Useful load, how important is it to you?

[aviatoreb]

30 minutes ago, Hyett6420 said:

Yep but my two up trips tend to be the South of France or Germany and they require the extra fuel for the range.  Its normally 4 hours brakes to brakes, so i then need 1 hour divert from overhead by law and 1 hour ACH standard reserve. 

So total you are required 2 hours of reserve?

[aviatoreb]

36 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

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.

Right - I used to own a diamond da40. Which sports a lyconing io360.  So same fuel burn characteristics as a m20j.  Well mine had 40 gallons of tank age total.  There was a long range tank option of 50 gallons total - which I did not have.  And they bragged about how much weight capacity they had even with “full fuel”.  Well... yeah if full fuel is equivalent to half tanks in a m20j with lr tanks I’d rather the m20j w lr tanks and the option to light load the fuel and fill seats or fill the tanks and fly til the bladder won’t take it anymore.  Mooney gives us options.

[KLRDMD]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

That's a one-season plane!

Where I live that's a four season airplane!

[aviatoreb]

1 minute ago, KLRDMD said:

Where I live that's a four season airplane!

I was kind of hoping it could be included in a TKS STC.

[Tim Jodice]

2 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Right - I used to own a diamond da40. Which sports a lyconing io360.  So same fuel burn characteristics as a m20j.  Well mine had 40 gallons of tank age total.  There was a long range tank option of 50 gallons total - which I did not have.  And they bragged about how much weight capacity they had even with “full fuel”.  Well... yeah if full fuel is equivalent to half tanks in a m20j with lr tanks I’d rather the m20j w lr tanks and the option to light load the fuel and fill seats or fill the tanks and fly til the bladder won’t take it anymore.  Mooney gives us options.

I have no proof but I will bet that Diamond put small (relative to legacy aircraft) tanks specifically so that they could brag about the full fuel useful load. Most people want that number to be as high as possible.

Referencing Diamond's website it says 65% is 8.2GPH. Round up to 9 and you have a flight time of approximately 3.5 hours plus 1 hour reserves. That just so happens to be what most people are willing to sit in an airplane for. 

I personally think 64 gallons in a J is just right. And for those who want more you can always have a Monroy STC done. How awesome is that? 

What is everyone's opinion on fuel capacity? I know this will bring up "yeah but". If you could have the ability to have 200 dare I say 300 gallons in an any mooney would you want it?

Would you like it if you had the fuel capacity to go from Texas to Hawaii then shoot 3 approaches and still have enough left to go back to Texas?

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, airtim said:

I have no proof but I will bet that Diamond put small (relative to legacy aircraft) tanks specifically so that they could brag about the full fuel useful load. Most people want that number to be as high as possible.

Referencing Diamond's website it says 65% is 8.2GPH. Round up to 9 and you have a flight time of approximately 3.5 hours plus 1 hour reserves. That just so happens to be what most people are willing to sit in an airplane for. 

I personally think 64 gallons in a J is just right. And for those who want more you can always have a Monroy STC done. How awesome is that? 

What is everyone's opinion on fuel capacity? I know this will bring up "yeah but". If you could have the ability to have 200 dare I say 300 gallons in an any mooney would you want it?

Would you like it if you had the fuel capacity to go from Texas to Hawaii then shoot 3 approaches and still have enough left to go back to Texas?

I would stay in Hawaii for dinner by the beach.

i think in part you are right re the fuel load in a da40. But in part it’s smaller because fuel is in fuel cells which greatly reduces chances of a fire upon crashing.  I think they have never had one.  But it does reduce range by a lot.

[Tim Jodice]

30 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

I would stay in Hawaii for dinner by the beach.

i think in part you are right re the fuel load in a da40. But in part it’s smaller because fuel is in fuel cells which greatly reduces chances of a fire upon crashing.  I think they have never had one.  But it does reduce range by a lot.

That makes sense. I had heard that the are one of if not the safest piston singles. 

Also I bet they had diesel on there mind too. 40 gallons of diesel probably gives great range.

[aviatoreb]

16 minutes ago, airtim said:

That makes sense. I had heard that the are one of if not the safest piston singles. 

Also I bet they had diesel on there mind too. 40 gallons of diesel probably give great range.

They are statistically the safest.  Damned the parachutes.  I like stats.

i think but I’m not sure, that the a gas version was designed and came out sometime well before the diesel ever came out but they might have been dreaming of it from the start.  In fact besides diesel they have been a forward thinking design company - they even did test flights with a wankel rotary.

Edited May 3, 2020 by aviatoreb

[Ross Taylor]

I also had a DA40 for a couple of years, and it had the 50 gallon capacity...which was nice, going from Flagstaff or Phoenix up to South County (Morgan Hill) CA.  Without that, I'd need to stop on that 4-ish hour flight.  But it was just myself and two kids, so that wasn't an issue.  It was a joy to fly and super easy to access the rear seating.  But I sure do love our E.

[Tim Jodice]

Two DA40 owners! What did you like/not like about them? What were real cruise numbers? Typical useful load? I heard those long wings make them have great climb performance even when it is hot. Lastly why did you end up selling them?

[exM20K]

@aviatoreb: DA40 began its life as a trainer - an instrument-capable bird to complement the excellent, but VFR-only DA20.  As a trainer, long distance fuel was not really a requirement.  When the market moved more towards owner-flown, the 50 gallon tanks were almost universally installed, at least in the planes I ordered.  For a new pilot, the DA40 is about as good a first plane as has ever been made.

 

Regarding @Hyett6420 's proposed mission: four grownups, especially if they're 'Murican-sized, in any four-seat GA plane is more intimate than most want for that long, in my experience.  two male/female couples or two adults/two children will work just fine.  have you tired it for that long of a leg?

 

I've got the same issue in the long-body, though the back seats have a bit more room: four FAA standard peeps, and I can carry 35ish gallons, which won't get me very far with prudent reserves.  10-4, and bravo on the weight loss to regain usefull load.  Also consider careful calibration of the fuel gauges/totalizer/tank dipstick.  I monitor and crosscheck all these sources, and I've carefully adjusted the Foreflight performance profile to match my data, so I have a high degree of confidence of how much fuel is in the plane at all times.  Thus, I'm totally comfortable planning near minimum fuel at my alternate, freeing up 50-100# of fuel weight.

 

-dan

[Ross Taylor]

33 minutes ago, airtim said:

Two DA40 owners! What did you like/not like about them? What were real cruise numbers? Typical useful load? I heard those long wings make them have great climb performance even when it is hot. Lastly why did you end up selling them?

First off, I'm left handed.  Why's that important?  At the time we got the Diamond, back in 2004 or 05 when the gov't was offering $125k for business purchases, I flew a few different planes to test.  I liked the Cirrus models I tried, from a performance and "cool" perspective, but as a lefty I really didn't like the left side yoke.  If you're not on autopilot, or if it were to fail, there's no way I could write anything with my right hand...and actually read it.  And at the time I had a carseat age child and access to the rear seats was tough.

The DA40 felt really safe.  It has a great glide ratio and I'd rather glide down, controlled, at 600fpm than drop on a chute.  I loved the center stick, which works with either hand...or with knees.  The canopy in front opens up completely, so front seat access is super easy for either side.  And the rear door allows easy access to the rear seats.  I was living in Flagstaff at the time (7000' elevation, with 9-10k density altitudes in the summer) and found the climb performance impressive.  I was flying from Flagstaff to Phoenix (DVT, actually) or Henderson daily and performance in the heat was good.  Visibility and comfort were great...but, damn, that fishbowl got hot in the Phoenix sun waiting to take off at DVT!  That, really, was my only complaint...and it's really not a complaint, just the reality of a low-wing plane.  I forget the cruise and load, I'm afraid...I've slept a few times since then.

The only reason I sold it was $$.  We found ourselves expecting another child and the job changed.  I couldn't afford a $250k plane now, but the E has been great.

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, Ross Taylor said:

First off, I'm left handed.  Why's that important?  At the time we got the Diamond, back in 2004 or 05 when the gov't was offering $125k for business purchases, ..

The DA40 felt really safe.  It has a great glide ratio and I'd rather glide down, controlled, at 600fpm than drop on a chute.  I loved the center stick, which works with either hand...or with knees.  The canopy in front opens up completely, so front seat access is super easy for either side.  And the rear door allows easy access to the rear seats.  I was living in Flagstaff at the time (7000' elevation, with 9-10k density altitudes in the summer) and found the climb performance impressive.  I was flying from Flagstaff to Phoenix (DVT, actually) or Henderson daily and performance in the heat was good.  Visibility and comfort were great...but, damn, that fishbowl got hot in the Phoenix sun waiting to take off at DVT!  That, really, was my only complaint...and it's really not a complaint, just the reality of a low-wing plane.  I forget the cruise and load, I'm afraid...I've slept a few times since then.

The only reason I sold it was $$.  We found ourselves expecting another child and the job changed.  I couldn't afford a $250k plane now, but the E has been great.

Mine was a well worn former trainer, but in good shape, and an early steam gauge version and without an autopilot.  But I got mine an 03' which I got in early 08' for a screaming deal given the still growing 08' financial crash.

It was a terrific plane I got right after my ppl, did my IFR cert on, and kept through about 350hrs when I got this mooney.  I had outgrown it a bit esp since it was impossible to add autopilot as it was not on any stc lists.

I remember how fast it was - not bad for a primary trainer - not bad at all - mine was an easy 145TAS and I didn't even have wheel pants but I did have power flow.

That maneuver you are describing - 600fpm vs parachute, was called the falling leaf.  Pull thee stick all the way back and keep the ball centered with your feet and it would descend as you said, 600fpm - better than the parachute in brand cirrus, but still it had something like 30kts of forward velocity in that maneuver.  Still probably survivable.

2 hours ago, exM20K said:

@aviatoreb: DA40 began its life as a trainer - an instrument-capable bird to complement the excellent, but VFR-only DA20.  As a trainer, long distance fuel was not really a requirement.  When the market moved more towards owner-flown, the 50 gallon tanks were almost universally installed, at least in the planes I ordered.  For a new pilot, the DA40 is about as good a first plane as has ever been made.

Mine was N805ER - a former Embry Riddle trainer.  More than once, one of the controllers told me they studied air traffic control at embry riddle and they had actually flown my airplane or one of the other N801ER through N809ER there.

Edited May 4, 2020 by aviatoreb

[carusoam]

Adding to Tim’s discussion on full fuel and people...

I always heard that...

When starting to look for planes...

I immediately realized... this marketing 101 for people that have never bought a plane...

Probably a carry over from automobiles...

I use my car about ten times between fill-ups one car has 20gal tank the other behemoth has a 30gal tank...

My favorites are the rental diesels that get sent back to the airport, never having to fill them....   

Once you have owned your first car or plane... full tanks loses its meaning... or got a ride from somebody in high school...  fill my tank, I’ll give you a ride... His old F150 with dual tanks...

Fast forward to buying a Mooney... even the small Mooney has big 52gal tanks... the owner has options to either put bladders in or he can add extended tanks...

So few planes came with a FF gauge... you never really knew how much fuel got burned...

The most outrageous voluminous tanks have been brought to us by José... 130 gallons...

It is better to have tanks that can handle every flight situation you have... it is up to you to fill them or not...

If flying single.... go max distance... fill the 130 gal to the top!  1000+nm...

If three of your college buds are in town... 20 gal per side...  2hrs...

We have apps to do the WnB math...

Know thy DA and projected TO distance as well... there are some apps for that too...

Digital FF gauges and digital fuel level meters make this system more user useable...

No guessing required...

PP thoughts only not a CFI...

Best regards,

-a-

[Mufflerbearing]

The Screaming Eagle was a super performer two weeks ago as we introduced ourselves to our new grandbaby.  We flew from Salinas Ca to Coeur d' Alene in 4:15 non stop with me, my wonderful wife, and two adult kids.  Though we went light to pick up Pam (my wife), she had stayed a week prior with a bunch of stuff, it was an awesome flight!  Good distance (700nm) and good load.  However, I did account for 51 gals for the flight and an hour reserve to ensure we were not over the limit.  Mooney designed and built amazing planes and there is one for your mission.  Whatever it is.

Have I told you today how much I love my plane?

[laytonl]

Concerning useful load, I follow the USPS slogan, “if it fits, it ships”!  The reality is I always run out room before exceeding GW.  Lee

[bonal]

Why would an F be one of the best load lifters and a J have such a low number like 760. For us our C carries 1010 we almost never carry a third pax other than our pup. As a two plus the short bodies are such sweet airplanes. Now a turbocharged short would be so fun to really ring out.

[gsxrpilot]

19 minutes ago, bonal said:

Why would an F be one of the best load lifters and a J have such a low number like 760.

Because of all the extra stuff such as the speed mods, more stuff in the panel, updated interior, etc... The F is like a stripped down J 

[moosebreath]

My 97 J is full of goodies including bladder tanks.  UL is 900 but only due to the 2900 max gross allowable.  I always consider that cheating in these discussions.  The paperwork does not help lift that extra 160 pounds.  I primarily fly solo so a 740 UL is fine.   The extra 160 does help a lot when my wife and I go on the occasional long trip.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, moosebreath said:

My 97 J is full of goodies including bladder tanks.  UL is 900 but only due to the 2900 max gross allowable.  I always consider that cheating in these discussions.  The paperwork does not help lift that extra 160 pounds.  I primarily fly solo so a 740 UL is fine.   The extra 160 does help a lot when my wife and I go on the occasional long trip.

I wish this increase was available for the vintage birds. It would really change their value. 160lb increase would give me a 208lbs per seat at full fuel (384lbs) or 240 per seat on a 500nm flight with reserves.  If there were F models out there with 1200+ pound useful load it dramatically affect the market.

[Ibra]

12 hours ago, Shadrach said:

If there were F models out there with 1200+ pound useful load it dramatically affect the market.

That UL would make a huge difference to the market !

I will strip the M20J back into M20F if I can get that +300lbs to 1200lbs for adult pax or better extra gallons of cheap fuel 
In the past, I find out I was not making much use of those +300lbs flying C182 & Arrow3 but things start to change...

For paperwork, from here (UK), we heard everybody gets +15% blanket on their MTOW in Alaska 

Edited May 5, 2020 by Ibra

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, Ibra said:

That UL would make a huge difference to the market !

I will strip the M20J back into M20F if I can get that +300lbs to 1200lbs for adult pax or better extra gallons of cheap fuel 
In the past, I find out I was not making much use of those +300lbs flying C182 & Arrow3 but things start to change...

For paperwork, from here (UK), we heard everybody gets +15% blanket on their MTOW in Alaska 

Does your 201 have the 2900lb take off weight?  I believe there was a minor structural change with the 231 that enabled the retroactive increase to J's made from 1979 on.   If Mooney had their $<!^ together, they would have offered that structural update on previous models with the same cage and horsepower. Some of the F's lighter weight can be attributed to manual systems, some of it due to less heavily equipped and a more spartan interior.  I don't really suffer from 182 UL envy.  I have more UL than many of the newer ones and the old heavy lifters are only marginally better when required fuel load for a trip is considered. I'd much prefer a late 60's on up C180...1200lbs+ of UL , fairly light, no nose wheel in the slipstream. 135 to 140kts.  

 

 Only 121 and 135 ops are allowed the MTOW increase. 

[Ibra]

13 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Does your 201 have the 2900lb take off weight?  I believe there was a minor structural change with the 231 that enabled the retroactive increase to J's made from 1979 on

No 81'J with 2740lbs MTOW and 870lbs UL, that extra 160lbs would make it to 1000lbs but it is still way away from 1200lbs, so far the only drawback for me is mental exercises of balance/performance and managing fuel gallons when taking 4SOB (fair price for getting an extra +30kts vs other aircraft on same GPH as I am mainly 2SOB)  

Going 4SOB in a typical "1200lbs", one will only have to check that his tie-downs are not attached (and his bank account before/after going to the fuel pump )

[bradp]

So what weighs so much more in @Ibras 81J vs my 77J?  Oxygen? Fiberglass belly? Wingtip fairings?  King avionics? Standby vacuum? I don’t get it. 

[Niko182]

After having a useful load over 1200lbs, i dont think id be willing to give much of it up. Maybe a max of 30 to 40lbs. Its only been like a month since it went that high, but weight limitations practically dont exist. Id probably give up those 30 to 40lbs for a nice interior, some soundproofing, and some thicker windows..