rbridges Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 22 minutes ago, jaylw314 said: I mentioned this in another thread, but I think it's a structural limitation for the floor. In the construction manual for the RV-10, for example, they make a specific point in dictating the maximum allowed weight in the baggage area is 150 lbs, and this is obviously before any individual RV-10 is balanced and weighed. I suspect all Mooney's have identical construction of the baggage area rearwards There was one test flight with a full grown adult in the baggage compartment, and it didn't go well. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, flight2000 said: Dan, I love Mooney's, but respectfully disagree with your last comment. The useful load on Mooney's isn't that great. I'd call it average at best. The reported numbers from owners shows a sample that ranges from 850-1050 for all models. There were some outliers though that had a few more (or less) pounds available. I would not put load carrying into the strong attribute category for any Mooney. When I showed up at RDU to fly hurricane relief supplies to the NC coast, I had flown 3 hours to get there, then another 20 minutes vectoring around at 7500 msl before being turned in to land from 14 nm out. Solo with remaining fuel, I listed my cargo capacity when I signed in as 650 lb. [970 - 200 - 120 remaining fuel). I stuffed the baggage and back seat to the ceiling with a little over 400 lb of stuff and flew an hour out; added 5 gal for safety and came back to refill fuel and cargo. Only took 42 gal, so I landed with 10 gallons, enough for an hour plus. The only planes of the 40-some signed in before me that listed much over 350 lb. cargo capacity were all twins. It's all about how you manage your load: people, baggage and fuel. Don't think there's a GA piston plane that can fill all three and be legal. P.S.--the above-mentioned 5-person C model did fly. Not sure how much weight and balance issues contributed to the accident versus the impaired condition of the pilot [if memory served correctly, none of the five were sober . . . . ]. Edited January 30, 2019 by Hank 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flight2000 Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 20 minutes ago, Danb said: As cujet mentioned it’s kinda a trade off a Lancair with 300+hp Will barrel through the sky approaching 300 knots. Brian mentioned useful load it’s all dependent on the mission, mine is fulfilled with the long body, I don’t plan on going on Beech talk, Cirrus world or other sites to outline the virtues of Mooney’s nor the other sites. It rankles me to no end other types of ships coming onto our sight outlining the excellence of there planes, even when true.Theres no doubt every plane has shortcomings and qualities, if they meet your need and mission they’ve accomplished their intended goal. I agree, but someone has to keep the balance somehow when it goes sideways.... BeechTalk has it's share of Mooney, Cessna, and even Cirrus (gawd help us) owners/drivers. I do spend time defending Mooney against bad or just down right misinformation being given as fact over there (especially when it comes from someone with zero Mooney experience ). However, there is a ton of great information you can pick-up from any board which is why I'm still here... Cheers, Brian 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIm20c Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 12 hours ago, Andy95W said: It's mostly the HP, but at the higher speeds the aerodynamic improvements kick in. A few years ago (probably 5) I flew my M20C side-by-side with a friend who owned an Ovation3. I did a write up back then but can't find it now. The interesting thing about it was not the speed, which of course the O3 won, but the fuel flows. As I recall, when we were both at 12 gal per hour, the Ovation was faster. At 10 gph, about the same; at 8gph, my C was faster. And then my friend threw the coals to his Ovation and left me like I was standing still! This is exactly my experience. The strange thing is when I push my C hard it feels like I’m really moving. The same speed in the O feels like I’m an old man driving to the grocery store. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danb Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 Hank I did a few missions carrying 500 lbs, obviously most within the confines of the back seat area Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 4 minutes ago, Danb said: Hank I did a few missions carrying 500 lbs, obviously most within the confines of the back seat area But Dan, you're another load-limited Mooney. Don't recall seeing any single pistons signed up for more weight than you and I did. Where were the true GA haulers???? WHO are the true GA haulers??? Seems to me that it was our small, cramped, load-limited Mooneys . . . . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmyfm20s Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 6 hours ago, gsengle said: Um that’s not how it works... same displacement. Same service ceiling. All ya have is higher rpm available. Which you don’t use in cruise. No turbo. I cruise up high at 2300rpm not 2700. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk When I’m up high between 14-18k I use higher RPM between 2550-2650. It’s the only way to get power out of a NA plane. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsengle Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 When I’m up high between 14-18k I use higher RPM between 2550-2650. It’s the only way to get power out of a NA plane. And I can use 2500 but I prefer not to. It’s not a big difference for cruise at all...As to useful load, so many ignore that fuel efficiency = fuel not required to be carried = useful load.Also, how much you can carry with full fuel is meaningless. I’d like all planes to be able to carry their useful load in fuel, minus say 180lbs. Then you pick how to use your load - range or payload...Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niko182 Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 Useful load doesn't seem to be to big of an issue. you just got to find the right plane for your mission. I can take 4 170lb people, 70 lbs of baggage, fly 700 miles, and still have VFR reserves. having a 1140lb useful load helps. I believe @kmyfm20s has the same deal. he has Air conditioning, but still has a 1090 pound useful load. some people don't need the useful load, and can live with a plane that has an 850 pound useful load. some people can't. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danb Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 Good point I have useful load of 1040. I generally only travel with my wife on trips, I have long range tanks, me my wife luggage, 100 gal of 100LL, gives me approx 1000 mile range without cutting down on fuel per hour generally at 190-200 knots at 10-13000 ft. I wear O2 she doesn't, very difficult to beat. I could got west to east back off I've done 1400 miles non-stop hard to beat. Check with 201er he goes 10+ hours nonstop. All with only 120 lbs in the luggage area Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsxrpilot Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 When we travel in our 252, the rear seats come out (26 lbs total) leaving a continuous flat carpeted floor from the baggage area up to the back of the front seats. We just pile the luggage in and leave enough room for our 50 lb dog to be comfortable. We have standard 76 gal fuel capacity. For our mission, it's the perfect airplane. It goes further than we'd really want to go without stopping, (6.5 hours @ 160 down low or 190 up high). It hauls enough for two adults and a dog. And it still looks sexy as hell on the ramp and in the air. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyboy0681 Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 5 hours ago, gsxrpilot said: When we travel in our 252, the rear seats come out (26 lbs total) leaving a continuous flat carpeted floor from the baggage area up to the back of the front seats. We just pile the luggage in and leave enough room for our 50 lb dog to be comfortable. I don't think a lot of owners realize just how much room there is in the back with the rear seats out on the medium bodies. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 6 hours ago, gsxrpilot said: When we travel in our 252, the rear seats come out (26 lbs total) leaving a continuous flat carpeted floor from the baggage area up to the back of the front seats. We just pile the luggage in and leave enough room for our 50 lb dog to be comfortable. We have standard 76 gal fuel capacity. For our mission, it's the perfect airplane. It goes further than we'd really want to go without stopping, (6.5 hours @ 160 down low or 190 up high). It hauls enough for two adults and a dog. And it still looks sexy as hell on the ramp and in the air. I mostly leave one of my rear seats out pretty much all the time since it is extra ordinarily rare when I need two. Plus I have a more fuel efficient and better for W&B smaller 14lb dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenL757 Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 15 hours ago, gsengle said: In cruise remember you’re not using any of the extra 30hp of the 310hp ovations. That’s reserved for takeoff and climb. I have a 280hp ovation with the new prop. It’s an O1. The 310 hp upgrade wouldn’t make me any faster... Yea, actually it would, as you would be at 2550RPM in cruise with the 310 upgrade. Changing your prop out (again) with the 7498 will add an additional few knots as well. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McMooney Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 hmm, can I remove the seats in my 74e? I've NEVER used them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niko182 Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 Ive always been curious what a ovation with practically every every available speed mod would cruise at. That includes no ac or tks. Acclaim prop, eis system, 310hp system would cruise at. I would guess around 190 to 192 on 16 gallons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niko182 Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 1 minute ago, McMooney said: hmm, can I remove the seats in my 74e? I've NEVER used them. Yes but you actually need to screw them out. I think somewhere around the mid 80s to mid 90s mooney switched the seat design to individual seats. So the new ones either fold flat or slide out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsengle Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 Yea, actually it would, as you would be at 2550RPM in cruise with the 310 upgrade. Changing your prop out (again) with the 7498 will add an additional few knots as well. Not much extra at 20”mpSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 The Long bodies got a few doses of clean up beyond what the Js got... every ounce counts... 310 HP and the ability to turn 2700 rpm gets you the extra speed... Burning all the fuel required to go 190kts with the extra sound and vibration is a blast! for a few minutes... The coolest planes would have to be the Screamin’ Eagle for speed and UL... The most enjoyable ride would be the Standing O for speed and comfort... and UL over 1kLb... The 310hp and TopProp are about speed too. How fast you get off the ground is important. How fast you climb to your cruise level is important... The Ultras at KOSH also had a fair amount of additional smoothing and fairing done... they needed to be smooth where the composite panels were integrated... so why not smooth the whole thing....? No, I don’t cruise at max speed... efficiency is too important for me... FT and 2550rpm is my favorite spot to be... LOP, of course... Knowing your WnB intimately is pretty nice. Strapping things down in the baggage area is important. Especially when you fold the back seats down for maximum carrying capacity... Also know... many things get installed in the back... O2, TKS, AC, and Charlie weights... get the good stuff, Skip the Charlie weights... Best regards, -a- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenL757 Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 10 minutes ago, gsengle said: Not much extra at 20”mp If you have more than 20” available at the altitudes at which you’re operating, you should be increasing to 23”, unless altitude drops you below 23...at which time you should be wide-open throttle. You should also be at 2500rpm in cruise (in a 280hp Ovation) or 2550rpm (in the 310hp airplane). Per Bob Minnis, ROP or LOP, these settings have proven to be the best combinations that not only treat the engine well, but also give the best performance. Operating anything less than wide-open-throttle when MAP drops below 23” due to altitude doesn’t allow the engine to take advantage of available power. Partial-throttle operations also compromise efficiency in tuned-induction engine systems such as ours. Food for thought. :-) 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenL757 Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 4 minutes ago, StevenL757 said: Operating anything less than wide-open-throttle when MAP drops below 23” due to altitude doesn’t allow the engine to take advantage of available power. Partial-throttle operations also compromise efficiency in tuned-induction engine systems such as ours. Forgot to give credit to Bob Kromer - former Mooney test pilot - for this specific information, per a Mooney Summit presentation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 Bob Kromer’s writing allowed me to buy a Mooney M20C... MAPA log... A conversation with Bob Minnis allowed me to buy a 310hp and TopProp combination... Bob knows his stuff and gives a great presentation of details... it was a challenge to write fast enough. Sometimes it is great to hear it from the source. Both of these fine gentlemen are a blast to listen to if you get the chance... they have the credentials. Best regards, -a- 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsengle Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 If you have more than 20” available at the altitudes at which you’re operating, you should be increasing to 23”, unless altitude drops you below 23...at which time you should be wide-open throttle. You should also be at 2500rpm in cruise (in a 280hp Ovation) or 2550rpm (in the 310hp airplane). Per Bob Minnis, ROP or LOP, these settings have proven to be the best combinations that not only treat the engine well, but also give the best performance. Operating anything less than wide-open-throttle when MAP drops below 23” due to altitude doesn’t allow the engine to take advantage of available power. Partial-throttle operations also compromise efficiency in tuned-induction engine systems such as ours. Food for thought. :-) That’s my whole point that the difference between a 280 max hp ovation and a 310 max Hp ovation, especially with the same prop, is negligible up at altitude where wot only gets you say 20”Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niko182 Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 16 minutes ago, gsengle said: That’s my whole point that the difference between a 280 max hp ovation and a 310 max Hp ovation, especially with the same prop, is negligible up at altitude where wot only gets you say 20” Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk its a bit faster at altitude, as in maybe a knot or 2, but it does help a lot for the takeoff and climb. It might not be worth it for the regular ovations, but on the eagle it makes it a whole new aircraft. If i had to do it again I'd do it in a heartbeat. Makes the aircraft way more capable, compared to the eagle. I don't know the difference in feel between the 280 and 310hp engine. I do know the difference between the 244 and 310hp, and it it gigantic.@gsengle I think you also need a knew Profile Pic. that McCauley is nothing compared to the Hartzell, appearance wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsengle Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 its a bit faster at altitude, as in maybe a knot or 2, but it does help a lot for the takeoff and climb. It might not be worth it for the regular ovations, but on the eagle it makes it a whole new aircraft. If i had to do it again I'd do it in a heartbeat. Makes the aircraft way more capable, compared to the eagle. I don't know the difference in feel between the 280 and 310hp engine. I do know the difference between the 244 and 310hp, and it it gigantic. Yes that’s huge. But my reasoning for not converting my O1 even when getting the new prop, is that what’s the point of being able to climb out of airports I’d not want to land at they are so short! I like that the de-rating might be part of the reason my engine is past tbo and still going strong... and it would impact my operations at cruise or even cruise climb not one bit...Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.