Darkfixer wrote:
For me the biggest problem with “long body” Mooneys like Bravo was the low useful load combined with MLW and TKS…
I know, that is why I was surprised at this statement. But I’ve heard brutally different figures across the scope. Otherwise, the Long Bodies really are not too payload friendly, particularly with LR tanks.
With LR tanks full, it’s a 1 person aircraft.
A few quotes from online sources, two out the three comments made in relation to the Bravo in particular.
“Mooneys don’t have the lightest elevator forces, but I’ve also flown a DC-3 and its control forces are heavier than any Mooney I’ve flown”
“The controls-particularly ailerons-feel a bit heavy. Rudder is the lightest of the three axes”
“The myths say Mooneys are heavy at the controls. My experience indicates, yeah, they are. Takes some effort to yank the yoke over, takes a lot of effort to push the nose up and down out of the trimmed position”
Just so you know what to expect. This clearly didn’t stop my Bravo owning friend from flying his to the US and back last summer but was a bit of a shock to me. I’d never flown anything like it. It’s a pure ‘going places’ plane, in long straight lines, not designed to be enjoyable to maneuver and you wouldn’t buy one for that purpose.
I never flew an Bravo, but an Ovation 2 in left seat with instructor and an M20K 252 in right seat.
What I like about the steering was the direct feeling with great feedback.
Also I thought both Ovation/M20K was fantastic to fly.
I only did one landing with the Ovation, and maybe luck but it was one of my best landings ever.
Silvaire wrote:
I’d never flown anything like it. It’s a pure ‘going places’ plane, in long straight lines, not designed to be enjoyable to maneuver and you wouldn’t buy one for that purpose.
That’s exactly what I bought it for.
hazek wrote:
Other than that it’s a fine plane, can carry 4 people and some luggage with about 4h of endurance and it’s a Mooney, so it looks great
Ok, I was wrong by a little but here’s exactly what my Bravo can do:
2×85kg in front, 2×66kg in the back, 24kg of cargo and 3h of fuel (46gal) at 27"/2200RPM (60% power).
Not great but not bad.
That is not great but still a respectable payload.
These “going places” planes, almost all of them are done in the same way that airliners are made fuel / payload wise. Either you fly long range or full payload, not both.
The LR tanks in the Mooneys are an addition which indeed make it in most cases a single seater. They were invented by José Monroy and actually seal up two compartments next to the existing tanks, adding around 36 USG to the fuel capacity. In the 180 and 200 hp models, this usually means 3.5 hours additional endurance, bringing the range up to well over 1000 NM in the worst case and over 2200 NM in the best (Ovation). Obviously, such a range is rarely used even though they tend to rise eyebrows when airplanes arrive from far away destinations they could not really do without them, such as one guy whom I recall flying St-Johns to Jersey on an Ovation.
I was at some stage thinking of getting them for my C, but when I looked at the payload which now is in the PA28 range, I left it. In the case of the C it would reduce the payload to a strict 2 seater, but increase realistic range from 600 to over 1000 NM.
Eventually Mooney took over the STC and offered the LR tanks as a factory option.
The other variant of increasing range with some Mooneys with 52 USG capacity, is to install bladders with 64 USG. That will increase endurance by about 1 hour but still keep the payload kind of managable.
This clearly didn’t stop my Bravo owning friend from flying his to the US and back last summer but was a bit of a shock to me. I’d never flown anything like it. It’s a pure ‘going places’ plane, in long straight lines, not designed to be enjoyable to maneuver and you wouldn’t buy one for that purpose.
That is what Mooneys are made for. They are not aerobatic or short field planes (even though the C and E models are perfectly short field capable) but travellers. And many who fly them actually like those controls for that, as it means also quite a bit of stability. Many older Mooneys only have the factory inbuilt wing levler and fly happily long ranges with it. Me, I like the controls of the C for that reason, it is stable, it will fly pretty straight and level.
Iˆve never flown a DC3 but used to fly the Antonov 2, I’d say that the Mooney controls are still a lot lighter than those. But it also has a very direct response due to the way the controls are constructed with control rods rather than ropes and pulleys.
The control harmony of the 201 is quite respectable. I understand the Mooney Mark 22 had a cement like roll rate, but not many (any?) left airworthy.
