Sometimes I think about other airplanes

[mooneygirl]

Aren't we all glad that Art and Al Mooney were born?  Speed, safety, sex appeal...who could ask for more, except maybe a spouse that is a Mooney pilot too? 

[FlyingAggie]

Two alternators, two vaccuum pumps, intercooler, speedbrakes, inner gear doors, six way adjustable seats, and maybe thicker glass?---- all add the pounds.

My uderstanding from a former sale exec is that to be certified in the normal class, Mooney had to limit the gross weight to keep the stall speed at 61 knots are less.

Quote: ehscott

Why the AC empty weight is so high I am not sure.  Or why they didn't certify at a higher gross is also a mystery.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: FlyingAggie

 

[RJBrown]

I dont think it was stall speed. The same airframe stalls at 61kts as a Rocket at 3200lbs. 69kts@ 2900lbs for the 252. 

[FlyingAggie]

RJ,

Could you have the speeds  reversed?  According the 252 POH at 2900 lbs, Vs1 is 61 knts (not 69 knts) and Vs0 is 59 knts.

The same airframe will have a higher stall speed at 3200 lbs than at 2900 lbs.  An  airfoil always stalls at the same angle of attack regardless of weight, but that same angle of attack occurs at a speed propotional to the square root of the weight ratio. 

Vs1 (3200#) = 61 * sqrt (3200/2900) = 64.1 knots

I don't know much about the Rocket, but if it is the same airframe and weighs 3200 lbs, it will have a higher stall speed than a 252 at 2900 lbs. 

But is the Rocket airframe actually the same?  Doesn't the Rocket have a much larger prop (therefore more drag at low pitch),  and a heavier engine ( therefore a different CG)?

Finally are the FAA design standards for Rocket STC modification the same as the  certification of the original airframe?

Alan

Quote: RJBrown

I dont think it was stall speed. The same airframe stalls at 61kts as a Rocket at 3200lbs. 69kts@ 2900lbs for the 252. 

[Sven]

Although it's fun flying a rare bird like our fixed-gear M20D, there are many times when I wish I could tuck that gear up in the belly. But when there's only 3 left in existance, I'd feel bad doing that to the old girl. But sometimes a fixed-gear Mooney seems like an oxymoron.

[MooneyMitch]

Awesome!  You'll never have a gear up landing like me!!

[Sven]

I hope not.

[mooneygirl]

My father had a D which at some point changed into a C.  I don't know if that was before or after he purchased it.  Interesting story:  The Perris [CA] school district had this airplane as a project, instead of auto shop.  My Dad purchased it after they rebuilt it.  Kind of fun.

[PTK]

Have you folks ever heard of the phrase "there is no free lunch"??   Go back and read the Laws of Thermodynamics. Specifically the Second Law.  We cannot get something from nothing.  The M20J is the evolution and refinement tof an airplane which achieves a precious and delicate balance between speed and economy.  Sure we can build an airplane which goes faster and carries more but the other side of the equation (economy) will suffer.  We can play around with what if scenarios but the bottom line is that the J has achieved this balance.  Don't go searching far; just look at the current production Mooneys!   Do the math and you will see that in order to achieve the numbers (economy) of the M20J  in a long body Mooney you need to pull back power to the point where you will be going SLOWER than the J !  It's a matter of preference.  Does one want to burn fuel indescriminately to get to destination 10 minutes sooner or does one care to achieve the maximum speed with minimum fuel burn. 

I can go into a long elaborate dissertation involving physics and mathematics to illustrate this but we all get the picture I think. 

[Earl]

Quote: skyking

ehscott: I can only carry 49 gallons. I have a useful load of 1050 pounds.

So with 2 grown-ups, 2 grandkids i can still get full fuel and 100 pounds baggage.

[M20BE]

One thing I hear alot is that many Mooney drivers go to a Bonanza, but there are almost none Bonanza drivers going to a Mooney...

[davidfreedman]

I dropping my M20J off at Pentastar at Van Nuys to be passed along to the avionics shop for a Garmin 480 antenna upgrade.  They were too busy to give me a ride across the field to my car which would have made for a mile walk on something that looks like a freeway to the other side of the field.  I noticed a beautiful Piper Meridian (yep, the turboprop) at the FBO which was being towed into the hanger.  A kind gentleman who turned out to be the owner offered to give my girlfriend and I a ride to the other side of the field.  We chatted mostly about his gorgeous bird.  I asked him what it trued out at...he embellished 300 kts and told me about how earlier that day he was getting a 2000 ft/min climb out of Mammoth Mountain through the mid teens.  We traded numbers and agreed to fly together soon.  Since yesterday, I have stalked his n-number on flightaware, confirmed my suspicion that he doesn't get TBM 700 numbers but does beat 250 kts ground speed, read most of the Meridian POH and enjoyed an ongoing fantasy of being at the helm for an aggressive climb out.  I love my M20J and we'll be together forever, but even right seat in a Meridian is sorta like a one-night stand with a hot celebrity.  Sorry for cheating Mooney...it'll only be once...or twice.

[testwest]

Some great posts here! Gretchen and I have owned or partnered in 4 Mooneys, I was partners in a 1970 F and then a 1978 J, she had a 1964 C and we now have the 1977 J depicted in our avatar. All very good airplanes, I personally think the operating economy of the J and its efficient speed make it one of the best light civil airplanes ever manufactured. All four of these airplanes were purchased when the market values were really low....201JX was purchased very close to the bottom of the market a number of years back.

Once your mission starts to include more payload and higher dispatch reliability, it's a little easy to fall off the M20 sweet spot. More payload means a bigger/heavier plane, and to have real dispatch reliability requires known-ice certification, pressurization, & tactical weather avoidance equipment (radar)...fortunately for us the rest of the hazard equation (traffic, terrain, strategic weather awareness (datalink)) is fairly easily integrated in nearly any airplane.

We certainly wanted more capability as discussed above, but once you are an experienced Mooney owner, it is really really hard to philosophically stray from the Mooney mold.....you know, efficient speed, reasonable payload but not at the expense of efficient speed, a brilliant designer who put a lifetime of design experience into the model that would define the pinnacle of his career, and an appearance on the ramp and inflight like no other. Hmmmm......

There is just such an airplane out there. And the funny thing is, it shared DNA with Mooney during that short, awful period when the names Butler and American Cement decided to attempt to out-Cessna Cessna.

The designer is Ted R. Smith. The airplane is the Ted Smith Aerostar 601P with Machen intercoolers.

2 Lycoming IO-540-S1A5s, turbonormalized, intercooled. 290hp per side. Keeps 8.5:1 compression ratio so it's not a fuel hog (sort of). Spar goes under back seat. Very efficient strong wing, 90 degree leading edge, trailing edge forward swept, perfect aspect and taper ratios. Pilot sits ahead of the prop arc. 6 people (but be careful not to overgross it, 6000 lb max for SE climb). 4.25 psi pressurization. Known ice. Radar. All pushrod controls. Hell for stout. Nose gear could use help sometimes. Sounds familiar, eh?

Real world cruise: FL250, 220-230 KTAS, 28 gph total. Compare to an Acclaim real-world...now think about the cabin at around 11000', props at 2200 RPM, room to get  up and move about (sort of). Try not to think about the cost of the last annual....oh well, can't have everything.

The market absolutely bottomed on light twins last summer. Got a 1977 601P 3300TT with boots, $135k. Finishing some avionics and airframe upgrades on that too. Yep between this and our Mooney upgrades we are running a personal general aviation business stimulus package....funded by moi.

Need more gas, work more overtime!! 

[Jeff_S]

Aerostar is a great plane from what I've heard, but can be somewhat tricky to fly. Don't they have a higher-than-normal accident rating? I'm going from memory here but it seems I've heard something like that.

[flyguy241]

Sometimes I miss my old Cherokee 140, usually around annual time and insurance premium time.  But when I consider that now I can load my family up with baggage, fly about 50 knots faster on about the same fuel burn as the Cherokee (~10 gph).  Our 201 works pretty well for what we need.  However, if we are dreaming, I would take a Citabria (in addition to the Mooney).

Last weekend, I took a buddy of mine from Amarillo to Granbury, TX (267 km) to pick up his 182.  We had a nice tailwind going out and averaged 185 knots.  The GPS indicated 203 knots at one point decending into Granbury.  The return trip was a different story (135-140 knots), but I smoked that 182 by about 25-30 knots and probably did it on ~10-12 fewer gallons of avgas. 

[fantom]

Quote: Jeff_S

Aerostar is a great plane from what I've heard, but can be somewhat tricky to fly....

[testwest]

Good training has really brought down the Aerostar accident rate. Right now the safest twins over the last couple of years are 1) the MU-2 and 2) the Aerostar. The reason is you don't get insurance on either one unless you go through what is essentially equivalent to type rating training, and to the ATP standards of performance.

I looked in 2006 at the model, but yearly insurance was going to be 5 figures a year. Now, it's under $5k a year.

In addition, some very smart placement of vortex generators has tamed the low speed characteristics. Don't believe the DeathStar rumors.

You can get in the door fairly inexpensively, but be ready for a lot of catchup maintenance. My plane is actually at Aerostar Aircraft Company, they bought the type certificate back from Piper and fully support the existing fleet.

www.aerostaraircraft.com

For most of the readers of this thread, keep and love your Mooneys. They are simply incomparable. It may be better to have a friend with an Aerostar than to have an Aerostar!

[hansel]

Quote: testwest

Good training has really brought down the Aerostar accident rate. Right now the safest twins over the last couple of years are 1) the MU-2 and 2) the Aerostar. The reason is you don't get insurance on either one unless you go through what is essentially equivalent to type rating training, and to the ATP standards of performance.