Mooney: Underpowered Runway Hog

[rob]

I've heard and read a lot of criticism about Mooney's running around, but I've never heard these two comments before reading this from an N35 Bonanza driver:

 

http://www.piperforum.com/f32/1981-turbo-arrow-iv-vs-cessna-182-t-2496/#post28253

[WardHolbrook]

Hmmm... It sure sounds like a case of "Don't confuse me with the facts because my mind is already made up." Oh well, thank goodness for guys like him - the buyers pool for quality Mooneys is large enough.

[Bolter]

He must surely be referring to width of the runway.  The Mooney's wider wing span versus the Bonanza can intimidate the unskilled pilot and feel like he is hogging the entire runway.  Yes, that must be it.

I am so glad we have no opiniated pilots like that on our message board...

-dan

[sleepingsquirrel]

Someone once asked me if I thought  my Mooney was faster than his  200+ HP Comanche, I told him it was faster at 8 gallons /hr than his Comanche could ever be at 8 gallons /hr.

[jetdriven]

An M20J is the same speed as a 250 Comanche.  While you are burning 10 GPH, he is burning 15. 

[Jeff_S]

Ha, Rob, you're still hanging out at the Piper forum I see. Do they still love controversy over there?

[FloridaMan]

Isn't English Proficiency required for a PPL in the US?

[scottfromiowa]

I flew a Cherokee 180 and a 200HP Arrow before buying my M20E.  I liked BOTH airplanes as they were a significant performance improvement over the 152 & 172's I had previously flown...but for me my plane gives away NOTHING to the Piper aircraft.  I have no desire to ever fly a Piper again when Mooney is there.  Beechcraft, I don't need no stink'n Beechcraft :<)  I feel I am neither biasd or in love with my brand...One statement previously spoken is NOT true...can you guess what it is?  I would expect nothing else from a Piper board...You love what you know and fly.

[1964-M20E]

I’ve flown my Mooney quite a lot over the past 2 years and I’ve flown Cessna 150 to 185 on floats and wheels, I’ve flown in Pipers Cherokee to Arrow and I’ve flown a Musketeer all have their benefits and their drawbacks.  On thing I have noticed about my Mooney compared to Piper and Cessna is that the Mooney feels like riding in a V-hull boat compared to the Piper and the Cessna is like riding in a flat boat.  Turbulence is just different in the Mooney at least in my opinion.

[rbridges]

Quote: scottfromiowa

I flew a Cherokee 180 and a 200HP Arrow before buying my M20E.  I liked BOTH airplanes as they were a significant performance improvement over the 152 & 172's I had previously flown...but for me my plane gives away NOTHING to the Piper aircraft.  I have no desire to ever fly a Piper again when Mooney is there.  Beechcraft, I don't need no stink'n Beechcraft :<)  I feel I am neither biasd or in love with my brand...One statement previously spoken is NOT true...can you guess what it is?  I would expect nothing else from a Piper board...You love what you know and fly.

[scottfromiowa]

I would have a:

-Beaver with floats and ski's

-A Focke Wulf FW-190

-A Citabria

AND a J.

[fantom]

[sleepingsquirrel]

I know the answer, but flying around with the gear down is just tacky!

[co2bruce]

I have owned 3 Mooneys, and I love the brand, but they do take up a lot of runway compared to some other planes. At higher density altitudes the landing, and take off distance can be longer than the Piper or Cessna. It may have something to do with the shape of our wings. I know we are much more efficient in cruise. Just stiring the pot??

 

 

[WardHolbrook]

Quote: co2bruce

I have owned 3 Mooneys, and I love the brand, but they do take up a lot of runway compared to some other planes. At higher density altitudes the landing, and take off distance can be longer than the Piper or Cessna. It may have something to do with the shape of our wings. I know we are much more efficient in cruise. Just stiring the pot??

 

 

[rob]

To the engineers and physicists out there: If plane A has a ground roll of 500ft at MSL, and Plane B has a ground roll of 600ft at MSL - is it possible for Plane B to have a shorter ground roll than Plane A at altitude?

On the surface, it would seem that the atmospheric changes would impact both airplanes equally - but perhaps there is some other variable (such a wing type) that I'm missing? 

[M016576]

Quote: scottfromiowa

I would have a:

-Beaver with floats and ski's

-A Focke Wulf FW-190

-A Citabria

AND a J.

[Lood]

I don't know about runways over in the US, but here in SA, there are VERY few runways that are actually shorter than 2200 feet, except for the few that are used exclusively by trikes and other microlights. It would certainly be dumb to attempt a 2200 feet runway, fully loaded on a hot day at altitude, but under normal circumstances, my F handle these without a problem. If the situation really calls for it, I'd be happy to land on 1200 feet and under good conditions, I would happilly take off from 1500 feet.
I just don't see any point in a STOL debate amongst pilots that fly Bonanza's, Mooney's, Comanche's, etc. I'm pretty sure that STOL was nowhere near the equation when these and other similar airplanes were designed. In aviation, you just can't havet the best of both worlds - except with lots of money, unfortunately. If you want to go fast, you can't have STOL. If you have STOL, she's gonna be a dog in the cruise.
If I was flying into 1000 feet bush strips all the time, I would certainly not be flying my Mooney or any of the other above mentioned, but a Super Cub or something similar, but that's not my mission.

I would like to know how good Bonanza's really are in terms of take off performance compared to a similar powered Mooney? I was once frowned upon by a 300 hp F33A owner when he passed me in the climb and flew away from me. Strangely, he never took into account that I had 100 hp less...

[scottfromiowa]

Quote: M016576

A C-180 with floats and skis

My J

A P-51D... To fight your 190 with

Didn't Hartmann get shot down 9 or 10 times in his career? .  GO AMERICA!

[jetdriven]

We took off at Alpine Tx with our dearly departed 25 degree A3B6D engine. Density altitude was around 8000 feet, and we had full tanks, 2 people, and tons of camping stuff.  Got off the ground in 1500' and climbed directly to 9500'. 

[Lood]

Quote: jetdriven

We took off at Alpine Tx with our dearly departed 25 degree A3B6D engine. Density altitude was around 8000 feet, and we had full tanks, 2 people, and tons of camping stuff.  Got off the ground in 1500' and climbed directly to 9500'. 

[Seth]

My former F model had a three bladed prop and got off the ground in quite respectible if not quick time.  So much in fact that when I flew both 160 HP and 180 HP 172's after that, I was shocked how slow they were feeling wise to get airborn.  Even though they flew at slower speeds so I'm sure runway use is similar on takeoff.  With the Mooney, even at 200HP and the three blade prop, it does claw its way into the air.  I know the two blade early Ovations took a little more runway to get going, but once up to speed were/are fantastic.  With 280 HP or 310 HP (after STC) how could it not.

My 300 HP gets me off in well less than 1000 feet.  Probably closer to 700.

 

-Seth

[jetdriven]

I have flown those on cool days and they blast off like an Exocet missile.

[garytex]

My F seems to lift off, collect itself for a while, (accelerate) then climb.  But thats also a reflection of how I fly it.

Byron, patience with your new engine.  Let it break a little more before you judge.  There is probably more there in a little time.

Gary

 

[Z W]

If you compare the takeoff distances among the Mooney models, there is a large amount of variance.  The short body C I fly is a decent short-field airplane, even at gross.  The mid-body K takes a lot more runway.  I might even call it a runway hog.  I've always figured it's because the plane has a much higher gross weight, but only 30 more HP.  I've read and would expect that the long-bodied planes with 280 or 300 HP can come screaming up off the runway in no time, which would make sense.

If you've got 3000' ft of paved runway at low altitudes, or 4000 ft up in the mountains, it's a non-factor.  There are a few paved strips less than those lengths I'd like to fly to, but most of them are so far from home it would take a couple days to get there in any plane that could comfortably land at them.