Useful load, how important is it to you?

[Bob - S50]

19 hours ago, airtim said:

 

Modified to me.

Priorities for (my) personal transport, not a work machine...

1) Efficiency, is the main reason I bought a Mooney

2) UL with two aboard..., this is every flight i did the math to make sure it worked

3) FIKI, to fly in new England regularly I think it is a must.

4) WAAS, done

5) Maintenance, down time and cost. Like many I asked my mechanic for advice and he said for what your doing a Lycoming powered Mooney is hard to beat, buy the newest one you can afford.

6)Safety, definitely important but it did not factor in my purchase because it seems the machine fails much less than the pilot.

7) Speed, the trip is only 120 miles as I learned first hand flying the Baron at 190 against the Mooney at 150 is on average is only 10 min longer. 

8) AC if i clean it up and loose a lot of weight i would consider having it

9)  UL with four aboard..., currently if there were 4 people one of them is 11 (80) and the other is 16 (110) and the wife (155) doable but not practicable

10) Fuel tank and bladder size matching can be important..., it will be rare (dare I say never) for me to need more that the stock.

11) O_2,  not necessary, I don't fly high enough regularly to need it. the rare times that I do I use a portable system

12) Fancy paint and interior... more important for a forever-plane... 

Looking at the TKS website, it appears that the TKS system for the J is NOT FIKI.  It is 'inadvertent'.  It appears that the FIKI system is only available on the 252 and later.  That means you could not legally take for a flight when you expect there to be ice along the route.  Just something to consider.

[Ibra]

42 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

Looking at the TKS website, it appears that the TKS system for the J is NOT FIKI

Yes, they are too efficient and underpowered to fly with any amount of dirt on the prop/wings, including trying to climb ice above 8k or when takeoff with mud from countryside grass  the 252 is better aircraft for installing FIKI when flying en-route in flight levels IMO...

M20J TKS only make sense when you get vectored all over the place near an airport on arrival but one is better off with prompt request to ATC or divert rather than taking his chances (even twinjets and turboprops hate this scenario)

[Tim Jodice]

1 hour ago, Bob - S50 said:

Looking at the TKS website, it appears that the TKS system for the J is NOT FIKI.  It is 'inadvertent'.  It appears that the FIKI system is only available on the 252 and later.  That means you could not legally take for a flight when you expect there to be ice along the route.  Just something to consider.

Agreed, however as an instructor demonstrated on paper and I have experienced first hand you don't know until you know.

I don't mean to sound like a smart ass but there have been many times that based on 2 degree drop per 1000 feet there should have been ice yet no pireps for icing. Followed by taking off and there being a temperature inversion therefore no ice. Another example is getting on top of the clouds before it is below freezing.

Obviously that doesn't happen every time so if I pick up ice it buys me time to get out.  In my experience is even when I do pick up ice it is not much and the TKS works so well the only way I know I am picking any up is it it builds up on the little fin on the wing tip by the nav light.

Naturally if it is below freezing on the ground and a 800" overcast  or there is a chance of freezing rain then it it a no go.

Over about 80-90 hours this past winter I have used (wasted) about 25-30 gallons of fluid because there could have been ice. I used maybe 2-3 gallons that actually kept ice off.

As has be said by many when it is warm enough I won't carry a full tank.  Which will be nice given gross weight summer performance. Fortunately both airports I use regularly have 7,000'+ runways so i am never in need of max performance take off.

Currently I do keep it full because up until about now there was always a chance to get some ice. Given my flight lasts about an hour even if I had it on deice mode (I refer to it as oh $hit get out NOW mode) I would still have twice as much as I need. Except for a system check verifying that all of the panels get wet before taking off I have never needed that mode to keep the ice off. 

As it has been said here many times the systems are identical except for a second pump and alternator both of which are simply for redundancy not better performance.

If you never fly in what might have ice what is point of having it? If I remember correctly people on here have said the systems are around $50,000 installed. That seems like a extremely expensive way to have silver jet like leading edges. Plus a 100 pound hit on useful load that is essentially useless. Lastly on going maintenance and crazy expensive fluid. 

 

[Tim Jodice]

1 hour ago, Ibra said:

Yes, they are too efficient and underpowered to fly with any amount of dirt on the prop/wings, including trying to climb ice above 8k or when takeoff with mud from countryside grass  the 252 is better aircraft for installing FIKI when flying en-route in flight levels IMO...

M20J TKS only make sense when you get vectored all over the place near an airport on arrival but one is better off with prompt request to ATC or divert rather than taking his chances (even twinjets and turboprops hate this scenario)

I thought 252s are even more efficient than 201s. That said I agree that any ice on a relatively low powered airplane is a bad situation to be in and that is why when there is even the slightest chance of ice i have the system on.

At about 130 miles I can't imagine flying to the flight levels would make sense. However I have never owned a turbo airplane so please correct me if I am wrong.

No doubt that having a out if it gets bad is a necessary part of preflight, to date I have never needed to exercise it. 

If icing is reported by another aircraft then it is no go.

If it is obvious such as freezing to the ground with an overcast then it is no go.

If there is potentially freezing rain then it is a no go.

[bradp]

We have 1016 in a 1977 J. Full fuel payload is 632.  That’s enough to get us to the Bahamas or Oshkosh.  UL is probably the most important and will eventually cause me to leave the J as my small kids grow into large kids.  :-(.   Fam of 4 + dog really demands a 6 place aircraft toga a36, b58 etc. 

[Tim Jodice]

12 minutes ago, bradp said:

We have 1016 in a 1977 J. Full fuel payload is 632.  That’s enough to get us to the Bahamas or Oshkosh.  UL is probably the most important and will eventually cause me to leave the J as my small kids grow into large kids.  :-(.   Fam of 4 + dog really demands a 6 place aircraft toga a36, b58 etc. 

Even after dreaming about an amazing panel that would remove a lot of weight. It likely would make the most sense to do what you plan on doing and just buy a airplane that is the way i need it to be. Not efficient but I got a ride in a 2005 Saratoga and I thought it was a really nice airplane. 

[bradp]

Yeah most would advise that route.  Don’t get me wrong your plane with TKS would have been perfect for me flying BOS to PIT that used to be my commuter route.  Every plane fits someone’s mission.  

[MIm20c]

1 hour ago, airtim said:

I thought 252s are even more efficient than 201s. That said I agree that any ice on a relatively low powered airplane is a bad situation to be in and that is why when there is even the slightest chance of ice i have the system on.

At about 130 miles I can't imagine flying to the flight levels would make sense. However I have never owned a turbo airplane so please correct me if I am wrong.

No doubt that having a out if it gets bad is a necessary part of preflight, to date I have never needed to exercise it. 

If icing is reported by another aircraft then it is no go.

If it is obvious such as freezing to the ground with an overcast then it is no go.

If there is potentially freezing rain then it is a no go.

The turbo is not for the flight levels with regards to ice.  It’s the additional 70-80 hp you have on tap to climb out of the ice when you are at altitude. The planes with FIKI also have backup pumps, alternators, and batteries to keep the fluid flowing. 

[larryb]

My Mooney has a 950 lb useful load. My mission is 2 people with frequent trips San Jose, CA to Truckee, and then long trips. I have never had more than two people total in my plane, so the rear seats are removed and that gives me an extra 25 lb + tons of space. With full fuel and 2 people that gives me about 225 lb for baggage and gear. So while UL is not an issue, I am often within 100lb of full gross weight when we are on a long trip. 

 

It is interesting to note that all the rest of the gear that I take on a trip weighs a significant amount. Cover + tool kit + survival kit + spare parts kit + oil + cleaning supplies comes in at around 75lb. It adds up quick. You wouldn't need any of this for day trips, but when flying cross-USA 3 week trips I want all of it. And I've used it all, except for the survival kit.

 

I also have FIKI TKS. I keep the tank full, even in the summer. I have encountered un-expected ice just as much in the summer as the winter. It's always below freezing at 17,000'. Yes, I could go lower, but there are sometimes mountains.

 

For fuel, I typically fill to 60 gallons unless planning a long trip. Then I squeeze in the full 75 gallons. We often do 5 hour legs on long trips. I would much rather do one 5 hour leg vs. two 3 hour legs with an hour fuel stop. 

[carusoam]

Homework assignment...  (if interested...)

See what you get with a FIKI system and what is standard...

It helps to know what is there...

This way, you know what TKS has to offer compared to not having much ice protection at all....

Pitot heat and alternate air.... can leave you really a little uneasy while watching ice build on the wings... during an approach...

Things like ice lights and heated stall warning vanes can be in the ”I didn’t even know that was available category...”

TKS comes with extra responsibility to keep it running... and extra pain as the fluid is slippery on any floor...

You might learn about rheology while watching the fancy titanium strips fill out... and adhesives if you see one of you panels falling off...

 

My dream forever-Acclaim will have a Fiki system in it...  nothing would be more scary than being on approach watching ice building in on the wings.. in the dark...

PP thoughts only, my approach icing experience comes from when I had a Mooney CFII on board finishing my transition training into my home drome...

PP thoughts only, not a CFI...

Best regards,

-a-

[Tim Jodice]

27 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Homework assignment...  (if interested...)

See what you get with a FIKI system and what is standard...

It helps to know what is there...

This way, you know what TKS has to offer compared to not having much ice protection at all....

Pitot heat and alternate air.... can leave you really a little uneasy while watching ice build on the wings... during an approach...

Things like ice lights and heated stall warning vanes can be in the ”I didn’t even know that was available category...”

TKS comes with extra responsibility to keep it running... and extra pain as the fluid is slippery on any floor...

You might learn about rheology while watching the fancy titanium strips fill out... and adhesives if you see one of you panels falling off...

 

My dream forever-Acclaim will have a Fiki system in it...  nothing would be more scary than being on approach watching ice building in on the wings.. in the dark...

PP thoughts only, my approach icing experience comes from when I had a Mooney CFII on board finishing my transition training into my home drome...

PP thoughts only, not a CFI...

Best regards,

-a-

I suspect that I am not reading this correctly because it seems to easy.

Standard is simply pitot heat and alternate air. 

TKS has, wing light, prop slinger, heated stall switch and the panels. 

I think newer models also have heated fuel and static vents.

 

[exM20K]

2 hours ago, airtim said:

I think newer models also have heated fuel and static vents.

Nope.

Fuel vents sit in NACA ducts, which do not ice. Static vents seem unlikely to ice given where they are.

-dan

[Tim Jodice]

22 minutes ago, exM20K said:

Nope.

Fuel vents sit in NACA ducts, which do not ice. Static vents seem unlikely to ice given where they are.

-dan

I must be thinking of a different airplane. 

[Mcstealth]

On 5/1/2020 at 12:48 PM, Hank said:

The Useful Load in my C is 970 lb., and so far I've been limited only by cubic footage. But I rarely fly with boxes of books, or at least not with many boxes of books. The 2nd photo isn't books, it was hurricane relief supplies, where I ran out of cube even after unpacking boxes and tucking things everywhere, managed less than 400 lb.

Must have had hell backing out of the garage. 

[carusoam]

Some of the formation guys have a mirror for that...

-a-

[Bob_Belville]

One thingy I don’t think has been mentioned... MGW of 200 hp models. An E is 2575#, an F and most Js are 2740#, and late models are 2900#.

So, would you rather take off from Flagstaff, e.g., in an E at 2675# or a late J at 2800#? The E is 100# over, the J is 100# under MGW. Essentially same wing/airframe, same power. Runway required? Climb performance? Whatcha think?

So, spending several AMU to get 4# additional UL... really?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ArtVandelay]

2 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

One thingy I don’t think has been mentioned... MGW of 200 hp models. An E is 2575#, an F and most Js are 2740#, and late models are 2900#.

So, would you rather take off from Flagstaff, e.g., in an E at 2675# or a late J at 2800#? The E is 100# over, the J is 100# under MGW. Essentially same wing/airframe, same power. Runway required? Climb performance? Whatcha think?

So, spending several AMU to get 4# additional UL... really?
 

Be interesting to compare J vs E performance numbers (which are based on max weight, so J should be less).

the J did improve air intake so didn’t require ram air, so that might close the gap on performance which the E being lighter would have a definite advantage on takeoff or climb performance.

[Jerry 5TJ]

On 5/2/2020 at 5:05 AM, M20F-1968 said:

 

Now that’s a clean panel!  Hard to beat this useful load improvement.  
I assume you wear your VR helmet.  

[Bob - S50]

4 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

One thingy I don’t think has been mentioned... MGW of 200 hp models. An E is 2575#, an F and most Js are 2740#, and late models are 2900#.

So, would you rather take off from Flagstaff, e.g., in an E at 2675# or a late J at 2800#? The E is 100# over, the J is 100# under MGW. Essentially same wing/airframe, same power. Runway required? Climb performance? Whatcha think?

So, spending several AMU to get 4# additional UL... really?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I personally don't believe in spending money JUST to increase UL or cruise speed.  However, IF something breaks and I can improve either of those while improving something else, I'm willing to spend a little extra.

For example.  When one of our nav/strobes needed replacing, we went with the LED's and saved a couple pounds.  When our starter died, we replaced it with a light weight starter.  When our alternator dies, we'll likely replace it with a light weight alternator.  If our exhaust system needs to be repaired, I'll likely want to replace it with a powerflow.  Replacing our broken, heavy, high cost to repair KFC 200 with a GFC 500, we not only saved about 20 pounds for the autopilot, we also removed our vacuum system.  We've removed systems that we decided did not make sense for us (ADF, interior curtains, and radar altimeter).  Lot's of ways to improve UL, some of which cost nothing.

[Ibra]

26 minutes ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

I assume you wear your VR helmet.  

Did you get that idea from "home simulator panel upgrade discussions"? save load of space, weight and budget on your flight simulator with VR, pity for the cockpit selfie 

Meanwhile some ideas to increase the UL, take skin off and leave Mooney steel cage, surely not going FIKI 

 

[Bob_Belville]

43 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

I personally don't believe in spending money JUST to increase UL or cruise speed.  However, IF something breaks and I can improve either of those while improving something else, I'm willing to spend a little extra.

<snip> If our exhaust system needs to be repaired, I'll likely want to replace it with a powerflow.  <snip>

 

I went to a PFS exhaust when I needed a new muffler in 8 years ago. Happy improvement but it cost me 3 pounds UL. (old: 17 vs. PFS: 20 pounds.)

[Bob - S50]

6 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

I went to a PFS exhaust when I needed a new muffler in 8 years ago. Happy improvement but it cost me 3 pounds UL. (old: 17 vs. PFS: 20 pounds.)

3 pounds hopefully for 3 knots?  I'll take that trade.

[aviatoreb]

24 minutes ago, Ibra said:

Did you get that idea from "home simulator panel upgrade discussions"? save load of space, weight and budget on your flight simulator with VR, pity for the cockpit selfie 

Meanwhile some ideas to increase the UL, take skin off and leave Mooney steel cage, surely not going FIKI 

 

 

 

Well that saves time at annual pulling off the panels, the belly panels and such.  So there's that.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Ibra said:

Did you get that idea from "home simulator panel upgrade discussions"? save load of space, weight and budget on your flight simulator with VR, pity for the cockpit selfie 

Meanwhile some ideas to increase the UL, take skin off and leave Mooney steel cage, surely not going FIKI 

 

That's a one-season plane!

[Bob - S50]

Just now, Hyett6420 said:

I fly a J.  Normally full tanks with two up and baggage.  Does the job perfectly. BUT I would love to be able to fly 4 up with 4 hours range, this would allow me, hubby and in laws to do a Le Touquet run for Lunch. 
 

So I looked at how to increase the useful load of the aircraft.  Very expensive and almost impossible.  So try plan B......

1.  Walk out of house, and pace away from your house 200 large paces (thats approx 200 yards)

2.  Walk back to your house and change into some gym kit.

3.  Lunge walk out to your 200 years marker

4.  Sprint as fast as you can back to your house.

5.  Wait 60 seconds exactly, 

6.  Job out SLOWLY to your 200 yard marker

7.  Sprint as fast as you can back to your house (see you can even do this in lockdown)

8.  Wait 60 seconds exactly.

9. Repeat steps 6-8 three more times.

10.  Do this for 6 days, have one day of rest, then repeat 1-9 but increase step 9 to 5 times, 

11 do step 10 again, but in the next week add two more reps.  You get the message.

eating also makes a big difference pick Tue and Thurs and only eat 800 calories on those days and on the other days eat the normal recomended intake.  

Does the above work, YES, in lockdown so far ive lost 22 pounds and am still overweight.  Am aiming for 75 kilos which is 165 pounds, started at 100kg currently 90.  Kg Blood pressure is improving, I even have more energy. My In laws want to go flying with me, so ive told them to lose weight to 165 pounds.  Then we can do 4 x 165 people and 50 gallons.    Andrew is almost there, so we just need the in laws to lose A LOT.  

Now Ive been to the Mooney Summit a few times and with very few exceptions, most of us there could happily lose 30 pounds or so.  If you are 5 11 like me then we should be about 165 or so pounds to be “healthy”.   

Instant (ish) useful load gain.  
 

go on give it a go, but STICK WITH IT.  It works trust me.  
 

Key 1kg = 2.2 lbs. 

 

Congratulations.  Keep up the good work.  One way to gain some payload capacity for free is to only fill the tanks to 50 gallons instead of full.  That gains you 84 pounds (38 kilos) of payload capacity and still leaves you with enough fuel to fly for 4 hours with reserves.