The tubes in the Mooney cage are made from CroMoly steel, strong stuff. Not just random aluminium profiles.
A picture of the wing’s strength (even if only static) is available right on this forum.
Concerning life limits, buzy schools with Cirrii must be hitting that limit. Maybe they just replace the plane and ditch the issue on the next owner.
In my club, one of the PA-28s will soon hit 40 years, 14.000h and >44k landings, and it’s just fine. Went through the AD check without problem.
In metal planes the enemy is corrosion, on the last overhaul we had to change a couple of underbody panels. But again this is not difficult in rivetted metal planes.
22742-PIK-20D_Fatigue_evaluation_20151115-1.pdf
Interesting read concerning fatigue of composite structures.
UdoR wrote:
The main spar of my Comanche looks exactly the same as in this picture. And it’s easily accessible, just beneath the carpet in the cabin. Second row seats are above it. Very convenient construction. But then again it’s no wonder, as rumours have it that Al Mooney designed the wing of the Comanche.
LOL, rumour has it, indirectly. While a Mooney was parked outside Piper’s plant for some thing it is said that some strange people went out with a measuring tape.
As for the Comanche, it is different than the rest all right. I did not make myself clear with that, but my focus is on the later models like the PA28 and so on, which have detachable wings.
UdoR wrote:
Don’t know, though, whether the Comanche has some equal tube construction around the cabin. But the wing takes a huge load in a crash. I have no reason to feel unsafe in this cabin.
I don’t know either. And I have enough time in Senecas and PA28 without any problem regarding safety. They have other good points. In crash situations, the fact that some of the Piper Wings tend to detach and that their fuel tanks are further outboard and, while integral, separate builds, may well have a positive influence about fire, which is one of my main concerns with Mooneys.
Although I haven’t read a first-hand account, I don’t think it is hard to surmise why Al Mooney and his brother made such a strong airframe.
They had already suffered a failed business once, and didn’t want to experience it again.
Their original M20 models had wooden wings, and as people left them outside, the wings deteriorated rather quickly, leading to multiple in-flight failures.
Al Mooney being Al Mooney didn’t do anything halfway. So it makes sense that when he decided they would never have a structural failure again… they never had one again!
Al was a serious engineer. Thus, the laminar flow wings long before other GA aircraft even considered such an idea due to the difficulties involved at the time (now much easier with CFD capabilities).
Owning an M20J, I can say that there are only 4 things I would change about the aircraft, and maybe Al could change my mind, if he were still around:
1. The nose gear harness is too weak, and gravel strips fatigue it out of tolerance, which always costs too much money (there is a better version from LASAR Aero, that I have yet to install, but plan to someday)
2. The Single door isn’t always fun.
3. Pitch control on landing isn’t as soft as I would prefer. It’s a little too stiff, which means you need a very steady, strong hand to make subtle moves on final. This is is a net benefit when flying through rough air though, as the plane is very stable.
4. A larger cargo door would have been nice. This of course, goes against the incredibly strong steel structure, as it would have required a larger opening in the frame… so maybe this is a decent tradeoff.
Other than those points, it is a perfect aircraft. Mine is already 40+ years old, but flies like a champ, isn’t shown up too much by modern designs and doesn’t cost me much to maintain.
It may not land like a Cessna, but I wouldn’t trade it when flying through rough air (as @Ibra mentioned, it just ‘slips’ through and is much smoother than most GA designs)
Pitch control on landing isn’t as soft as I would prefer. It’s a little too stiff, which means you need a very steady, strong hand to make subtle moves on final.
Mooneys are clearly fine planes in many regards but the same goes for roll control. Both roll and pitch are very, very heavy in my recent experience with an M20M. I found myself using both hands on the yoke at first. Yaw was OK.
Maybe the earlier, lighter Mooneys are less effort to maneuver, I couldn’t say as I have only very limited experience in them, some time ago. I’d be interested
In hearing other opinions.
AF wrote:
Their original M20 models had wooden wings, and as people left them outside, the wings deteriorated rather quickly, leading to multiple in-flight failures.Al Mooney being Al Mooney didn’t do anything halfway. So it makes sense that when he decided they would never have a structural failure again… they never had one again!
Well, it has to be added that it was Ralph Harmon who decided to turn the wood wing into metal. But he might have had as good reasons as Al Mooney had: The first Bonanzas suffered quite a few in flight failures too.
AF wrote:
2. The Single door isn’t always fun.
Very true. It got changed with the Ultra series, but way too late.
AF wrote:
4. A larger cargo door would have been nice.
And a bit lower down too. That “Letterbox” is not the best for putting in heavy luggage.
What I would change particularly in the recent models is payload. I know that the current owners are trying to do that. Ovations and Acclaims are notoriously short on payload. My C model is about in the area of a PA28 and I believe they had it up to the J model with some 250-300 kg full fuel payload, but the recent ones, particualrly with long range tanks, are severely lacking payload.
As for the flight controls, I believe that they were made like that on purpose, possibly also a consequence of Harmon’s experience with the Bonanza failures. Yes they are very stiff, they are quite heavy and remind me of much heavier planes like the AN2 rather than the small sports-car like airplane they are. Yet, as @AF said, this makes very much for a very stable flight experience.
AF wrote:
Other than those points, it is a perfect aircraft. Mine is already 40+ years old, but flies like a champ, isn’t shown up too much by modern designs and doesn’t cost me much to maintain.
I can absolutely say the same for my C – Model. For it’s class of 180 hp normally aspirated it is imho one of the most efficient airplanes of it’s class to this day, just as the J is the most efficient 200 hp model ever built.
Silvaire wrote:
Maybe the earlier, lighter Mooneys are less effort to maneuver, I couldn’t say as I have only very limited experience in them, some time ago.
I’ve never flown any other Mooney than my C, and while the C is quite nice to maneuver in my experience, it is certainly heavier and stiffer as i.e. a Cessna 172 or a PA28. This has a lot to do with the push rod type controls. If the occasion ever arises, I’ll be glad to let you try it.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Well, it has to be added that it was Ralph Harmon who decided to turn the wood wing into metal. But he might have had as good reasons as Al Mooney had
Awesome info! Thanks @Mooney_Driver
Mooney_Driver wrote:
And a bit lower down too. That “Letterbox” is not the best for putting in heavy luggage.
Yes, this too, but I’m a little taller, so it doesn’t bother me too much. It would be great to have both, as you said.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I believe they had it up to the J model with some 250-300 kg full fuel payload
Yes, I think the J is absolutely the ‘sweet spot’ for Mooneys. I have 64 gallons usable, plenty of payload for 2 adults plus luggage and the legroom in the back is sufficient for a taller individual (I started on a C, and would not make anyone over 175cm sit back there, whereas the J is perfectly reasonable…)
Also, due to the length, the J is not as responsive in pitch, and feels less ‘zippy’ because of it, but I’ll gladly trade for those extra 20 horses and 15kts cruise speed…
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I’ve never flown any other Mooney than my C, and while the C is quite nice to maneuver in my experience, it is certainly heavier and stiffer as i.e. a Cessna 172 or a PA28. This has a lot to do with the push rod type controls. If the occasion ever arises, I’ll be glad to let you try it.
Ditto. Roll control and rudder control are just what I want in an aircraft, stiff but tight, like a sports car.
Pitch is a bit like the Diamond DA42 though. Flying a 42 certainly wasn’t Fliegvergnuegen for me. It was all business, as is the pitch in a Mooney.
AF wrote:
Ditto. Roll control and rudder control are just what I want in an aircraft, stiff but tight, like a sports car.
Pitch is a bit like the Diamond DA42 though. Flying a 42 certainly wasn’t Fliegvergnuegen for me. It was all business, as is the pitch in a Mooney.
Yea, well, Mooneys are travel machines, not aerobatic airplanes. If it’s fiddly flight controls, get a Pitts or a Lancair or similar.
I recall many years ago flying over the plains of Illinois in a PA28 with an FI doing an intro flight, we were overtaken by one of those hot rod acroplanes, which, shortly after overtaking us, went seemingly into convulsions and threw itself all over the sky. My then FI, knowing the owner of that airplane, opened the mic and just said “Gesundheit!”, to which the other guy replied with a sneezily “fffanks!” They were a great lot at that airfield.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
said “Gesundheit!”, to which the other guy replied with a sneezily “fffanks!” They were a great lot at that airfield.
If we had a ‘like’ button, I’d use it here. (glad we don’t)
Having driven quite a number of 1959-era MGs I found the related comments on Mooneys in the ‘Handling, Landing’ system section of this Aviation Consumer article amusing. For sure when it comes to sports cars I’m more Lotus guy than an MGA or XK120 guy, but for the ‘long and straight’ mission I can understand that the Mooney Bravo flying qualities I recently experienced can work for those who fly them.
I’m more used to planes you fly with your finger tips, and some adaptation would clearly be required for me to fly a Mooney Bravo! I found it mildly alarming at first, although I did start to get used to the high control forces after a while. The somewhat daunting prospect of a go-around made me appreciate why it has electric pitch trim. A friend has an early M20C project plane and if I get a chance I would enjoy comparing it (as something closer to the Al Mooney original) to the late model high power stretched version.
Based on experience, I’d also disagree with the linked article’s assertion that a Bonanza is the sweetest handling single yet built, apparently the author has never flown an RV-4, Bucker, Marchetti 260 etc.
