02 May 2025, 07:22 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why the snicker with Mooney's???  Posted: 31 Jul 2011, 10:31 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 34620
Post Likes: +13249
Location: Minneapolis, MN (KFCM)
Aircraft: 1970 Baron B55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: A 55 baron has lighter control forces than a mooney? At the same IAS, yes.
_________________
-lance
It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why the snicker with Mooney's??? Posted: 31 Jul 2011, 10:50 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/02/09
Posts: 1337
Post Likes: +412
Company: Nantucket Rover Repair
Location: Manchester, NH (MHT)
Aircraft: Cessna N337JJ
|
|
Username Protected wrote: A 55 baron has lighter control forces than a mooney? At the same IAS, yes.
So I googled the mooney 201 and it came up having a GW of 2750 is that right? I have been in one 55 baron and the GW of that one was 5300. Please educate me on how a twin that weighs just about twice as much has lighter control forces.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why the snicker with Mooney's??? Posted: 31 Jul 2011, 12:55 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/27/10
Posts: 2155
Post Likes: +533
|
|
|
"So I googled the mooney 201 and it came up having a GW of 2750 is that right? I have been in one 55 baron and the GW of that one was 5300. Please educate me on how a twin that weighs just about twice as much has lighter control forces."
Basically leverage. A function of the various moment arms of the push rods and bell cranks. Control forces can be manipulated by the designers to achieve a particular goal, ie light control forces vs preventing overcontrol and excessive G. There are some certification requirements regarding amount of force on controls vs overstress, but I forget the specifics . . .
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why the snicker with Mooney's??? Posted: 31 Jul 2011, 13:03 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/18/11
Posts: 196
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Aircraft: 58P
|
|
Username Protected wrote: A 55 baron has lighter control forces than a mooney? Absolutely, yes.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why the snicker with Mooney's??? Posted: 31 Jul 2011, 13:22 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 02/11/09
Posts: 1375
Post Likes: +490
Company: UNLV
Location: Tucson, AZ (57AZ)
Aircraft: 1960 Bonanza M35
|
|
Username Protected wrote: A 55 baron has lighter control forces than a mooney?
It depends on the Baron and it depends on the Mooney. I've flown most of the Mooney models and owned three different Mooney models. I also currently own a B55 Baron. The B55 Baron does have lighter control forces than the Mooney 252. The 252 has the greatest control forces of any Mooney I've flown, however and from what I hear, the B55 has the lightest control forces of any of the Barons.
_________________
Ken Reed
57AZ
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why the snicker with Mooney's??? Posted: 01 Aug 2011, 22:35 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/19/09
Posts: 19
Company: Retired
Location: Florida
Aircraft: M20J, HRII
|
|
|
As many have noted, the mission will direct one to a Mooney or not. I have a 89 201 and fly 350-400 hours a year, I get 155 knts on 8.8 gph, LOP, my hottest cylinder is 360 in Fl at 7,000. My "run" is 350nm from Fl to NC or MTH twice a week. I buy relatively cheap fuel at home and do not have to take on more fuel to get back home, saving more time, and effectively making the airplane faster. The IO360 is a very, very reliable engine. In 3 years, I have had only two failures to cancel a trip, while only doing annuals, a gear wire issue(watch what you put over your manual gear access point) and a voltage regulator. I as well had a vacuum pump failure and HSI failure but other than that; oil changes and the annual. I admit that the Bo was more comfortable, any of them, but nothing beats the hourly operating costs per mile of the Mooney. Insurance is cheap as well, $1250. I have never noticed the Mooney either hard to fly or rough in weather and the emotional comfort of the strength in heavy turbulence is much appreciated. This is my first, only, and last Mooney, but I truly appreciate what she gives me, a faithful, safe, frugal, flying partner.
I am now looking for an A36 as I will be flying less, much less, and want the trip to be more enjoyable and have the ability to take 5 others when desired. The A36 with a 1450 useful and very easy rear access is impossible to beat for that mission, IMO.
As much as I look forward to my new partner, there is much respect and appreciation for my current Mooney.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
