney in the Bonanza line is the 33 and 35 series, not the 36. I'm told an S35/V35 will do 175 KTAS on 13 GPH with 1,200 lb useful load but I have not verified that.

[Shadrach]

23 hours ago, FloridaMan said:

My thoughts too. @cujet and I had a discussion about the UL of the 2900# J. I remember he made a comment about "yeah, it's exactly the same, except they may have added or used a different type of rivet that increased the strength of the airframe". 

I've heard that as well.  The other thing is, the TCDS was approved under CAR so if used as an air taxi in AK, it would technically be possible to get an F model approved for a MGW of 3151lbs. (1.15*2740). 

Edited January 8, 2019 by Shadrach

[Marauder]

Get out the pitchforks and torches.  

I thought we are a civilized forum and resort to shunning in cases like these.



Besides, Scott never really looked like the rest of us.



Last Mooney Fly-In




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Marauder]

My thoughts too. [mention=8837]cujet[/mention] and I had a discussion about the UL of the 2900# J. I remember he made a comment about "yeah, it's exactly the same, except they may have added or used a different type of rivet that increased the strength of the airframe". 

I seem to recall a change in the landing gear trusses.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[smccray]

44 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Comfort is subjective. I don't find either plane uncomfortable. I simply don't care to sit in any airplane more than about 4 hours, especially a GA single.  My A36 experience is limited to the right seat, but I did do two cross countries in it.  It was 160+kt airplane on about 15gph as the owner ran it.  It was faster than my F over the 420NM trip that I made in it (twice), but not by an appreciable margin (you'd not know the difference unless you were doing the math).  I am sure folks can do better than that with more thoughtful leaning.  I did like the fact that it swallowed my mountain bike and luggage for the three folks on board with no trouble (something no Mooney will do). Delight to fly 

My goal was 3 hours Dallas to Denver for family of 4 with bags.  The A36 was as close as I could get without stepping up to something pressurized with a lot higher operating cost.  My bird has an aftermarket turbo system which makes it a little faster.  It's not about block times, it's about how far I can go in 3 hours.  My wife and 2 daughters, time will be the limit, not a slight difference in block times which I agree isn't huge.  The other big deal for me with higher horsepower is availability of Air Conditioning.  I'll use that 9 months a year down here in TX- and the factory system works adequately for me in August.

Fuel burn is painful coming from the land of Mooney.  35 GPH off the runway, 16 GPH in cruise.  Speed and comfort isn't free unfortunately.  No one does economical speed better than Mooney.  We'll see if Pipistrel gets the Pantera certified...

38 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

A better comparison to a Mooney in the Bonanza line is the 33 and 35 series, not the 36. I'm told an S35/V35 will do 175 KTAS on 13 GPH with 1,200 lb useful load but I have not verified that.

I'm aware of that as well.  4 seat Bonanza is a reasonable comparison to the long body Mooney.  I'm somewhat limited in my knowledge, but talking to a few owners, the full useful load tends to be a challenge to use due to rear CG.  The A36 has more flexibility due to the changes in the airframe design, but adding the turbo system adds a bunch of weight to the engine compartment.  2 adults up front with minimal bags leads to the plane being out of CG forward.  It's not as simple as CG in a Mooney.

16 minutes ago, Marauder said:

Besides, Scott never really looked like the rest of us.



 

 

[Shadrach]

11 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

A better comparison to a Mooney in the Bonanza line is the 33 and 35 series, not the 36. I'm told an S35/V35 will do 175 KTAS on 13 GPH with 1,200 lb useful load but I have not verified that.

Really?  I heard it was more like 185-190kts on about 11.2gph and a useful of 1300lbs.  As far as I know, Beechcraft only continues to make the A36 because of the high demand for slower and less efficient airplanes.  The theory taken to its end suggests that Beech products tend to attract the sort of egalitarian consumer that wants a fine airplane, but doesn't want to out do the competition by too much. I have to say that my experience with most Beech owners matches this stereotype - humble, meek and self aware souls rarely given to boastfulness or arrogance. In a perfect world, everyone would fly a Beech...

Edited January 8, 2019 by Shadrach