Why are Mooneys so fast?

Downcycle

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
20
Display Name

Display name:
Downcycle
I know that asking this is going to make some people smile and others wet their pants. I'm not asking if you like them or if you think they're pretty. As I've been reading more and more about the planes I'm likely to fly in the coming years, I have found it shocking how much faster and more efficient these planes are than equivalent offers from other manufacturers. Just to clarify, I'm not a "Mooniac", in fact I fell in love with a Piper Cherokee, 25 years ago when I took my first flight in one out of FFA. So I'm not a Mooney fanboy trying to get pumped up, I'm just honestly curious what they do differently that allows them to get so much speed per hp while consuming so little fuel/hour.

Sorry to stir up any old feuds, but thanks for your insight.
 
Speed comes down to power and aerodynamics. Mooneys have aerodynamics that make them faster than other planes with the same power. Retractable gear, a slippery wing, and a small cabin (on some) all play a factor.
 
Al Mooney was a genius....for the most part. What genius he lacked, Roy LoPresti came along and corrected!

Factors contributing to their speed: relatively small frontal area; very slippery wing; articulating tail for trim (no trim tabs to add drag); putting the tail in the correct orientation! :)
 
Plus, built in Texas, which makes them simply better in all that they do.
 
Plus, built in Texas, which makes them simply better in all that they do.

Yet you fly a plane built in Kansas :D

All planes are a tradeoffs, some are better at it than others. Mooney went with speed and sacrificed in other areas to obtain it.
 
The wing on a Mooney is very efficient. First take a look at it, it is baby's butt smooth where a PA-28 has rivets everywhere. I have seen videos of mods that basically bondo the wing of a Cherokee to cover all the rivets. The claim is that the airplane will go much faster and will climb like crazy because the laminar flow wing (newer ones) is being used to its full extent.

Second thing I am aware of is that the wing of a Mooney has less dihedral than a Cherokee. Less is more in terms of speed but less is less in terms of stability. In the same turbulence a Mooney will bonce and yaw more than a Cherokee.

The Mooney was designed with speed in mind were as the Cherokee was designed to be easier to fly. Not to say a Mooney is hard to fly, but you do have to be ahead of the airplane.

Both great aircraft, just different.
 
The wing on a Mooney is very efficient. First take a look at it, it is baby's butt smooth where a PA-28 has rivets everywhere. I have seen videos of mods that basically bondo the wing of a Cherokee to cover all the rivets. The claim is that the airplane will go much faster and will climb like crazy because the laminar flow wing (newer ones) is being used to its full extent.

Second thing I am aware of is that the wing of a Mooney has less dihedral than a Cherokee. Less is more in terms of speed but less is less in terms of stability. In the same turbulence a Mooney will bonce and yaw more than a Cherokee.

The Mooney was designed with speed in mind were as the Cherokee was designed to be easier to fly. Not to say a Mooney is hard to fly, but you do have to be ahead of the airplane.

Both great aircraft, just different.

Very interesting. You think of the drag induced by a single rivet and it is inconsequential, but I guess if you add all those little parts up it become significant. It also makes sense that that there will be trade-offs in terms of speed vs stability. I like the idea of being able to get to my destination 30% faster, but I also like the idea of my little ones riding in the back without yaking on a turbulent ride, so... I guess I will need to fly both (plus a few others) and see which I prefer!
 
Very interesting. You think of the drag induced by a single rivet and it is inconsequential, but I guess if you add all those little parts up it become significant. It also makes sense that that there will be trade-offs in terms of speed vs stability. I like the idea of being able to get to my destination 30% faster, but I also like the idea of my little ones riding in the back without yaking on a turbulent ride, so... I guess I will need to fly both (plus a few others) and see which I prefer!

My .02. Ferrari's are fun for a little buzz around town. Given the choice I'll take a Suburban on a long XC trip. Riding in the back seat of a Mooney would be a good way to get me to give up my secrets.

Maybe if we could pack less than 100lb. of luggage per person, I lost 40lb. and shrank 4 inches, my opinions might be different.:dunno:
 
Plenty of dihedral in the Mooneys. They are very stable and have a more solid control feel than a cherokee/warrior. Great for instrument flying. They do seem to be a little more bouncy in turbulence, but I think that has more to do with the extra speed. The increased speed is not proportional to the wing loading difference.

Sitting in one, plenty of legroom, elbow room and headroom, but the way you sit in the plane feels more like a BMW. I'd say a cherokee or cessna 172 feels more like an F-150. The plane was designed from the start with efficiency in mind.

And i'll echo what everyone else said... the little things add up. Look at the stuff like temperature probes, rivets, antennas, cabin air inlets. In the mooney all of these things were designed to be as aerodynamic as possible. In a 172 or PA 28, they look to be just "placed" there.

480_2887.jpg
 
Last edited:
My .02. Ferrari's are fun for a little buzz around town. Given the choice I'll take a Suburban on a long XC trip. Riding in the back seat of a Mooney would be a good way to get me to give up my secrets.

Have you been in the backseat of a J model? I find it more comfy than the rear bench seats in our PA-28 161's
 
Speed comes down to power and aerodynamics. Mooneys have aerodynamics that make them faster than other planes with the same power. Retractable gear, a slippery wing, and a small cabin (on some) all play a factor.
Al Mooney and Roy LoPresti shared a common concept -- to go faster, you reduce drag. Power is great, but given the cube-root relationship between speed and horsepower, it takes a lot more power to get a little more speed. OTOH, a little bit of drag reduction goes a long way. In particular, Al Mooney designed a plane with a comparatively small fuselage cross-sectional area, and reduction of flat plate area is a great way to reduce total drag. Of course, that also made the Mooney line something less than the world's roomiest plane in terms of cabin height and width, and a lot of above-average size pilots find it a bit cramped. But, of course, they are cramped for a shorter time. :wink2:
 
I believe the cabin width in the mooney is wider than a PA-28 or C172

M20J 43.5" w 44.5" h

172 39.5" w 48" h

grumman tiger 41" w 48" h

piper warrior II 41.25" w 44.25" h
 
Last edited:
Al Mooney and Roy LoPresti shared a common concept -- to go faster, you reduce drag. Power is great, but given the cube-root relationship between speed and horsepower, it takes a lot more power to get a little more speed. OTOH, a little bit of drag reduction goes a long way. In particular, Al Mooney designed a plane with a comparatively small fuselage cross-sectional area, and reduction of flat plate area is a great way to reduce total drag. Of course, that also made the Mooney line something less than the world's roomiest plane in terms of cabin height and width, and a lot of above-average size pilots find it a bit cramped. But, of course, they are cramped for a shorter time. :wink2:

Similarly, the 310 is less draggy than the Aztec because of its lower drag. The Baron is typically faster still because of its smaller cabin and also lack of tip tanks. Interestingly, I think that the 310 could be as fast if not faster than an equivalent Baron with winglets instead of the tip tanks.

The other ways to reduce drag include things like lack of VGs, TKS instead of boots, etc. If we removed those we'd probably gain 3-5 kts. We'd also have other issues...
 
If a pilot decided to fly a plane with cruise speed 10 knots faster than a Mooney and another decided to fly one 10 knots slower, how much total block time difference would they see for the three planes on the typical GA leg?
 
I have ridden in the back of a friends J model and is had ample leg room for me. I was expecting to be pretty cramped based on what i had heard but found this to not be the case. I was by myself in the back seat so I was able to move around more than if I had company but I just didn't see a problem with the leg room.
 
If leg room were the primary problem in Mooneys, the tape-measure discussions of the alleged cabin width wouldn't be the primary topic of discussion.
I have ridden in the back of a friends J model and is had ample leg room for me. I was expecting to be pretty cramped based on what i had heard but found this to not be the case. I was by myself in the back seat so I was able to move around more than if I had company but I just didn't see a problem with the leg room.
 
If a pilot decided to fly a plane with cruise speed 10 knots faster than a Mooney and another decided to fly one 10 knots slower, how much total block time difference would they see for the three planes on the typical GA leg?

About enough for none of them to have to wait in line for the bathroom at the end.
 
Here's a front view of my Arrow, does look about the same!!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0226.JPG
    IMG_0226.JPG
    172.7 KB · Views: 100
If leg room were the primary problem in Mooneys, the tape-measure discussions of the alleged cabin width wouldn't be the primary topic of discussion.

Good point Wayne, I was thinking leg room. In most singles you need to be comfortable rubbing shoulders with your cabin mates though. I definitely do in the Arrow.
 
Every plane has a frontal area. You can think of this as the drag caused by the plane being equal to a piece of plywood being pushed face first into the wind. The drag of the plane determines the size of plywood being pushed.

If you shave off all the rivets the plywood gets smaller. Make the wing more efficient the plywood gets smaller still.

If you can get that piece of plywood down to the size of a dinner plate with a 200hp engine the plane will go fast. (prop efficiencies aside). But to get that plywood down to its smallest size sacrifices were made in mooney's case in cabin.

So, at the end of the day, speed is a result of thrust available compared to the size of that frontal area (piece of plywood) being shoved through the air. More thrust equals faster as does smaller plywood. It's up to engineers to figure out the balance based on design requirements.
 
The points have been covered pretty well so far, but I'd take exception to the assertion that Mooneys will "bounce and yaw" more than a Cherokee... uh, no. Higher wing loading and great stability = a good ride in turbulence, at least in this class. It has nowhere near the unpleasant ride compared to many other planes. There is plenty of dihedral, and it makes for a very stable IFR platform once it is trimmed correctly.

Low drag was a major design goal, and the payoff is much greater efficiency and speed in the 180-200 hp class of planes. The cabin is indeed wider than many other popular planes, but it is shorter to save weight and drag. The seating position is more like a Corvette or Porsche, with your butt lower to the floor and your legs stretched out in front of you vs. sitting "up" on a kitchen chair. The panel is a bit closer to you compared to some other planes. You may or may not find it comfy... I do as a 6'1" guy with long legs. I've flown up to 6 hours non-stop and it works great for me. There is plenty of headroom too, so even taller folks can find it comfy. If you're >300 lbs you probably won't like it, though, especially working the fuel selector. The back seat in the intermediate and long bodies (M20F/G/J/K or M20M/R/S/TN) is also very comfy with plenty of leg room once the front seats are moved forward into a normal position. The short bodies (M20A/B/C/D/E) are cramped for all but kids, or one adult stretching out sideways a bit. (I have a couple hundred hours as a kid in the back of a C with my younger brother). The wing is indeed a laminar design with flush rivets over the forward 2/3 of it, meaning much lower drag. The down side is more exciting stall behavior compared to a Cherokee or Cessna, but this isn't a big deal at all. The entire empennage does pivot for pitch trim, so there are no excessively deflected elevators or trim tabs to increase drag.

Another Mooney feature (or quirk if you're not a Mooniac :D) is the landing gear design. Mooneys sit low to the ground and have shorter landing gear than a Bonanza, for example. The suspension consists of a stack of rubber donuts instead of an oleo strut, which is longer, heavier, and more expensive but certainly more forgiving on the ground. The Mooney design is efficient in all aspects, but gives a bouncy ride on the ground and is much less tolerant of poor landing technique.

Getting 16-18 NMPG is routine for me in my J, flying at 145-150 KTAS LOP. I have ~1020 lbs useful load that lets me carry 4 non-obese adults + bags 500 NM with IFR reserves in 3.5 hours or less. There are few planes that can do that without burning a lot more fuel.
 
The Mooney is very stable in turbulence, but I always found the bumps were quite obvious. You are, after all, hitting those potholes in the sky faster than you would in a Cherokee.
 
Just expressing personal experiences of flying into LEX in the M-20J and out in the Arrow III within 30 minutes on a hot summer afternoon.

Wing loading is almost exact with the 20J at 16.4 and the Arrow at 16.18.

Looks like dihedral is 5.5* for the Mooney and 7* for the Arrow.

Agree that the faster speed will make the bumps more pronounced.

Love the Mooney but it hurts my back more on a long flight than the Arrow. The Deb hurts it even less which is why I am considering the switch. Not to mention the extra 30 kts.
 
LOL I can get the LoPresti for considerable AMU's but I just don't think it is worth it.

I was referring to the dihedral Brian.
 
Just expressing personal experiences of flying into LEX in the M-20J and out in the Arrow III within 30 minutes on a hot summer afternoon.

Wing loading is almost exact with the 20J at 16.4 and the Arrow at 16.18.

Looks like dihedral is 5.5* for the Mooney and 7* for the Arrow.

Agree that the faster speed will make the bumps more pronounced.

Love the Mooney but it hurts my back more on a long flight than the Arrow. The Deb hurts it even less which is why I am considering the switch. Not to mention the extra 30 kts.

Thanks for looking up the wing loading... yep the same wing loading with the extra 20 knots is why it seems you hit the bumps harder. Of course you always have the option of slowing down and you'll get a nice fuel burn reduction too.
 
I would say the modern day Mooney would be the Glasair retract of comparable HP.
 
I see nobody brought it up but the main reason is Ray Lopresti. Mooney's started out being a fairly reasonable airframe with a fairly small frontal area to begin with. Ray scavenged all the draggy things that remained on the airframe to make it even faster. The 201 (the M20J) and later are very low drag puppies.
 
If a pilot decided to fly a plane with cruise speed 10 knots faster than a Mooney and another decided to fly one 10 knots slower, how much total block time difference would they see for the three planes on the typical GA leg?
C'mon, Wayne -- rationality isn't what aircraft ownership is about.
 
:lol:

But it is why if I upgrade I'd want at least 30kts more for my trouble.

You might get it. A clean M20J will do 160ktas LOP

Its a big jump up from the wheel pants-less 172's and PA28's in our fleet. Maybe 110-115 knots with those airplanes.

On a 350-400 nm trip the block time difference is huge. Factor in a 20kt headwind + fuel stop and see what you get.
 
Last edited:
Uh, yeah, Ted, I think that's true. Now for $2000, who's buried in Grant's Tomb? :goofy:

I've been told my keen sense of the obvious will make me a great member of management one day. :D
 
Back
Top