Mooney article on Air Facts Journal

[Eduleo]

https://airfactsjournal.com/2020/06/the-magical-mooney/?trk_msg=4CP43E2LKJ4K77JNQ5R47PDLCS&trk_contact=3TMAFUCORFGA4F0JS896NLHUB8&trk_sid=5UG815D4ESMGL4MPKFGT91NC30&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=READ+MORE&utm_campaign=A20055C&utm_content=Fast+Five+-+June+6th

[toto]

Thanks for that. Good stuff. 

[hammdo]

Fun read!

Thank for the link!

-Don

[Eduleo]

The last picture in the article is of N201HH, which had an emergency landing in the CA desert a few weeks back, with no injuries IIRC.

[Nick Pilotte]

Good article.  I just read it this morning and put two and two together when I saw the 201HH tail number in my Sporty’s Saturday morning email. 

[MooneyMitch]

My opinion.............we ARE a cult!  Mooniacs................takes a lot to remove us from the club. 

[shawnd]

It took one flight in my brother's M20J to convince me after having learned how to fly in a C150. And now I have a 252 Love it and proud to be part of this cult!

[carusoam]

Mac M...

Richard Collins...

Roy Lopresti...

How could you go wrong with quoting these guys...

Roy’s pic in front a great Mooney... from the article above...

Best regards,

-a-

 

[Ross Taylor]

Very interesting!  I love learning the history and about the people behind the scenes.  I thought it was interesting that Mooneys were described as, maybe, having anemic runway and climb performance.  Granted this is only the second aircraft I've owned...but I've flown lots of single engine planes and I'm quite impressed with our E at our high altitude.

[cferr59]

16 hours ago, Ross Taylor said:

Very interesting!  I love learning the history and about the people behind the scenes.  I thought it was interesting that Mooneys were described as, maybe, having anemic runway and climb performance.  Granted this is only the second aircraft I've owned...but I've flown lots of single engine planes and I'm quite impressed with our E at our high altitude.

I'm curious what they are comparing it to.  I have a lot of time in a PA-28-181 which has very similar weight and power to my M20C.  To me, it seems like the the Mooney has comparable takeoff performance, comparable landing performance, and better climb performance.  A review of the POH shows similar takeoff distances at similar weights which isn't particularly surprising.  I always found the Archer to have pretty good performance in general so its not like I ever had a problem with that plane. 

[flyboy0681]

Nice to read a fresh, modern article on the 201. I say fresh because Aviation Consumer is due to publish another review, but all they do is reprint the same one that they have published for the past 20 years and add an update here and there.

 

And for what it's worth, last year we had the inner gear doors removed because one of them was damaged. I swear to this day that it hadn't affected the speed one single knot.

[Ragsf15e]

5 hours ago, flyboy0681 said:

Nice to read a fresh, modern article on the 201. I say fresh because Aviation Consumer is due to publish another review, but all they do is reprint the same one that they have published for the past 20 years and add an update here and there.

 

And for what it's worth, last year we had the inner gear doors removed because one of them was damaged. I swear to this day that it hadn't affected the speed one single knot.

No doubt, my F has a 201 windscreen but I still fly at F speeds!  It’s all gotta be in the cowl and wingtips!

[Raptor05121]

I took a guy flying that I met on FB the other day. He was having a hard time deciding what to buy, Grumman Tiger or M20C. His best reasoning for the Mooney was the cult-like following and social aspect. It was certainly true as after 5 minutes of him posting in the Mooney group for a ride I had him in my plane 6 hours later

[steingar]

I think Tigers are airplanes for people scared of raising the gear.  You pay a pretty stiff premium for that, too.  Of course, they have their own cult...

[bonal]

Nice article, but I don't agree with his comment on C model speed as 130 to 135 knots true.  I can easily hit 140 with two on board and I know the consensus around here is that's pretty typical and when I'm going for speed GPS three heading run hit 148 knots at 8000 ft. As far as the Grumman tiger,. Nice little airplane but looking close that cabin looks kind of flimsy as far as off field crashes are concerned. Mooney tubs are tough is also nice to have a choice about gear up or down in an emergency off field landing sometimes down and welded is a bad situation and could make the outcome worse.

[Skates97]

57 minutes ago, bonal said:

Nice article, but I don't agree with his comment on C model speed as 130 to 135 knots true.  I can easily hit 140 with two on board and I know the consensus around here is that's pretty typical and when I'm going for speed GPS three heading run hit 148 knots at 8000 ft. As far as the Grumman tiger,. Nice little airplane but looking close that cabin looks kind of flimsy as far as off field crashes are concerned. Mooney tubs are tough is also nice to have a choice about gear up or down in an emergency off field landing sometimes down and welded is a bad situation and could make the outcome worse.

I agree with you, I see pretty much 139 knots true between 9,500-10,500 where I normally cruise when leaned to 9.5-10 gph and 2,500 rpm.

[0TreeLemur]

1 hour ago, Skates97 said:

I agree with you, I see pretty much 139 knots true between 9,500-10,500 where I normally cruise when leaned to 9.5-10 gph and 2,500 rpm.

Yeah, ditto.  The Garmin 430 TAS indication is consistently 138-140 at 2400 rpm for our C with the original "175"  (non 201) windshield.  The only speed mods we have are the closure over the bottom of the guppy mouth and flap-gap seals.

[EricJ]

8 hours ago, steingar said:

I think Tigers are airplanes for people scared of raising the gear.  You pay a pretty stiff premium for that, too.  Of course, they have their own cult...

A friend owns five airplanes of varying degrees of gnarliness; warbirds, a Swift, etc., and a Tiger.   He keeps saying he's getting tired of taking care of all of them and is going to sell everything but the Tiger.   He def wants to keep the Tiger.   That does seem to not be unusual about Tiger owners.   They are pretty cool airplanes.

[Hank]

5 hours ago, Skates97 said:

I agree with you, I see pretty much 139 knots true between 9,500-10,500 where I normally cruise when leaned to 9.5-10 gph and 2,500 rpm.

Huh. My C with the 3-blade Hartzell air brake and 201 windshield often trues out at 145-148 KTAS . . . .

[steingar]

My Ranger will get 140 knots, though I do have to be above 4 or 5K to do it.  Still, at those altitudes it will true at that at about 75% power. I cruise in the yellow arc all the time. Not many aircraft will do that at 75%.  Tigers get that speed with a speed prop, making them dogs in climb.  Trip time in the Mooney will be considerably less because of the complex prop.  Put a complex prop on a Tiger and it can hang with my Mooney, but the price of the Tiger with the complex prop will buy a J which will outrun it handily.  Tigers are overpriced for what you get. The one thing I'll give them is that canopy is a nice thing in a hot climate, and if you really need that back seat the Tiger has a  much bigger one than my Mooney. According to their owners Tigers run on pixie dust and exhaust unicorn poo.  They're nimble as a fighter but stable as a rock on approach.  Yes, that's been said to me by a Tiger owner. Not at all certain who you do both those things at once.  

Like I said, they're owners have quite the cult.  I suppose you'd need one to overpay for and be seen in an overpriced trainer.

[The Other Red Baron]

14 hours ago, steingar said:

I think Tigers are airplanes for people scared of raising the gear.  You pay a pretty stiff premium for that, too.  Of course, they have their own cult...

Scary blue knob, too.