Mooney M20J. Hints? Thoughts?

Jeanie

Jeanie

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
2,239
Location
Alpine, TX
Display Name
Display name:
Jeanie
I am going to be flying a M20J soon and am wondering if any of you have hints about it or thoughts. All I know is that they are slick.
 
Fly the book speeds on approach and you'll be fine. Will minimize the float that they can be known for. The landing gear is spongy but makes for nice landings. They're a real nice machine to fly. Fast and stable. You'll love it.

Forgot to add they can be nose heavy in the flare. One technique is to add quite a bit of up trim to help out the flare. Be VERY careful in a go around situation if you do this as it can set you up for a departure stall in no time flat.
 
Last edited:
Have had a ride in a few of them. Very nice aircraft! I have them on my watch list for potential buy (would need a partner or two).

Their owners are interesting folks... When you talk to them about their airplanes, their eyes glaze over and they get these dreamy looks.... Like they're in some sort of cult or mafia. :rofl:
 
Wrong Lance but I do have some time in a M20J or two. WRT flying one (or more specifically landing one):

1) Fly the proper approach speed (adjusted for weight) below 500 AGL.

2) If you screw up #1 the plane will float a long ways.

3) If you screw up #1 and get impatient with #2, any attempt to land too fast is likely to result in a "bounce" or worse.

4) If you try to recover the bounce there's a good chance you'll bounce a 2nd time.

5) If you haven't gone around by the second bounce you can kiss your prop tips goodbye.
 
Find stall speed, get in the book do it IAS-CAS conversion, multiply x1.3 and convert back. This is the MAXIMUM speed you should be on final, any faster and you screw yourself. It's gonna be about 65kts, 'over the fence at 90' is how to have a bad day.
 
Do not allow any wheel to touch over 75mph. Then it's a puddy tat. Fly the pattern at 90, 85, 80, whatever (mph)- 80 feels a bit mushy, but whatever, do NOT allow any wheel to touch until at or below 75 mph.....
 
Spongy is not the word that comes to my mind for the gear. Buckboard may be close though.
Great airplane to fly. Since the controls are all linked by pushrods, the handling is smooth and precise.
I fly it with the throttle to the firewall from TO to the pattern entry, traffic permitting. Correct speed on final and flare is critical as stated by others. But I think all planes land better when flown at proper speeds.
Im guessing you'll enjoy your flight.

J model speeds are all in kts btw.
 
I imagine I will be flying it fairly regularly and may be teaching in it a little bit... We'll see. I'll keep the speeds in mind. Will be going up with the owner for a check out.
 
80 knots on final, slowing to 70 at touchdown. Stay ahead of the airplane and you'll be able to slow it down, just takes some forethought. Go around if you're fast, do not attempt to "salvage" an approach that's too fast unless your runway is at least 13,000 feet long - it's amazing how low-drag the airplane is in ground-effect.

Stalls can be more agressive than Cessna/Pipers, they are more apt to drop a wing if not coordinated or if misrigged.

Pay attention to max speeds for gear retraction. The emergency gear extension is not something I recommend using as a teaching exercise - the parts involved are not designed for repeated use in some model years.

Otherwise, enjoy. I've got a couple hundred hours in J's and they're my favorite airplane for solo flying and going places.
 
I'm noticing a common theme here (minus my gear comment :) )

WATCH YOUR AIRSPEED ON FINAL.
 
Pretty much what I figured... Glad I know for sure now!
 
Not just watch it, because there's plenty wrong being taught to watch. Go up, Calculate the speed, watch the speed you calculate.
 
I'm getting the impression there is something about... Ahh, what was it... Oh yeah, airspeed... That's important? ;)
 
They sit low and seem to have more noticeable ground-effect symptoms than other types. A crosswind landing in a brisk cross-wind on a wet runway can add some spice to your landing practice sessions.
 
Lance F said:
Spongy is not the word that comes to my mind for the gear. Buckboard may be close though.
Great airplane to fly. Since the controls are all linked by pushrods, the handling is smooth and precise.
I fly it with the throttle to the firewall from TO to the pattern entry, traffic permitting. Correct speed on final and flare is critical as stated by others. But I think all planes land better when flown at proper speeds.
Im guessing you'll enjoy your flight.

J model speeds are all in kts btw.
Click to expand...

What settings do you get @ FW? GPH? The J I flew recently, we got 155KTAS @3,000ft @ 9.4gph (as measured by the gizmos).
 
Jeanie that's about right. I planned on 155 at 10 GPH - a little conservative - at 6000 DA. That was for a 1998 MSE.
 
We have 6000 DA on the ground :-). I'll look over the POH carefully before we fly.
 
Put a case of oil in the baggage compartment if flying solo or with two. The Mooney is designed for one mission, going fairley fast on not a lot of gas. I found it comfortable for a 6'1" fat boy and it will haul a load. That being said it is the crummiest flying GA airplane I have flown. Really heavy on the controls and not a fun airplane to go out and yank and bank around. For a point A to Point B level flight instrument platform it is one of the best. Don
 
yakdriver said:
Put a case of oil in the baggage compartment if flying solo or with two. The Mooney is designed for one mission, going fairley fast on not a lot of gas. I found it comfortable for a 6'1" fat boy and it will haul a load. That being said it is the crummiest flying GA airplane I have flown. Really heavy on the controls and not a fun airplane to go out and yank and bank around. For a point A to Point B level flight instrument platform it is one of the best. Don
Click to expand...

Thank you, I had come to the conclusion I was nuts or the Mooneys I flew we're junk because I thought them very heavy.
 
Jeanie said:
We have 6000 DA on the ground :-). I'll look over the POH carefully before we fly.
Click to expand...
My recollection (several years old) is that the M20J suffers more loss of takeoff and climb performance in high DA than higher powered, less efficient but otherwise similar airplanes (e.g. Commanche, Bonanza, C182RG). Not sure if I'm remembering that correctly but it might be something to watch out for.
 
Lance I just looked at my charts, and you're right, the performance decrease is sharper with increase in DA in the M20J than a Cessna or Piper, at least it looks that way to me. Landing performance not affected the same way.

And I found the mooney to be "solid" but not "heavy".. but that's in reference to normal manuevers, not aerobatics.
 
TMetzinger said:
Lance I just looked at my charts, and you're right, the performance decrease is sharper with increase in DA in the M20J than a Cessna or Piper, at least it looks that way to me. Landing performance not affected the same way.

And I found the mooney to be "solid" but not "heavy".. but that's in reference to normal manuevers, not aerobatics.
Click to expand...
It makes sense to me that landings aren't affected. I think the issue is that the recent vintage NA Mooneys are so efficient in high speed cruise that they can go fast without having much excess HP at lower speeds and that's what provides climb rate.
 
The Mooney airframe/wing should have always had 260hp, 200 just isn't enough excess.
 
Mooney is so light on its feet that it is the only airplane I have ever known to have a groundloop on takeoff. I remember that particular 201 well, because I bought the remains!

And yes, they are terribly heavy and have poor control harmony. They are the worst in their class for pleasant hand flying. Kind of like having a Lotus Elan that drives like a old Ford truck.

But they look cool and have decent fuel economy.
 
Henning said:
The Mooney airframe/wing should have always had 260hp, 200 just isn't enough excess.
Click to expand...
From what I'm reading here the Mooney has exactly the same weakness as the Cardinal RG -- not surprisingly since the M20J uses the same, or essentially the same engine. One advantage it does have is a sleeker airframe though. I was seriously thinking about a Mooney before I bought my Cardinal. Not sure if I could fit my bicycle in one though, not easily anyway.
 
I think the M20J, and the Cessna 182 two of the best GA aircraft going.

I flew Eric Jensen's M20F, and didn't think it was heavy on the controls or poor handling, and that's coming from someone who owns a Tiger.
 
Anthony said:
I think the M20J, and the Cessna 182 two of the best GA aircraft going.

I flew Eric Jensen's M20F, and didn't think it was heavy on the controls or poor handling, and that's coming from someone who owns a Tiger.
Click to expand...

Tiger is light, but not harmonious, and not good for aerobatics.

You will NEVER see a Tiger or any Mooney doing aerobatics. OTOH you will see Bellanca Vikings (or you used to see them all the time) doing airshow routines. And you might see a Bonanza or two out there doing aerobatics. These airplanes bring smiles for their feel.
 
Sigh. In a few minutes I'll have to fly my ill handling, cramped cabin, underpowered, hard landing M20J back home from St Augustine. And I had such fun flying down here Weds before reading this thread. I just didn't know.

Jeanie, obviously you will have to suffer to fly this beast.
 
kgruber said:
Tiger is light, but not harmonious, and not good for aerobatics.
Click to expand...

The Tiger is not an aerobatic airplane, and never was intended to be. As far as not being "harmonius", we'll just have to differ on that one.


You will NEVER see a Tiger or any Mooney doing aerobatics. OTOH you will see Bellanca Vikings (or you used to see them all the time) doing airshow routines. And you might see a Bonanza or two out there doing aerobatics. These airplanes bring smiles for their feel.
Click to expand...

The OP could care less about aerobatics, she will be flying a non-aerobativ M20J. Don't know why you're getting into aerobatics. :confused:
 
azure said:
From what I'm reading here the Mooney has exactly the same weakness as the Cardinal RG -- not surprisingly since the M20J uses the same, or essentially the same engine. One advantage it does have is a sleeker airframe though. I was seriously thinking about a Mooney before I bought my Cardinal. Not sure if I could fit my bicycle in one though, not easily anyway.
Click to expand...

M20J is 200hp. IiRC, C177 is 180hp?
 
Jaybird180 said:
M20J is 200hp. IiRC, C177 is 180hp?
Click to expand...

The 177rg is 200hp like the Mooney, Arrow, and Sierra. None are rockets. I have time in all and think the Mooney is the best climber of the lot. The Cardinal was a real dog at altitude much better under 10,000. They say they turbocharged the Arrow to keep up to a Mooney.:)

Anthony, the view is better in the Tiger.
 
Anthony said:
I think the M20J, and the Cessna 182 two of the best GA aircraft going.

I flew Eric Jensen's M20F, and didn't think it was heavy on the controls or poor handling, and that's coming from someone who owns a Tiger.
Click to expand...
Control feel is mostly relative two what you're used to. I was flying Cessnas (172/182/177RG) when I first flew a M20J and at that time I thought the controls were light and "harmonious" (meaning the effort in pitch, roll, and yaw) was relatively equal for normal inputs). But after years of flying a Bonanza I found the controls in another 201 to feel rather heavy and unequal among axes. But the reality is that when you're used to it the controls of a M20J or most any other M20 model are pretty nice.
 
The OP could care less about aerobatics, she will be flying a non-aerobativ M20J. Don't know why you're getting into aerobatics. :confused:[/QUOTE]


~~~~ yep, when I want to fly aerobatics I go out in the super D. The mooney will be a nice XC platform and that's what it's meant to be I spose :wink2:
 
azure said:
AFAIK the 177RG always had the 200hp engine, and none of the various FG 177 subtypes ever did.
Click to expand...


Could very well be, I never paid attention to a FG 177, waste of money to me. I'd like a 177RG with an IO-470.
 
The good: Mooneys are very well constructed, strong, high quality airplanes that last a long time. They're very speedy and efficient. The wings are artwork. A great deal of effort was expended to streamline everything. They are simple and elegant...but hard to work on, unless you're a contortionist. The 201 (M20J) is almost impossible to slow down enough to land - unless the gear is down, which I suppose is a safety factor.
The bad: As has been mentioned, it's no Sequoia Falco...the controls are more like vintage Toyota Corolla - they're effective, but after you've flown a nice airplane, the Mooney flies like a hang-glider. The airplane sits very low on its rubber-bisket sprung landing gear...which accounts for very pronounced ground effect on landing and it taxis like an unsprung go kart, every texture of the surface felt. Also, the prop is very close to the pavement...NEVER leave a hard-surfaced taxi or runway in a mooney, you're sure to hit the prop. It so happens that, like some other airplanes, the electric trim runs exactly as fast as the flap motor...apply flaps and trim at the same time and they cancel one another out. Speaking of trim, the whole empanage moves with the trim. I'd like to fly one with a bigger engine. With 300hp it would be a monster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top