What airplane is overall better Bonanzas or Mooneys

tspear said:
I have had the discussion with a few aerodynamic engineers. Depending on the airfoil, the placement of the VGs and angle of attack, there may be a net decrease in drag. Now let's see if I can explain it correctly. :)
VGs effectively add energy to the boundary layer by creating a turbulent flow above the lowest layer of the boundary space. This does two things, delays the separation of the boundary layer, and two reduces the drag in the area past the where separation normally occurs. So, if in cruise, the boundary layer normally separated at 50% of the wing, the VGs may push that down to 75%. So the energy used by the VGs can decrease the total drag on the wing. On the other hand, if the boundary layer normally made it the end of the wing in cruise, then VGs will cost cruise speed because there is no decrease in drag. The rule of thumb I was told was the closer in cruise you fly to L/D, the less VGs have an effect on cruise performance.
Hopefully I explained it well enough....

Anyway, it is very airplane specific (at least airplane model specific).

Tim
Click to expand...

As an Aeronautical Engineer with a BS and MS, you got it correct. VGs are used to delay separation by energizing the boundary layer. But, by tripping the BL turbulent, you create additional drag. So the use of VGs is highly dependent on the airfoil section being used, the chord length, and what you are trying to do with the 3 dimensional wing lift/drag/moment characteristics. Wing fences are used to cut down on spa wise flow and prevent/reduce the strength of wingtip vortices. Fences gave rise to winglets when aero engineers realized that if designed properly, winglets could add additional lifting force on swept wings.
 
["Skyrys62, post: 2358876, member: 30401"]So, that begs the following questions:
1. Would shorter (or more vertically challenged to be politically correct) VG's be better? Seems practical if they are 'way' outside the boundary layer. It's a balance....they need to be tall enough to be effective at slower speeds, where the boundary layer can get thicker than at cruise.
2. Would they become less effective in their duty, if shorter? (less vortexiness) :) Yes....they are very location dependant. The first 1/3 of the airfoil tends to be laminar "like" after that the boundary layer grows and becomes thicker and more turbulent. A survey of this region will show the optimum location to place the VGs to trip the flow into staying attached in the turbulent region. The region does change with velocity & wing geometry....so this can take a few trials and testing to get correct.

Seriously asking just for discussion sake..
but also am trying to get this thread to 500 posts, just because. Next time....post all your questions individually..... ;)
( of which less than 10% will be in response to the OP)[]

boundarylayeraerofoil.jpg



Fig-8-Oil-flow-visualizations-for-steady-shock-wave-configuration-without-control-and.png
boundarylayeraerofoil.jpg
 
Last edited:
Rcmutz said:
As an Aeronautical Engineer with a BS and MS, you got it correct. VGs are used to delay separation by energizing the boundary layer. But, by tripping the BL turbulent, you create additional drag. So the use of VGs is highly dependent on the airfoil section being used, the chord length, and what you are trying to do with the 3 dimensional wing lift/drag/moment characteristics. Wing fences are used to cut down on spa wise flow and prevent/reduce the strength of wingtip vortices. Fences gave rise to winglets when aero engineers realized that if designed properly, winglets could add additional lifting force on swept wings.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I got it right!

Tim
 
ktup-flyer said:
S35 Bo.
Click to expand...
I'm looking at a '64 S35 right now on a lark. As a classic cheap bastard I may not be able to handle the fuel costs, but it seems very nice compared to my 65 mooney.
 
MBDiagMan said:
If you want odd seating position, fly a 172. It seems vert weird to me. It is as if the panel is in a tunnel ahead of you. It just feels weird. Being on the floor looking over the top of the panel seems quite natural. I am 6'1" so maybe that is why it doesn't bother me.
Click to expand...

Just curious what airplane did you learn in?
 
Forget about VG's - what is more likely to add 10KTS TAS?
- NUVITE S
- Mothers
??

(Everyone knows a polished bird flies faster than a painted one any day of the week ;) )
 
Salty said:
I'm looking at a '64 S35 right now on a lark. As a classic cheap bastard I may not be able to handle the fuel costs, but it seems very nice compared to my 65 mooney.
Click to expand...

Is that a C ?

An S35 is one of the best ones out there. Flown at the same speed as a C Mooney you won't burn much more per hour.
 
weilke said:
Is that a C ?

An S35 is one of the best ones out there. Flown at the same speed as a C Mooney you won't burn much more per hour.
Click to expand...
Yes. I get 140kts on less than 9gph
 
Adam Weiss said:
Well...if you're looking at an S35 on a lark, I might be interested in looking at an M20C on a lark :)
140kts on 9gph is just what I'm looking for.
Click to expand...
I will probably put it up for sale soon and see what it'll go for.
 
So if I say, Cirrus sells better than either the Bonanza or the Mooney, therefore it is better. Will this generate the additional pages to hit 500?

Tim
 
Hank S said:
M20-C is a great plane!
Click to expand...
It is, and I love it. But.....

While I love the Johnson bar gear, and the incredible efficiency, they both contribute to a rather cramped space for a cross country. There's nowhere to put stuff within reach. Charts, clipboards, a bottle of water... they have to go in the back seat. There's not really room for an iPad or even phone mount for a short person. I'm right up against the panel.

I haven't ridden in the bo yet, it it certainly looks roomier from the left front seat PoV
 
Salty said:
It is, and I love it. But.....

While I love the Johnson bar gear, and the incredible efficiency, they both contribute to a rather cramped space for a cross country. There's nowhere to put stuff within reach. Charts, clipboards, a bottle of water... they have to go in the back seat. There's not really room for an iPad or even phone mount for a short person. I'm right up against the panel.

I haven't ridden in the bo yet, it it certainly looks roomier from the left front seat PoV
Click to expand...

Get an electric C like mine. Replace clipboard with kneeboard, move to left leg to clear throttle quadrant. Plates go on the floor below the quadrant. Charts go between the seats, water bottle behind them. Food goes on an unoccupied seat within arms' reach.

Moonies are actaully wider than Bos, measure it and believe the numbers. The 201 windshield gives much greater visibility than the small original one. I fly my small, cramped Mooney with my Indiana Jones hat on in the winter. Took a trip with friends in a 172--we had our luggage (wife and I) for ten days, plus a couple of bags our friends couldn't fit in their plane. And were within W&B limits.

For iPad / phone mounting, there are several good versions shown on MooneySpace, but I don't use them . . . .
 
Like sitting on a couch watching a show about airplanes ....

(I have not ridden in a C but a friends '70s model feels pretty roomy to me. But you do sit different.)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1643.JPG
    IMG_1643.JPG
    122.9 KB · Views: 22
Salty said:
Yes. I get 140kts on less than 9gph
Click to expand...

Well, if you want to go that slow, you can certainly do so in a S35. At 45% power ROP the book speed at ISA and 8000ft is 138ktas and a FF of 9.6gph. Not sure how good that engine runs LOP at 45%, but you could probably get down to 9 even if you tried.
Of course, if you burn 4 of gallons more at 65%, you are going about 25kts faster. That will decrease your nm/gal but with lower tach hours on the engine (for oil changes and TIS based overhaul items).

Oh, and it is more comfortable.

And you have a baggage door big enough to load adult sized luggage.
 
tspear said:
So if I say, Cirrus sells better than either the Bonanza or the Mooney, therefore it is better. Will this generate the additional pages to hit 500?
Click to expand...

Well that's just heresy.
 
tspear said:
So if I say, Cirrus sells better than either the Bonanza or the Mooney, therefore it is better. Will this generate the additional pages to hit 500?

Tim
Click to expand...
Na.....that's just shiny shoe'd salesman, blinky lights, chutes, and ladders.....o_O
 
I don't know if this has been said but if you are much over six feet a moony is out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
flyingcheesehead said:
So, the M20C and E are both short body birds, which are not only short (reduced moment around the CG of the tail feathers), they're also the lightest of the Mooneys (IE, lighter wing loading).

I forget which Bo variant you have, but I expect it weighs more (and has higher wing loading) than a short-body Mooney, so it would ride better. Comparing an Ovation to an A36, though, they should be almost identical in how they handle the bumps.
Click to expand...

By the way one other reason a Bo is better than a larger Mooney; We now know that a Bo can get out of 6Y9er with room to spare ;) LOL. Good seeing you Kelsey and the baby!
 
Considering recent prices, what about the old venerable Twin Comanche or Seneca?

Tim (will a single/twin debate get the required 23 more posts?)
 
AdamZ said:
By the way one other reason a Bo is better than a larger Mooney; We now know that a Bo can get out of 6Y9er with room to spare ;) LOL. Good seeing you Kelsey and the baby!
Click to expand...

Bo on grass is like riding on a cloud. Mooney on grass is like riding a washboard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top