I flew a Mooney!

Tantalum

Tantalum

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
9,250
Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
..I've sat in a few Mooney on the ground, but I finally got a ride and some stick time in one this past weekend, a good 3 on the hobbes in a J model

TLDR; flew great, fast, responsive, tight. Only real complaint is my headset kept hitting the top of the door seam. If I could have lowered my seat that would've helped (pics below)


What I liked

-handling was superb. Heavy, but responsive. Reminded me of a 'tighter' or heavier Tiger

-fast.. I got to see first hand the whole speed vs fuel burn thing.. had the thing dialed down to 7.9 and we were still moving along well

-parts of the cabin comfort, the legroom was great. As stated I've sat in a few Mooney and the legroom was never an issue, it was the headspace and the shoulders. Once flying it's not much different from a PA-28 tbh, I think the biggest 'issue' is the rounded fuselage top. I kept hitting my headset top on the lip for the door

-the door, no slamming or multiple handles. Just close it and push the thing forward and you're down

-cabin ventilation, something that always bugged me in Pipers. In the Mooney I had one for my face on the ceiling and one on the bottom corner of the panel, airflow was great

-handled turbulence like a boss

-the wing is sexy.. looks the way a plane wing should

-the fuel gauges in the fuel tank



What I didn't like

-head and shoulders (not the shampoo).. in my case since I'm tall-ish I would have appreciated being able to lower the seat or lean it back

-the gear annunciator bugged me, I didn't like not having three green. Just the "gear down" or "gear unsafe" indicator. I don't like this in the 182RG either, just the two lights

-verneer knobs

-the cowl flap, which seemed super effective, also seemed to have a pretty big impact on airspeed, more noticeable than other planes

-the hockey puck landing gear. Not for the landing, but taxxing is a pretty bumpy ride. The Aztec and 182 seem to have the softest taxi. Not a big issue, but something worth noting.. maybe these pucks were just old

-the luggage compartment, the door. Maybe I'm used to the big door on the Aztec but the upwards opening door to lower things into seem like it could be cumbersome

..oh and pics or it didn't happen:
upload_2021-12-6_20-15-9.png

upload_2021-12-6_20-15-25.png



...that's all!
 
Tantalum said:
..I've sat in a few Mooney on the ground, but I finally got a ride and some stick time in one this past weekend, a good 3 on the hobbes in a J model

TLDR; flew great, fast, responsive, tight. Only real complaint is my headset kept hitting the top of the door seam. If I could have lowered my seat that would've helped (pics below)
Click to expand...
Congrats! I bet you're 1000% better person for having the pleasure of flying a Mooney. :) Drive on and buy one--you know you want and need one!
 
Unless something breaks, it’s impossible for not all three gear to be down. There’s a floor indicator that you should check in addition to the lights.
You can stagger the seats to get more shoulder room.
Not sure why you don’t like the vernier controls, they can be just push or pulled like regular versions.
The cowl flaps can be open part way in cooler weather, only about 3-5 knots drag penalty, fully open they’re probably closer to 10, but I rarely use them fully opened.
 
largest thwack for the single US dollar bill.

'cowl flaps' as a negative. that's just weird. how much airspeed did you lose during taxi?
 
The F model that I used to fly had the fuel selector underneath my right calf. I take it that this J model has it in a better place?

Also, did this one have the panel-right-up-in-your-face placement?

Tantalum said:
Heavy, but responsive.
Click to expand...
Because there's only 45 degrees of aileron throw in each direction of left and right.
 
Both seats on our J have adjusters for both seat height and seat back angle. Did this one not have adjusters?
 
asicer said:
The F model that I used to fly had the fuel selector underneath my right calf. I take it that this J model has it in a better place?

Also, did this one have the panel-right-up-in-your-face placement?


Because there's only 45 degrees of aileron throw in each direction of left and right.
Click to expand...

78 and later have it in the center, easy to use.

The wings are wider (37’) so that results in a slower roll than say an RV
 
It was almost a decade ago, but I remember thinking the mooney was light and responsive in roll rate.
 
Tantalum said:
handled turbulence like a boss
Click to expand...
I’ve noticed this as well when flying in @Bill ’s 201J. Even in relatively bumpy air, the ride is still pretty comfortable and the airplane seems to remain stable.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
You can stagger the seats to get more shoulder room
Click to expand...
Yep, it worked. Just not ideal

MooneyDriver78 said:
Unless something breaks, it’s impossible for not all three gear to be down. There’s a floor indicator that you should check in addition to the lights.
Click to expand...
Just different

MooneyDriver78 said:
Not sure why you don’t like the vernier controls, they can be just push or pulled like regular versions.
Click to expand...
Personal preference

MooneyDriver78 said:
The cowl flaps can be open part way in cooler weather, only about 3-5 knots drag penalty, fully open they’re probably closer to 10, but I rarely use them fully opened.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I assumed it was all or none like an idiot

eman1200 said:
'cowl flaps' as a negative. that's just weird.
Click to expand...
Goes to show there weren't many cons! Also, see above

asicer said:
I take it that this J model has it in a better place?
Click to expand...
It was on the floor but did not strike me as uncomfortable. No worse than old bonanzas or pipers

Bill said:
Did this one not have adjusters?
Click to expand...
I couldn't find any and ASSumed
 
I was surprised I fit decently in a M20J, since I'm big and tall and Mooney was a beanpole.

I do get the jimmy legs after about 2 hours, but I respect they're strong and efficient birds. I recommend them often when people pull the "what airplane to buy" on me, and the inquisitor wears jeans < 34" :D
 
A lot of good thinks to like about a J model and some things not to like, most of which you didn’t even mention.
 
Clip4 said:
not to like, most of which you didn’t even mention
Click to expand...
Such as? I I left out known things about pucks, fuel tank leaks, useful load, out. This is more based on just overall flying experience from one flight
 
Tantalum said:
Such as? I I left out known things about pucks, fuel tank leaks, useful load, out. This is more based on just overall flying experience from one flight
Click to expand...

Flying - flaps that are not very effective and a whooping 11 knot demonstrated crosswind landing component, not much main gear door to surface clearance to taxi on sod.

Mechanically add single drive mag and ratchet type emergency gear extension system that leaves a lot to be desired.
 
Tantalum said:
Such as? I I left out known things about pucks, fuel tank leaks, useful load, out. This is more based on just overall flying experience from one flight
Click to expand...

Useful load? What’s wrong with 1100lb useful load?

586a867b4a75ee8628339caf651108d7.jpg
 
Clip4 said:
Flying - flaps that are not very effective and a whooping 11 knot demonstrated crosswind landing component, not much main gear door to surface clearance to taxi on sod.

Mechanically add single drive mag and ratchet type emergency gear extension system that leaves a lot to be desired.
Click to expand...

Sounds exactly like you’ve never flown a mooney before. Flaps are “not effective “? That is so far from reality I’m not even sure what to say. While the J does list 11 kt xwind component, 17 is the more commonly used number. As for ground clearance, it’s 2” less than a 172 and plenty enough for a typical grass strip, which I have landed at plenty of times. Your level of trollness is reaching new levels. Might be time to put your nonsense on ignore.
 
eman1200 said:
Sounds exactly like you’ve never flown a mooney before. Flaps are “not effective “? That is so far from reality I’m not even sure what to say. While the J does list 11 kt xwind component, 17 is the more commonly used number. As for ground clearance, it’s 2” less than a 172 and plenty enough for a typical grass strip, which I have landed at plenty of times. Your level of trollness is reaching new levels. Might be time to put your nonsense on ignore.
Click to expand...

yea, used to own one so I sure I don’t know what I am talking about. Unless you are on a very smooth sod surface, you risk gear door damage taxing in sod, especially if the surface is soft. I sure would not go taxing around AirVenture or Sun and Fun. Effective flaps? Compared to other 200 hp complex like an Arrow or 172RG there is not much there. If you want to do some real short field over an obstacle you better be on your game and hit the aim point properly because a little high and 5 KTS over the approach speed will take a lot of distance to disapate.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Nothing, but two good size men in the front will have you near the forward limits and you want some blast in the rear.
Click to expand...

BS, I can carry 600lbs in the front seats without exceeding front CG or weight limits, with any fuel amount . They may have trouble getting in and out due to the low seating position, it’s more like a sports car, not a SUV.

And they went with 2 mag versions of the engine and many older Js have been upgraded, including mine.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Flying - flaps that are not very effective and a whooping 11 knot demonstrated crosswind landing component, not much main gear door to surface clearance to taxi on sod.

Mechanically add single drive mag and ratchet type emergency gear extension system that leaves a lot to be desired.
Click to expand...
Who cares one iota what the demonstrated crosswind landing component of an aircraft is?

I fly a Mooney year round, from an airport in Florida, with only one narrow runway, lined with trees and houses, and have cancelled a flight or aborted a landing due to excessive crosswind exactly zero times.

The flaps aren’t very effective. It’s made to go fast, not be a trainer. F-18 flaps aren’t very effective either from that standpoint. I land at 60 knots. Again, it’s not a trainer. That’s not that fast; and i can easily land stress free with 2000 feet available. So it’s really not relevant.

And here I am sitting in the sod, under the tail of my Mooney watching a sun-n-fun air show.
 

Attachments

  • F55DF57A-C364-492F-ADA4-26B4ED318762.jpeg
    F55DF57A-C364-492F-ADA4-26B4ED318762.jpeg
    218 KB · Views: 45
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Nothing, but two good size men in the front will have you near the forward limits and you want some blast in the rear.
Click to expand...

Flat out BS. Nice troll job.
 
DavidWhite said:
It was almost a decade ago, but I remember thinking the mooney was light and responsive in roll rate.
Click to expand...

It's definitely much lighter in roll than pitch, those spring centered elevators increase force needed in pitch for sure.

Clip4 said:
Flying - flaps that are not very effective and a whooping 11 knot demonstrated crosswind landing component, not much main gear door to surface clearance to taxi on sod.

Mechanically add single drive mag and ratchet type emergency gear extension system that leaves a lot to be desired.
Click to expand...

Flaps? Yeah, compared to a 172 at 40*, they're nothing. But then again, I cruise climb much faster than a 172 cruises. I've put the bird down in a direct 19G26 wind, it wasn't pretty, but we got down. Would I do it again? Probably not. As for the siamese mag, yeah, not ideal, but when we re-engined, we swapped the A3B6D for the A3B6, so we now have two independent mags.

eman1200 said:
As for ground clearance, it’s 2” less than a 172 and plenty enough for a typical grass strip, which I have landed at plenty of times.
Click to expand...

Depends on the Mooney, the ones like ours that have the fixed lower gear doors, yes, they're pretty darned close to the ground.

Capture.JPG

Not my plane, this guy needs to air that tire up stat, but you can see the trailing corner of the lower gear door is susceptible to damage. We've curled ours a little landing on rough grass, something we try to avoid.
 
Most guys with the inner gear doors take them off for turf operations, I think there's a speed penalty. A J will fly all day north of 150 knots burning less than ten gallons an hour hauling close to a half ton of people, stuff and gas. Find me another airplane that does that. Yeah, the dimensions are different than your typical trainer, that's why they go so fast.

The pucks aren't the greatest thing on the earth, a very old system. If the tanks don't haven't bladders or if they haven't been redone by one of two shops it isn't a matter of if they'll leak but when. Had I the money I'd be flying a J. Actually, had I real money I'd buy an E, mod the hell out of it and get something faster than a J. But have the money I do not.
 
Cool planes and company. I think it would make a great XC plane for the average Joe.
 
Bill said:
It's definitely much lighter in roll than pitch, those spring centered elevators increase force needed in pitch for sure.



Flaps? Yeah, compared to a 172 at 40*, they're nothing. But then again, I cruise climb much faster than a 172 cruises. I've put the bird down in a direct 19G26 wind, it wasn't pretty, but we got down. Would I do it again? Probably not. As for the siamese mag, yeah, not ideal, but when we re-engined, we swapped the A3B6D for the A3B6, so we now have two independent mags.



Depends on the Mooney, the ones like ours that have the fixed lower gear doors, yes, they're pretty darned close to the ground.

View attachment 102490

Not my plane, this guy needs to air that tire up stat, but you can see the trailing corner of the lower gear door is susceptible to damage. We've curled ours a little landing on rough grass, something we try to avoid.
Click to expand...

Good post, and then there is the potential damage by line guys exceeding the turn radius.
 
Clip4 said:
Leaking fuel tanks, replacing landing gear pucks, routine maintenance on the landing gear, are the big expenses with the J model.
Click to expand...

We've been lucky with the tanks, we've had the plane 14 years and the tanks are still good. We replaced the pucks for the 1st time a few years back, about 1 AMU. Otherwise the gear gets a swing and preload check at annual, no big thing.
 
This guy used to fly his M-20C into some of the Idaho backcountry airstrips! Here is a video of him going into Soldier Bar.

Name: Soldier Bar USFS
Identifier: 85U
Elevation: 4,190 feet
Lat: N45-05.99 Long: W114-48.06
Surface: Dirt
Runway: 7/25
Length & width: 1,650 feet by 15 feet
Remarks: Go-around is not recommended; the runway, beginning at the approach end of runway 7, slopes down to the north at approximately 4 degrees; sharp dogleg to the north (to the right when on runway 25) on west end of runway 25. NEVER approach to land on runway 7.

006%20Soldier%20Bar.jpg
 
Only the first year 77' J had vernier controls. Too bad because I liked them better than push-pull. Great airplane with few cons.

Dreadfully bad control feel......which you'd not think due to rods for aileron control. You will NEVER SEE an M20J doing aerobatics at an air show. You want GREAT control feel...........fly a Bellanca Viking.

Owned N201MJ
Demo pilot for both Mooney and Bellanca for Seattle dealer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top