How fast is your Mooney? (Poll)

[201er]

Let’s see how you size up compared to others. Does your Mooney make book value cruise or top speed? How does it compare to others of the same model (and year if relevant)?

You know how yours compares cause everyone is always posting pics comparing. Discounting different altitudes and power settings, talking more about the airframe speed at comparable settings and environments. So be honest about how yours is.

[IvanP]

This is gonna be a huge can of worms. Let the bragging begin  

[MikeOH]

No bragging here.  My "F" has most of the mods but barely makes book...and that seems slower than the 'competition'

[Hank]

At 1000 agl, 1200 msl, near standard temps, my C when light will indicate pretty close to 170 mph, but the durn needle wiggles as I bounce over fields, forests and lakes . . . .

How fast it is compared to other Cs? No idea, so I guessed "about the same."

Speed mods:

• Guppy mouth closure (+)
• 201 windshield (+)
• 201 wingtip (0)
• 3-blade Hartzell (-)

I figure they balance out and leave me Net Zero speed change. But they are on my plane.

[201er]

5 minutes ago, Hank said:

 

How fast it is compared to other Cs? No idea, so I guessed "about the same."

You can’t go a week on Mooneyspace without someone complaining how theirs is slow or bragging theirs is fast. Then the responses pile in about how fast they cruise. I think we have a pretty good idea of real world numbers hanging around here.

[ArtVandelay]

Given the right conditions which I rarely see in the southeast US, I make book.
I do have some speed mods.

[Hank]

3 minutes ago, 201er said:

You can’t go a week on Mooneyspace without someone complaining how theirs is slow or bragging theirs is fast. Then the responses pile in about how fast they cruise. I think we have a pretty good idea of real world numbers hanging around here.

Most of them are flying IO engines LOP. Cs are carbureted O-360s, and very few fly LOP smoothly. I can, but only sometimes, and boy does she slow down!

[Ragsf15e]

I can make book in a descent.  My 3 blade speed brake hurts cruise.  

[Skates97]

I'm right at book or a hair better. I hoped I would pick up a couple mph when I replaced my 2300 hour engine but she's still the same speed.

I have some speed mods, guppy mouth enclosure, 201 windshield, flap gap seals, brake caliper reverse, not sure how much they all contribute, maybe a little. Biggest difference was the power flow exhaust. That was worth 5 mph in cruise at 8,500-10,500. Before that I was a little below book. I have the O-360 which I understand benefits more from the power flow than the injected birds.

[bigmo]

Well over book, but my a/c has more mods than I would have ever paid for (it was the LASAR model for decades). I can't guess what adds the biggest bang for the buck, but the belly, windshield, and Powerflow are my guess on biggest gains. Cumulatively, all those little 1-2mph mods do add up, however. Also, a fresh strong motor doesn't hurt. 

[Paul Thomas]

The real answer is "I don't know", although I do have my suspicions. I know what it indicates but I have not done a 3 way run to actually confirm my indicated airspeed. As a result, all other data is suspect.

I need to go to 7,000 feet one day and do that run at a realistic CG and weight that would be used on trips.

Real world flying, I'm typically within 10% of what I planned which is the most important to me. While 10% sounds like a big difference, it's typically due to re-route or power management decisions. I'm still typically within a 1-2 gallon of expected fuel burn.

[C.J.]

3 - 4 knots better than book at 9500' & 10,500'.  Book at lower altitudes. Guppy mouth mod & Power-Flow.

[Shadrach]

If I go by the 1967 owners manual, my plane is slower than book. If I go by the 1968 owners manual, it's pretty close on speed and efficiency is slightly better because I use more sophisticated leaning practices.  Be better if we knew what "about the same" meant.  The delta between similar HP models isn't tat far off even if every one is making book speeds. 

[Danb]

I’m definitely slower, the POH for the Acclaim doesn’t include TKS nor do I believe it’s any faster than other Acclaims most likely slower. Since I fly LOP its costs me near 10 knots albeit with large fuel savings. I flew my Bravo ROP and the Acclaim LOP there there essentially the same speed based on that although the Acclaim uses around 3 gph less fuel. It appears most Mooneys are not meeting book numbers..

[201er]

29 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

If I go by the 1967 owners manual, my plane is slower than book. If I go by the 1968 owners manual, it's pretty close on speed and efficiency is slightly better because I use more sophisticated leaning practices.  Be better if we knew what "about the same" meant.  The delta between similar HP models isn't tat far off even if every one is making book speeds. 

What did they do to make the 68 model slower?

[NickG]

My O3  is slower than book. I have TKS panels which carry a penalty. Either way, I fly LOP and cruise consistently at 172-175 KTAS at altitudes between 11k-16k on 11.3 - 12.5 GPH so I'm not trying to set any speed records. I am exceptionally happy with the performance and economy I get.

 

The Mooney grin is WAY better than book, however!

[TheAv8r]

I have never gotten 162 knots out of my M20E model, which is what the book says it will do. (ref 23.0 MP / 2500 RPM at 7500ft, TAS of 187mph for 2200lbs).

I regularly get 152-155kts TAS dependent upon the altitude at 75% power. That seems to be the norm for M20Es. 

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, 201er said:

What did they do to make the 68 model slower?

Perhaps they fired the marketing manager from 1967….

My standard WOT @2500 and 7500’ shows 187mph in 1967 but only 173 in 1968. Notice the 1967 poh allows for leaning to 100ROP at 76%hp (10.8gph) but in 1968 it’s full rich (14gph).

 

M20F POH cruise data from 1967:

M20F POH cruise data from 1968:

 

 

[Echo]

Today.

[Echo]

8 hours ago, TheAv8r said:

I have never gotten 162 knots out of my M20E model, which is what the book says it will do. (ref 23.0 MP / 2500 RPM at 7500ft, TAS of 187mph for 2200lbs).

I regularly get 152-155kts TAS dependent upon the altitude at 75% power. That seems to be the norm for M20Es. 

I guess mine is Abi-Normal.

[Echo]

Moving this one back to the top.  How about a poll on why you bought your Mooney?  I bought a Mooney becaude they are FAST and efficient.  NOT because they are EFFICIENT and fast.  A guy does a poll on how fast is your Mooney and then calls the responders braggerts.  WTF actually?  Then there is the group that calls you a liar.  LOL.  Classic Mooneyspace hijinx.

If you take a lighter Mooney and do J speed mods on a lowtime strong engine you might have a fast and efficient airplane.Even if you don't clean the belly and remove bugs after every flight.

Edited September 27 by Echo

[Hank]

5 minutes ago, Echo said:

Moving this one back to the top.  How about a poll on why you bought your Mooney? 

I bought my Mooney because:

• I was finishing my license and looking
• It was at my airport
• It was the FBO owner's personal plane
• Therefore it was in good shape
• He was willing to sell it half at a time
• Each half was about the price of a worn 172

I had 62 hours in my logbook by the time we filled in the pink slip, did the required 15 hours dual including 5 hours actual & simulated IMC,  and haven't looked back. It's been 1000 amazing hours since then!

Also, it's fast and efficient. As an engineer, I appreciate both! I can make the same trip as a 172, in ~30% less time and 10-15% less fuel. Oh, and i can carry more people and stuff while doing it.  

[Hank]

P.S.--I thought it was having trouble and losing speed, and could barely reach 160 mph in a 500 fpm descent. Then washed, polished, waxed and buffed, and now I have to watch the yellow line (175) in the same descent! A shocking difference! Guess I got my money's worth from the work. (No, I didn't do it myself, getting too old for that much work.)

I was going to confirm cruise speeds going to Tampa this morning, but . . . .

[M20F-1968]

This is a survey that cannot be interpreted.  It all depends on whether the airplane is stock, has modifications, what modifications, and how many.  Since the survey asks none of that, it cannot be interpreted.

John Breda

[Danb]

4 hours ago, M20F-1968 said:

This is a survey that cannot be interpreted.  It all depends on whether the airplane is stock, has modifications, what modifications, and how many.  Since the survey asks none of that, it cannot be interpreted.

John Breda

Sure it can John just put down a number miles/knots per hour as asked how fast is your Mooney then numbers 1-3 ask for information to explain our lies..eg., your F is faster than most others.