Mooney down... KC, MO

[Z W]

My M20C climbed better than my M20K does.  The C was a lot lighter on any given typical flight, with the short body and small engine.  It only had 30 less HP (180 vs. 210).

 

It also took off in less distance, landed shorter, and had a higher useful load.

 

Climb is a function of extra horsepower per gross weight.  The 310 HP planes (Rocket, Missile, some Ovations) are probably the best climbers, followed by the lightweight short-body E and C models.  The rest fall somewhere in between.

[201er]

The reason the short bodies climb better is cause there's no room to load them up like a mid to long body!

[Bob_Belville]

MAPA's 10,000' average climb performance comparison for M20C, M20E, M20F and M20J:

J 105/120 726

E 105/120 688

F 105/120 615

C 105/120 571

Are those figures supposed to be apples to apples? I.e. at gross? The C & Es are 2575, the F and first Js are 2740 and the later Js are 2900. With the same HP, I'm wondering how a J at 2900 can beat an E at 2575 in climb to 10,000'. (Cruise is another matter with Lopresti cleanup sported by the J.)

[Bob_Belville]

The reason the short bodies climb better is cause there's no room to load them up like a mid to long body!

I suspect you have your tongue in your cheek. The short bodies (C&E) have a low gross, 2575, so it is easy enough to fit more in that you can legally carry. My E has 900 useful as equipped which is just under 600 with full (54.8g) fuel. That's just 3 "modern" sized adults and a little luggage.  

 

Of course there are very few production aircraft that can carry full fuel and full seats. 

[yvesg]

MAPA's 10,000' average climb performance comparison for M20C, M20E, M20F and M20J:

J 105/120 726

E 105/120 688

F 105/120 615

C 105/120 571

What is the last column showing exactly? What are the units?

Yves

[PMcClure]

Here are the numbers from N1051K when new and with a 2 blade prop. The 3 blade prop adds a considerable amount to climb rate. 51K is a O2 (280hp). 

 

http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20R%20Evaluation/M20R.htm

[jetdriven]

So how does all this relate to climb from liftoff to 1000'?

[Bob_Belville]

Hi, Bob. Here's a link to the article. Sorry. I assumed everyone was probably already familiar with it. Their site also has evaluations of many of the other models from which they draw their data for the comparison charts. To answer your question, if my memory serves the flights were all flown with unmodified aircraft with full fuel (which obviously varies by model, as do empty and gross weights), and the same single pilot. The J that was evaluated was a 1980 model with the 2740 pound gross weight.

Jim

http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20J%20Evaluation/M20J_evaluation_report.html

Thanks for the link. I had read it some time ago but I am old and have slept many times since.   

 

With all due respect to the good folks at MAPA, I note the chart is for a single test flight comparing the J to the other models flown on presumably different days with somewhat different conditions. The planes were all loaded below their gross. This is not really a very precise comparison. Since the Js aerodynamic improvements should not be terribly important @ 105k, I would be surprised if the J out performed the E or even the F 10 times out of 10 climbing with the same load. And if all 3 were at their legal gross I would expect an E with a fresh engine to consistently out climb her heavier sisters which was Byron's contention. If not, why not? 

[PMcClure]

Returning to the thread - is it time to 1000' or distance from airport at 1000' we are interested in?  What test would prove our assumptions?  time from brake release to 1000' at Vy or distance from airport at 1000' with Vx climb? If a R model was at 1000' faster than a F is that better for engine out if the F takes longer but is closer to the airport?

 

And wouldn't the prop design have some factor in climb rate? Some props will climb better at the same power, but have lower cruise speeds. 

[N601RX]

How much does will Gap seals and 1 piece belly help with climb? They are generally thought of as speed mods, but help with climb also.

[Z W]

Here's the NTSB report.  A good reminder to sump your tanks, although we don't know if the pilot did or not:

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130819X52423&key=1

 

 

On August 18, 2013, about 1445 central daylight time, a Mooney M20J, N9201R, descended and impacted terrain after takeoff from Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport (MKC), Kansas City, Missouri. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. The private pilot and a passenger were fatally injured. The airplane was registered to Air McRoyal LLC and operated by the pilot under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight that was not operating on a flight plan. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The flight was originating at the time of the accident and was en route to Youngstown, Ohio.

The airplane arrived at MKC on August 15, 2013, and was parked on the ramp until the day of the accident when it was taxied to the airport self-serve fuel pump and 25.25 gallons of 100 low lead aviation fuel was obtained. 

A mechanic stated that he heard the airplane engine run-up and takeoff. The run-up was “short” and was “less than a minute.” He did not hear any engine power hesitations during the run-up, just a “quick” magneto check. He did not hear any power hesitation prior to the engine quitting during takeoff.

The airplane departed runway 19 (6,827 feet by 150 feet, grooved concrete) and the pilot reported an unspecified problem during climb. The airplane descended to an estimated height of 10 feet above the runway surface with the landing gear retracted. The airplane was approximately no farther than half down the runway before a second climb began. The airplane attained an altitude of about 300-400 feet above ground level when it was observed to enter a turning stall. The airplane descended and impacted a field about 0.25 miles southwest of the departure end of runway 19.

Examination of the airplane engine revealed the presence of a liquid consistent with water present in the fuel servo.

There were no reports of fuel contamination and/or loss of engine power by airplanes fueled at the fuel pump where the accident airplane was fueled from. Examination of the airport fuel facility did not reveal any fuel contamination.

The pilot bought the airplane in February 2013. He accumulated a total flight time of about 308.7 hours, of which 19.2 hours were in the accident airplane make and model.

[PMcClure]

Very sad.