Jump to content

Trade offs between an F and J model


christothes

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Marauder said:

 

 


I’ll translate it differently. If I didn’t own my planes for the 28 years I have owned her, I would have been able to retire 3 years ago.

Instead, I get to hang out with you fine folks. Which has been priceless. emoji16.png


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

 

Understood!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh the retirement thingy, once retired or semiretired like me, I’m retired from May to December now which equates  to my flying season. If I didn’t fly or not play golf for broken body reasons, I could camp out in Pike Creek counting my money or keep flying on multiple vacations or outings yearly, just like my buddy Bobby with his bad ass super 21. Like Anthony stated it’s just a stroke of a pen. Just keeping fit medically is the main goal. I have about 125-150 hours planned for the approaching flying season

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marauder said:

 

 


I’ll translate it differently. If I didn’t own my planes for the 28 years I have owned her, I would have been able to retire 3 years ago.

Instead, I get to hang out with you fine folks. Which has been priceless. emoji16.png


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

 

Just think of all the hot chicks you have met because of the Mooney....

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Why would hydraulic flaps have more spar cracks than electric? The flaps and attach points are the same for either hydraulic or Electric.   The Fle increase came with S/N 680001 in 1968.  I am pretty sure the flaps were still manual until early 1970. Do the cracks occur at the actuator?  My stub spar is crack free, but it's only a 3100 hr airframe.

I don't know all the details but the service bulletin issued in 1979 specifies, "Aircraft equipped with manual or hydraulically actuated flaps with over 500 hours time in service."  You can read the whole SB here:  https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/4147179/technical_documents/service_bulletins/sbm20-217.pdf

I have not heard of any Mooneys with electric flaps having a similar problem.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, to make it clear, I don't log aircraft expenses in any one place but to compare my experience over 7 years to Marauder's summary on the back of an envelope:

  • Hangar $3000
  • Fuel       $3400 (75 hours @ 9 gph @ $5.04)
  • Garmin $1000
  • Insurance $1100
  • Annual  $500
  • Maintenance $500

Sub total - "operating cost" $9500 ~$125/hour.

  • Engine depreciation $1125 (using Chris' number, same engine $30k/2000 hours)
  • New avionics, paint, bladders, PFS, SabreCowl... $10,000 average annually and no sign of changing
  • Mooney activities this year - PPP, Sun 'n Fun, MooneyMax, Caravan/AirVenture, Mooney Summit, AOPA fly in... $10,000 for registrations, motels, cars,...? 
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Your individual problem with your hydraulic flaps does not make them complicated. 

Compared to an electric motor, yes, they're more complicated. Any time you're pumping hydraulic fluid around and have o-rings that simply dry out over time, etc., you have a relatively complicated system that can (and in my experience will) fail. Electric flap systems can of course fail, too, but I'd bet dollars to donuts it's less frequent / likely.

Consider, Mooney only used the hydraulic flaps on a handful of their earliest models (M20C-M20G), and ditched them entirely in 1969, about 7 years after introducing them. All electric ever since, like most planes (Cirrus, Cessna, Beechcraft...)

Also, I'm not dealing with it anymore. My mechanic fixed the system (after the flaps failed - retracting by themselves on short final to a mountaintop runway), and it worked well enough thereafter. But my current Mooney has modern electric flaps, with the higher Vle speed.

I helped a friend pick up his '67 M20F from LASAR last weekend, and IIRC LASAR had (during its annual) rebuilt the hydraulic flap system... FWIW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I am pretty sure the flaps were still manual until early 1970

Mooney discontinued manual flaps after the M20B model (1962).

Hydraulic flaps survived until 1968. The 1969 models on are electric. (I have serial number 690039, built in March of 1969, and it's electric.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mooniac15u said:

I'm not sure where you got the impression that an E with "just a bit of help" will outrun a J "handily." 

Data point, my all-stock (windshield, cowling, etc) 1966 M20E with a ~400 hour engine and ~200 hour 2 blade non-scimitar prop was a 152 ktas machine around 9,500'. The Js I've flown / been in have been 157-160 ktas machines at about the same altitude. Modify the E with the 201 cowling, windshield, single-piece belly, etc., and it's conceivable it could be a 160 ktas airplane. I don't know about beating a J "handily," but I suspect there are Es that could edge most stock Js - same basic powerplant (200HP IO-360), lighter and smaller airframe. Bump the E with better breathing, electronic ignition, and maybe a Powerflow (don't know how much of a boost the PF exhaust gives the IO-360 as installed by Mooney, but I've seen some decent gains on O-320s - like, 15% HP bump at 2700 rpm, dyno measured)... But you're pouring a lot of money into a less capable airframe (smaller tanks, non-usable for adult humans back seat, lower usable load) to get roughly comparable speeds. Would be a blast to fly, though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, chrixxer said:

Data point, my all-stock (windshield, cowling, etc) 1966 M20E with a ~400 hour engine and ~200 hour 2 blade non-scimitar prop was a 152 ktas machine around 9,500'. The Js I've flown / been in have been 157-160 ktas machines at about the same altitude. Modify the E with the 201 cowling, windshield, single-piece belly, etc., and it's conceivable it could be a 160 ktas airplane. I don't know about beating a J "handily," but I suspect there are Es that could edge most stock Js - same basic powerplant (200HP IO-360), lighter and smaller airframe. Bump the E with better breathing, electronic ignition, and maybe a Powerflow (don't know how much of a boost the PF exhaust gives the IO-360 as installed by Mooney, but I've seen some decent gains on O-320s - like, 15% HP bump at 2700 rpm, dyno measured)... But you're pouring a lot of money into a less capable airframe (smaller tanks, non-usable for adult humans back seat, lower usable load) to get roughly comparable speeds. Would be a blast to fly, though!

I guess I have such an E, including SabreCowl, PFS, 1-piece belly, Scimitar prop, 201 mods including w'shield. I agree it ought to be a 160 ktas (@ 75% best power) but at the moment it's about 5 knots short of that. The airframe under the pretty paint is 54 years old with some twists and sags that are probably a factor (Lynn wants to replace the right flap that has a 2 degree twist).

J's do have inner gear doors... I don't know what that's worth speed-wise. EI is in the near terms plans when SureFly is approved for variable timing. Of course this is all Mooney speed disease... I fly 65% or less, full throttle, 2350 rpm, 8.5 gph at about 145 ktas. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, chrixxer said:

Mooney discontinued manual flaps after the M20B model (1962).

Hydraulic flaps survived until 1968. The 1969 models on are electric. (I have serial number 690039, built in March of 1969, and it's electric.)

It believe electric gear and flaps was an option before it was standard which I believe happened in 1970.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shadrach said:

It believe electric gear and flaps was an option before it was standard which I believe happened in 1970.

Electric gear was optional starting in 1965. Electric flaps were never (AFAIK) an option; electric gear Mooneys still had hydraulic flaps, until the standard equipment changed. Which was 1969. http://www.mooneyevents.com/chrono.htm (and my owner's manual, which doesn't discuss hydraulic flaps at all - cf. the 1966 M20E owner's manual that described both the manual, and optional electric, landing gear).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, chrixxer said:

Electric gear was optional starting in 1965. Electric flaps were never (AFAIK) an option; electric gear Mooneys still had hydraulic flaps, until the standard equipment changed. Which was 1969. http://www.mooneyevents.com/chrono.htm (and my owner's manual, which doesn't discuss hydraulic flaps at all - cf. the 1966 M20E owner's manual that described both the manual, and optional electric, landing gear).

We were both looking at the same Chrono but different aircraft. For whatever reason they list E gear and flaps for 1970 for the F model.  Perhaps it's a typo. It was all I had to go on given that all this occurred quite a few years before I was born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the service bulletin I mentioned earlier (SB M20-217) it says all hydraulic flap aircraft and it lists serial numbers. The highest serial numbers appear to be 1968 model year aircraft. I think it's safe to conclude that Mooney didn't think there were any hydraulic flaps after 1968. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, mooniac15u said:

I'm not sure where you got the impression that an E with "just a bit of help" will outrun a J "handily."  The E that I think you're talking about was an exceptional example and even at that I'm not sure he had an edge over most J's.  The data I heard on it was around 160 Kts groundspeed at 7500 ft with a slight tailwind while pushing the engine pretty hard.

Watched it happen.  A buddy's Echo, which had the LASAR cowl mod and nothing else, outran a 201.  Heck, even if only it just keep up, the E is going to be quite a bit less money than the J.  The 201's don't even outrun my C by that much, like I said difference in trip times can usually be counted in minutes.  Had I the choice, I know which I'd choose.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, steingar said:

Watched it happen.  A buddy's Echo, which had the LASAR cowl mod and nothing else, outran a 201.  Heck, even if only it just keep up, the E is going to be quite a bit less money than the J.  The 201's don't even outrun my C by that much, like I said difference in trip times can usually be counted in minutes.  Had I the choice, I know which I'd choose.

I assume you are talking about Joe's E.  That was an exceptional E and he ran the engine hard.  What were the power settings on the J at the time?  How was each loaded?

Either way, you're a scientist and I know that you know better than to use a sample of 1 to draw conclusions about an entire population.  There is a range of performance for the E's and a range for the J's.  There's definitely some overlap but in general if you buy an E expecting it to handily outrun most J's you might be disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mooniac15u said:

I assume you are talking about Joe's E.  That was an exceptional E and he ran the engine hard.  What were the power settings on the J at the time?  How was each loaded?

Either way, you're a scientist and I know that you know better than to use a sample of 1 to draw conclusions about an entire population.  There is a range of performance for the E's and a range for the J's.  There's definitely some overlap but in general if you buy an E expecting it to handily outrun most J's you might be disappointed.

You raise a good point, though it really doesn't matter.  Even if the J is faster than the E, it isn't by that much.  Again, trip times won't be all that different.  Trip times between your aircraft and mine won't be all that different really, unless we're going for max duration.  Were I choosing between them I'd have that in mind.

Biggest difference between the Echo and the 201 is you can actually put someone in the back of the 201, not something you can do in an E unless you yourself are vertically challenged like yours truly.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, steingar said:

You raise a good point, though it really doesn't matter.  Even if the J is faster than the E, it isn't by that much.  Again, trip times won't be all that different.  Trip times between your aircraft and mine won't be all that different really, unless we're going for max duration.  Were I choosing between them I'd have that in mind.

Biggest difference between the Echo and the 201 is you can actually put someone in the back of the 201, not something you can do in an E unless you yourself are vertically challenged like yours truly.  

Interestingly my wife's biggest complaint about the back seat of my M20D wasn't legroom.  It was the angle of the seat back.  In that plane the seat bottom and seat back formed an acute angle which she found uncomfortable. The J has a more comfortable obtuse seat angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

We as a community make a bigger deal out of the differences in performance between the four-cylinder Lycomimg powered M20 models than really exists.  The delta from absolute fastest to absolute slowest is only 20 knots and for the majority of the fleet it is more like 12. 

Bottom line is that after 3 hours, everyone wishes their airplane was faster.  It doesn't matter if it's 600 knots in an airliner or 100 knots in a C-152, you just want to get to where you're going.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, mooniac15u said:

Interestingly my wife's biggest complaint about the back seat of my M20D wasn't legroom.  It was the angle of the seat back.  In that plane the seat bottom and seat back formed an acute angle which she found uncomfortable. The J has a more comfortable obtuse seat angle.

Tell you what, put Mrs. Mooniac in the back seat of mine with you in the front seat.  Better yet, fly somewhere that way.  I promise you, after that she'll love the back seat in your aircraft.  That's assuming her legs are still attached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, steingar said:

Tell you what, put Mrs. Mooniac in the back seat of mine with you in the front seat.  Better yet, fly somewhere that way.  I promise you, after that she'll love the back seat in your aircraft.  That's assuming her legs are still attached.

She only sat behind me a couple times in my D.  She's only 5'4" so she made that work somehow.  She almost always gets the back seat now that the kids want to help with the flying and she seems pretty happy with the space and seat in the back of the J.  It's comfortable enough that she usually falls asleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny thing re: speed is that when you are already going 150-160kts, gaining even 20kts doesn't really change flight times dramatically for me--my average trip is 350nm or less.  This is why it's hard for me to pull the trigger on a faster Mooney or a twin.  Now if you are doing 50kts faster that's a different story, especially into a headwind.

I don't have any data points on J vs E,  but I can tell you I took off behind my nephew in a similarly loaded C and ran him down very quickly in the climb just a few minutes after departure, plus the 3rd passenger in my J was much happier.  Now arrival times at the destination?...he was only about 10 minutes behind me.

I'm probably the only one who loves electric gear and wouldn't want the Johnson bar.  After almost 10 years of ownership I don't get all of the "difficulty" and "expense" of owning electric gear-equipped Mooney.  I for one (and I'm obviously the minority here lol) love my electric gear and flaps.

Fire away!

KA

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too much is made of the 5" difference in floor length which is shared between front and rear seats. I'm confident that there's as much or more rear seat leg room behind me in my E than behind @Marauderin his F. (He's about 7" taller and no doubt sets his seat at least 5" further back.) Of course if there's no one behind me I can move the seat way back in cruise. So can an F driver but I doubt he wants to get further back that I am.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

Bottom line is that after 3 hours, everyone wishes their airplane was faster.  It doesn't matter if it's 600 knots in an airliner or 100 knots in a C-152, you just want to get to where you're going.

you nailed it for me.  Now, the ride and scenery are indeed nice, but an extra 25-50 knots on the ASI would be nice, too.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.