Thedude Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 This 66 m20e is listed with a useful load of 686lbs, could that really be true or has it just been misweighed (though it seems so low that someone should have noticed and reweighed it...). If it's accurate, what could be adding all the weight? https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M20E+SUPER+21&listing_id=2430961&s-type=aircraft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Hicks Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 Id bet its a typo. The 6 is right under the 9 on the number pad. 986 sounds dead on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highflyer77 Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 As I just wondered about payload of my '64 M20E, I don´t think, that it is a typo. 986 lbs. useful load would be close to the roughly 1.000 lbs. that had original M20E's without any modifications... On the other hand, 686 lbs. usefull load would be 120 lbs. below my merely 805 lbs. (mine has quite all speed mod´s including 201 windshield & cowling, A/P, etc. ; I really would be interested on a "average weight list" for speed mod's, avionics, carpets etc. ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N204TA Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 That airplane is loaded with mods: electric gear, long-range tanks, LASAR wingtips, speed brakes, 201-style mods, a panel full of avionics, interior upgrades, etc. It all adds up. That useful load doesn’t surprise me at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 Wow…4 gear up landings and a prop strike. Some airplanes are dealt a lousy deck in terms of ownership. Thats a nice looking plane. The damage history would not deter me from buying. The over indulgence in mods for the sake of mods is a bit of a turn off. I would trade a lot of that stuff to have back 150lbs of useful load. That’s barely a 2 person airplane with full fuel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammdo Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 88 gallons I would assume - leaves about ~190 lbs left 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedude Posted July 7 Author Report Share Posted July 7 Ya it's barely a one person plane at full fuel at my weight. It's definitely had a rough history though, but it's still interesting if it had reasonable UL. Any guesses on what mods could be easily jettisoned to get back to a reasonable UL? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricJ Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 4 minutes ago, Thedude said: Ya it's barely a one person plane at full fuel at my weight. It's definitely had a rough history though, but it's still interesting if it had reasonable UL. Any guesses on what mods could be easily jettisoned to get back to a reasonable UL? Get the WnB and Equipment list, which should show the weight of each item in the list. Find the heavy stuff that you don't want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McMooney Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 doesn't sound right. my 1974 E, with electric gear has a useful load of 910+ dont' remember what it is at the moment. monroy tanks are really just fuel caps and some sealant, so that's not going to take up much of anything, well untill you fill them with gas looked into the 201 windshield for my birdy, it really doesn't add much weight, if any. no clue about speed brakes, why do you even need them ? the avionics are a wash if not lighter than the originals. with full tanks, I couldn't even fly in this plane. somethings not right 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtVandelay Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 What is the old TV looking screen below the tail number placard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedude Posted July 7 Author Report Share Posted July 7 7 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said: What is the old TV looking screen below the tail number placard? That's the engine monitor, the "JPI EDM 930 Engine Monitor" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Thomas Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 The W&B shows an empty weight of 1886 so it doesn't appear to be a typo. Beautiful airplane; the interior looks like a new car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark942 Posted July 8 Report Share Posted July 8 Does anyone know where the paint and interior were done. Very nice. I'm finally at the stage where I'm looking to get mine done. Do paint shops take care of the little things like stripped fasteners on and old E or do they just shoot paint?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedude Posted July 9 Author Report Share Posted July 9 The broker is out this week, but they're going to look for the equipment list to see if that can shed some light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelpro999 Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 On 7/7/2024 at 9:52 AM, Thedude said: If it's accurate, what could be adding all the weight? Maybe they added armor plating to the belly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedude Posted July 9 Author Report Share Posted July 9 26 minutes ago, Kelpro999 said: Maybe they added armor plating to the belly But then they could remove the gear and save weight, right? What's simpler than retractable landing gear? No landing gear at all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtVandelay Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 Despite the glass panels, they kept the vacuum pump, so there’s almost 10lbs, if they have an electric backup it would be more like 20. The older autopilot servos are much heavier than modern GFC500, and don’t most Es just have wing levelers?I can’t tell if seats are upgraded to match the modern yokes, but articulated seats are heavier.Speed mods, thicker glass, electric gear, speed brakes, wing tips etc, it all adds up.They’ve tried to make it a J, except without the Js higher weight limit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M20F-1968 Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 I do not believe the 686 lb useful load for a minute. I have a 1968 F model which is modified as much if not more than this plane. It has exactly the same useful load Robert Hicks opined for this plane in his post, 986 lbs. I would get the original factory weight and balance (Mooney has all these records and can provide them) and add and subtract accurate numbers for the equipment removed and installed. There is speculation that the factory weight and balance from this period indicated useful loads that were a bit generous, but they are the official numbers by which you can legally fly if the calculations are accurate. Curious, how much are they asking, v. how much did the restoration cost? John Breda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M20F-1968 Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 My plane lost about 100 lbs in the restoration. It started with a useful load about 1080 as I recall. The E should have been similar except that it has electric gear. John Breda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 My 1979 C has useful load of 969 lb. Something is off if your E has 100 lb less than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
00-Negative Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 I was curious about the accuracy of my own useful load in my '66e. I have approx. 850 lb useful load. A few mods and only a Garmin gtn650 and a three blade prop upgrade. The plane was painted in the '90s and most of the logs I have start from that point. I wanted an unofficial weight. So I borrowed a livestock scale and made some leveling ramps. I took three weights, one under each wheel with the plane level. I subtracted my remaining fuel in the tanks. Believe it or not, I was within 1.5 lb of the documented empty weight of the plane. Since then, I have flown at max gross weight a few times with my family. We still get off the ground no problem, but I'm at sea level with about the highest density altitude I deal with around 2800. I can definitely feel it, it makes me fly very conservatively regarding angle of attack and bank angle. I now have come to respect that max gross weight and believe it is probably a true maximum weight tolerance for stability. -David 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 10 minutes ago, 00-Negative said: I was curious about the accuracy of my own useful load in my '66e. I have approx. 850 lb useful load. A few mods and only a Garmin gtn650 and a three blade prop upgrade. The plane was painted in the '90s and most of the logs I have start from that point. I wanted an unofficial weight. So I borrowed a livestock scale and made some leveling ramps. I took three weights, one under each wheel with the plane level. I subtracted my remaining fuel in the tanks. Believe it or not, I was within 1.5 lb of the documented empty weight of the plane. Since then, I have flown at max gross weight a few times with my family. We still get off the ground no problem, but I'm at sea level with about the highest density altitude I deal with around 2800. I can definitely feel it, it makes me fly very conservatively regarding angle of attack and bank angle. I now have come to respect that max gross weight and believe it is probably a true maximum weight tolerance for stability. -David That is impressive but not out of the realm of possibility. A 1.5lb delta could in and of itself be attributed to dirt and oil residue. I thoroughly clean out the wing roots, fuselage and empenage every year at annual. I bet there have been years where I have pulled over a pound of oily crud out of the airframe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fly Boomer Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 27 minutes ago, Shadrach said: I thoroughly clean out the wing roots, fuselage and empenage every year at annual. What kind of cleaner do you use? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 1 hour ago, Fly Boomer said: What kind of cleaner do you use? I use a solvent spray wand like the one below (available at a number of retailers) with mineral spirits. I can change the air/solvent mixture as needed. There are areas of the empennage that are hard to get to and sheet metal laps that hold dirt, grass and all matter of organic crud. A precise application of solvent and air will clear these areas and allow for everything to be flushed clean and then dried with compressed air. It's funny, but I spend more time cleaning areas inside of my plane that no one but my IA and I see than I do the outside. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Thomas Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 1 hour ago, Shadrach said: I use a solvent spray wand like the one below (available at a number of retailers) with mineral spirits. I can change the air/solvent mixture as needed. There are areas of the empennage that are hard to get to and sheet metal laps that hold dirt, grass and all matter of organic crud. A precise application of solvent and air will clear these areas and allow for everything to be flushed clean and then dried with compressed air. It's funny, but I spend more time cleaning areas inside of my plane that no one but my IA and I see than I do the outside. That process is MAGIC; you will be amazed at how well is cleans and how little product it uses. 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.