Mooney M20E Performance Test 

Wish someone would do an STC for “Fowler flaps” on these planes, so they actually provide lift instead of just drag. Then an STC for a left side baggage door like a Comanche, then you could just seal up the useless one that opens to the sky which also pops open in flight. Ugh such a idiotic design that could really be a good airplane instead of pretending that it is.

Maybe for next topic talk about techniques for landing a mooney without floating, crosswind landings, short field, and back-country flying are some ideas.

That they over-run the runway. That could be dispelled by showing a short-field landing. As you know, it's all in decent planning, and speed control over the fence. I tell everyone that gear down and first notch, it's a Cherokee, nothing to be afraid of. But you've got to get it down to gear operating speed first!

Not a pilot here. How does airspeed compare to SOG (assuming level flight)?

@@dodgeplow SOG is not an abbreviation commonly used by pilots, so I'm going to guess it means speed over ground? If so, I can answer your question, if not, just explain what SOG means. There are four types of airspeed: Indicated airspeed is what the gauge says, simple enough. Calibrated airspeed is the indicated airspeed adjusted for installation and instrument error. Think of it as the airspeed the wings feel. True airspeed is the calibrated airspeed corrected for altitude and temperature. It's how fast you are actually moving through the air. Ground speed is the true airspeed plus or minus any headwind or tailwind component. (I think this is what you were really asking) Finally, equivalent airspeed is is the calibrated airspeed adjusted for the compressibility of air. This only comes into play as you go really fast at high altitudes, so for our type of flying, it's negligible.

At higher altitudes above about 8-9000ft, just lean out until the engine gets slightly rough and then enrichen. Any operation LOP to pk EGT to 125 ROP will not be possible to hurt the normally aspirated engine because you'll typically be less than 65-70% HP even at WOT & ram air door open. At typical stabilized cruise speed with typical CHT's, you really can't hurt the engine. If unsure, settle in cruise for an extra couple of minutes before doing the leaning. In general, getting an engine analyzer is practically a necessity for safety reasons. You'll generally be able to see valve issues before the engine has serious catastrophic failure. At least, you can baby it for a precautionary landing. I typically fly my 1966 M20E at a minimum of 10,500 ft. Best TAS goes down but the CAFE score keeps going up and starts flattening at about 14-15,000 ft. At that point, I'm getting about 23 statute MPG with a fuel flow of about 7.1 gph (143 KTAS). For the E model with 48 gals usable, it increases the range so I don't have to stop or have more reserves.

The Mooney wing doesn't want to stop flying & the gear is short. But if u can fly a Piper Archer or Cessna 172 it's not a hard transition compared to other complex planes. If your use to flying a short wing plane like a Cherokee you will probably have problems till u learn good airspeed control. I have installed precise flight speed brakes on them which should help double the rate of descent. But I think its better to plan descents early it saves fuel & good airspeed control on landing.

That’s absurd. I have a m20c very easy to land. I even go in out of grass strip part of the year. Just lean to manage airspeed.

Absurd? He has over 12,000 hours in the air. And has owned that plane for over 20 years. Ownes 3 other aircraft as well. He said exactly what the other commenter said. "It just keeps floating and tends to pourpus like a dolphin." He would say this all the time. And he LOVES that plane. I'm 100% sure he knows what he is talking about.

@@tireballastserviceofflorid7771 My dad, who also had thousands of hours in fighters and airliners, porpoised our Super 21 and had a prop strike, because he didn't respect how precise you need to be with speed control on approach in the Mooney. I believed the guy who checked us both out in the Mooney, and never had a problem...earned my private in that bird, and my commercial in a 201 at Flight Safety, where I convinced my instructor that HE (multi-thousand hours, flew C-130s, aerobatic, etc.) was carrying 5 too many knots down final...showed him that I could consistently touch down on the landing zone paint and make the turnoff, where he floated to the intersection from the same on-glideslope position over the threshold. I wish I could have afforded to buy the M20E when he and his partners sold it. The Mooney will teach you to be careful, and you'll find other airplanes, which are more tolerant of excess speed, also land better if you actually fly a stabilized approach right on speed. Come in 5 knots too fast, and you'll have a hell of a time getting it to land. 10 knots will add a mile to runway required.

@@richsarchet9762 My point exactly. Great plane just not forgiving on landing. 5 knots in a C182 or C210 is nothing.

Thanks for the kind words.

Yes, exactly. Volumetric efficiency. This is why people in the know fly WOTLOP. Wide open throttle, Lean of Peak. With more than 65% power (WOT down at lower altitudes) it is possible to climb and cruise LOP as long as you can get sufficiently LOP. More power=the need to be more LOP. The worst place to operate the engine (lowest detonation margin) is 50-75dF ROP. Of course, this is normally the “best power” mixture found in the performance charts.

Do you know a method to find a partner for an aircraft? It would be nice to have a Mooney ownership partners page.

@@brucecuratola6389 There is a Facebook page for people seeking partnerships.

Thanks, Paul. I'm an engineer - using data to make decisions is how I operate. I know no other way. I find tests like these to be fun. The POH is great, but airplanes are hand built so they all behave a little differently (and they all age differently) so I like to do these tests. I'm glad you enjoyed it, and thanks for watching.

Of course you love Mooneys, what's not to love!?! But seriously, thanks for watching.

As another student/Mooney shopper I agree.

A lot of high performance planes cruise in the yellow arc at a standard cruise power setting, which is never a problem in smooth air. Vno (start of yellow arc) and Vne (red line) were raised in later Mooneys after more analysis was done on the airframe (no change was made to the airframe - better analysis showed that it was stronger than previously thought).

Thanks for letting me know. I flew an M20J and I knew someone with an M20E with the real 201 cowl and neither had the power boost door so I assumed they were all that way.

@@FrugalMooney You should do a buyer's guide on the features plus pros & cons.When I worked at a Mooney dealership in the 90's the newer M20J Mooney MSE models had eliminated the ram air. But those later years had better corrosion protection with primer on inner structure. Some 80's Mooney's had almost all the primer falling off the tubular structure & badly rusted tubes when u pulled interior panels. The older ones like yours have good paint coatings on the tubing. I have seen a primer with coat of grey enamel on older ones. Great video 👍

@@Nord3202 Thanks for the idea - I might do something on the various models. I wanted an older model before the first bankruptcy and sale (before they started cutting corners to save money) - I've heard some stories about how things were cheapened after the sale to Republic.

@@FrugalMooney Also I like the older style fuel caps with the door & scupper drain. The 65 & up Mooney's had the more common flush fuel caps that water sits in the neck above the o ring & rust out the filler necks. But 65 to 66 where the fastest due to better quality control. The 64 was the last year for the crank up step. Then vacuum operated then finally just a fixed step. Also the older Mooney's had the smooth elevator & rudder instead of the beaded controls & larger rudder. Also the manual gear is a plus on the older models. Nice to make a video on all the changes over the years. I prefer the bullet proof 4 cylinder Lycoming engine Mooney's. After the J model it's all downhill especially with the Continental engine, alot more expensive to buy & maintain.

In the J they modified the intake, so the ram air barely had any effect, many older Js have had them removed to eliminate maintenance and clean up the cowling.

Partial pressure of O2 is effectively reduced. Can effectively think of it as a higher density altitude.

A bit of a novel here (sorry). I've been searching for the reference where I may have read that but have had no luck so far. The hard drive died on my old computer so I lost some documents, so there's a decent possibility that I mis-remembered it (so it was probably a bit irresponsible for me to say that in the video purely based off of my memory). BUT, the power settings tables for the M20J vs the E and F models are considerably different (I do still have a copy of the power setting tables). For instance, at 24"/2400 RPM the E and F manuals list that as 74% of rated power, but the M20J POH lists that power setting as being 68.3% of rated power (I had to interpolate for that). A non-interpolated data point is for 55% power on the E and F is 18"/2400 RPM, but 55% power on the J is 20" / 2400 RPM. It's possible that it may have been the intake in the M20J installation was tuned to be slightly different than the E/F and my memory might just suck. Or it might be that the numbers are different because the dyno at Lycoming was changed and I'm just a fool. :)

@@FrugalMooney I think the bigger disparity has to do with inconsistency in POH’s from year to year. In terms of valve geometry I think you are confusing the angle valve 200 hp Lycomings with the parallel valve 180hp Lycomings. The early Lycomings did have smaller diameter valve stems but I doubt there are any of those still in service. There were also narrow deck crank cases in the 60s but they are rare these days as well.

2400

Yes sir - Willow Run in Belleville.

Who's to say what the best approach is? I don't know if you've ever read the articles by John Deakin on AvWeb (link to a summary: www.csobeech.com/lean-of-peak.html), but he talks a bit about LOP operation (and engine operation in general) on a carbureted engine. I'm not necessarily saying I endorse it (or don't endorse it- I don't have enough information), but if you're interested, have a look to see what he has to say. Edit: here's a better link (cospilot.com/documents/Mixture%20Magic.pdf) but you can look him up on Google.

@@FrugalMooney Those are very interesting articles. The pdf will take reading a few times to fully sink in. The moral seems to be that we can experiment quite safely above 9000 ft. I'm curious if that also applies to rpm, I've got the MT prop as of last month with no rpm restrictions. I'd like to try cruising at 2000 and leaning it out... Regardless, I'll work on applying that info.

@@HairHelmet Nothing scary or dangerous about operating LOP in carb engine as long as you have a proper understanding of the principles and limits. Modern engine scanner instruments make it easy and give confidence that engine is happy.

All Mooneys I have flown will be in the yellow arc at 75% power. This means you are exceding Vno (normal operating speed) for flight in rough air. When encountering rough air, throttle back below the yellow arc. Most Mooney pilots just climb above the rough air for comfort and speed.

The M20A was the last model with wood in it - I believe that was discontinued in 1960.

BH: Maintenance is maintenance in a properly operated engine. LOP is safe and causes no damage to engine when done correctly. Dig into the books.

LOP generally reduces maintenance costs by running cooler cylinders.

I bought the airplane 11 years ago so my purchase price may no longer be relevant, but here's a website with listings for the same model: www.controller.com/listings/search?Category=6&ModelGroup=M20E&Manufacturer=MOONEY&ScopeCategoryIDs=13

Near the end of the video I showed a table of the test points with the power settings and the speeds. I hope that helps.

Experimentals can be pretty cool - that's for sure. If I didn't get a Mooney I would look into the experimental route. Thanks for checking in.

@@FrugalMooney Been a pilot for 36 yrs, ATP and CFI, built two RV's and has owned a few other planes (including a Piper Apache PA23-160). I love the RV performance (better than most SE retracts) and freedom to maintain it and modify it. The RV7 is only two seats. The RV10 would be my choice over a Mooney but RV10's have become very expensive. I am glad I built my RV7 before the crazy inflation of everything. In my CFI days the flight school had 35 planes, including two Mooney's on lease back (201 and 231). I transitioned and checked out several pilots into the Mooney. We (insurance company) required an instrument rating and 25 hours retract gear time to rent our Mooney's. RU-vid was not around then. Videos like yours are helpful to pilots transitioning to the type for the first time. A used Mooney like yours is a great value. Looks like an older but very nice panel upgrade in your Mooney. The windscreen upgrade is nice. I think the lopresti speed mods cowl (if they make it for that model is $16k) would be a great upgrade, but I would leave it alone. Spend the money on fuel... and go fly. Nice plane. Thanks for sharing,