201er Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Clearly the issue isn't that there are many strips the Mooeny can't land in (even if it ends up using most of the runway) but rather that pilot's proficiency wouldn't be up to the task Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepingsquirrel Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 I'm willing to bet there are far more Bonanza Hangar Queens than Underpowered Mooney Runway Hogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooneyMitch Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 "If you've got 3000' ft of paved runway at low altitudes, or 4000 ft up in the mountains, it's a non-factor." We use Oceano [L52, 2325 ft. @sea level] frequently with the R model. Plenty of room for to's and ldg's. Nornally off by 1300 ft. at 3/4 gross. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z W Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Quote: Mitch We use Oceano [L52, 2325 ft. @sea level] frequently with the R model. Plenty of room for to's and ldg's. Nornally off by 1300 ft. at 3/4 gross. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottfromiowa Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 There has been a lot of discussion comparing HP with the assumption that MORE HP means < take-off roll. I do not think this is an accurate assumption as the gross weight of later Mooney's increased significantly. This resulted in a lot more runway (even with a LOT more horsepower) to get airborne. My M20E is ready to fly by the time I have the Throttle Full Forward with two aboard. The ground roll has never been an issue even when near gross on a high density day for 3000-3500' strips in Midwest. I didn't buy my plane and don't believe most Piper owners buy their plane with short field operations in mind. Why don't they just stick with the old mantra of tiny cockpits and need to be a double amputee to fly in the rear-seat... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooneyMitch Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Well now Scott, if you want to talk about JUMPING off the runway, you are absoutely correct in your description of the E. I love that plane and it's performance. The R is a great traveler, comfortable and all, but the E is just my favorite performer. We call here a Zoomer ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwixdraw Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 There is quite a bit of back and forth among Bonanza pilots over the TO/ldg performance of the various models. Generally the older lighter ones seem to be the best for unpaved, tight space locations. The only time I ever felt the J was a runway hog was one time when the temp was 107 f and it was trying hard to rain. There was no way to see what the TO performance/distance was supposed to be, it was off the chart. I calculated the density altitude and loading and the climb chart said she would go up at 350 FPM. It was a long roll to get airborne but she did indeed go up at 350 fpm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantom Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flymu2 Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Quote: Lood 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooneyMitch Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 I realize the 310 HP conversion is expensive for your Eagle. But, according to Don Maxwell and others, the t/o performance after the modification is quite impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaV8or Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Quote: scottfromiowa My M20E is ready to fly by the time I have the Throttle Full Forward with two aboard. The ground roll has never been an issue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WardHolbrook Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Quote: Kwixdraw There is quite a bit of back and forth among Bonanza pilots over the TO/ldg performance of the various models. Generally the older lighter ones seem to be the best for unpaved, tight space locations. The only time I ever felt the J was a runway hog was one time when the temp was 107 f and it was trying hard to rain. There was no way to see what the TO performance/distance was supposed to be, it was off the chart. I calculated the density altitude and loading and the climb chart said she would go up at 350 FPM. It was a long roll to get airborne but she did indeed go up at 350 fpm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WardHolbrook Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Inadvertant Duplicate Post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
co2bruce Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 I have a standard 1999 Eagle with 244 hp (when brand new) and a 3000 ft asl airport at 90 degrees, with a 5 kt headwind, to clear a 50 ft obstacle requires over 3500 ft. It takes 2600 without obstacle clearance, so anything under 3000 ft in the summer is close. Anyone claiming to take off in 1500 and landing on 1200 is not operating an Eagle. Just saying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 We need a GPS function to measure these details accurately. We could build our experience and personal data base. Any suggestions? Maybe Hilton at WingX might have an idea... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danb35 Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 CloudAhoy seems to handle measuring the takeoff and landing rolls pretty well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WardHolbrook Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Quote: carusoam We need a GPS function to measure these details accurately. We could build our experience and personal data base. Any suggestions? Maybe Hilton at WingX might have an idea... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottfromiowa Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Quote: DaV8or Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted August 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Does an Eagle seriously take 2600' of runway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
co2bruce Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 At 3000 ft AGL airport on a 90 degree day at gross ....... yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Ward, I follow the book, then add some percentage... It's like adding religion to proven facts. I haven't been able to accurately measure what's actually happening during landing and take-off, mostly because being fast and not looking straight ahead while being near the ground keeps me busy. I like your point about how accurate the POH is. I haven't really been able to measure as many different regimes as I would like too. I'd like to measure machine performance often, removing religion from the equation. There is room for both just not in take-off length calculations. (running out of runway on take-off, you are at deadly speeds when you make the mistake.) this situation made me find religion once.... I have proven engine power at altitude vs. fuel flow and speed. So the rest should match....? I downloaded the cloud ahoy app a few days ago, but was not aware of the landing and take-off distance measurements. I'll be working with my flight instructor with some new tools in the back seat. Maybe he is reading along.... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwixdraw Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 Quote: WardHolbrook Don't mean to be critical, but you took off when "There was no way to see what the TO performance/distance was supposed to be, it was off the chart..." I'm glad the takeoff was successful, but it seems like it was a rather foolish thing to do. We had pretty much all the runway we could ever use and I had a hard line to abort the TO if I had not been able to lift off by half the runway length. I'm not incautious or suicidal. It was a former F-102 base and has really long runways for just this type DA situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetdriven Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 A Bonanza burns $44,000$ more fuel over 2000 hours than an M20J. based on 2000 hours of 9 GPH vs 13 GPH @ 5.50 per gallon. Tell him that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lood Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 Quote: jetdriven A Bonanza burns $44,000$ more fuel over 2000 hours than an M20J. based on 2000 hours of 9 GPH vs 13 GPH @ 5.50 per gallon. Tell him that. 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.