Loading luggage in other than Mooney

I've helped a guy load his Mooney (on his final flight, but that's another
story), and was appalled at how truly difficult it was to load suitcases and
other luggage through that dinky little hole cut into the TOP of the
fuselage.

You have to do a virtual dead lift, straight up, then over, and then down
into the cabin -- preferably without scratching the paint. A truly bad
design.

My Cherokee, on the other hand, has a side baggage door that opens wide and
tall, and allows me to load 200 pounds of luggage without lifting any higher
than the very bottom of the fuselage.

The designers of the Cherokee got this one right. Mooney, however, did not.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


Mooneys have their shortcomings, you've IDed one of them. A hurt back can
prevent you from getting aboard, that's another. On the positive side, among
SEL airplanes I've known, the Mooney is among the best endorphin producers I've
known. It's easy to pick out the Mooney driver at the fixed base office (no,
not because his suit pants are dirty because he just checked his fuel) -- we're
the ones with the big smiles on our faces. And it's NOT because we get out tail
backwards, it's because it's a sweet airplane to fly. BTW, if you want to land
one really short (no, damn it, with the gear down) add a few RPMs deep in the
flare and if you get the yoke all the way back you'll be able to do a three
point touch down the old fashioned way.

Hey, there's a good question. How many of you actually get a stall warning in
the flare?

"tony" wrote:
Hey, there's a good question. How many of you actually get
a stall warning in the flare?

Every time.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Well, I did my commercial training in a old Mooney with a Johnson bar. Once
it gathers itself up and gets some speed on it's pretty nice. Tight
ailerons with little control wheel throw. Pitch okay. etc.

The vintage panel sucked, the luggage hole is fine for flight bags and
little stuff.

But I can imagine that packing the way we do in our Maule just wouldn't
work. We pay absolutely no attention to size, shape, or weight. We just
open the big door - or both doors, and put it in. It's easy to see that
travel in the Mooney would call for many smaller bags and a bit of planning.

Landings were sweet. Short field even sweeter. At about 80mph, I'm
guessing that whatever laminar flow characteristics the wing has falls away,
and the a/c assumes a good rate of descent, with some power, and with just
enough energy to flare with no float. Chop the power a wingspan and a half
high and you're done. (I didn't add any rpms but that would allow the wheel
to stay up after touch) I know people find some of the later models a bit
challenging at times but that wasn't my experience. Much easier to land
consistently and short over an obstacle than my Maule - though I can get the
Maule shorter just by virture of speed, but not much.

The 180hp Mooney is a hog on T.O. compared to my 180hp Maule whatever the
loading. And it feels like crap at slow speeds on initial climb or in slow
speed manuevers.

But the sweetest part is getting there 30% faster with the same engine and
fuel burn. That is sweet!

"tony" wrote in message
...

Mooneys have their shortcomings, you've IDed one of them. A hurt back can
prevent you from getting aboard, that's another. On the positive side,
among
SEL airplanes I've known, the Mooney is among the best endorphin producers
I've
known. It's easy to pick out the Mooney driver at the fixed base office
(no,
not because his suit pants are dirty because he just checked his fuel) --
we're
the ones with the big smiles on our faces. And it's NOT because we get out
tail
backwards, it's because it's a sweet airplane to fly. BTW, if you want to
land
one really short (no, damn it, with the gear down) add a few RPMs deep in
the
flare and if you get the yoke all the way back you'll be able to do a
three
point touch down the old fashioned way.

Hey, there's a good question. How many of you actually get a stall warning
in
the flare?

Hey, there's a good question. How many of you actually get
a stall warning in the flare?

Every time.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

But Dan, you sign as C172!

That's intended to be lighthearted, you know.

"tony" wrote:
But Dan, you sign as C172!

That's intended to be lighthearted, you know.

Sorry, Tony; what??

"tony" wrote:
Hey, there's a good question. How many of you actually get
a stall warning in the flare?

Then you screwed up your short field landing. The stall warning comes on
final. Any later and you use too much runway.

"kage" wrote in message ...
That's easy cause your 201 won't hold much. A couple of tooth brushes and
underwear maybe!

I don't remember my Mooney 1977 201 (N201MW), other than it didn't hold much
weight. Everything in aviation is a compromise. In my Cessna 185 I give up a
little speed to my Mooney. But after I load 8 hours of fuel (92 usable), and
four FAA passengers (170#) I can still load 180 pounds of baggage.

I have a 1000 lbs even of useful load in my Mooney. I only drink 10
gal/hr so I don't need as much gas.

-Robert

emoove (tony) wrote in message ...
Hey, there's a good question. How many of you actually get a stall warning in
the flare?

Everytime. I like my prop the length it is. BTW: Holding in a bit of
RPM AFTER TOUCH DOWN is a good soft field technique in a Mooney, but
not great for short. I've loaded my Mooney on beaches in Mexico on
several occations. It does great on the soft stuff as long as its not
deep.

-Robert

"Maule Driver" wrote in message .com...
Well, I did my commercial training in a old Mooney with a Johnson bar. Once
it gathers itself up and gets some speed on it's pretty nice. Tight
ailerons with little control wheel throw. Pitch okay. etc.

The vintage panel sucked, the luggage hole is fine for flight bags and
little stuff.

But I can imagine that packing the way we do in our Maule just wouldn't
work. We pay absolutely no attention to size, shape, or weight. We just
open the big door - or both doors, and put it in. It's easy to see that
travel in the Mooney would call for many smaller bags and a bit of planning.

Landings were sweet. Short field even sweeter. At about 80mph, I'm
guessing that whatever laminar flow characteristics the wing has falls away,
and the a/c assumes a good rate of descent, with some power, and with just
enough energy to flare with no float.

This varies a lot depending on the length of the Mooney. The F got
longer, then the M got longer yet. As they got longer, the short field
got harder and keeping the nose high on touch down got harder. 80 mph
is pretty fast over the fence for the non-turbo Mooneys. 75 mph works
good for heavy, and 72 seems to work good for light. Every 10 mph
extra over the fence seems to cost about 1000 feet of runway.

-Robert, CFI, Mooney owner.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:_R5Dc.113229$HG.74050@attbi_s53...
How do most of the Bonanza/Cessna pilots here do it? Why would anyone
put a baggage door on the bottom of the baggage area. Its like loading
your truck though a little hole near the license plate on your car.

I've helped a guy load his Mooney (on his final flight, but that's another
story), and was appalled at how truly difficult it was to load suitcases and
other luggage through that dinky little hole cut into the TOP of the
fuselage.

Interesting. I've always been impressed with how big that opening is.
I've actually climbed into the back seat through it on a couple of
occasions while working on the plane. I'm 6'4" 220lbs.


You have to do a virtual dead lift, straight up, then over, and then down
into the cabin -- preferably without scratching the paint. A truly bad
design.

But the alternative is to have to load each bag, then lift it up and
slide other bags under it. That surely can't be better than the Mooney
method.
Perhaps my family of 4 just carries a lot more bags than most.