Opinions on a M20J

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 17:17:07 GMT, "Julian Scarfe"
wrote:

Julian,

I'll take issue with you on items 3 and 4.

3) Its landing distance is greater than many compatible tourers: because the
airframe is clean, it floats. So for short fields it tends to be the
landing distance that is limiting. I wouldn't want to operate a M20J
regularly out of much less than 2700 ft as you don't have much safety margin
at less than that. If you have that and don't visit short strips very
often, no problem.

Usually, the only reason it floats is because folk come in at well over
1.3Vso. I would have no hesitation about being based at a 2,000' strip (at
sea level). Going into KBGR regularly, I rarely have a problem turning off
at the first taxiway (1100') and I'm usually off the ground from my home
base in about 1000', without using short-field technique.


4) Its crosswind performance is ugly, particularly for take-offs. The
undercarriage uses rubber disks for its springs, and the wing is very low to
the ground. Hence any bumps and you lose any side force from the wheels,
and you have a lot of lift relatively early in the take-off roll. If you
operate an M20J from a single runway airport in a windy part of the world,
this may be an issue. If you only rarely have to deal with 20 knot
crosswinds, no problem.

Again, I think this is a technique issue, both on takeoff and landing.

I do agree with you about rough field operation. There just isn't the
clearance that other a/c have.


--ron

In article ,
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
I do agree with you about rough field operation. There just isn't the
clearance that other a/c have.

And beware those who say the 3-bladed prop has more clearance -- it's the
same diameter.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

I'll take issue with you on items 3 and 4.

With the principle (comparative to similar types) or the numbers?

3) Its landing distance is greater than many compatible tourers: because
the
airframe is clean, it floats. So for short fields it tends to be the
landing distance that is limiting. I wouldn't want to operate a M20J
regularly out of much less than 2700 ft as you don't have much safety
margin
at less than that. If you have that and don't visit short strips very
often, no problem.

Usually, the only reason it floats is because folk come in at well over
1.3Vso.

Yeah but that's the same with every aircraft type.

I would have no hesitation about being based at a 2,000' strip (at
sea level).

Maybe something got lost in translation. All our runways are measured in
metres. I
agree 2700 ft (about 820 m) is quite conservative. 2000 ft feels short.
The book gross performance is 1550 ft, which is about 2200 ft with the
recommended safety factor.

Going into KBGR regularly, I rarely have a problem turning off
at the first taxiway (1100') and I'm usually off the ground from my home
base in about 1000', without using short-field technique.

Touching down at the end, that seems about right. If you're landing it in
1100 ft from 50 ft then I'd like to see it... ;-)

4) Its crosswind performance is ugly, particularly for take-offs. The
undercarriage uses rubber disks for its springs, and the wing is very low
to
the ground. Hence any bumps and you lose any side force from the wheels,
and you have a lot of lift relatively early in the take-off roll. If you
operate an M20J from a single runway airport in a windy part of the
world,
this may be an issue. If you only rarely have to deal with 20 knot
crosswinds, no problem.

Again, I think this is a technique issue, both on takeoff and landing.

Never had a serious issue on landing. But there are physical limits for
take-off for any aircraft. I never like the idea of spending much time on
one wheel for a take-off, so I start to get nervous when I can't keep both
tyres on the runway below rotation speed.

I don't know what else you fly, Ron, but aircraft like the TB20, the PA28s
and most light twins seem to handle crosswind take-offs with rather more
comfort.

Julian

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 06:53:15 GMT, "Julian Scarfe"
wrote:

I don't know what else you fly, Ron, but aircraft like the TB20, the PA28s
and most light twins seem to handle crosswind take-offs with rather more
comfort.

Sorry about that. I did some reinstallation and my signature got changed.
But I've got over 2,500 hours in a Mooney M20E. And I presently fly out of
a single runway airport with occasionally strong, gusty crosswinds. I've
not had a problem with crosswind takeoffs, either. Just hold the nose
down, aileron into the wind, and pop-off when ready to fly. Obviously on a
paved strip.

And if you are talking about a 2,000' (610m) runway with trees to the end,
then yes, I would not want to be based there, given a choice. But, at
least here in the US, I don't believe I've ever seen a paved, short runway
where the 50' obstacle was at the beginning of the runway.

Grass is another story. I've been into Lubec airport (65B) which is 2024'
(617m), grass, with trees right to the end. Landing was not much of a
problem. But takeoff was close to the trees, even at 150 lbs under MGW.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
[...]
And if you are talking about a 2,000' (610m) runway with trees to the end,
then yes, I would not want to be based there, given a choice. But, at
least here in the US, I don't believe I've ever seen a paved, short runway
where the 50' obstacle was at the beginning of the runway.

I'm struggling to think of one myself.

However, I have seen many paved runways with 100-150' obstacles not very far
from the runway (500-1000' perhaps). These are roughly equivalent to a 50'
obstacle right at the runway.

Here's one of the "easier" examples of the above:
http://www.airnav.com/airport/W10

Pete

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 10:37:16 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
And if you are talking about a 2,000' (610m) runway with trees to the end,
then yes, I would not want to be based there, given a choice. But, at
least here in the US, I don't believe I've ever seen a paved, short runway
where the 50' obstacle was at the beginning of the runway.

I'm struggling to think of one myself.

However, I have seen many paved runways with 100-150' obstacles not very far
from the runway (500-1000' perhaps). These are roughly equivalent to a 50'
obstacle right at the runway.

Here's one of the "easier" examples of the above:
http://www.airnav.com/airport/W10

Pete


Well they are certainly rare. Even the example you cite really doesn't
cause a big problem, if I do the math correctly.

It shows a 100' tree 800' from the end of one runway. But the runway is
2400 (732 m). So to touch down with 2000' remaining requires about a 6°
glide slope -- something that is certainly doable, with practice, in a
Mooney. Definitely not for a new owner, or even for an old owner that
hasn't flown much recently :-).

I note that despite the tree, there are 28 single and 2 twin engine
aircraft based at that field, and 39 operations per day!


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
[...]
It shows a 100' tree 800' from the end of one runway. But the runway is
2400 (732 m). So to touch down with 2000' remaining requires about a 6°
glide slope -- something that is certainly doable, with practice, in a
Mooney.

"With practice". No one should land at that airport without being confident
in their short field techniques, and many pilots are not.

If Julian said that the Mooney simply couldn't be landed on a 2000' runway
with a 50' obstacle, then I missed it. IMHO, the point is that even though
it's doable, it requires even more careful attention to technique than many
other airplanes would.

Definitely not for a new owner, or even for an old owner that
hasn't flown much recently :-).

Exactly.

I note that despite the tree, there are 28 single and 2 twin engine
aircraft based at that field, and 39 operations per day!

Well, the word "tree" in the A/FD description is misleading. What there
actually is, is an entire forest of mature Douglas Fir. I'm actually a bit
skeptical of the 100' height, as mature Douglas Fir is generally at least
that high, and the forest north of the airport is on a hill above the
airport.

Anyway, even with those caveats, I'm not saying you couldn't land a Mooney
there. A person flying by the numbers, using proper technique, should be
fine. It's just no place to be sloppy.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Anyway, even with those caveats, I'm not saying you couldn't land a Mooney
there. A person flying by the numbers, using proper technique, should be
fine. It's just no place to be sloppy.

I think that's the key. I implied in my original post that the M20J
requires more landing distance than comparable tourers. On reflection in
the light of others' posts, and perusal of some numbers, I think that's
misleading. The issue is that it's much less forgiving of any imprecision
in technique. Given that we're all human, I still think that's a good
reason to think hard about whether you want to base a Mooney at a relatively
short field.

Julian

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 06:53:15 GMT, "Julian Scarfe"
wrote:

I don't know what else you fly, Ron, but aircraft like the TB20, the
PA28s
and most light twins seem to handle crosswind take-offs with rather more
comfort.

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

Sorry about that. I did some reinstallation and my signature got changed.
But I've got over 2,500 hours in a Mooney M20E. And I presently fly out
of
a single runway airport with occasionally strong, gusty crosswinds. I've
not had a problem with crosswind takeoffs, either. Just hold the nose
down, aileron into the wind, and pop-off when ready to fly. Obviously on
a
paved strip.

Well, I was looking to see if the M20J and M20E had any differences that
would explain our difference in perception, but I'm not sure there is any.
The M20J was cleaned up by Lo Presti to the tune of about 20 knots, but
isn't it the same wing set at the same height above the ground? I've
described the issue I had in other posts, so I won't repeat it. While I
don't have your time on the aircraft, I did accumulate more than 500 hours.

And if you are talking about a 2,000' (610m) runway with trees to the end,
then yes, I would not want to be based there, given a choice. But, at
least here in the US, I don't believe I've ever seen a paved, short runway
where the 50' obstacle was at the beginning of the runway.

Grass is another story. I've been into Lubec airport (65B) which is 2024'
(617m), grass, with trees right to the end. Landing was not much of a
problem. But takeoff was close to the trees, even at 150 lbs under MGW.

I had a co-owner/partner in the Mooney group who is much braver than I was
with shorter strips. I'll check to see what he regards as "short". ;-)

Julian

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:50:08 GMT, "Julian Scarfe"
wrote:

Well, I was looking to see if the M20J and M20E had any differences that
would explain our difference in perception, but I'm not sure there is any.
The M20J was cleaned up by Lo Presti to the tune of about 20 knots, but
isn't it the same wing set at the same height above the ground? I've
described the issue I had in other posts, so I won't repeat it. While I
don't have your time on the aircraft, I did accumulate more than 500 hours.

Well, although the 'J' has the same wing, it has a longer body and a higher
MGW. But I don't know what that plus the clean up mods do for take off and
landing distances -- I don't have a POH for the 'J'. I think the stall
speed may be a few knots higher, so that could make a difference at the
margins.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)