Aircraft Evaluation Report
Test Pilot - Flying
the M20G
Exactly What is an M20G?
The
M20G is an airplane not many people know about. The reason? Not too many were built. This is
the scarcest of all the Mooneys, with the exception
of the M22 Mustang and the M10 Cadet. Only 190 M20G models came out of the factory in
The
M20G is a hybrid mix of the engine from the M20C (the Lycoming carbureted, 180
horsepower O-360) mated to the stretched-fuselage M20F airframe. You can look at the results two ways. Either the M20G is 1) a stretched M20C with
more legroom for the rear seat passengers or 2) an F Model with the Lycoming
O-360 instead of the fuel injected, 200 horsepower
IO-360.
Why Wasn’t it More Popular?
Mooneys are perceived as fast airplanes. You and I both know that we like to fly Mooneys because they go fast. Unfortunately, the
M20G in its stock configuration was the slowest of all the retractable gear Mooneys. Real world
cruise speeds at maximum cruise power settings and normal cruise altitudes
turned out to be in the neighborhood of 135 KTAS. That’s at least 5-7 KTAS slower than the C
model using the same engine. Rates of
climb averaged 500-750 feet per minute shortly after takeoff, depending on
weight and density altitude. Not exactly breathtaking performance, especially for a Mooney. It was, quite frankly a “ho-hum” airplane by
Mooney performance standards.
Almost
everyone who flew in a G model bought an F model instead. The F model had 20 more horsepower (the
Lycoming IO-360 200 horsepower engine), was fuel injected and would cruise
10-15 KTAS faster. And it wasn’t that
much more expensive.
Finding a Good G Model to Fly
The reason it’s taken us so long to do a
pilot report on a G model is because we couldn’t find a good one to fly. These are pretty scarce airplanes. But then we came across N6716N, a beautifully
refurbished M20G. The airplane is owned
by Dale Lusk of
McGregor
,
Texas
. Dale’s
ownership story is unique – he has owned 16N either alone or in a partnership
for the past 28 years. We highlighted
Dale and 16N in the April 2000 issue of the MAPA LOG. Some time ago, Dale invited us to fly his
airplane for a pilot report and we just got around to doing so in November of
this year. That two hour flight is the
basis for this report.
|
Dale Lusk, proud owner of N6716N. |
A Little Bit About N6716N
The
airplane is serial number 680087, built in the middle of the 1968 production
run. After flying the airplane in the
stock configuration for 13 years or so, Dale began to seek a little more
performance from the airplane. In 1987,
he had a sloped windshield installed by Southwest Texas Aviation in
But Dale found himself wanting more performance. He also
felt it was time to invest some major dollars in the fit and finish of the
airplane and to add some avionics capability. This past year has been an expensive one. Pippen-York
Avionics of Fredericksburg, Texas did the avionics upgrades (KX155, Garmin 250XL GPS, KMA 28 audio panel/intercom).
|
|
Pippen-York
Avionics of Fredericksburg, Texas, did the avionics upgrade.
|
The sloped windshield was installed in
1987.
|
A Quick Discussion of Speed Mods on Pre-J Model Mooneys
If
you’re considering speed mods for your Mooney, spend
your money wisely. Concentrate your
dollars on the most “bang for the buck”. Everyone has a different opinion on where the earlier Mooneys have the most drag. Let me tell you what we found during engineering flight tests at the
factory and from what I learned from the test pilots who flew before I did.
Start
with the cowling. The original cowlings
on pre-J model Mooneys are pretty inefficient, both
from an aerodynamic and an engine cooling standpoint. They are basically aluminum wraps with a big
hole cut in the front. We fly such
wonderful airframes from the firewall aft (our wings are a thing of aerodynamic
beauty). I just don’t understand how or
why the same amount of care wasn’t put into the design of the cowlings on pre-J
model Mooneys. These old cowling add lots of drag to an otherwise wonderfully clean
airframe.
The
second most “draggy” item on our airplanes is the
original windshield design. Awfully
vertical, these original windshields added lots to overall airframe drag. Adding a sloped windshield cuts lots of drag
and adds significantly to the cruise speed. But installing a sloped windshield comes at a price – you loose
accessibility to the avionics and instruments by extending the windshield
forward to cover the access panels in the top of the cowling. Is it worth losing this accessibility for a
few knots? You decide.
|
|
Sorry,
but flap gap seals, tailcone closures, wingtips, etc.
aren’t worth much aerodynamically. We
flight tested many different airframe modifications when I was performing
engineering flight tests at the factory. Wingtips, wing/fuselage fairings, flap gap seals, flight control gap
seals, hidden nav antennas – you name it, we flight
tested it. From our very accurate
instrumentation and data reduction methods, I’m sorry to say the improvements
were negligible with these items. Now
they do make the airplane look a lot better and if you’re facing a repaint
soon, you might want to add them for cosmetic reasons. Just don’t expect to see anything positive on
the airspeed or rate of climb indicators from these items.
So
zero-in your drag reduction dollars on the pre-J model cowlings and
windshields. The original designs can be
made a lot better aerodynamically. For
the money spent, you’ll see the greatest gain where it counts – on the face of
the airspeed indicator.
A Close Look at N6716N on the Ramp
The
walk-around inspection showed 16N to be a superb example of an M20G. Good, slick wing, original squared off wing
tips, manual landing gear, manual flaps and an updated, much improved cowling
and windshield. If
somebody would only incorporate an easy to open or remove panel on these new
cowlings for a proper engine inspection prior to every flight. The original cowls were a nightmare to remove
for proper engine inspections. The new
cowling mods aren’t much better. As Mooney pilots, I guess we’re doomed to
peeking through the oil access door, hoping everything is okay. Forces us to take an hour or so every couple
of weeks to go to the airport alone, remove about a hundred screws and give the
engine a thorough going over.
The
Southwest Texas Aviation cowling did look good on the N6716N. Like cosmetic surgery, it made the airplane
look 20 years younger. The cowling mod
comes with a longer, more pointed prop spinner and this adds good looks as
well. The paint job you see on the
airplane was Dale’s design. The lines
and flow of the design highlight the Mooney’s shape very well. Dale stayed with the original green
color. You don’t see many green
airplanes today, but I liked it on 16N. Retained a lot of the original feel of the airplane to be flying
around with a paint color popular in the late 1960’s.
|
|
Paint and Trim Touches really make
N6716N look good on the ramp.
|
|
Let’s Get Inside – Interior, Instrument Panel and Controls
Entering
the single cabin door on a Mooney always takes a little twisting and
turning. Once inside though, the front
seats are comfortable. The G model has
the lower instrument panel seen in all Mooneys prior
to the longer fuselage, current production airplanes. It’s nice to be able to see over the nose with
this panel configuration. A look aft showed the G model has the same rear seat
room as the F model. Still not a lot of
room for anyone in the back, but at least someone can be fairly comfortable
back there if necessary.
Reaching
for the shoulder harnesses, I found none in N6716N. Again, I want to say that the single most
important safety feature you can retrofit to your older Mooney is the
installation of front seat shoulder harnesses. We sit very close to the instrument panel in Mooneys. A sudden stop, even from 20 knots or so, and
your upper torso will pivot around the single lap belt and your head and face
will impact the panel. The result will
be a serious injury – many times fatal. If you don’t have shoulder harnesses for the front seat occupants in
your airplane, call Lake Aero Styling in
|
The interior in N6716N has been refurbished very
nicely.
|
The
panel in 16N is pre-1970 in design and layout, meaning the
flight instruments are not arranged in the basic “T” arrangement seen in
airplanes built during and after 1970. This is no big deal if you aren’t used to the basic “T” configuration in
newer airplanes. But if you’ve flown a
lot in newer airplanes with a basic “T” instrument layout, you’ll find yourself
searching for the proper instrument for 20 hours or so until you get used to
the older panels. Not a big deal if you fly VFR, but a huge issue for IFR pilots. IFR pilots have to relearn their instrument
scan when flying an older airplane without the basic “T” layout. Those first few hours in the clouds flying
behind an older instrument layout can be uncomfortable.
16N
came equipped from the factory in 1968 with a manual landing gear and hydraulic
flaps. Discussing the pros and cons of these systems compared to electric ones
will start a fight among a group of Mooney pilots. Manual gear and hydraulic flaps are simple to
maintain and easy on the pocketbook, but the forces required to raise and lower
the gear can be pretty substantial for some people. How about your non-flying spouse or friend in
the right seat? Can he or she operate
the manual landing gear in an emergency? Keeping the gear properly rigged really helps keep the operating forces
down, but the fact remains that for some the manual gear is just not what they
want.
The
flaps are nicer – easy to operate and precise with just the right number of
pumps for takeoff and full flaps. But
let’s face it, we’re a push button world these
days. New generation pilots today have
home computers and drive cars with automatic transmissions and push button seat
controls and bun warmers. They like
switches and buttons, not Johnson bars and pump handles. A lot of us (myself included) think manual gear and flaps are wonderful and fun. Newer generation pilots think we’re
crazy. The nice thing about Mooneys is both electric gear and flaps or manual gear and
flaps are available in the marketplace. You can get the one you want.
Engine Start and Taxi
I there an easier engine to start than the carbureted Lycoming O-360
used in the pre-J Mooney fleet? Whereas the
fuel injected IO-360 will humble you, the O-360 will start just about every
time. Above 20 degrees F, place the
mixture full rich, boost pump on, pump the throttle
three to five times from full out to full in. Open the throttle a quarter inch after pumping. Engage the starter. Below 20 degrees F, you may need to pump the
throttle five to seven times before engaging the starter. Below 10 degrees F, consider preheating the
engine.
|
|
The panel of 16-N in flight.
|
|
Once
started and idling at 1000 RPM or so, get on that mixture control and lean the
heck out of it for ground operations. Blindly taxiing around with the mixture control at the full rich
position can foul the spark plugs in short order. Most engines are set up too rich, both at
idle and takeoff power. Do your
pocketbook and your engine a favor and lean aggressively shortly after engine
start and for all ground operations. You
cannot hurt any aircraft piston engine by leaning aggressively on the
ground. Do it - you’ll triple the time
between plug cleanings and extend plug life tremendously.
Once
taxiing, I like to switch the boost pump off (saves operating time). The ride to the runway will be a stiff
one. Mooney landing gears are designed
for ease of maintenance with the rubber doughnuts, not for a smooth ride. The shock absorption qualities of hard rubber
aren’t very good compared to hydraulic actuators, but they sure are
cheaper. As you feel every crack and
joint in the taxiway, just think of all the money you’re saving.
Runup and Pre-Takeoff Checks
In
the M20G, the power is increased to 1700 RPM for checking the mags and cycling the prop. I like these lower power settings for these ground checks. We’ve gotten into the insane procedure (per
the POH) of running up to 2000 RPM for these same checks in newer
airplanes. This is way too much power on
the ground. Passengers get nervous, your
prop is taking a beating and the pilot behind you is getting sand blasted. 1700 RPM is plenty to tell if the mags are working and to cycle the propeller.
My
check in older Mooneys consists of CIGAR – Controls,
Instruments (and avionics), Gas, Attitude (trim), Runup. On the Lycoming powered airplanes, add B for
Boost pump on prior to entering the runway. Lycoming likes for you to have the boost pump on for operations close to
the ground in case the primary engine driven fuel pump fails. But don’t do this with a Continental powered
Mooney. Use of the boost pump along with
the primary engine driven fuel pump on Continental engines will cause it to
quit due to excessive fuel flow.
Some Thoughts Concerning the Mixture Control and Flaps for Takeoff
Concerning
the mixture control, I like to keep it lean for taxiing and for the runup. But as I
enter the runway for takeoff, it goes towards the full rich position for the
takeoff roll. But don’t just blindly push the mixture control full forward for every
takeoff. Again, most engines are set
up too rich and a full rich mixture setting for takeoff can rob valuable power
needed for the initial climb. Best power
is developed at peak EGT plus 125 degrees rich of that peak EGT reference. With the mixture control blindly set to the
full rich position, you could be running much more fuel than necessary through
the engine, thus the EGT could be much colder (say 200-300 degrees rich of peak
EGT). You’ve lost lots of horsepower and
takeoff and climb performance will suffer.
My
personal procedure is this. If the
density altitude is 3000 feet or less, I’ll take off with the mixture full
rich. If the density altitude is greater
than 3000 feet, I’ll run up to 2000 RPM in position on the runup pad, lean the mixture to peak EGT and then enrichen to 125 degrees rich of that peak EGT reference. And that’s my mixture setting for takeoff. This procedure will give me close to best
power mixture for takeoff at the higher density altitudes - just what I want.
How
about flaps? Your
choice. By all means, it the
runway is short or the airplane is heavy, use takeoff flaps. It’s how the takeoff performance data is
derived in the POH. But on longer
runways, try a few takeoffs with the flaps retracted. I think you’ll like the way the airplane
rotates and flys away with the flaps up during
takeoff. And it’s one less thing
(retracting the flaps) to worry about during the climb.
Let’s Fly Our G Model
Onto
the runway now in our G model, the throttle goes full forward. A quick look at manifold
pressure and prop RPM confirms full power. Good Mooney pilots roll down the runway with a little aft pull on the
control wheel – about 5 pounds or so. This keeps the weight on the nose wheel to a minimum and positions the
airplane to rotate smoothly from the runway.
The
G model will not impress you with its takeoff and initial climb. Remember, we’re flying an M20F with 20 fewer
horsepower. But the G model does pretty
darn good. Our flight was made with two
on board, three-quarters fuel and 40 pounds of gear. But we accelerated right on down the
runway. I elected to take off with flaps
up, and after 800 feet or so we rotated and lifted off cleanly at 75MIAS
(65KIAS). After establishing a positive
rate of climb, it was time to manually retract the gear. 16N’s gear system was rigged properly, so the
forces were moderate at 80 MIAS for the gear retraction.
How Does It Climb With Only 180 Horsepower?
Time for our first check of the M20G’s performance – climb rate. For our climb to altitude, we chose a
constant airspeed of 100 MIAS. We felt
this was a good compromise between good performance and good engine
cooling. Vy (best rate of climb airspeed) is 101 MIAS at seal level decreasing
approximately 1 MIAS per 1000 feet to 87 MIAS at 10000 feet. So a constant 100 MIAS should work very
well. Another reason for choosing
100MIAS was that we climbed the M20F at that constant airspeed and we would
have data to compare between it and our M20G test airplane.
As
we have discussed in the past, the way to climb any normally aspirated Mooney
to altitude is at full throttle, maximum RPM, mixture leaned to peak EGT plus
125 degrees rich (don’t climb with the mixture full rich!), cowl flaps (if
installed) full open and an airspeed higher than Vy. Certainly use Vy if
obstacles, terrain or weather dictate getting to altitude as quickly as
possible, but climbing at Vy plus 10 or 20 will
result in more ground covered during the climb, better engine cooling and
better over the nose visibility.
So
how well did N6716N climb at 100 MIAS? Here’s the data:
Continuous Climb Data 1968 Model M20G N6716N
Full throttle, 2700 RPM,
Mixture leaned to 125 degrees rich of peak EGT, cowl flaps fixed, 100 MIAS
constant climb speed, ¾ fuel, two on board.
Elapsed
Time Altitude OAT
Min Ft. F in-Hg FPM
0:00 1000 59 27.1 ---
Not
bad, is it? Average rate of climb for
the test was exactly 600 feet per minute. That’s not too bad and gives the M20G the real world capability of
climbing to and using cruise altitudes up to 10,000 feet. Much above that, forget it in the M20G.
Let’s
see how this rate of climb for the M20G compares to the other pre-J model Mooneys we evaluated earlier. Here’s that data:
Average Rate of Climb
Comparison to 10,000 feet
M20C, M20E. M20F, M20G
Aircraft climbed at full throttle, 2700 RPM, mixture leaned to peak EGT plus 125 degrees rich, cowl flaps open, 100 MIAS constant climb speed.
Aircraft
Model Engine Horsepower Average Rate of Climb
M20E IO-360 200 794 FPM
M20F IO-360 200 702 FPM
M20C O-360 180 657 FPM
M20G O-360 180 600 FPM
Interesting
how consistent this data is, isn’t it? Also, It’s exactly what we expected from the
various models. The E model should be
the best climber – most horsepower and lightest weight. The F model would follow next with its 200
horsepower engine but heavier weight. Next would be the C model with only 180 horsepower but in a light
airframe. Last on the list would be the
G model – heaviest airframe with the 180 horsepower engine. I find this data extremely interesting and
valuable - nothing like accurate flight test data to show a true comparison
between the various models.
Determining Level Cruise Performance – The GPS Method
We
looked at three different altitudes for evaluating cruise performance data for
the G model. The procedure used for
determining accurate cruise performance was the four-way GPS groundspeed
method. It’s very accurate and easy to
do. Fly four headings (N, E, S, W) and
record stabilized ground speeds on each heading for the altitude and power
setting you are evaluating. Precise
flying is a must here- fly exactly on altitude and heading. The average of the four ground speeds you get
while flying N, S, E, and W is the aircraft’s true airspeed for the altitude
and power setting flown. And it’s very
accurate.
A Suggested Power Cruise Power Setting
Let’s
do talk a little bit about the optimum power setting to use in cruise flight
for your normally aspirated Mooney. Above 3000 feet or so, try a cruise power setting in your normally
aspirated Mooney of full throttle (and take whatever manifold pressure you get
there), 2500 RPM, mixture leaned to peak EGT plus 50 degrees rich and cowl
flaps closed. It’s the power setting to
use for optimum performance and good economy while staying well within the
operating parameters of your normally aspirated engine.
The Cruise Numbers for the G Model
With
all that said, how did our M20G test airplane, N6716N, do in level cruise
flight? Here’s the data.
Level Flight Cruise
Performance 1968 M20G N6716N
Full throttle, 2500 RPM, mixture
leaned to peak EGT plus 50 degrees rich, cowl flaps on this airplane fixed.
Altitude OAT Full Throttle Direction IAS GPS Groundspeed
Ft. F
Man.
Press. MPH/KTS KTS
10500 32 19.5 E 134/116 150
S 137
W 128
N 138
Avg.
GS/TAS 138.25 kts
7500 42 22.0 E 147/128 154
S 148
W 132
N 136
Avg.
GS/TAS 142.5 kts.
5500 50 23.5 E 156/136 146
S 144
W 144
N 145
Avg. GS/TAS 145.0 kts.
So
there’s the real world cruise performance data for or test M20G, N6716N. Pretty good numbers, really. Compared to the performance data shown in the
POH, 16N exhibited speeds that were 2.5 to 5 KTAS faster. I was a little surprised by this. With the sloped windshield and lower drag
cowling, the airplane should have been a little bit faster than our test
results proved it to be. But the engine
on 16N is currently at 1270 hours and could account for the lower than
anticipated cruise speeds with the cowling and windshield mods. Nevertheless, 16N did pretty well,
considering the 180 horsepower/longer fuselage pairing of the M20G.
How About Fuel Consumption?
Without
fuel flow information, it’s difficult to calculate what our fuel consumption
was at the power settings and cruise speeds shown above. Going back to the POH, it appears that the
fuel consumption at peak EGT plus 50 degrees rich would be around 8 gallons per
hour at 10,500 feet, 9.5 gallons per hour at 7500 feet and 10.5 gallons per
hour at 5500 feet, but theses are only estimates. The only way to determine actual fuel flows
would be to make a few trips in the airplane, carefully noting fuel added after
the flight.
Endurance in the G Model
Incidentally,
fuel capacity in the G model is 52 gallons, same as the M20C and E. In the F model, fuel capacity was 64
gallons. Since the M20G is basically an
F model with the carbureted O-360 engine, why didn’t the G model have the
larger tanks of F? Two reasons,
probably. First, fuel consumption was a
little less in the G model, so it didn’t need the extra fuel. Secondly, all that gas in the G model and
there wouldn’t be much left over for cabin payload with full fuel. Climb performance is not the strongest suit
of the G model and reducing full fuel capacity meant the airplane would be
flying lighter.
Even
with the 52 gallon tanks, the G model has adequate endurance. Using the power settings we flew, I would say
that a G model is good for at least 3.0 hours of endurance with a 1 hour
reserve. That’s about as long as I like
to sit in an airplane, so that’s plenty of endurance for me.
Descending from Altitude – Some Suggested Power Settings
Enroute descent in every Mooney we fly can be efficiently done by reducing
manifold pressure to 20 inches, leaving the RPM at 2500 (or 2400 in the
TLS/Bravo), re-leaning the mixture to peak EGT or TIT and flying any airspeed
you wish in the green arc. In the older Mooneys, that’s hard to do with the top of the green arc so
low. Our test M20G had a 175 MIAS/152
KIAS top of the green arc, so staying in the green arc during descent was not a
problem. 1000 FPM was obtained with the
airspeed still in the green at 20 inches of manifold pressure. That’s enough to keep any controller happy.
Like
every other Mooney, the absolute minimum power for descent in the G model is 15
inches of manifold pressure. 15 inches
is what is called the “0 torque” point for almost every Mooney we fly. Above 15 inches and the engine is powering
the propeller, which keeps everything warm. Below 15 inches, the prop begins to drive the engine and shock cooling
is the result. So in a pinch, you can
bring the power back to 15 inches in the descent, but try to not go any lower
than that until you get ready to make your final descent to land.
Let’s Again Talk About Excessive Landing Flare Speeds
Most Mooneys are flown into the landing flare with the
airspeed too high. The result is a long
float down the runway. Not a problem if
the runway is long. Trouble brews,
however, when landing too fast on a short runway. As the runway end approaches, the pilot
panics and attempts to “plant” the airplane on the ground with forward pressure
on the control wheel. Ouch!
You
might be able to get by with this in Pipers, Cessnas and Beeches, but not with a Mooney. It’s
the one vice our airplanes have. A
forward push on the control wheel in a Mooney during the landing flare will
result in a series of bounces and rebounds off the runway. The pilot will eventually get out of sync
with these oscillations, pushing when he or she should be pulling. The result will be a very nose low condition
during one of the impacts with the runway. The prop will hit the pavement. Bingo – that’s a $20,000 engine teardown and propeller repair job.
We
have about 10-15 prop strike accidents a month in the Mooney community. That’s way too many. How do we keep this from happening? Approach the landing flare with the airspeed in check – don’t blow down final at 100 KIAS and enter the
landing flare at 95. That procedure is a
busted prop and an engine teardown waiting to happen.
Stall Speeds and Calculated
Landing Flare Speeds in N6716N
Before
entering the traffic pattern in 16N, it was time to do a series of power off
stalls to determine indicated stall speeds. We need these speeds to calculate landing flare speeds used during our
landing evaluations. Generally speaking, the correct landing flare speed will
be 1.2 times the indicated stall speed for the flap condition you are using to
land. In our test G model, let’s look at
what those speeds turned out to be.
Indicated Stall Speeds and
Calculated Landing Flare Speeds
1968 Model M20G N6716N
Gear down, mid weight, power
at idle, flap position as noted.
Gear Flap Indicated Stall Speed Calculated Landing Flare Speed
Position Position MIAS 1.2 X Stall Speed MIAS
Down Up 60 72
Down Takeoff 55 66
Down Full Down 53 64
Some Thoughts on Flying the Traffic Pattern
So
with these speeds in hand, we entered the pattern for a few landings. I like to enter the pattern in the pre-J
model Mooneys with the airspeed between 100-120MIAS
on downwind and with the airplane clean. Opposite the touchdown point on downwind, the gear is placed down (max
gear operating speed in the G model is 120 MIAS) and flaps are selected to the
takeoff position (max flap operating speed in 125 MIAS). Extending partial flaps only at this point
minimizes the nose heavy tendency all Mooneys have
when the flaps are lowered and minimizes the required trim change.
I
turn base, flying now at 100 MIAS or so in the pre-J models. On base leg, it’s time to extend the rest of
the flaps, (watch that pitch down tendency and be ready to re-trim nose
up). One final, I’ll fly anywhere from
80-100 MIAS, depending on wind conditions and traffic.
Our Targeted Speeds for the Flare Were a Little Slow in the G Model
As I near the runway threshold, it’s time to begin decelerating to my targeted landing flare speed (generally 1.2 the stall speed for the flap condition I’m using for landing). Keeping the speed in check like this as I near the runway surface is critical for good landings in all Mooneys. However, our particular test airplane surprised me a little bit. My calculated landing flare speeds were just a little bit too low. I needed just a little more energy (airspeed) than 1.2 times the stall speed in the flare for a smooth touchdown. Flying at the calculated flare speeds resulted in the “bottom falling out” on several landings and a firm touchdown was the result. In our test airplane, adding 5 MIAS to the calculated flare speeds stabilized everything out and resulted in good landings and short landing rolls (right at 1000 feet most of the time). I can’t explain why the calculated speeds were a little slow, but they were. Adding 5 MIAS did the trick though in our test G model. So the optimum landing flare speeds came out to be 77 MIAS flaps up, 71 MIAS flaps takeoff and 69 MIAS flaps full down. They worked perfectly.
Should You Land With Anything Less Than Full Flaps?
Incidentally,
I caught some criticism recently for suggesting that you can make landings with
anything less than full flaps. Some
pilots think that every landing should be made using full flaps. Using full flaps for every landing adds consistency
and predictability. And flaps do lower
approach and landing speeds, so using them is flying the airplane the way it
was designed. These are very good, valid
points.
But
my landings are done at various flap settings depending on several
factors. Runway length, aircraft weight,
wind conditions and IFR approaches all play a factor in my selection of flaps
for landing. Generally speaking, if I’m
light, if the wind is really blowing, if the runway is long enough or if I’m
making an IFR approach, I like the way our airplanes land with the flaps up or
at the takeoff setting. There is less
pitch change to handle during the approach and I think the airplane has a good
feel with minimum flaps in the landing flare.
|
N6716N proved to be an excellent
airplane and a very capable Mooney.
|
My suggestion? Try some landings at various flap settings
and see what you think. Make up your own
mind. Develop the flexibility to land
using various flap settings from full up to full down. You’ll be a better, more complete pilot if
you do.
A Summary of Our Flight and Impressions of the M20G
I
have to tell you, I started this flight evaluation feeling that I would not
like the “slowest Mooney”. Wrong! The M20G is a very nice airplane, especially
one like N6716N. It’s a solid 140-145
KTAS cruiser with the cowling and sloped windshield mods. It’s probably a 135-140 KTAS cruiser without
these mods installed. The Lycoming O-360 engine is absolutely
bulletproof and will make its 2000 hour TBO. The G model will carry rear seat passengers if needed and is much more
comfortable inside than a C or E model.
This
is a darn good airplane! I now think of
the M20G as a stretched C model, not as an under-powered F model. If I owned one, I definitely would add the
sloped windshield and lower drag cowling modifications for a little more speed.
I would incorporate an updated panel with a basic “T” arrangement for the flight
instruments, since my flying is IFR. With these changes, my airplane would be a superb one, just like N6716N.
Flying
the M20G proves there is no such thing as a “slow Mooney”. The two words don’t go together. We fly circles around the retractable gear
competition in the same horsepower range. Like all other pre-J model Mooneys, if you can
find a good G model, don’t hesitate to buy it. You’ll love the airplane.
And
don’t think of yourself flying a “slow Mooney” if you own a G model. As you fly past a few Piper Arrows and Beech
Sierras, wave as you go by. You’re still
the faster airplane. After all, you are in a Mooney.