Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Mooney M20J 201

Sir_Percy wrote:

Interestingly not many are talking about legroom which is much more important for me especially on longer flights.
Entry and exit is only a very short period of your flying experience while the need to stretch your legs might be more
often (probably not if you are a low cost airline frequent flyer …).
Have you ever tried to stretch your legs in the „big“ Bonanza?
Compare that to a Mooney and you will see that this is where the Mooney cabin really shines…

Yes this is a stubborn misconception. I’m 2 meters tall and slide in easily with ample legroom. I fly a K model tho, it has a slightly longer body than the J.

EHTE, Netherlands

Pretty sure the J & K have identical dimensions.

Edit: No you’re right….K is a few inches longer.

Last Edited by zuutroy at 09 May 10:31
EIMH, Ireland

The K is longer, but only firewall forward to accommodate the longer engine. Makes it look prettier in my view, but does nothing for the legroom

EGTR

I owned a J for several years. Stable platform for IFR. Good economic two men traveler. Pax tend to have claustrophobic feeling in the back. Later J´s have the shoulder straps in the back and separate recline able seats. Landings improve your aviator skills, sometimes not so good for your ego when the speed is a couple of knots to fast and you end up a bit further then expected..:-). I learned to fly the mooney from Aachen Merzbruck a 550m concrete runway, challenging :-). Speed its around 155 Kts TAS at 8000 ft. About 36 Ltr/Hr
Unless you have a three blade ground prop clearance is not much… Landing an grass doable, however the inner doors are an issue when the grass is bit higher then a golf ball terrain. I even had one damaged with some debris lying an a concrete surface. My preference would be an encore 252 with TKS, I believe this is an amazing performer. Leaking fuel tanks can be an issue, can be solved with a weep no more solution. Their is even a maintenance company in Europe I believe now doing this process. The wing construction is amazingly strong as the whole thing is build in one piece…….The over center torque for the LDG gear needs to be carefully rigged asp per maintenance manual otherwise you might end up with some surprises……

Last Edited by Vref at 09 May 13:16
EBST

Remember that the nosewheel on a Mooney sits relatively far back, because of this geometry, if you taxi in a pothole of maybe two inches,the prop will drop a lot more; My friend with a 231 found this out the hard way after only 5 hours on a new prop and overhauled engine.

EBKT

Peter will not like what I write but there is no comparison in build quality btw a 201J and a TB 20. The wing build quality of a Mooney is legendary. Corrosion needs to be checked on the air frame on older Mooney’s . This will be difficult on a pre buy as the front side panels need to come off. The Lord LDG rubber pucks when to be replaced are also legendary expensive ..;-). They have an impact on how long you will be leak free on the wings to absorb the shocks when taxing landing etc…

EBST

Peter will not like what I write

You can write more or less what you like within the Guidelines; whether I like it or not doesn’t matter Actually I am pretty chilled unless somebody goes crazy and starts to trash the place. Disagreement is good!

And I am far from the only TB20 owner here on EuroGA. I just write more about it

But I have been around the “which plane” block a few times so let me just make some little points, which I am sure I have posted previously:

  • Once you have had two doors you will probably never go back to one door. Exception: a cabin class plane like a Jetprop. The difference is perhaps not so much if always flying alone but is tremendous otherwise. And Mooney have gone to two doors lately, which could not have been easy for a company with so few sales and so few resources. Of course this (a modern cockpit) is the #3 factor for Cirrus’ success (the chute and marketing being #1 and #2 ).
  • The TB20 is dead easy to work on. The airframe is basically accessible everywhere. The cowling is not crowded, unlike many others. The other day I saw a Bonanza (I think) in a shop and you would need to be a Vietnamese living on 100g noodles a day to get an arm in there In fact most turbocharged types are really crowded. The only TB issue is avionics and there you have good access on the later models (roughly 1995 onwards, to get the two access panels under the front window) and you need to be smart about how you do it. My A&P/IA reckons the TB20 is the easiest plane to work on, and he has worked on most things that fly.
  • I am sure a 1975 Mooney will be less shagged than a 1975 TB20 (if there was one; 1984 is about the earliest and most of them are in a poor shape) but this argument is highly specific to the aircraft in question and who owned it and what they did with it. I have seen some pretty bad cases of early Mooneys, in terms of airframe corrosion which was bad enough to render it close to scrap. My 2002 plane, apart from some dodgy paint, is almost like new when you take the covers off. ACF50 makes all the difference…
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

I have seen some pretty bad cases of early Mooneys, in terms of airframe corrosion which was bad enough to render it close to scrap.

Not only close to. There have been many cases, particularly in the US, where outside perfectly fine looking Mooneys went into annual and never came out as they found spar corrosion. In most cases that was the end for that particular cell unless a wing could be sourced.

I think this is not type specific at all: Corrosion and bad maintenance can be a killer for any airplane.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland
38 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top